Jump to content

User talk:Nick-D

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Npcomp (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 27 November 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

As a note to my fellow administrators, I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me. I have no delusions of perfection, but it's basic courtesy to discuss things rather than simply over-ride other admins' decisions (it's also required by policy). I'm quite likely to agree with you anyway!

A ferry arriving at Mosman Bay ferry wharf

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)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2013)
Talk archive 13 (2014)
Talk archive 14 (2015)

Awards people have given me


Economy of Somalia

Thanks very much for all the hard work you two are doing on this. But are you confident in going ahead without any reverts - has any action taken place? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I'm aware. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award

 Military history reviewers' award 
For completing 7 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian frontier wars - Cook first (known) European

Hi. In regard to the reversion of my recent minor edits, I'd like to say that I believe it legitimate to indicate that Cook was the first "known" European to chart the east Australian coast, due to the significant possibility that others may have done so earlier (see Theory of the Portugese discovery of Australia. I also wish to point to the fact that several other articles on Wikipedia make reference to a place being first "known" to have been discovered by European (insert name here). I look forward to your responce. Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This debate (to the minor extent to which it exists from what I've seen) is simply not relevant to the topic of that article, which is about the fighting which took place after the British colonists landed in Australia. I don't think that we should be adding what appear to be largely hypothetical claims into articles on unrelated topics. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::Ok, thanks :) Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administraotor's discussion

Hi Nick! User EyeTruth has involved me in another Administrator's discussion. I mentioned your name at the Adminstrator's Edit Warring page. You don't have to come by, and you don't have to say anything. I did mention your name there though and I wanted to make sure you were made aware. It's just an FYI. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this report as no violation since I couldn't think of anything reasonable to do, but your comments would still be welcome. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came to notify you, but Gunbirddriver already did. I will add that I've started a discussion on the Prokhorovka talkpage. You're welcomed to check it out, thanks. Part of the dispute is very similar to the blitzkrieg one. Sources say xxxxx, but Gunbirddriver disagrees, believing that there must be other sources that say otherwise. Hopefully, he will provide those soon. EyeTruth (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look into this tomorrow. I still have the Glanz and House book on the Battle of Kursk if a third party checking sources would be helpful here. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Island

Hello, Nick - I've been reading the article on Christmas Island, and I came across a sentence that sounds odd to me. It's the second sentence in the section Christmas Island#Japanese invasion:

  • A naval gun was installed under a British officer and four NCOs and 27 Indian soldiers.

I know that the sentence might sound perfectly ordinary to a military person, but to a non-military reader it sounds a little odd. Perhaps a few words could be added after "under"? "Under the command of", or something like that? CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "A naval gun manned by a British officer, four NCOs and 27 Indian soldiers"? Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Morgenthau Plan

My book was recently purged from Wikipedia. The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Planning has been chucked down the memory hole. Of course there were legitimate reasons for its deletion. I asked Wikipedia to explain and they kindly responded:

"I've just removed the material referenced to the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy as it does not appear to be a reliable source. The book's publisher Alora Publishing looks like a publisher of WP:FRINGE-type works judging from what it chooses to highlight on its website, and I could not find any reviews of the book in reliable sources, and many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites. The author's website is also not typical of that of a neutral historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Worldcat shows it owned by 1319 libraries, a very substantial number. This of course does not mean it is an authority, but it might appear to be of considerable interest. Google Scholar shows it has been cited 16 times, as follows: [6]. DGG (David Goodman) ( talk ) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (I wrote this is response to an OTRS query asking about the removal of the book)."

According to Nick the book is not a reliable source. But he seems to think it was published by Alora Publishing, a publisher of “fringe-type” works. I tried to find Alora Publishing but was not successful. I contacted my publisher and he thought that Nick’s comments may have been a joke. Nick claims that he could not find any reviews of my book in reliable sources. I guess Publishers’ Weekly and Choice magazine (by the American Library Association, for academic libraries) are not considered reliable. Perhaps it was wrong of the BBC to contact me for an interview in Things We Forgot to Remember. My blog is not and has never claimed to be the work of a neutral historian.

Nick raises one troubling point about my book: “many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites.” I do not have any control over who references my work. In my research I have run across a great deal of anti-Semitism. This is unfortunate because it is a distraction and it is used to discredit anyone looking for the truth. Many of the key people involved with the Morgenthau Plan were Jewish, however, one of its strongest critics, Victor Gollancz, was also a Jew. I am not aware of any extremist claims in my book although its conclusions are outrageous. We live in interesting times and some even think the Little Sisters of the Poor are extremists.

The bottom line is: Who is more credible? Check the Algora Publishing website. If you believe it is “fringe” you will agree with Nick. If you check it out and wonder what Nick is talking about then you will know why Wikipedia has a bad reputation for veracity. 108.19.156.56 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com, Google books, Barnsandnoble.com and Algora Publishing's website all say that the book was published by Algora Publishing. I made a typo in my post, which is irrelevant in any circumstances, and particularly here as I also linked to the firm's website. I note that the Algora Publishing website has an odd note in its link to the BBC interview saying that "Note that even this program on the whole continues to deflect responsibility for the genocide"; a publisher which calls the Allied occupation of Germany a "genocide" is highly unlikely to have the standards of fact checking and professionalism needed for its books to qualify as reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the publisher's website also refers to the Allied occupation of Germany as a "twentieth century holocaust"... Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nick, You have inspired me to write a third edition on the Morgenthau Plan. If you like I will send you a copy of the second edition. You can read it and send me your corrections. If I find them valid I will incorporate them in the third edition and give you the credit. I can not speak for Algora Publishing but I used the term “holocaust” because one of its definitions is: “any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.” I know that Ukrainians got a lot of grief for using that term to describe their famine and eventually switched to using the term Holodomor. Unfortunately this word has not made it into Dictionary.com. If you can suggest another term for reckless destruction of life I would be glad to use it. A writer’s credibility is everything. That is why throughout my work I try not to exaggerate. If I quote a source that appears to exaggerate I let the reader know. I intentionally used the term holocaust because there was an intentional and reckless destruction of life as a result of policies devised by our progressive and oft times Communist bureaucrats. That is a fact Jack. Even the negative review on Amazon does not contest my facts but claims I wrote the book for an “odious cause.” I wrote the book to reveal an uncomfortable truth. In my research I ran into quite a bit of anti-Semitism. I have tried to make it clear that I do not espouse these ideas. The malicious comments made by anti-Semites are used to discredit people like me who are sincerely looking for the truth.108.19.156.56 (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the book, but I don't think that it's going to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I'm pleased to hear that you're not an anti-Semite (I never suggested that you were), and I imagine that you must find it annoying to see your book being quoted by extremists. Nick-D (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Google Street View

Hi. Please lock the page again. Thanks. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eugen, can you please clarify your concern here? The high volume of unreferenced IP edits looks worrying, but I can't see anything which looks outright wrong. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enogh time to revert IP vandalism. That is frustrating. You think I have nothing else better to do? Look at history page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverage_of_Google_Street_View&action=history - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Eugen Simion 14: can you please tell me which edits you consider to be vandalism? It isn't clear to me given that the referencing for that article is pretty crap, and I also don't have unlimited amounts of Wiki-time to sort through them, especially as you apparently have spotted actionable problems. Help me out here please. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing or vandalism - [1] , [2] and more others. It's not a great idea to keep this article unprotected. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds sensible, done. I didn't realise that the protection only finished a few days ago! I've set the duration to indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, thanks. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugle post

Hey Nick, I'm here in my WMF role. Would you be interested in adapting Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2015/Review essay for an external audience and republishing it on the Wikimedia blog? :-) Pieces that explore the background and difficulties behind writing Wikipedia articles are something I've been pushing for more of. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to. Do you have a suggested deadline for me? ;) Any advice on how to adapt the article for that audience would also be great (for instance, am I right in thinking that you'd be interested in more on how the article was written, and bit less on how it was researched?). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flexible and don't know your schedule. Is Monday doable?
First, they're going to have little to no specialist knowledge of WWII and these battles, so you're going to have to add more context. Second, I don't think I'd take out much on your researching. One of the point I'm trying to get across to the world, something you may have noticed in the Texas Revolution piece I recently did, is just how far some Wikipedia editors have to go to write these articles—even on a topic like WWII that you'd think is well-covered. Third, more links would be nice, both to the books and maybe a link to the TFA for the 70th anniversary. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what would you think of an alternate title starting with "You sunk my battleship: ... "? ;-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Erhart (WMF): How does the draft at User:Nick-D/reviews look? I've suggested a more snappy title, and would prefer not to use ""You sunk my battleship" given that the main feature of these attacks was the the battleship wasn't sunk ;) Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot that it was the RAF that sunk Tirpitz. Point there. And here I was so excited for a title like that. ;-)
Could you also provide a paragraph or two to summarize what happened here? If I was someone who knew nothing about the topic, I'd wonder why Tirpitz was in a fjord, why the British would want to sink it, and what your three articles are specifically about. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed Erhart (WMF): I've just added some introductory history - how does it look? (I suspect that it might be on the long side). I'm happy to leave it up to you to draft the tweets - I've tried doing this at work, and have been told that my tweets are much too boring to be published by my staff! Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nick, as you've probably seen, I've been in and out of that page for a little bit. I'm happy with it now, but I'm going to have a collleague go through it as well to make sure all the milhist bits are comprehensible. Other than that, we have it scheduled to go out tomorrow (US time) but that will likely slip by a day or two depending on our other posts—we have five scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, at least two of which are time sensitive. I'll keep you up to date if those plans change! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the update Ed - that sounds good Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last question: are you okay with the blog running under your real name? I thought it was on your user page, but it's not there now. That's the last hurdle! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's published! :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed, it looks really good Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick. I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement you made of my contributions, in both the Bugle post and the blog article. I'm glad I could take some small part in the Tirpitz project. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your contributions! Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this coming out in a day or two: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/Blog. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffside Malibu

Cliffside Malibu I went to start an article on this subject because I've seen it pop up in a lot of celebrity rehab-related articles, and I noticed you had deleted a previous article about the topic for being blatant advertising. I just want you to be aware that I am working on this article, and that my goal is just to create a reference point for the topic because it has gained prominence enough that someone who is not a celebrity watcher has noticed. If you have any concerns, please let me know. Thanks! Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, thanks for the note. The version I deleted was undisclosed and spammy paid editing, and your stub looks good to me. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Nick, I'm diagreeing with misleading, unhelpful claims that other participants might be naïve enough to take on face value. Defending the research and efforts of a very serious proposer who has an intimate knowledge the workloads of both Bureaucrats and the Arbitration Committee, from comments based on conjecture is hardly akin to hectoring. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're over-reacting to criticism of your proposal. I disagree with your proposal, and you disagree with me. That's fair enough, and there's no need for you to go on to make absurd accusations such as this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're just offering the proposal as a service to a community who persistently bleat about disingenous admins but does nothing about it themselves. There are no bonus points for 'winning' a consensus and I do not understand why people have to make totally unfounded statements couched in criticism if they don't agree with a proposal. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work in developing this proposal, but I think that you're mistaken with it and what it involves. I don't understand why you think that other editors have to endorse your views and analysis and are arguing with the opposers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:RNZAF Base Ohakea Official Badge July 1979.jpg

I've just uploaded this file. Is there anything you can suggest to avoid it being deleted? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free use rational you've provided looks good to me, especially as NZ Crown Copyright allows pretty broad use. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image on WWII Page

Hi user:Nick-D Apologies if the image was unsuitable. I was only trying to illustrate the effect of the blitz on the civilian population, and daily life on the ground. Thanks. Jason.nlw (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The article already has a couple of images of the Blitz/Battle of Britain, so I don't think that there's a need for a third, and I don't think that article was representative - accounts of the Blitz generally note how miserable the shelters were (especially for children) and that image portrays them in a positive light. Please raise this on the article's talk page though if you'd like to see it included to see what other editors say. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock on WWII page

Just a heads up, the user Dredernely, who commented about adding Pyrrhic victory to the World War II page is a sock of the indefinitely banned User:HarveyCarter. Calidum T|C 12:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What leads you to that conclusion? (so that I can block the account given that this is their only edit). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the sock master has a history of frequenting WWII pages. Each account also uses the same signature. Calidum T|C 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for the help on the Royal New Zealand Air Force article. I can never tell if an IP is just throwing out numbers for no reason or are truly trying to make a good faith edit. No heart feelings of past debates, these things can get pretty heated, but with all good intentions - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those kind comments, and I appreciate your efforts as well. It is very hard to track changes to numbers in these articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ban appeal

Hi,

I appealed my topic ban (diff). Taking in consideration that you supported my ban and/or was against its lifting I would like to inform you that I appealed my ban so you could again present your opinion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 757

[3] -I think that was my bad, I did a roll back on Manmountain08 who’d being changing sourced numbers. Didn't realize the total revert reintroduced wrong text- Sorry about that FOX 52 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up another user's copy paste issue

Gday Nick. I'm going through checking User:Citadel48's recent contributions (for obvious reasons) at the moment and found Wikipedia:1984 Severomorsk Disaster which he seems to have created then copy and pasted to Severomorsk Disaster (rather than moving it). I've made it a redirect but I wonder if a history merge is req'd (or some such Adminy thing)? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure to be honest - I'm pretty clueless about history merges and the like. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for looking all the same. Do you think its ok just with the redirect then? I don't imagine its a major issue. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest leaving it as a redirect. As I understand it, copy and pasting new articles from draft status into article space is OK as long as there's something linking them, even if it is as vague as an edit summary (which is what I usually do!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anotherclown: G'day gents, history merges can be requested here: Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gday - well it seems the original article location has been deleted with the summary "Recently created, implausible redirect" so I guess we will just have to accept the article history is a write off. I'm not really sure that was a good solution by whom ever did it but it is a solution a guess. Sorted - thanks gents. Anotherclown (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder weapons

You reverted my suggestion of the use 'unconfirmed' rather than fictitious. You reason was 'no they are fictitious'.

However if one is to read the article it speaks of actual projects that were known to be planed and some created so ficticiois is I believe a misleading term - what has happened is there is a confusion of terms here because indeed there are ficticiois elements: these are the 'theories' behind understanding why they created such known existing plans and projects not whether they did or not where evidence exists and is in museums in America and germany.

However any seriously insterested in history or historians of this area will know this, but being used by the genral public I think it is important not to encourage sudoscience where it is not.

Kind regards

Ben

Please read into it and you can see for yourself Benjahdrum (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are fictitious. Nazi Germany did not operate UFOs or those other alleged weapons. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your contributions and scrutiny to the betterment of military, Third Reich and World War II related articles, I award you this Barnstar. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return of previously block IP sock puppet - 86.26.26.107

Hello Nick. You previously blocked User:86.26.26.107 for one month as a result of the SPI here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AnnalesSchool/Archive#4_July_2015 - for being a sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:AnnalesSchool. Since the expiry of their block the IP has returned and is editing the in the same area they previously did (and as AnnalesSchool), indicating that it is the same person attempting to avoid their block by not logging in. For instance on 5 Aug - at Franco-Italian Armistice [4], 7 August Axis occupation of Greece [5], and 15 August Franco-Italian Armistice [6], Axis occupation of Greece [7] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history [8][9]. As a result can you pls have a look and see whether a further block for the IP is warranted before this gets disruptive? Pls let me know if a complete report is necessary and I'll file one at SPI. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's clearly them and I've blocked that account (for a much longer period this time seeing as the IP doesn't appear to be being shared). Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Hello nick, User talk:Adnan bogi whom you previously blocked for a week is still engaged in spamming. just wanted to this to your attention. thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I've just blocked that account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights

Nick, are you able to remove my rollback rights? I have only once used it in anger and mostly I find that I have accidentally rolled back something when using my smart phone because I accidentally touched the rollback link. Usually because of a page redraw just as I'm trying to follow a diff link and the redraw puts the rollback link where the diff was a half second ago. - Nick Thorne talk 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I've just turned it off, and left a note in the log making it clear that it was on your request only in case you ever want it re-added. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. For normal vandalism reverts I prefer to leave an edit summary anyway so I don't imagine I'll be needing this unless I stop using my phone to edit, but thanks for leaving the door ajar.  :) ' Nick Thorne talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Hi Nick as contributor to aviation pages, I wondered if you'd chime in on this discussion. I'm trying compromise on some parts of overhauled lists that I've done, or maybe I have it wrong - Regards FOX 52 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't involved in the discussion (from memory), but my impression was that the consensus to not include flags in these tables was pretty strong. There's a general move against graphics in tables, infoboxes, etc at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kierzek#Question

Does this discussion ring any bells in you? Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 09:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never heard of that occurring. You might have luck searching the Trove resource of old Australian newspapers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit to Op Goodwood

Hi Nick. I just added a little bit to Operation Goodwood (naval). Could you have a look at my addition, and check if it looks okay? Manxruler (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. Happy to contribute. Manxruler (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lipstadt

Thanks for deleting the troll edit, but he/she did us a favor. You'll see my edit summary probably, but when the article was created the word 'History' was left out of her academic title, so I've put it in with a source. Doug Weller (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that change Doug. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bad username

I suggest the name FuckfuckUaat violates policy. Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit! I'm amazed that the name was allowable. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Schleswig War

Since you wrote an article on the war, you might in interested in knowing that the big-budget TV series 1864 was absolutely horribly received. It had a production cost of 184 million Kroner, the most expensive TV series ever made in Denmark. The cast and historical accuracy was excellent, but the plot, editing and the way the series was presented was ... well, crap. Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did see an article in The Guardian saying that it had been very controversial in Denmark! I'm keeping an eye out for it, though the odds of it appearing in Australia aren't terribly high I fear ;) Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6 September 2015

Dear Nick,

Hope you are alright. I am sorry for interrupting especially when you have already mentioned of being away due to vacations but I had a similar issue before and you helped me through it by your advice. I require your guidance in an issue I am facing currently. I had created an article called Awans of Pakistan[10] and as you may see in the link it outlined the history, origin and lineage of the Awans who currently reside in Pakistan. This article was referenced mostly by books and also by few websites as seen in the 'References' and 'Further reading' section headings. This article, however, was neither intended nor did it duplicate a previous article called Awan (tribe) which contains only "2 sentences" (one is lead section and second in history) apart from two statements by 2 different people.

However, an editor to the article Awan (tribe) has come up straight, removed references from Awans of Pakistan [11] and redirected it to Awan (tribe). Then he accused me of using 'fake references' in the article [12]. I did not understand his definition for 'fake references' but I could tell that he was acting as a puppet for an IP [13].

I reverted his edits twice and asked the editor to first discuss the matter as both the articles have separate content and context [14] but he would not listen and redirected again. I gave him a second warning to discuss it as Proposed Merger in detail but I had to explain the differences myself to him on his talk page [15]. I guess he was short of words and realized he did not have sufficient proof to explain his doing. Although, he used a brief explanation on the article's talk page [16] but unable to find a way out, he has placed a tag of sanctions on my talk page [17] to get things his way as he himself said on the article's talk page, "..but only in accordance with our policies".

I have never dealt with sanctions and I am very particular about following Wikipedia policies so I thought it better to first discuss this issue with you that what you think of the entire case. I even asked the editor that I can help him improve his article as his article already had tags and it is already in a poor state but he is bent upon his defensive approach [18]. So what can I possibly do in such a situation? My aim is only to improve the encyclopedic content and Awans of Pakistan was offering that but now the matter has been taken in another direction by the editor. I seek your advice in such a situation.

I will wait for your reply here as the matter seems sensitive. Thank you so much for your time.

Pixarh (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have time to look into this, especially as I have no knowledge of the subject matter to draw on. If you have a question about the warning Sitush gave you, I'd suggest that you discuss it with them. More generally, Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is outlined at WP:DR and cases where you have strong reason to believe that someone is abusing multiple accounts should be reported at WP:SPI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6th Infantry Division (Philippine Commonwealth Army)

Hi Nick, you're better acquainted than I am with the various shenanagans, sockpuppets etc that have surrounded the whole 'Philippine Commonwealth Army' issue on wikipedia. I think that this page is one of them - as far as I can tell it has no basis in fact. Can we do a mass delete with this and a number of the other dubious pages? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm honestly not sure. I think that there's some underlying basis of fact in these articles, but a series of editors over the years have tried to boost the 'Philippine Commonwealth Army' into a grossly grander affair than it ever actually was (with a common motive being to imply that it did most of the fighting in the liberation of the Philippines in 1944-45, and/or was an equal partner to the US Army during this campaign). The articles should be treated with great scepticism, but I don't think that they generally qualify as being pure and unredeemable hoaxes. I've deleted those created by various sock puppets in the past, and any remaining ones created by the most recent crop of sockpuppets should also go. Regarding the content of the articles, the lists of battles which have been obsessively added to various articles should go - I've never seen a source for this content, and in many cases the battles listed which actually took place were US vs Japan only affairs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's some interesting footnotes that make me feel the same way as you - there's some wheat in the dross. Nonetheless, I have redirected and refashioned 6th Div into a division I know did exist, - 61st Division (Philippines). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have some more data now. This was the 6th Military District (Philippines), which MacArthur agreed could be reformed in a fashion to supervise the Philippine guerrillas, along with the others, like Wendell Fertig's 10th Military District. (See 61st Div article). But I also wanted your opinion on the deletion of the category Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. The U.S. official histories use the term Philippine Army, the Commanding General of the Philippine Army category is unbroken, and most of the Philippine Commonwealth Army material is full of falsehoods. Bringing it all into one line will deter, I hope, the serial fantasist. I spent years deleting imaginary armored and cavalry Philippine divisions from the 10th Division [19] etc articles!!

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July to September 2015 Reviewing Award

 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit for an creditable 10 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Nick, I don't know if you're checking in, but Chris has scheduled one of yours for the 27th. I'm not really sure what to do with it ... can you compress it down to 1150 characters or less? (Btw, the first link needs to be to the article). If you're not around, no problem, we can schedule it another time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dank:, Thanks for the note. I'd appreciate it if this could be rescheduled as I'm not going to be around much until I get home in mid-November and can't commit to writing/proofing the blurb and answering questions about the article's content. Any time after, say, 20 November would be fine. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. Pinging Chris. I know you prefer not to grant postponements, Chris ... I hope it makes a difference that you've got two people asking here, Nick and me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialist German Workers' Party - NSDAP

Hi Nick, you recently did not agree my edit on Adolf Hitler page removing "socialist" next to the politician and (in a rude manner) you told me to read about it. Im sorry Nick but obviously you need to do some reading here. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) was a socialist from the left side of the political scene. Its only now that some people think that he was from "the right". Anyway, I don't want to write his biography on your page here. Educate yourself or read Mein Kamph maybe. Adolf Hitler was a socialist. Regards

To summarise national socialism simply as "socialism" at the top of the article about Hitler is disingenuous, extremely misleading and frankly offensive (as is your assertion that it's only "some people" who think he was right-wing). Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler says in Chapter II that the two main evils threatening the existence of the German people are the Jews and Marxism. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that Hitler and/or the Nazi Party were socialist would need a very strong reference to be included anywhere, and you didn't provide this. As Cliftonian notes, it's also offensive given that some of the Nazis first victims were the leaders of Germany's socialist political parties, who were imprisoned or murdered en-mass within weeks of Hitler coming to power and the Nazis' persecution of socialists continued throughout their reign. Richard J. Evans' recent books on the Nazi's rise to power and rule provide detailed coverage of this topic, and are currently the standard English-language works if you would like to read more about it. Nick-D (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the fact that Hitler was a socialist is offensive, I would say its rather an uncomfortable truth to some. I agree that it maybe misleading since Hitlers "socialism" led to terrible genocides but this does not made him a conservative politician, liberal etc. He was from the left side of the political scene as was Stalin, Mao, Che etc. I still don't understand why this fact is omitted. RegardsGizzyCatBella (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and yes, I have read Mein Kamph". Here is one quote for you from his wonderful book - "The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself". I can give you many more. Regards. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more thing to Cliftonian.. yes, Hitler hated Jews and Marxists but what this has to do with him not being a socialist?GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check the International Workingmen's Association (the First International) or the Second International articles. Marxism and socialism are very closely identified, and one could probably say Marxism inspired socialism. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios at Robert Conquest

Flushout1999 has added a large amount of material to Robert Conquest that he has copied and pasted or closely paraphrased from other sources. Consider, for example, the section on Conquest's criticism of Ezra Pound, which includes text such as "[Conquest considered Pound] a poseur of the highest order, not to mention a lousy poet who garbled his own allusions to classical mythology and did so without any redeeming ingenuity or creativity. Also, [in Conquest's opinion], Pound’s notorious fascism and egoism only added to his artistic debit" which is copied directly from the cited article by Michael Weiss. None of the material in the section on Pound is original besides the opening sentence. Even the closing line ("Having in passing [attacked] Pound's claim to have rendered Latin classics into verse, Conquest concluded:[...]") is copied almost word for word from Christopher Hitchens, who also provides the following quotation from Conquest (meaning that Flushout1999 is also regurgitating Hitchens' arrangement of the facts). This is not an isolated incident. Most, if not all, of Flushout1999's additions are copyright violations, from "The IRD years" (which includes material like "In 1947–1949, the IRD started to collect materials on the issue of forced labor in Stalin’s Russia and decided to publish pamphlets and prepare news articles and bulletins on the forced labor camps. It had been decided that one or two names of Soviet camps should be hammered into the mind of the public, until these names were as clearly linked with Communist terror as the names “Auschwitz” and “Treblinka” were linked with Nazism. The Soviet camps chosen for the purpose was Karaganda and Vorkuta. Later, Kolyma in the Soviet Far East was added", which is all copied directly (including the grammatical issue with the plural camps) from Lennart Samuelson--and, yes, even the books cited, like Britain's Secret Propaganda War in this section, appear to provide not only the facts but Flushout1999's exact language) to the section on Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow ("The Harvest of Sorrow had a clear moral:[...]" and much else is taken straight from the LA Times). In the "Day of Dupes" section, which is nothing more than an attempt to quote everything Flushout1999 considers important from the article in question (there are no secondary sources to establish the significance of this article and thus why we need to copy so much of it), Flushout1999 did originally add one sentence of his own unsourced commentary ("Implying that the latter was a good thing.") to Conquest's words ([Conquest wrote that one of the signatories] "has told us how he became interested in politics: on seeing a Right-wing policeman kick a Left-wing girl, he did not conclude, as most of us would have done, that it is a bad thing for a policeman to kick girls, but that it is a bad thing for Right-wingers to kick Left-wingers."), but after I pointed out that it was laughably POV he agreed to drop it. I know you don't have a lot of time right now, but if you could look into this matter and take appropriate action when you get the chance I would greatly appreciate it. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheTimesAreAChanging:, I don't have time to look into this at the moment I'm afraid (though you've probably guessed it from the lack of response!), and I also have had the admin tools removed from my account while I'm travelling so I wouldn't be able to do anything about a problem here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian scheduled this one, but I don't expect the summary itself will be a problem ... look at it and see if you agree. My summary is very close to your lead. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, I don't know if the article itself needs updating ... let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: the article needs considerable updates, so can you please pull this? I've been waiting for the next Australian Defence white paper to update it, which should be released in the next few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, please pull this. Nick is travelling until mid-November. This may be my bad; I had already asked Chris to pull one for Nick because he's travelling, and perhaps I should have mentioned that when your shift started to save you some trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll deal with it during my weekend scheduling stint. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly. Brian, I'd like to store the summary I've done somewhere, but Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Australian Defence Force already exists ... where should I store it? - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests2/Australian Defence Force might do the trick? Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for pulling this, and for prompting me about the need to update the article! Nick-D (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of South Africa

An IP has been adding a work by Stan Winer, South Africa and the Politics of Risk,[20] to the Further Reading list of History of South Africa Edward321 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. Thanks for letting me know. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Companies delsort category

Hi Nick-D: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate Buckshot06 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Disability delsort category

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 18:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shared internet connections

Re: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Please reinstate my access to the admin tools, if you are going to be traveling a lot (or just want to work from Starbucks - :) ) I can advise you on how to be just as secure on some random WiFi hotspot as you are at home. I am an engineer who works with this sort of thing all the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy, but I don't think that's necessary: I only made the request as I was travelling for two months and I'm all travelled out now! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SS corrections

Thanks for your corrections. The recent development of that article had me worried. Mr Vinther's user boxes from May (since removed) show where his sympathies lie. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He identifies as a Facist?! Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much looks like it. Robby.is.on (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That explains a lot. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I wonder how many of the editors happily collaborating with him on historical articles relating to Nazi Germany (Obenritter, Kierzek, …) are aware of those removed user boxes. Robby.is.on (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't until today. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your sentiment. I also commented on Schutzstaffel talk page, following your entries. I encourage others to do the same. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not at all familiar with your editing, and haven't made any comments about it or yourself. I am familiar with Jonas' editing, and his self-identification as a fascist is really concerning to me in light of it. Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again - my apologies for posting that here - it was really aimed at the person who sort of threw a "guilt by association" comment out there. Perhaps I should have left that story on his talk page...poor etiquette on my part. Honestly, I've never seen any evidence of Jonas being a fascist and it is not my intention to judge him based on that either. He's been fairly impartial and constructive with the editing I have seen so I can only judge him on that. He's young so maybe that was merely a phase. My son calls himself an "anarchist" but I am pretty sure he has no plans to overthrow the American government. Just sayin' Mate :-)
Removing my soliloquy as it was inappropriate of me to have posted it here. My sincere apologies.--Obenritter (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to imply "guilt by association". Rather, my thoughts were along the lines of: if you knew, you might see his work in a very different light. Because having the read the discussion on User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS I felt that the article did not seem very honest in regards to how the SS is portrayed. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, I have worked many times with you and other regulars and it should be clear that I am only interested in the history of Nazi Germany & World War II in an objective sense. I will work with editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia articles for the betterment of the general reader which is what we are all are for in the end. The SS main article was far from finished and if I had been up, we all have to sleep sometime (not to mention, real life calls), I would NEVER have agreed to the sentiment written on the talk page that the article was ready for a copy edit run through or GA review. And cannot say I have been aware of anyone having a "Facist" user box. As I said recently on another board, "...the SS main article has been undergoing a major re-write, ce work and cite work of late. Anyone who wants to join in the effort is welcome". So certainly you gentlemen are welcome. I have also been waiting for BMK and Poeticbent to edit the article and do hope that Diannaa finds some time to edit there, as well. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm super glad someone pinged me so I had the chance to, well, let's just say defend myself! Secondly, you speak of my as if I've done nothing but manipulate Nazi Germany-related articles for political purposes! I have brought or significantly helped bring Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday, Hedwig Potthast, MP 40, Julius Schaub, Stefanie Rabatsch, Operation Barbarossa, Erhard Heiden, Gregor Strasser, Leni Riefenstahl, Maria Limanskaya, Adolf Hitler's bodyguard, Battle of Kursk, Julius Schreck, Salon Kitty, Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders, Amber Room, Walther von Brauchitsch, Pact of Steel, Atlantic Wall, Horst Wessel and Ideology of the SS to GA-status, just to name those who are Nazi Germany-related. Please, Robby.is.on and Nick-D, list just ONE sentence or comment on any of those articles added by me that violates WP:NPOV. List ONE sentence or comment that shows I'm secretly a Nazi warrior recruited by Hitler to influence Wikipedia with fascist bias. I have also, very sucsessfully, collaborated and befriended many other editors (Kierzek, Obenritter, Diannaa, Irondome, Gerda Arendt, GeneralizationsAreBad, EyeTruth). And if you think I don't edit anything other than Nazi Germany-related articles, I can tell I also brought or helped bring Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville, Sleight of hand, The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (film), Traum durch die Dämmerung, Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and Jeremi Wiśniowiecki to GA-status. Lastly, this and this are obvious WP:PA. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone (eg, pushing for the inclusion of a quote in the Hitler article which misrepresents the motivations for the Holocaust as one recent but repeated example, not to mention creating a series of articles on Hitler, his cronies and related issues which had a disturbingly positive tone), and your self-identification as a fascist is horrible. From what I've seen, the editors who you claim to have "collaborated" with have largely been putting up with you and been trying to minimise the damage you've been causing, though they can obviously speak for themselves and I may be mistaken. Please don't post on my talk page again. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"remove excessive detail for the article"

You used that edit summary here, but in fact, you re-added detail, including the person's full name, which I would be careful about per WP:BLP and WP:RSBREAKING, nevermind the fact that there are >100 victims and i don't think it's appropriate to single out some by name. LjL (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd: I actually removed two sentences about the lady, and there was no mention of two people at the time. I imagine that this is the fault of the combination of edit conflicts and the not-good Wikipedia mobile app I was using. Thanks for notifying me of this and I'll avoid using the app in frequently-edited articles in the future to avoid similar problems - I certainly agree that what ended up as my edit here made the article worse, though it was an improvement when I started making it! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure whether it had been a mistake or what. No harm done, it sparked a little discussion on the talk page and we reached consensus that names and surnames should be left out. LjL (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post's up!

Or mail call as our U.S colleagues say :) Irondome (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Head's up that there is a typo on #2. Didn't instead of did, just before ...99%. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GABHello! 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Hi Nick-D,

Since we both were engaged on the SS article, wanted to address some of my concerns here.

If you look at my edits, about 80% of them were to correct "Nazi apologia" - K.e.coffman edits

Some of the more egregious examples:

Etc., etc.

Is this something to look out for in Wikipedia? And what can be done about it? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those kinds of subtle bias and omissions are a real problem, and I suspect will need to be the focus of the clean up efforts. Obvious bias generally gets quickly removed, but material which gives too much weight to one aspect, omits details or makes false comparisons is harder to detect and correct. Of course, this isn't just restricted to Wikipedia, with low-quality history books and documentaries often making the same errors. Nick-D (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your words of wisdom. I'll take this to heart less, and instead make the corrections where I can. ::Another example -- using perpetrator's own words to "refute" testimony against him (and that's in a case where he was convicted of the crime in a court of law). --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wapping railway station

Hi. A agree that the exterior picture of Wapping railway station that you replaced with the platform image is very similar to its current appearance but it is those details that matter. It is up to you but I think we should bring it back. Here is what I think:

  • Keep the 2006 image noting the Underground branding and the previous location of the entrance so that its relevance is more clear.
  • Use the platform image as well, but move it a bit. Maybe put this with content describing the narrow platforms so it illustrates how horribly narrow they really are.
  • When they finally finish rebuilding that block behind the station (if they ever do finish the damn thing and stop blocking the road) take a new photo for use as the current image. That will make the two images rather more different.

What do you think? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, that all sounds sensible to me. I also uploaded another photo showing how narrow the platforms are, which might work better: File:Train at the northbound platform of Wapping station in November 2015.jpg. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Superjet 100

Nick, it looks like the socks are back on Sukhoi Superjet 100,with at least two users showing up to revert who created accounts on November 22. Looks like a really large sock/meat farm here attempting to game the system. Normally I don't ascribe to protecting "the right version", but given the bad faith by these socks, it seems necessary here. I don't understand.the sockmaster's opposition to the Featured image, but it it a very odd situation. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what ever happened before with what you call socks there are a lot more editors who disagree with that picture! it is as simple as that! and there is nobody gaming the system it is just disagreeing with that picture!--35deyu4642 (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're genuinely not a sock or meatpuppet of User:Gbgfbgfbgfb, or some other sockmaster, then you need to stop edit warring and discuss your objections to the photo on the article's talk page. Otherwise you'll be blocked for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, Checkuser has confirmed that this user is a sock of Gbgfbgfbgfb. The socks have been blocked. - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More like a sockfarm. Dr. K. 23:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, apparently a very large farm at that! And quite persistent, with no qualms about lying about it either, as his/her screed above shows. Full protection may well be necessary before too long. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are aggressive and also try to intimidate users on their talkpages. But I doubt we'll need full protection. I think it's game over for the sockfarm. Dr. K. 00:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just blocked the latest account, and note that the other recent one was confirmed by a checkuser. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Nick. I had just informed the CU about this new sock. Your block of the latest sock came as a very welcome surprise. Take care. Dr. K. 07:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPAT Project Status

Hello Nick, can you at least leave a link to the OpenPAT project status on the page. Perhaps something like:

The OpenPAT project status is discussed here.

Thanks, 

- User:Npcomp (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick-D&oldid=692646189"