User talk:Nick-D

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave new messages at the bottom of this page. I generally watchlist other editors' talk pages I comment on during discussions, but please also feel free to leave me a {{talkback}} template when you respond. If you send me an email, I'd appreciate it if you could also drop me a note here as they're sometimes automatically sent to my spam folder and I don't notice them. Please note that I may reply to emails on your talk page, though I'll do so in a way that does not disclose the exact content of the email if the matter is sensitive.

Gratuitous beach photo

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)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)

Awards people have given me

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Please discuss your changes at Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've discussed the relevance of the Churchill quote and its framing (under Support)--Robertmossing (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been discussing them... Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Churchill is not a historian either. This quote by a right wing American (Hornberger) summarises many of the opponents view. But if you can find a better one, I would sure be interested to see it. The quote of Satre can go out - it is not relevant.--Robertmossing (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page rather than edit war. It appears to me that you're attempting to push your personal views. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Albert Camus.It appears to me that you're attempting to push your personal views.What do you mean. I added a quote under Opposition,which summarises many of the opponents view.--Robertmossing (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. You asked me to do so above (when I was already doing so), and in response you're edit warring bad material into the article without any discussion. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Coastal Area and RAF Coastal Command

Hi Nick, I've just found RAF Coastal Area, which consists of a two sentences covering 1919-1936, but while the Coastal Command article has paragraphs and paragraphs of text covering pre-1936, when the command was formed (it's 50kB altogether). I'd like to move this material to Coastal Area, as it more appropriately sits there, but though given the work expended that I'd like to run it by someone first. Dapi89, seemingly the major contributor, has retired. Would you please stand in his stead briefly and tell me what you think? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick thanks for your help. Can you get this article via JSTOR for me? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think CA was started after CC got GA, or during. Though I don't contribute the idea is sound. Good luck. Re your comment on my talk page Nick, appreciated, but life has now got in the way also. I'll help out with sources if you like, but I won't visit my page often to look at requests I'm affraid. Dapi89 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dapi. It's nice to see you back as well, if only briefly. Regards Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Wilkie page

Hi there,

You seem to have locked me out of editing the page regarding Andrew Wilkie which I was consistently reverting to an impartial state following the very biased contributions of Djapa84. I was removing 3 sentances of biased, outdated and irrelevant information.

The following 3 sentances should be removed for the following 3 reasons:

Sentences:

(1) In exchange for Wilkie's support, the Labor government are legislating for mandatory "pre-commitment" technology which would require persons using high-bet machines to pre-commit how much they are willing to bet on a machine before they begin play,[31] as well as introducing $1 maximum bet per spin machines which would not require pre-commitment, which Wilkie argues would be safer.

(2) The Abbott Coalition opposes the plans, with Abbott saying "it is not Liberal Party policy" and it will be "expensive and ineffective".

(3) According to polling, the Labor government's plans are supported by a clear majority of voters across the spectrum.

Reasoning

(1) The labour government did not follow thru on their commitment, see (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-21/wilkie-withdraws-support-over-broken-pokies-deal/3786040) consequently wilkie withdrew his support for the labour government.

(2) Irrelevant

(3) Irrelevant - this is biased text glorifying the labour government and has nothing to do with Wilkie or his policies.

Oh, and by the way, I am not an IP hopping vandal.

Please discuss this on the article's talk page (Talk:Andrew Wilkie), and not here. As you were removing content from the article from different IP addresses without any discussion of this, you were an IP hopping vandal. I'm pleased to see that you're now interested in discussing your suggested changes. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Need Suggestion

Hi nick I am here as I share the same concern as you showed here. There are a lot of articles and biographies of non notable Guantanamo prisoners started by the user who I feel shares a WP:COI with the subject. The count of the articles are in thousands as can be seen here Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Guantanamo Bay Detainees and the subpages of the creator. The Creator has autoreviewer rights which takes such articles created by him out of wp:NPP process. Many of the articles started by the author have issues of COATTRACK and bogus/non related sources. Having seen a lot of articles and marking many of them with notability tags, I think initiating an AfD for all these non notable articles one by one would be sheer waste of community time. I am not sure what course to be followed. Can you please advice me, how to address this concern and which the best possible way to handle this. thanks--DBigXray 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A possible way that i can think of is There are a lot of lists eg Pakistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the template at bottom that can mention these prisoners in a table form with relevant information. The non notable individual articles "may" be redirected to such lists. --DBigXray 14:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray, From memory, there have been some centralised discussions about Geo Swan's creation of articles on Guantanamo prisoners and related topics. He or she stepped back on the creation of these articles for a while, but appears to be creating them again. I fear that AfDs might be the only option, though a request for comment could also be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

On further though, WP:ANI might also be appropriate (though check for old discussions there). I've nominated the David Conn (judge) article for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing a ANI

Would you please look at this discussion, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents User:Dave1185 and the user namespace and, if you agree, please close it? There are already three veteran editors that agree it should be closed. There are sockpuppets, a banned editor tried to weigh in and a variety of other editors attacking the subject on all different grounds and the charges seem silly and a waste of time. Thank you, either way. Mugginsx (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, though I've left Dave a message asking him to note the comments left by several editors that he should be more civil. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank god that's over and done with, I was wondering which sane SysOp (hint hint!) was still around to do thy bidding on a slow weekend like this one. Anyway, per my new stand against garbage truck-behaving editors, I will just smile, wave, wish them well and move on... really not worth my energy and time to take on their garbage. (PS: I've stopped tagging those annoying IPs and private individuals for some time now, this being brought up on ANI now is quite beyond me, considering how ArbCom has allowed a certain banned individual to continue to wreak havoc here is also beyond me.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nick, can you close and collapse the whole section including the original discussion about the userpage? An IP has openly admitted to setting the whole thing up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Dave, Given that several experienced editors expressed good faith concerns over your Dave's edit summaries and changes to user pages, I'll leave it as is. You might want to add a note to the bottom of the thread (below the archive bottom tag). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not Dave. :P But I reckon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Whoops! I've amended my post. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No worries. Clearly I'm a master of disguise! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that my closure was reverted by an involved editor who didn't even have the courtesy of leaving me an explanation. That's pretty much the reason I don't waste my time by following up posts on ANI. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI and templates

Oooh, nice beach pic. :) OK, just FYI, I've had the same experience with templates: You can't put links in them. Why that would be, I don't know. Some obscure technicality connected with HTML, I imagine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's an annoying bug given that it's often desirable to add diffs there. The picture seems to have succeeded in its primary goal of calming down grumpy editors who post here (no one has called me a vandal since it was added!). Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

of course you can. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha! So template-within-template works well. Square brackets, not so well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See the edit summary; you can also use "|1= on the template. Th issue is the '=' character in the unnamed template parameter. However, using the {{diff}} template makes the diff work on both the mundane server and teh secure server. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

29SQN

Heh, you beat me to it -- still on hols, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Off work with a bad cold, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, get well soon then... BTW, don't know if you saw it but while writing the 8SFTS article, I found an NAA file that actually makes explicit the connection between a secondline reserve squadron and its subsequent 'frontline' incarnation -- check the "The outbreak of the Pacific War" paragraph, and 71SQN's record book at citation #13 (#14 also makes a connection). I could update the 71SQN article with some of that, unless you want to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for that Ian. I'm planning some sort of article on the units stationed in Australia for defencive purposes during World War II, and that will be useful in explaining the RAAF reserve squadrons. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question - do either of you know anything about a RNZAF or RAAF 230 Squadron? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the RAAF has ever had a unit of that name, and it's not in any of the number ranges the RAAF uses (No. 292 Squadron RAAF is the only 200-series RAAF unit I can think off, though they may be others). I've never heard of a RNZAF unit of that name, though I don't really understand the RNZAF's unit naming policy! Why do you ask? It's likely that Australians and New Zealanders served in No. 230 Squadron RAF during World War II. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems they're following the RAAF line. No. 9 Squadron RNZAF has been recreated as No. 209 (Expeditionary Support) Squadron, the former ESS, and No. 30 Squadron RNZAF has been recreated as No. 230 (Mission Support) Squadron RNZAF, the former Operational Support Squadron. There are only those two units renumbered. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes some sense. Presumably the RNZAF is using 200-series numbers for its ground squadrons as the RAAF is using 300-series numbers for this purpose, though I don't really see why they haven't just gone with the original WW2-era numbers if they wanted to go down this path. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI Closure again

The discussion you closed yesterday at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dave1185_and_the_user_namespace has been reopened and voted on against Wiki rules.

I ask that you block these people. They know better but respect no ones rules but their own. Thank you Mugginsx (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I now see that this has already been discussed and you are aware of it. Please do as you think best. Mugginsx (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort-of tempted to make an issue of it, but I'm unwell and can't be fussed. No harm resulted as 28bytes (talk · contribs) had the same views on the matter as I did (though he or she was a bit sterner), and I imagine that Dave will be more bemused than annoyed about being told off twice by admins on the same day for the same thing. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Noted, bloated andd I then went to "downloaded". Honestly, it's alright with me because I know that you guys are just doing your job, while those who are jobless makes it their job to make a big hoohaa of a mountain out of a small termite mount. As they say, empty vessels makes the most noise, no prize for guessing why I ignore them to the max even when they want to drag me to ANI. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no worries Dave Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft email to the AWM

Liam Wyatt/Wittylama (talk · contribs) has put me in touch with the AWM's webmaster. Apparently the Memorial is currently reviewing its internet publishing policy, and is considering tagging at least some of the images in its database with a CC-By license, which could possibly solve the problems we're having with post-1946 images on Commons. As part of this, she has expressed interest in examples of "how people would like to use our images (or other material) and where they are not able to because of licensing/watermarks or combinations of these things". I'm going to respond with some examples of FA and A class articles which currently include post-1946 articles, as well as a few of the best examples of articles which use pre-1946 images. I'll also suggest that we'd really appreciate it if the AWM could add release the database versions of images created up to 50 years ago under CC-By licences so that editors can use images which are PD in Australia without any problems, and if any other images could be released under these licences that would very well received as we're unable to use those images at present, and the images would be used widely. My current shortlist of articles is:

FAs with post-1946 images:

• Colin Hannah
• Frank Bladin
• George Jones (RAAF officer)
• Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)
• John Treloar (museum administrator)
• Richard Williams (RAAF officer)
• Roy Dowling
• Thomas Blamey
• Valston Hancock

A class articles with post-1946 images:

• Battle of Kapyong
• HMAS Sydney (R17)
• Reg Saunders

Some examples of FAs heavily illustrated with pre-1946 images from the AWM:

• Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
• Attack on Sydney Harbour
• Battle of Sio (includes some images from the war diaries the AWM has been posting over the last few years)
• Bruce Kingsbury
• HMAS Australia (1911)
• Battle of Kaiapit
• Military history of Australia during World War II
• No. 1 Wing RAAF
• Singapore strategy
• Tom Derrick

I'm planning to send a response tomorrow (20 June), and would greatly appreciate any suggestions on the content of the email and the articles to highlight. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You could also take a similar situation, say with the (extremely high resolution!) images released by NARA, and show the AWM how we've used those, but you may have enough examples already. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea Ed, but I don't want to shoot for the moon - the small versions on their database would be fine ;) (and adding the CC-by tags here should be much less labour intensive than uploading high definition images). Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, perhaps you could point them to "AWM Copyright" images that I've previously asked them about, which would be great for illustrating the later careers of subjects of some of the articles discussed, e.g. Air Marshals Murdoch, McCauley and Hannah, and 4-stars Scherger and Wilton. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. What response did you get when you asked them about releasing these images? I should note that I've asked Hawkeye to comment on whether this is doubling up with his and Laura's efforts in this area (it came about when I replied to an email Liam sent to the Wikimedia Australia mailing list about current activities in cultural institutions, which included some contacts he's had with the AWM and the fact that they're considering the use of CC-by licenses - in my reply I offered to provide some examples of high quality articles using post-1946 images to inform the AWM's considerations). Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I dug out my old emails -- the last exchange was in September 2009, when I'd requested release under GNU for the Murdoch, McCauley and Scherger/Wilton images I noted above. The reply was "Unfortunately we cannot provide permission under the GNU Free Documentation License. We are actively reviewing our approach and policy on Wikipedia and similar Commons license terms and agreements, but we aren’t in a position now to grant such a license at the moment." Knowing the speed with which government departments "actively review" policies, I haven't questioned them on the subject since... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I know -- I'm just saying that you can show the good things that happened (like USS Arizona (BB-39)) when NARA released their images to us. If the AWM happens to notice that they are much larger than the ones they are offering... well, we wouldn't complain, right? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest AHS Centaur as a pre-1946 illustrated FA example: of the 11 images in the article, all bar the three 'modern' images are AWM or AWM derived. There is a relatively broad scope of image-types, including identification images (of the ship, the sub, and Nurse Savage), 'moment-in-history' scenes (the towing of Detmers and co), propaganda posters (Work, Save, Fight poster), and 'daily routine' scenes (soldiers working a lathe with another propaganda poster in the background).

As an example of useful but legally unavailable images, the Melbourne-Voyager collision is an article where images related to a major incident in the history of the Australian military are still 'in copyright'. Although we have an image of the aftermath (on Wikipeida as opposed to Commons, and on what could be interpreted as stretching the licensing), closeups of the damage (like this or this), the aftermath (like survivors in boats or bedding down in the carrier's hangar), or even these shots of Voyager actually sinking would greatly benefit the collision article, articles on HMAS Melbourne (R21) and HMAS Voyager (D04), and general RAN and ADF history articles.

Hope these thoughts help. -- saberwyn 13:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those excellent suggestions - I'll include them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just sent the email, and will let you all know what the response is. Thanks again for your suggestions. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As an update, I've received a reply from the AWM. In their response, the officer asks that I clarify the reason that post-1945 images from the AWM's database can't currently be hosted on Wiki Commons, and briefly discusses the legal situation (while noting that this is their personal interpretation of the issues, and not an official position). I'm going to respond by suggesting that the best option would be to mark the post-1945 images which the AWM no longer claims copyright on as being released under the CC-BY-2.5 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/) which is now being used by many Australian Government agencies. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Falaise pocket map

Not at all, Nick. I think you're right, and, besides, even if I thought you were wrong there's nothing in the tone of your comment to get annoyed at. I always welcome your opinion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no worries :) The equivalent of this map in the US Army history seems to have a lot of the detail I suggested (see map 17 here, or the direct link here). Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

None of the wording i added is a direct quote, i have changed around the wording of the information. You cannot expect me to change every single word. Some sentences like the last short one cannot not be change as it is a list. It would be pointless to reword it. These are facts, so they should be included. I understand what is wrong with copying the sentence entirely, but i changed the sentences so they would not be exact copies. I don't see what is wrong with the version i changed it too. I did not copy any of the sentences apart from the last as that sentence is a list. I want to re add the info you reverted as it is good sourced info. I don't see how the last version could possibly violate copyright rules on wiki. Stumink

The wording was only slightly different from what was in the sources - the standards regarding plagiarism which are expected in schools and universities are also expected here. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to change every word. Honestly i think if you checked all the sources i have change every sentence. What would you have me change The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, power facilities and crop burning. to. I actually did change this sentence from the original. The original words were The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, and power facilities, as well as deliberate crop burning. Mandela sent to South African newspapers a letter warning that a new campaign would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention. were the original words whilst i put In June 1961, Mandela sent a letter to South African newspapers warning the government that a campaign of sabotage would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention. These are different. This information is fact. It is hard to change info like this to your standards of what different means. The rest was different from the original. I don' t think it is usually this hard to put well sourced info on wiki. Usually You find well sourced info and you change it, as to not violate copy right. I have taken well sourced info from three different websites and i have not directly copied the info. You are basically asking me to change every word. How would i change this The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, power facilities. I have changed a lot of the info to my own wording. The words which remain are impossible or pointless to change. Do want me to change words like sabotage, bombings, crop burnings, constitutional convention, government targets, guerrilla warfare. I doubt what i wrote constitutes plagiarism in schools and universities standards. I sourced facts and i changed the wording where possible or necessary. Stumink —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While you don't literally need to change every single word, you can't just tweak the structure of sentences as you've been doing. Just paraphrase things into your own words. If you can't figure out a way to do this, you shouldn't be writing here. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I did paraphrase things into my own words enough. I was adding small sentences of information and I changed the words and layout where i could in the previous version. There is no way that my last earlier version would or even should break copy right rules. No way. Any how, thanks for you reply but i had changed the paragraph again before your reply. My current accepted paragraph is worse than the previous version. I detect a tad of selectivity in your choice in the second deletion but doesn't matter anymore, problem been solved. Stumink

AWM Images

Nick, when you talk to the AWM, could you raise the possibility of releasing images whose copyright has expired under a CC-By licence? The issue here is that of the Commonwealth images that have expired since 1969, but are still copyrighted in the United States. I have some correspondence with AG, and they say that responsibility has been devolved to the agencies but The starting point for licencing decisions is that, wherever possible, government material should be released under an open licence such as the Creative Commons BY licence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I raised that in my email (by giving examples of the kinds of images which are being deleted and articles on post-WW2 conflicts which are clearly under-illustrated). As you've probably noticed, most APS agencies seem pretty unmotivated to move to Creative Commons BY licences. I think that the ABS is the only major creator and owner of content to have adopted this license so far. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

MHC

Agreed with your comment there (you know the one) ... the problem is that neither that nor anything else can happen unless we can get an RFC to pass, and that's not going to happen unless/until there's some successful outreach over several months, to build support for any RFC. That's why I'm suggesting a board ... but so far, there's no enthusiasm for that, so my best guess is RFA2012 is as dead as RFA2011, RFA2010, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort-of tempted to go rouge and really break out the block hammer at times, but I don't think it would end well! (especially as I try to not generate work for the good folks at ArbCom). In all seriousness, I think that there's a growing case for there to be some sort of Wiki-government appointed to handle situations like this: - we've got an obvious problem, several obvious solutions, but no ability to attempt to implement them. Whatever they'd do would upset a few vocal people, but most editors would either not notice, not care or approve strongly. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Torpedo Bay Navy Museum

Casliber (talkcontribs) 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry

• Sorry if the bit about "ask your teacher" a while back made me look like an a**hole, and stomped on your foot a bit. Sometimes I don't know what to do with myself. – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all. To be honest, I can't really remember this, so I can't have been very offended :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

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 on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

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]} 19:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Gift

Thanks for adding material to Imperial Gift that I started - you've "validated" my effort. Launching a new article which subsequently doesn't get any significant additions from other contributors is a disheartening experience, so I'm really glad to see someone is interested in my newest creation here on WP. I have a few books that I can use to expand the section on South Africa, but for the rest I'm dependent on what Google can deliver. Do you have dead tree sources for expanding one or more of the other countries? If you know any other editors who might be inteested please invite them to join the effort too. Roger (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and great work with this article. I actually started working on an article on this topic at User:Nick-D/random drafts last September, but didn't get very far. There are several Australian sources I can draw on to add extra material. I'd suggest that you also ping Ian Rose (talk · contribs) to see what he has available on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, tks Nick, as ever I'm stalking your page and in fact did see the article had been created when links began appearing in a couple of "my" bios (I recgnise the S.E.5 image from one of them, George Mackinolty). I'm sure we could develop a decent Australian section, not sure at this stage about the other countries apart from S. Africa though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I slapped wikilinks in all the articles where I found the phrase "Imperial Gift" so as not to sit with a new orphan article, but I'm sure there are more pages that can be linked - such as the aircraft type articles.

I'm intrigued by the story of NZ's initial refusal and their subsequent failure to establish an air force with the planes they did eventually receive. There's not much more than a passing mention in the online sources I've looked at so far. The Indian situation is also interesting - more research needed there too. Roger (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

When I was looking for sources last year, there seemed to be way more available on Australia than any of the other countries for some reason. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

New question regarding Air Raids on Japan

Hello Nick,

I just reached the section about the treatment of allied prisoners and the vivisection. Just a few days ago I read about this in a book and now looked on it again. The problem is, this book numbers die vivisected airmen to eight in four sessions on Mai 17, 23, and 29 as well as June 3. The book is Ienaga: The Pacific War and the source he names are two japanese books from 1957. So I want to ask how far the source of the six names her own sources? --Bomzibar (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, The book actually says that "at least six" airmen were subjected to vivisection. Its reference is to a 1995 article in the Baltimore Sun which appears to have been taken from some guy's website judging from the URL given rather than a proper news archive(!), so I reckon that your source is much superior. Could you please update the Air raids on Japan article with this material? By the way, what appears to be a direct translation of this article is currently being nominated for 'Bon article' status on the French Wikipedia. The nomination discussion (available here) has some interesting comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the number and a few more facts in the text and the book at the references. I don't know how you handle it in en:Wiki but do you mention the translator at the references if the book was not first published in english? So far, I'm not able to understand more than a few words of the french language (and am sure I never will be, haha) but for my opinion with the high number of voters there are only a few and quite short statements. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I don't think that we normally name translators in references, except in cases where the name of the original author isn't specified in the book's publishing details for some reason. My French is very limited (as I found out the hard way whenever I tried to use it in Paris last year!), but Google translate works well ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah that was a good hint, Google Translator works better for french than east asian languages where I try it commonly. Well, the template-problem can't happen with the german article because it's not common in de:Wiki to use templates for the references. But the most of the other points can and possibly will be mentioned if I try to promote the article in german. They named it's weaknesses: the view is sometimes very onesided, it should have more japanese or non-english sources and a greater focus on the japanese actions and a comparative section of the bombings with the ones committed against germany would be really great. For the german article I am pretty sure that someone would ask for one or two sentences that compare the bombings with the ones the Condor Legion committed against Guernica. But thats tyical german. I am sure that an A-Class promotion is possible and then the article can candidate for Article of the Day for 6 August 2015 (so that the article of the acutal atomic bombings can be Article of the Day on 9 August of that year. How about trying the same in en:Wiki? It would show that not only the atomic bombings caused sorrow and pain. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I was trying to get this article up to standard in time for it to be on the front page on the 70th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, but didn't quite make it in time. I agree that more material on the Japanese side of the story would be good, but there's surprisingly little on the topic in English - most books which cover the experiences of the Japanese civilians and the aid defence effort have a limited scope or are anecdotal in nature and difficult to use as sources - the same holds true for most aspects of the Pacific War. The combination of the language barrier and the fact that the Japanese Government destroyed almost all of its records at the end of the war, means that English-language historians often don't have much to work with. In light of the comments in the French review I'm going to try to work in some extra material on this topic though. Nick-D (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you maybe look up the casualty numbers for the Twentieth Air Force in Kerr (1991) again? It looks a little strange, that they lost 414 Bombers and had 414 wounded. --Bomzibar (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check that, though it may take a few days. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You've just spotted another error: Kerr's figure is actually 433 wounded. Thanks for raising this! Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally, it's done! (de:Luftangriffe auf Japan). I will wait for some review Feedback for one or two months now before trying to get it to Lesenswert-Status. Thank you for all your help until now! --Bomzibar (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Great work with this, and I've really enjoyed working with you on it. I'd be very interested in seeing what feedback it gets. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I just remembered one more hint I wanted to tell you days ago: You oftentimes use the word however. As it is not SO scientific you maybe should use other words for that. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a first feedback in the Review (you can see it over here). Some of the arguments are points I mentioned today as the remembrance etc. The reviewer asked for two interesting things:

He heard on a symposium once, the target cities for the atomic bombs were not or not heavy bombed before because the US leaders wanted to see the effects on non-destroyed cities. Do your sources have something about that?

It was asked if there are statistics of the rise or decline of the total arms production from mid 1944 to the end of the war. He asked because it is commonly argued that the bombing campaign against Germany was unsuccessful as the arms production rose up despite the bombings until the allies reached the borders. Statistics could make this comparable. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer the questions in order, and to make an observation:

1. That's correct. There's material on this, with sources, at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets. I didn't include it in the Air Raids on Japan article as it seemed to be excessive detail, and one reviewer (in the peer or A-class review, I can't remember which) had commented that the article already had too strong a focus on the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2. Yes, lots! The story is very complicated through, as the Japanese economy was becoming badly affected by the results of the Allied naval blockade at about the same time as the air raids began, and the blockade and bombing then worked in parallel. As a result, it's difficult to determine the relative contributions bombing and blockade made to the collapse of the Japanese war economy from late 1944 onwards. Pages 657-658 and 752-754 of Craven and Cate are a very good summary of this situation. A key sentence, which is on page 753, reads "There was a rough correlation between the B-29 effort expended against the several war industries and the loss of production in each, but the indiscriminate nature of area attacks and the existence within each industry of special problems makes difficult any exact measurement of the net effects of air bombardment". On page 754 they suggest the blockade may have caused greater disruption to industrial production than the bombing on the basis of the evidence available, though the combination was devastating in the cities which were bombed. To cut a long story short, there's consensus that the bombing badly damaged Japan's economy and accelerated its collapse, but it probably would have collapsed anyway if the bombing had not occurred given how effective the blockade was.
3. As an observation, it's difficult to directly compare the effectiveness of the raids on Japan and Germany as these countries had very different economic structures. As an example, much of Japanese war production took place in small factories located in residential areas, while German production tended to be concentrated in large factories located in the outskirts of cities; as a result, the area raids on Japanese cities had a large impact on industrial output, while those on German cities generally caused little disruption to output. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, as until now a few people telled me that the article is a little too detailed as it counts nearly every air attack until the Okinawa-based ones started I thought about a way to solve this problem. I got an idea and just want to now what you think, would it be feasible and reasonable to create an article Chronik der Luftangriffe auf Japan (Chronicle of Air Raids on Japan)? What do you think, would this transfer of content increase or downgrade the quality of the article? --Bomzibar (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, I chose to include all the major raids in the Air raids on Japan article because there weren't a huge number of attacks, and I felt that this approach would best illustrate the way that the campaign built up over time (and especially its extraordinary violence in the last months of the war). I also wanted to fill the current lack of an easily accessible narrative account of the entire campaign - those that exist are either book length or short and patchy. I think this worked and no-one raised the length as a significant issue in the various reviews the article went through. However, your suggested approach is also quite workable and is a good alternative, especially if you've received comments recommending a shorter article. There's a complete list of all the B-29 raids in an appendix of Bartlett E. Kerr's book Flames Over Tokyo which would make a great reference for developing such an article (it's very long though, so I'm not going to transcribe it!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the hint with Kerrs book, I think I can get access to it if I need it. I will have to look if the users say The article can't be awarded with this length! or only continue to say Could be shorter but still a great article. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thewolfchild

Hey Nick. I'm having a discussion with Thewolfchild over at his talk page. Since you indeffed him, I was wondering if you'd be able to come over and give some input. Ishdarian 02:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I've never used that strong of language with Sarek before, where I called him a type of hat. I've seen him do things over a long period of time and blocking a person without warning was an extreme step over the line in my view. The person had just received their topic ban, and had not made any contentious edits for several weeks at least, so the ban was implemented not to stop a current problem, but as a preventative measure to stop future problems. In other words, the editor wasn't being bad currently. The editor inadvertently began a discussion on their own Talk page because someone came to the page from the AN/I debate and asked them about the debate and engaged the editor in a discussion about it. He was then summarily blocked.

I apologized to Sarek about that hat comment a bit later, and he accepted. I generally tend to seek positive and mutually helpful solutions, and more than anything else, I do not like people using power in a way that is harmful to the encyclopedia. After my outburst and time to reconsider, I partly took Sarek's advice by asking about how to proceed with a more measured and less emotionally-driven response. I have seen Sarek do a lot of things that are decent and helpful, and while I appreciate those things, I feel that there is a time for sanction.

The reason I even bothered to come and say all this is simply to say, I normally leave Sarek to his own things and as such I don't give his actions two seconds of thought. But that particular action and my recollection of his previous actions made me angry at the poor treatment of an editor. Consensus later agreed that it was done in haste, so while I feel my rancor was wrong, my insticts were right. I hope this explains a bit more, but I consider the question about process and proceeding with any action to be a serious thing and not simply something to be done lightly. At this point, I am still not entirely convinced that it is something I will do, but sometimes we need our friends and neighbors to weigh in on things with us to get a better perspective. So that's what I'm doing. -- Avanu (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"blocking a person without warning" -- what do you call this and this, then? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As I think your fellow editors and myself said, those comments were not direct explanations of what conduct was and was not expected, but simply implied that some part of the action was wrong, without enough detail to help the editor understand how they messed up. I do believe that you made it clear that you thought those two statements were clear warnings, but other editors (via consensus) felt it wasn't clear enough. I don't want to take your case up here, I just wanted to explain my perspective to Nick-D. This does not necessarily mean I am in the right and you are in the wrong, Sarek, it is, after all, my opinion. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In deference to Sarek, I won't post on your page again about this topic, its generally considered more appropriate to keep the debate in one place, and I'll do that, unless Sarek explicitly requests otherwise. -- Avanu (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK no worries. I imagine that you don't need me to tell you that it's not a wise idea to start a thread asking about how to sanction an admin for incivility shortly after you've abused them. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Australian Involvement in D-Day

G'day! You currently show Jo Gullett as being a Company Commander with the Green Howards at the landings. In his autobiography, I'm pretty sure he says he landed as a supernumary with 8th Bn Royal Scots, and was appointed as a Coy Cdr when the Cdr was killed shortly after landing. The wounded date sees right though. Unfortunately, I don't have access currently to the autobiog, 'Not as a Duty Only', but it is worth verifying. I'll try to get it at a Library and confirm. cheers. RichardH (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll check that. I did briefly consult Gullett's autobiography, but it contained some factual errors about this period (he claimed that the party of Australian Army officers was sent to the UK as part of the effort to make good the British Army's shortage of junior officers, which isn't correct) so I didn't use it as a reference. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviews?

Hi. I have a few unreviewed DYKs sitting around, including Template:Did you know nominations/Lesotho women's national football team from June 10, [[T emplate:Did you know nominations/Cambodia women's national football team]] which needs a new tick after surviving AfD, Template:Did you know nominations/Sioma which survived AfD, and Template:Did you know nominations/Janine Murray which has hook interest issues. If you could look at any of these four, it would be fantastic. :) --LauraHale (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laura, I've just commented on all four, though I found problems with three of them unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Black Wasps

Appreciate your thoughts on this article. I am close to running it through an AfD because the only thing that says 'Black Wasps' have anything to do with Cuban special forces is an unsourced page of what appears to be fan photos. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This 1994 story from The Independent and this 1997 story from The Nation very briefly mention 'Black Wasps' special forces being used for internal security/political repression-type tasks. I can't find any other reliable sources through Google, Google Books and Google Scholar though. As such, WP:V for the unit's (?) existence is met, but notability seems questionable. I'm a bit skeptical that units which are were used for paramilitary-type tasks are really "trained to handle any missions assigned to them by the Cuban government" (which is the usual special operations fanboy stuff anyway). Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

So do you think I should run it through AfD, or just upmerge with sentences from the Independent and Nation articles in the main armed forces article? Also I've just checked the Military Balance: it lists no Army (or Navy/Air) SOF, and no paramilitary bully-boys beyond 20,000 MoI State Security, 6,500 Border Guards, Youth Labour Army, Civil Defence Force, and an estimated million (?!) Territorial Militia. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest nominating it for AfD - based on the available sources we can't say whether this force still exists, whether it's a military or paramilitary force, whether it's a specialised unit or comprises of personnel detailed from other units, etc, so upmerging seems unsafe. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Wasps. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll comment there. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:0RR at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

As you were a recent participant in an edit war at the above-named article I am taking the opportunity to warn you formally that the article is now under a no-reverts rule. This means that from now on anyone making a revert will be blocked instantly without further warning, except in cases of really obvious vandalism. Instead of reverting, you should consider trying for compromise either by drafting a good-faith compromise in the article, or discussing towards one in talk. Edit-warring deters other editors and poisons the atmosphere that we need to edit constructively. Please do not do it. --John (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Himmler

Hi, Nick-D. I was wondering if you would have a minute to look at what is happening with the GA review for Himmler? Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2 The reviewer has found some information on the USHMM website which partly contradicts the sourced material available in the books we are using at sources, and claims that the biography by Longerich is POV. Not sure if you have any knowledge of the subject matter, but I would appreciate any comments or advice you may have. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney (II)

Hi Nick-D,

I acknowledge the outcome of the 2009 Australian government inquiry but given the depth of contention that stretches back over 70 years, do you not think that greater scope should exist for differing interpretations of the evidence that has been brought to light by the new discoveries of 2006 -2008?

Ayecaranya (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources which dispute the inquiry's findings, of course. As I understand it, the lessons learned from inspecting the wrecks was sufficent to debunk many of the earlier theories though. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well let's start with Christmas Island Man. The official forensic report http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/CORR/CORR.012.0233.pdf includes a colour photograph (pg 16) of a top view of the skull that clearly shows a bullet hole, the extensive damage to the lower left portion of the skull is consistent with the exit wound of a high velocity small arms round and yet the obvious (perfectly rounded) hole is not even mentioned in the report or subsequent cross examinations. The skeleton was in a kneeling position suggesting an execution style killing. The shrapnel wound and hole allegedly caused by a "sea bird" are entirely separate from this injury. Ayecaranya (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Do any published works from reliable sources discuss this theory? If not, I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it, as we don't include original research in articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and analysis at the Himmler GA review. Regards, Dianna (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to have been of assistance. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you check if there is something missing ?

Hi, Can you please check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jabir_Hasan_Mohamed_Al_Qahtani, there is a user lambasting me for failing to include the old AFD. I had used Twinkle for the nomination, And it takes care of all earlier nominations. In this case after AFD1 Due to some unknown(unmentioned) reasons Geo Swan moved the page to a different location, so the AFD link was not transcluded in the AFD page. An editor brought it to my notice and i added the infobox for AFD1 At once, Can u please check if there is something more needs to be done. Thanks--DBigXray 11:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. That guy seems to be a jerk. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a prompt action, much appreciated. Regards--DBigXray 11:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

would you be willing to revisit Heinrich Himmler?

Hi,

Would you be willing to revisit Heinrich Himmler and see if your suggestions have been implemented in the way you envisioned?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian Divisions

All my reading of World War II histories indicates these formations were referred to as 'XXth Indian Division', not 'XXth Infantry Division (India)' or 'XXth Indian Infantry Division.' In your reading of World War II histories, what's your perception? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The works I've read which have had a focus on the Indian Army tend to be pretty old, and don't consistently include the 'Indian' part of the name. In Defeat into Victory Slim seems to name the units as the 'Xth Indian Division' during the first sections of the book and 'Xth Division' in the later sections. agree with your move of 2nd NZ Division, but am not sure what the most common naming convention is here. I suspect that it's 'Xth Indian Division' though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for responding to that nonsense which was posted here earlier today. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopian National Defense Force

Hello, Some time ago, I removed the split tag from this article. Sometime later, You put it back in circustances that suggested that it was an oversight when reverting some vandalism. So I removed it again. I see that it has now re-appeared in similar circumstances. Can you confirm that you do indeed wish to split the article (or not as the case may be). Op47 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that that was Buckshot. However, the article's content is so limited that I agree that it shouldn't be split at present - I've just removed the tag. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Op47 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

I was looking at the circumstances of the block on Arcandam, and it appears that it was a third-party's User Talk page that the various parties were edit warring over. Arcandam asked for a source on the expertise of a person, and this was reverted by several other editors, including three times by LauraHale. It was characterized in edit summaries as a personal attack, but in looking at the text of his request, I don't see anything that can be legitimately called a personal attack. While I agree that Arcandam was in fact edit warring, the other editors were not in line with Talk page policy in the removal of comments on pages not their own. So, in effect you have a few editors who are edit warring to remove comments that had every right to be there, and the User had not removed the comments.

If this were a User removing his own comments, I would see no problem with the outcome as it stands at the moment, but considering that Arcandam is entitled to ask for sources per WP:V, I don't see a problem with him posting a comment to that effect on a User talk page, and the other editors should have left the comment alone. Simply labeling it a personal attack doesn't mean it is. We have a policy of assuming good faith, and while it is sometimes hard to assume that, the plain text on the page isn't hostile. I would recommend that you either block all of the editors that participated in this little edit war, or unblock Arcandam in deference to fairness. -- Avanu (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with that reasoning at all. Arcandam made an aggressive comment on Hawkeye's talk page ("Do you have any proof? I am pretty sure that is simply not true" - eg, that Hawkeye is making stuff up) which was an obvious continuation from a post made as part of an AfD which called him a liar [1] (though as I noted on the editor's talk page, I hadn't seen this post before blocking; if I had the duration would have been longer). Editors have no "right" to post such personal attacks on other editor's talk pages and expect that they'll remain there per WP:NPA and WP:TPNO. Two other editors who appear to have Hawkeye's talk page watchlisted removed this comment, which is pretty normal practice for dealing with rude comments posted on talk pages. Instead of backing off or seeking some kind of admin intervention Arcandam kept edit warring to reinsert their rude post, going so far as to call LauraHale a vandal in two edit summaries ([2], [3]). As such, LauraHale and Gerda Arendt's reversions were in line with the normal way rude talk page posts are handled, and unlike Arcandam neither violated the 3RR in doing so. I don't understand why you think that I should block Gerda for a single reversion. I hope that this clarifies my thinking. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, your call. Have a great day. -- Avanu (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu you are best off taking this to ANI. Nick was the subject of a report not long ago on ANI where one of his blocks was overturned by another admin who claimed that Nick's block was a bad one. I can't recall all of the details. Caden ^cool 22:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam did violate the bright line of 3RR, and is justifiably blocked for that. I don't think I would have taken the same actions as Nick, but his actions are completely justified by policy. If it were worth taking to AN/I, I actually think they're a bit weary at the moment, so it wouldn't be profitable for anyone to bring it there unless it rose to a level far beyond where it is now. In short, its done and its fine. -- Avanu (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

More WikiChevrons

		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 second quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about is over my head

	What are you talking about is over my head
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_New_Zealand You have given a reason for deletion of skill select Australia as Wikipedia not being a immigration website what the link above suggest something else.. Lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Australian_citizens this also Free pretender (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't say that I remember that. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your encouragement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

I mentioned you at ANI because you had declined an unblock request. I don't think the ANI issue needs your attention, but it is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC

Hello. Could you take a look at this FAC and give your vote and comments? I'd be much obliged since its an old nomination. Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey! A number of your concerns require discussion, so could you take a look at the responses and give your thoughts? Also, could you elaborate on what is "unclear" or "needs explaining"? Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, and as a bit of friendly feedback, it's more customary to respond to reviewers with "thank you" rather than "hey!". I spent an hour of my evening looking at this article and commenting on it ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, it was just a friendly gesture :). Thanks a lot for taking such a good look at the article, and I hope I can shake you out of your leaning oppose stance :D. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please

You wrote:

It's also worth noting that the David Conn article - as created by Geo Swan - was basically a WP:COATRACK article until it was nominated for deletion (complete with potentially libelous material on another individual).

I have no recollection of the article containing potentially libelous material, or of being responsible for inserting it. Could you please refresh my memory as to what you refer to?

With regard to WP:COATRACK -- it is an interesting essay, but one with such a compelling name that I find it is often referred to by people who should have re-read it more recently, as their claims as to what advice it offers are often at odds with what it actually recommends.

The essay offers a dozen or so sections, each offering different classes of "coatracks". Which section did you think applied?

It also has a section WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. Are you sure that is not the section that appropriately applied to David Conn (judge)?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I explained this in my comment of 04:11, 18 June 2012 in the original AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RAAF website

Hi mate, just in case you hadn't come across it yet, the Air Force has revamped its website for the second time since I, at least, have been on WP, again clobbering pretty well all existing links to current structural and unit info. In fact it looks to me like none of the wings and units have their own pages anymore, though I suppose that could change in future. Even sillier is that with all the bells and whistles of the new format, some info that remains is still out of date, e.g. F-111s still being in service...! I think it's off to the Wayback Machine for me to keep our existing article links alive until they get their stuff sorted out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's also loading really slowly for me as well. The Army rapidly improved the functionality and content of its new website (though it's still a work in progress, and was at least a general improvement from the get-go) so hopefully the RAAF will as well. Removing the material on the squadrons and wings is really weird. The bizarre wallpapers depicting the air force of the future survived for some reason - I'm looking forward to the RAAF forming its own army, arming UCAVs with short range rockets and flying spacecraft in close formation! More seriously, it appears that they didn't mess up the Air Power Development Centre's website, which is a good thing. Thanks for letting me know. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be some content on the wings and squadrons, though its much reduced. For instance, the page on 84 Wing has pages on two of its sub-squadrons under the 'related links' tab. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that re. 84WG. Yes, I breathed a sigh of relief you should've been able to hear in Canberra when I saw that the Air Power Development Centre was as before. Likewise the RAAF Museum and all of its subpages that I've checked seem to be in order. I've updated the CFS article with the latest links since it's under review; the rest can await my pleasure or until someone complains... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just updated the link to the 79 Sqn page in its article (seeing as its an FA), but will hold off on the others for a couple of weeks to see if they do something about those awful URLs. It would have been a happy day for Canberra's second hand bookshops if they'd broken the Air Power Development Centre's site - they've all been awash with RAAF books since the APDC started putting their back catalog online! Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just had a squizz at Air Combat Group and related links and, yes, the wings and squadrons still have their own pages if you look hard enough. Unfortunately none of the content seems to have been updated, the main confusion still being who owns 2OCU -- the ACG page says 81WG, the 78WG page says 78WG at the top but not at the bottom, the 81WG page says 81WG at the top but not at the bottom, etc, etc, etc... I might give 'em a bell, as I'm planning to update the 2OCU page (and create a 1OCU page) at some stage -- guess I haven't got training units out of my system just yet...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, sent off an email about 2OCU, and also about the Air Combat Group page claiming F-111s are still in service... ;-) I notice that we finally have an 82WG page again, hooray, but all the info relates to WWII and just after, nothing about current role/composition, so pointed that out too.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian - what a mess! The Army updated most of its unit pages as part of upgrading its website, so it's rather odd that the RAAF didn't do the same (surely it wouldn't have been too much to ask each squadron/wing to provide a page worth of material on the unit's history and current role? - military units seem to have this kind of stuff sitting around for use at ceremonial events and to induct people who have been posted in). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

I made many changes to avoid copy-right violations that you suggested to INS Shakti (A57). I am willing to make further improvement, if you would kindly check the page and make more suggestions on the talk page. I have changed the language, and sentence structure where ever i could. I would also be grateful if, instead of removing the complete text of any further copyright violation, you would be kind enough to show me how to remove them. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, That looks good, and I've just assessed the article as B class. Wikipedia can't include copyright-protected text for legal reasons, so it's standard practice to remove this on sight. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes i know. I meant, giving suggestions/illustrate on how to remove the copyright violations. Seems like i did that fine on my own. :) Thanks again. Anir1uph (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you did a good job. That appears to be a very impressive ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! A final request! Can you suggest what should I do more in this article to enable it to become a good article? I am not at all experienced in determining/evaluating an article, and you are, so i thought i should ask. Regards, Anir1uph (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In short, you need to expand the article so it covers the ship's acquisition, construction and operational service in detail. This prose should be well written and supported by references to high quality reliable sources. There are lots of examples of GA-quality warship articles at Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships you can use for inspiration, and the GA criteria are explained at WP:GACR. However, given that this ship has only recently entered service it's unlikely that there will be enough material available on her to develop the article to this state I'm afraid, though I could well be wrong. Good luck though! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help! I will keep this in mind. You are right, info about the ship is sparse, specially because defence/military history info is not readily available/released by the Indian govt. Regards Anir1uph (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou: 1st Division (New Zealand)

Hi Nick, when I saw that book come out I made a mental note that I would have to properly write up the three home divisions; thankyou for doing 1st Div! Buckshot06 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. There still isn't an article on the 4th Division, and the 5th Division article could do with a re-write. That book is full of interesting details about the home forces stationed in NZ during 1942 and 1943 (I didn't realise that the NZ Army had an armoured brigade stationed on the North Island, for instance). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

1st Army Tank Brigade (New Zealand)? Yeah, and the composite squadron that went out with 3rd Div... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		Awarded for contributing a really well-researched and well-written new article McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I enjoyed researching and writing it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was well-earned! - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1st Division (New Zealand)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin favour

Nick, as I think you did once before for me, would you mind deleting an out-of-process FAC page for me? (Sigh) I have to admit that in all my years here, this is the one admin tool I really think I would make use of -- but I'm still no more enamoured of the idea of full adminship than I ever was... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I just deleted that page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive8.
Message added 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll reply later today (FYI, I watchlist the reviews I comment on :) ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You missed one

While deleting offending versions of your user page, it seems like you missed one. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks a lot for reverting that rubbish. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

With pleasure :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I semi'ed it so the anon can't do it again, feel free to revert. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ed. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and a request

Hey! Thanks a lot for the barnstar! i have a request. Recently, my talk page suffered from an abusive rant from an ip 116.71.58.68. The addition is extremely offending, if one knows Hindi/Punjabi language, and was reverted. I am not interested in making any fuss about it. Just asking you if it is possible to restrict the visibility of the 2 versions of my talk page, the intitial ip version and the signed by Sinebot version under RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, and please let me know if this re-occurs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this, and for removing the two additional versions that i had overlooked. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 09:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed...

• On User talk:Dragondefense, do you think I'm being too harsh? Because seriously I really don't want Jack Merridew to use his sock to bear down on me with his sanctimonious bitey comment again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Dave, that looks fine to me. A big advantage of using the standard templates is that no-one can (sensibly) accuse you of being too rude/nice as this wording reflects community consensus on how to respond to these issues (though I personally think that some of the templates are rather badly worded, but meh). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviewing

Sorry I missed the one you asked for. :( I was in Sydney from Thursday until this morning and didn't have time. :( Was busy writing Wikinews stuff ahead of the Paralympics. : / I promise to try to get your next one. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries Laura, and thanks. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

Nick-D,

Appreciated for the closure and the award. Adamdaley (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

An article that you have been involved in editing, Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial event

Hey. Are you going to be around Canberra around 25 August? We're trying to put together an event at the Australian War Memorial involving taking pictures of some of the exhibits before they get redone. I won't be in town so it would be nice to have a MilHist person able to do stuff on the ground. --LauraHale (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laura, I should be able to help out with that (though I'm studying an 'intensive' course part-time this semester, so it will need to be subject to my university workload). My photography is limited to a point and shoot-type camera though. Is there a central discussion for this? Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a few hours on 25 August. (The final date still will be set but will almost certainly be that weekend.) The AWM would like a few photographers to take pictures of exhibits. Thus, should not be copyright issues per say from what they have said. I was thinking 4 to 5 people optimistically but will invite people. Most of the discussion has been between me and an AWM person via e-mail. (She remembers your e-mail.) Going to give it a few days so they can check on their insurance issues. --LauraHale (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, that sounds really good. Hopefully someone with a much better camera can make it :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I know Bidgee will almost certainly be there. There are a few other people who might be interested. I'd like between 5 and 10 people. As I get more details, I will share but need to tentatively make sure that you can do it if we're basically going with you as the point person. The date should be the 25th. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be one month into what's apparently an 'intensive' university course by that time (I'm yet to find out what 'intensive' means!), so I'm afraid that I can't guarantee that I'll be able to make it at this point. It should be OK though, and I'll know one way or the other a couple of weeks out anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420

Horhey continues to use his talk page to disparage other editors, primarily me, with vociferous personal attacks. I'd appreciate if you could remind him that this is inappropriate. He has stated that "I dont even want to contribute here", and accused me of being paid to "censor" him. He has also called me a "reactionary" and a "lier [sic]".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've just turned their talk page access off. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Tony Abbott

Fair comment, the reference was a bit weak, though in a known published "magazine"

I've now put some solid references into my edit on Tony Abbott, including Video and Audio of him saying the words quoted. (Some Videos have expired, buit not all)

I put my arguments for the addition I made in discussion. I trust that you will respond there is you don't agree with my comments. Richardb43 (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hello Nick,

you helped me so much with article translation until now that I want to do you a favor. The reason is that we have a central writers competition in de:Wiki in September for which I want to translate Hawkeyes article about the relief of Douglas MacArthur. Until then I have, despite the holidays I will have at the beginning of August, some time. I planned to translate Hawkeyes South West Pacific Area Command but as there probably will be some change over the following weeks I put it on the waiting loop. So I have some time I can spend on translations. As I told you earlier, I want to do you a favor for all your help so if you think there is an article (doesn't matter if it was written by you or somebody else) you think should be translated into as many languages as possible please tell me so I can translate it into the german language to honor you. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, that's a very kind offer. I'm tempted to suggest one of the FA-level articles on the Roman military, but from looking at their inter-wiki links they all have good-quality German equivalents (which isn't surprising given that Germany is one of the main centres of scholarship on this topic). I'd suggest Black Friday (1945) - this covers a significant late-war engagement between the Allied air forces and the German military in Norway, and you may be able to find German-language sources which would improve the article. Alternately, some other articles I've worked on which may be of interest to German readers are: Tom Derrick (Australia's most famous soldier of World War II), John Hines (Australian soldier) (the slightly unusual story of an Australian soldier of World War I who became celebrated for - to put it plainly - stealing from German prisoners) and Take Ichi convoy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I fear John Hines would not be seen as notable in de:Wiki. I will translate Taki Ichi convoy in the next days and see if I find something about the japanese sources mentioned in the japanese version of the article. Furthermore Im not sure and will ask some japanese native speakers about the translation of Take Ichi. As there is no counter word I for myself would translate it only as Bamboo One and not Bamboo No. 1. --Bomzibar (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did the translation today and dedicated it to you, (see here) again, thank you for all your help! Best Regards --Bomzibar (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Paralympic DYK nominations

Hey. If you get the chance, can you review a few of my unreviewed Paralympic DYKs? :) --LauraHale (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure - can you please let me know which ones are outstanding? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Jake Lappin
• Template:Did you know nominations/Kara Leo
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Cameron
• Template:Did you know nominations/Simon Patmore
• Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roeger
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Silcocks
• Template:Did you know nominations/Damien Bowen
• Template:Did you know nominations/Stephanie Schweitzer
• Template:Did you know nominations/Kristy Pond
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Little
• Template:Did you know nominations/Katy Parrish
• Template:Did you know nominations/Jodi Elkington
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rachael Dodds
• Template:Did you know nominations/Kelly Cartwright
• Template:Did you know nominations/Georgia Beikoff
• Template:Did you know nominations/Carlee Beattie
• Template:Did you know nominations/Joann Formosa
• Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Bowman (equestrian)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rob Oakley
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Bugg
• Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Vinci
• Template:Did you know nominations/Leanne Del Toso
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Vinci

--LauraHale (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just reviewed six of those nominations - please note my question at Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair . Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Think Alex79818 may be back

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ignaciobm seems to share some characteristics, what do you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as it's been endorsed for checkuser attention, I'll leave it up to them for now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair

Found better sources for Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair if you could follow up. :) --LauraHale (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I don't know if you remember but I recently let out an outburst against you and I am sorry. I only wanted to fix the article, and I felt as though you were trying to belittle the 40,000 men who died in that battle where you stated that no such battle exists even though historians say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but please respect my request that you never post on this talk page again. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service

G'day, Nick, I've made a run through the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service article and have left a couple of minor suggestions on the GA page. Could you please take a look when you get a chance? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the DYK reviews. :)

LauraHale (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Laura! I found the articles to be really interesting, and I'm looking forward to your coverage of the games :) Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Long Tan

Hello again Nick. For the last 8 months I have been working on rewriting Battle of Long Tan and have finally finished a draft which I uploaded today. Unfortuntaly its too big and I have been working on it for so long I'm probably no longer objective and am struggling to reduce it. If you are interested I would welcome some assistance from knowlegable and experienced editors in going over the article and triming it down. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the edit where you massively expanded the article! It looks really good, though as you say it's probably too big. I'll make some suggestions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I uploaded it in frustration today. Unfortunately so much has been written about the battle and I haven't really succeeded in summarising it effectively. Areas I see reduction could occur are the lead, the background and the assessment in particular (although admittedly everywhere). Someone with fresh eyes could probably find gains in these areas fairly easily. Anotherclown (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, that is a beastly article. It's at 28668 words, according to Dr.pda's tool... or 169kb. Manhattan Project, the largest FA, is at 15823 words/97kB. Good luck! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FA! At the moment I'd just be glad if I can reduce it sufficiently to get it through a B class review... You did manage to answer I question I had in the back of my mind though about the largest such article. Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's only the 228th largest article according to Special:Longpages ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. :-) Nick- anyone want to stubify List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters with me?! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

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]} 09:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hi Nick! Based on your experience, can I have your opinion on this issue please? Thanks --SMS ^Talk 21:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:MILHIST. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, sorry to bother you again, I have added some sources there, which will need to be read, what I get from the sources about the whole issue, I already stated in the my first comment but I needed some neutral editor to look at it. If you don't find time, or for some other reason would not like to review this issue, it will not be a problem, kindly tell me so I can ask some other editor. Sorry for poking you again, I would not have come here had some editors took interest in the issue. --SMS ^Talk 16:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:TeeTylerToe

Since you've removed their ability to edit their talk page would you mind procedurally declining their open unblock request? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, I don't think that it's ever allowable for admins to decline unblock requests from editors they've blocked, though I'd appreciate it if you could point out where this is permitted in the relevant policies if I'm wrong. Given that I've extended the block to an indefinite duration and turned off their talk page access, I'd actually rather that another admin review my actions for the sake of fairness. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing an appeal by this user, it does appear that Guy Macon was involved in the dispute, as he reverted the article several times prior to closing the DRN discussion: [4] [5]. I do not believe that the DRN discussion would have ended any other way than it did, but Guy demonstrably was involved and therefore I think this justifies TTT's claim (TTT incorrectly used the term "conflict of interest" here, but his basic argument appears to be true). It appears that this claim was viewed as a personal attack against Guy, and I'm not sure I agree with that assessment.

As the blocking admin, I'm curious as to your thoughts on this matter. I do not think that Guy's closing of the DRN merits any kind of formal action (especially since he was not explicitly listed by TTT as an involved party), but it may be appropriate to advise him to be careful of his own involvement in a dispute under discussion at DRN when closing discussions. I would propose that TTT's talk page restriction be lifted so that he may discuss what I perceive to be the only real issue here: his edit warring and refusal to accept consensus. --Chris (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Those two edits are the sum total of Guy's involvement, and they appear to be consistent with a dispute resolution type intervention to me rather than anything which could be reasonably seen as being 'involved' in what was a long-running issue. While Guy closed the discussion, TTT was actually edit warring against Steven Zang's archival of the thread shortly afterwards (which he raised with Steven [6], leading to Steven clearly explaining the situation and the ways forward at User talk:Steven Zhang#dispute resolution noticeboard sikorsky discussion). Seeing as TTT used his talk page to continue on the dispute and attack various other editors, I don't think that it would be a good idea to re-enable access to it - if he or she wants to be unblocked, this would be better handled through the ticket system to reduce the aggravation all round. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not putting my nose where it doesn't belong; but I don't think TTT will ever drop the stick in the issue. He sees a consensus against his viewpoint as a 'empasse that must be bypassed' E.G. He hasn't taken it upon that opther people's views on the article's content matter as much as his does, and seeks only the entirity of his position to be fully accepted and intergrated - anything less is apparently outrageous to him. A dozen plus editors explaining various positions to him isn't working; and he took the same WP:Ididnothearthat approach to his ban requests, ignoring different admins time after time explaining that his un-banning reason should be discussing his behaviour and reform, not really anybody else's. He seemed absolutely adament to miss the point, almost like talking to a brick wall. I'm not opposed to him coming back, but I really don't think, with him looking down on every other editor on the site as at fault, that we can expect anything other than the same behaviour that produced the current chain of events. Kyteto (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

TTT has asked me off-wiki to point out that Guy had made these three edits to the article's talk page in recent days, in addition to the two edits he made to the article itself. I've no opinion on the dispute itself, nor have I evaluated the extent to which those three edits are relevant to the dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The first and second of those posts are about the types of blocks which are handed out for TTT's conduct, so obviously aren't part of the content dispute. Almost all of the third post is about TTT's need to provide a reliable source for what he wanted to add (the rest appears to be an observation from his personal experience) and so is also consistent with Guy intervening in a dispute resolution type role. I don't think that any reasonable editor would interpret that as being 'involved'. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Nick - I would recommend having another look at your block here. The block is perhaps appropriate, but there are no "personal attacks" for which you blocked him indefinitely on that page. Mind reinstating his talkpage access? — foxj 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Foxj, Repeatedly making unfounded accusations of edit warring against Guy and other editors, including after several editors had pointed out that this wasn't accurate and asked him to stop, qualify as personal attacks to me. Given that the block is for an indefinite duration, the only thing he can realistically do with his user space is to ask to be unblocked. As this can be done through other means (which would also probably involve a lot less drama), I don't think it's appropriate to re enable talk page access at the moment. However, I'd be happy to do so if TTT makes a commitment to myself or to any other editor via email that he'll drop these accusations of edit warring (which would be a precondition of being unblocked anyway). I have the 'email this user' option enabled, and if any editor says that they've received such an email from TTT I'd be very happy to take them at their word. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. — foxj 11:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

ESmith quote

I think you have a typo in your user page quote, confirmed at least at metrolyrics.com. Back to Iraq/Algeria. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There were actually two typos! I've just fixed them - thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I certainly meant to tell you the one I'd spotted -- "altitude". But my omit-"tactic" got you to search! (Though curiously I don't see the fix.) Best. Swliv (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't press 'save'. It's now fixed. Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

2nd opinion

Hi. Thanks for your suggestions on the South African Navy page. I have done some more work on it and would appreciate your comments and suggestions to get it to a C or a B class article. Thanks. Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gbawden, the articles's looking really good. I've assessed it as C class as it still has several unreferenced paragraphs. Great work with the photo of Simonstown! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the compliments. The photo was a case of right place right day. I have started adding references. Would you give me some pointers as to what I have missed ito referencing? I am a little worried about over referencing. Graham Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it by adding those references. I've just assessed the article as B class. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tks

Heh, no more embarrassing than my failed attempt at cleverness. Note to self: take more care editing while watching Olympic cycling.... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that my most common edit summaries these days are 'oops' and 'fix' ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the kind words. I'm almost done just running through the last bunch to get the info for a set of lists. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Casualties of the Syrian civil war

I agree with you on the other totals because they were based on figures that were coming from different sources and thus if we combined them that would have been OR due to possibility of overlapping figures. But, the figures in the new day-by-day table all come exclusivly from one source, the activist group SOHR, so they are in essence cited, there is no OR in this case. Your argument on the talk page was that we can't add up various types of casualties, various figures. I agree with that. But, these are not various, they all come from a unified source, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If you have a problem with this please initiate a discussion on the talk page, I'm sure other editors of the Syria civil war events will join. EkoGraf (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't the SOHR have a total figure which can be cited directly? If they don't think that this is a good methodology to reach a total, why should we? Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

SOHR gives out daily totals which are cited by the mainstream media every day. They DO give out a total figure, but the problem with it is what we talked about before. In their total figure they combine civilian fatalities with rebel ones (those that were civilians in their previous lives). And than they just say X civilians have died, Y soldiers have died, F defectors have died. P.S. we count armed civilians as civilians. But in their daily totals they DO differentiate between standard rebels and civilians. So it is misleading for our readers that way. And I thought since they do nicely say every day the total number of rebel fatalities, and this does come from a unified sources and not different ones, it would be nice to present how many they said for a given month. If the daily totals came from different sources I wouldn't summ it up because as you said that would be OR, but this is all coming from one source. EkoGraf (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Are any reliable sources providing monthly totals based on this data? (for instance, stories on the war by journalists). If not, I really don't think that we should. Given the nature of these kinds of figures (based on battlefield reports from a very confusing war and not collected by a consistent methodology) it's likely that they're not entirely reliable, so adding up totals gives them a false sense of precision. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

SOHR is doing the same thing with their monthly totals as with their full total. They combine rebels and civilians into one category...civilian. I would totally agree with you otherwise, but we do have here a consistent methodology by this organisation. And the BBC, Reuters, AP and others obviously consider them reliable since they publish their full total, monthly totals and daily totals on a regular basis. EkoGraf (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If you feel this strongly about this I will remove than the totals from the table and copy-paste our discussion to the talk page and ask other Syria civil war editors to join in and give us their opinion. OK? EkoGraf (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. I'll also post a notification at WT:MILHIST inviting uninvolved editors to comment. My basic concern that if reliable and reasonably well-resourced media outlets aren't adding up the rebel casualty figures they're receiving from the SOHR it suggests that they don't think that this is a good methodology. More importantly, if SOHR is combing 'rebels' with 'civilians' in its aggregate casualty counts, it suggests that the organisation itself isn't confident about its ability to distinguish between the two categories (which isn't surprising or unreasonable given the nature of the war). Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not that they combine them because they are not confident. Its more of a propaganda thing. In the months before the director of SOHR said they were in the full total counting rebels as civilians, multiple analysts and journalists were reporting that opposition groups were presenting dead rebels as civilians for the maximum psychological and propaganda impact. Add it to MILHIST please. EkoGraf (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks again. If the casualty figures are that rubbery, it seems safest to stick to only what reliable sources are reporting. Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Operation Donnerkeil missing info?

Hi - saw you put a lot of time/effort into the article Operation Donnerkeil and wondering if you would check the Talk page there for the question I posted concerning missing information that to the best of my knowledge is factual and is certainly sourced/referenced (concerning a second pair of British Spitfires discovering the German flotilla nearly simultaneously with the first pair of British fighters)? Thanks. joepa^T 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Hello. You are among the top contributors to this Featured Article. Work has begun on changing the citation format and referencing conventions in use on the article. There is a discussion underway at the talk page for the article. Feel free to participate. Kablammo (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi Nick, can you access 'The Shaba crises: Stumbling to victory' Small Wars & Insurgencies Volume 5, Issue 2, 1994? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid not. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick anyway - and for vandal reverts at UPDF. Hope all goes well in Canberra, with *better weather* than I've seen in the last few months (specially in the UK!!). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. There are some signs that spring is on the way (though, in all seriousness, I really like winter - probably as I've never suffered through more than a few weeks of a northern hemisphere-type winter). Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Reducing overlinking

Hi. Could you please help in reducing overlinking in List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pretty busy at the moment, and won't have time to do that I'm afraid. You could speed up the process dramatically by copying the text into Microsoft Word or equivalent, using the find and replace tool (eg, find "[[Boeing AH-64 Apache|AH-64D Apache]]" and replace it with "AH-64D Apache") and then posting the resulting text back into the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indef Semi-Protection Request for Userspace

Could you indef semi-protect a couple pages for me, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Guess you are offline for the night, so Bongwarrior took care of them. No worries though. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tony! Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fac termination

I wasn't meaning I would close it or anything, I meant to say that I didn't feel it was approprate for me to ask a delegate to close it sorry for that confusion. I have removed the GA topicon on my user page, and well on the front of editing the article, It says I can do it as long as it is a menial task. Obtund^Talk 21:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and I was probably being a bit high-handed myself in my comments at that FAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh a barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thanks for standing up to me and putting me in my place. ObtundTalk 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

SG3 at peer review

Hi Nick-D, I've listed Samsung Galaxy S III for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Samsung Galaxy S III/archive1; feel free to comment on the article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LT

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project also provides templates to help you make the perfect article.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our Manual of style outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department has rated the quality of every London transport article in Wikipedia.
• Submit your interesting London Transport facts at Portal:London Transport/Did you know/Suggest for our portal.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

— From the members of WikiProject London Transport

Thanks for the welcome :) Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

FYI--DBigXray 12:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Julia Gillard

Why did you delete my contribution? Please tell me exactly how I violated BLP by suggesting that the proposed addition would violate BLP. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rrius, your comment is still there - and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it. I had to revision delete the diff where you added it as part of the process of removing some material which clearly violated WP:BLP added by another editor, but this hasn't affected the material you added beyond the diff no longer being viewable by non-admins. Sorry about any confusion which resulted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Hi Nick, hope you're feeling well. I thought I'd mention that there's a peer review request open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mitt Romney/archive1 since you commented on the article's unsuccessful nomination at FAC a few months back. If you're interested and have time for it, of course. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Thanks for letting me know. I probably won't have anything to add beyond my comments at the FAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I just commented at the peer review ... I did a little copyediting, but I'm going to wait for the FAC as well. If people oppose on prose, my explanation for why I waited to copyedit is at the peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK Review

I know we haven't interacted, but could you review Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Byrne, Gaz Choudhry, Peter Finbox, Abdi Jama, Jon Hall (basketball), Dan Highcock, Ade Orogbemi, Jon Pollock, Ian Sagar, Matt Sealy for me? Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I just checked all the articles (which took about 15 minutes to run the various checks!), and it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I spent that long on the QPQs! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had to modify the hook. Could you re-review? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Nick-D. I note you left a message on my page welcoming me to the site. I left a message on the Liberal Party of Australia talk page under the Seeking consensus - ideology heading. A user called Timeshift left a message simply saying WP sockpuppet What does that mean? What is a sock puppet? Please help, I'm really confused. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. A 'sockpuppet' is someone who edits under multiple accounts, especially to create the impression of greater support for a position. I presume that Timeshift is unaware that you've stopped editing via IP addresses and was concerned that you were doing both. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. How should I resolve this? I didn't comment on the talk article using the IP though. Thanks Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting the connection on the article's talk page would be the best approach. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History: Assessing Articles as "Start"

Nick-D,

I had a thought, since there is a backlog of articles which have an asssessment of "Start", would there be any possibility we could remind users of WikiProject Military History to ask for articles to be assessed against "B class" (maybe a simple message to everyone on their talkpages)? Maybe this could decrease the backlog a little. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Are these new articles? Personally, I think that an automated note to all the members of the project would be excessive, though I can see how it would be helpful. At note at [WT:MILHIST]] might achieve much the same results. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes to new "Start" articles. Assessing them as "Start" would move them from the 21,000-odd backlog to "Requests for assessment" possibly as "Unassessed". I was thinking of having it in the newsletter or even at a section where WikiProject Military History users can find it and know to include the "B class" assessment too. Adamdaley (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Land Warfare Centre

Re this; there is a British Army Land Warfare Centre as well. Maybe this should be a disambig. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - I'll move it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	thoughts and images
	Thank you for quality articles such as McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, for thoughts, for images used over the world, and for getting to the core of a situation, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (9 March 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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 on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

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]} 01:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

QF1, Bangkok

Hi Nick. You might be interested in contributing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1. Dolphin (t) 07:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean Areas (command)

I've made this edit in relation to New Zealand, Nick. You may wish to consider adding specific Australian units. Hope you're enjoying your holiday. Warm regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed Abdul Qader link

Nick-D,

I found a link in the unassessed B-criteria with the link name Ahmed Abdul Qader. While it directs to Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Redirect mistake? There is no need for this small error. Would be appreciated if it was removed. Adamdaley (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, that seems to be part of the clean up of the articles on non-notable Guantanamo Bay inmates. I've just redirected the talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoffmann Archive

Dear Nick, unfortunately, Stefan2 (talk · contribs) and others are wrong branding these images as unfree. In fact the {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template is not at all accurate. I would suggest that the people who created this template review the facts of the Price v. United States ruling. All the photos posted by myself on Wikipedia come from negatives owned by Wartenberg Trust and its foundations and yes, these are ALL part of the NARA Hoffmann works (because Wartenberg Trust gave copies of all their photos to NARA). There are no links to the individual images at this time! Also, many more photos, not at NARA, are part of the Carlisle Archive, which is also covered by the Price v. United States ruling. Unfortunately the poorly made and deceiving {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template does not show this at all. In conclusion, nearly 100% of all Hoffmann photographs (created between 1933-1945) are protected as FREE by the above mentioned legal decision. It is absolutely frustrating that administrators such as Stefan2 (talk · contribs) make these incredibly poor decisions based on conjecture rather than facts. Before he nominated these images for deletion, he should have talked with the uploaders and others (who actually understand the legal matter) to resolve this issue.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Maria, I think that the issue here is that evidence is needed to prove that these photos were sourced from a PD collection (for instance, records of the images in the collection's catalog as well as evidence that the collection itself is OK). At present, you've provided evidence that the collection itself is OK, but need stronger evidence that this is the source of the images. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In honor of your service as a Milhist coordinator

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In honor of your service as coordinator for the Military History Project from September 2011 to September 2012, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me Nick. It's like a newspaperman being offered the chance to be an editor - what it means is a lot of administrative work and pulling your hair out, when all I would really like to do is improve and write articles. I'm quite happy to be a frequent answerer of questions on the main talk page, and to sometimes do Milhist dispute resolution, but I would rather not be nominated for Coord status. Appreciate the thought though. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, no worries - and fair enough! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ACR closure

Nick-D,

AustralianRupert is talking me through how to close an ACR and I'm coming up with an invalid status in the article history on preview on the talkpage. How can I get this to work? Adamdaley (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Without details on the exact problem you're having I can't really help - what's going wrong? I always follow each step of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review, which is pretty good. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Nick-D. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Doncsecz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GyorgyFerenc is an obvious sockpuppet of Doncsecz. After Doncsecz was blocked, GyorgyFerenc was created to continue the edit war. Moreover, it is his 3rd block for edit warring, why was he blocked only for 24h? 79.117.135.137 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DITWIN GRIM & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doncsecz. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit, but i asked Hungarian users about the affair of the article Battle of Raab and the users of a value to me. I did it because DITWIN broke the first the sanction. 81.183.47.44 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)