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 Alicam (talk | contribs) at 23:52, 13 July 2020 (→Martyn Iles). 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 ping me or 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.

It is my personal policy to provide no assistance at all to paid editors as I don't want to do their jobs for them. I will likely remove any posts made by such editors here without responding.

The Assembly Hall in the Palais des Nations

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)
Talk archive 15 (2016)
Talk archive 16 (2017)
Talk archive 17 (2018)
Talk archive 18 (2018)

Awards people have given me

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hughes

The mucking around on this article seems incessant, I think it might need some intervention.

Also have a good new year! JarrahTree 04:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected for three days. I don't know much about this person, so please re-instate the material which was being removed if it was accurate. Happy new year to you as well, and I hope you're well clear of the current bushfires. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it is not so much as being in the disaster area of the eastern seaboard (where I do have relatives whom I have no idea whether they still have their houses or not) - in the west, its a bit more like the 42 and 44 scares - the nullarbor (then the rail, now the road) is the weak link, although coastal shipping in the 40s was still prevalent, literally non existent now, so the single road is what one might say in military strategic terms a brilliant separation of the west from the rest of you folks... in just one point... - the alternatives are literally zilch... if I was a canberra based military strategist, I would have suggested that the upgrade of the tanami road is the wrong one - the one to work on is making 2 wheel drive passage easy on the Great_Central_Road - as a very round about way of dealing with the eyre highway/nullarbor closures https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-03/nullarbor-road-closures-to-last-five-days-causing-food-shortages/11837324 - but dont let me start... JarrahTree 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current crisis has illustrated how fragile communications links in much of Australia are. I spent some time yesterday planning routes home from Sydney as it looked like the Hume Highway was going to close, and none of the alternatives were very good. Thankfully the Hume Highway wasn't closed for long. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky pics

Hey Nick-D,
I saw your picture of Alinga Street, Canberra. But, you call that smokey? 😋
I think Qby outdid Cbr in the smokey department, just sayin'. (I didn't think to get any pictures myself, despite breathing smoke here for the last 6-8weeks! 😕 )
Do you have any similar pics of Queanbeyan?
Regards, 220 of Borg 06:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I didn't take any photos of when things got spectacularly smokey. For obvious reasons, I didn't want to go out in it to photograph landmarks! The air quality index was higher than 5000 where I live at one stage; not sure how that compares to Queanbeyan. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wise man, I probably spent too much time out in it. I'll have to try to find some appropriate pics. (See this from the local paper)
Suffice to say the hills across the bridge were sometimes barely visible from Crawford Street. Much nicer after the recent rain.
Qbys CBD is pretty much in a 'bowl' with higher land all around so the smoke tended to just sit there, IMHO.
It was also much worse here than what I experienced/saw in Sydney over Christmas to New Years Day, and just after. 220 of Borg 05:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was horrified when I drove home from Sydney after new year's. The conditions in Canberra were appalling. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About 1.5 hours out of Sydney? That's about when the train I was on ran into heavy smoke out on some plains. Wednesday 22 Jan. had a large grass-fire within about 800 metres of my 'Borg-cave' 😨, though I missed most of the 'excitement'.
And more fire in the same area today. 220 of Borg 07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it started in the Southern Highlands, and got incredibly bad from Lake George. I hope that your house is OK. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Borg-House (or Cube)?, I wish! More a (small) 'Borg-cave'. Thank you for your concern, just a little ash came in one window.
The fire on Thursday(23rd) was possibly a little closer than than Wednesday(22nd) I think but we had some rain that night to, hopefully, help out the firies.
On Thursday some shops in Qby closed early, transport disruptions by road closures (I may not have been able to go home at that time if I wanted to), and there were some short power interruptions too.
Must talk to my Body Corporate about cleaning up the excess leaves, bark etc that have accumulated on the property. 😠 --220 of Borg 06:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

Nick

I've been concerned about the activities of an editor for a little while now. Vanberkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He has been editing as an WP:SPA for some time now, focused on the battles of the Falklands War. I've noticed there is definite partisan nature to his editing; for example on the invasion article he attempted to boost the number of defenders on the British side by including the unarmed Stanley Police Force. He also tends to exaggerate British casualties eg on Battle of Mount Tumbledown he added 2 x Harrier damaged beyond repair, when AFAIK none were involved. His sourcing was, shall we say, inventive. Apparently a Harrier was damaged bombing Sapper Hill, which was where the guns bombarding the new British position and prior to the battle a Harrier was also damaged attacking Sapper Hill. He's also included vehicles damaged in minefields after the battle.

Can I ask that you take a look please, if only as a sanity check that my concerns are valid. WCMemail 00:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WCM, They all sound like content matters I'm not expert enough on the Falklands War to comment on without checking sources. Has this been discussed on the relevant talk pages? I note that the edit to the Mount Tumbledown article cites two sources [1]. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, another example of what I'm concerned about. The citation doesn't back the claim, it does report a loss of an aircraft but was unrelated to the battle. So effectively he is falsifying the citation. I have tried to engage on his talk page but without success. WCMemail 20:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: I'd suggest starting a talk page discussion here explaining what the issues with sources are. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nick

gina rinehart article second last editor might need the gentle touch of an admin me thinks... JarrahTree 09:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked that editor. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sigh another - [2] - at least I would, not sure what you might do... JarrahTree 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also blocked, but this seems to be a garden-variety vandal. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
indeed not the industrial strength, or veracity, more sneaky and inapropriate... JarrahTree 09:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close RfC

Hi Nick. I wonder if you can help. This RfC was flogged to death, and although debate on other matters is still ongoing, there was consensus reached at that point in time, which was implemented. Are you able to close it, as a non-involved admin, please, or does it have to go through some other process? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: I'm not an expert on RfC closures, but I agree that there was a consensus. If it's now been enacted, any editor should be able to close that RfC. I'd do this myself, but it's been a bit of a dramatic day here in Canberra, so would rather leave it to someone else in case I mess up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Nick-D. Sorry, I didn't know you were in Canberra - hope that tomorrow is more boring! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [3]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Delta Force article

Hello,

It is come to my attention that a user with the IP address 134.56.120.232. has been making repeated acts of vandalism on the Delta Force article. His edits are non-sensical, unsourced, and lack proper grammar and punctuation. Since you are an administrator whom I noticed has edited the article before, I wanted to bring this to your attention. Please accept my apologies if you are not the person to contact about this.

I too have edited the Delta Force article under both my username and the IP address 2604:6000:1200:a088:3dbc:deba:3466:2653

link=User talk:<Chubbles525>
link=User talk:<Chubbles525>
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at [[User talk:<Chubbles525>|User talk:<Chubbles525>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, They haven't done this for over two days now, so there are no grounds for intervention at present. I'll continue to keep an eye on this, but please note that I'll be travelling for the next week with no access to Wikipedia: I'd suggest reporting this at WP:AIV if it re-occurs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello, Nick. Sorry to trouble you but, for historical reasons, I have mentioned you at this discussion. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring for FAC Herbert Vivian

Hi Nick, I have been working on an article about the Herbert Vivian. He was a fascinating man, who moved in high circles in the years leading up to the First World War. He was a good friend of both Randolph and Winston Churchill, moved in Oscar Wilde's circle - and was directly responsible for the split between Wilde and Whistler - and was the private secretary of Wildfed Scawen Blunt. He was a passionate Jacobite and was instrumental in the Neo-Jacobite Revival of the 1890s. After the war, this monarchism turned to outright fascism, especially an admiration for Mussolini. He published several books, including works on Serbia which are still quoted, founded at least two newspapers, and was a prolific journalist. He is now largely forgotten, but his story weaves together many threads of late Victorian and inter-war British history.

The article passed GA a while ago, and I would like to submit it for FA consideration. This is my first attempt at an FA, and I would dearly love some feedback and mentoring. Given your interest in history, I was hoping you would consider acting as my mentor? Many thanks for the consideration, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be happy to provide comments on that article, and will aim to do so over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I look forward to reading them. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still have access to Taylor and Francis?

Howdy Nick,

I see that you are on the approved list for Taylor and Francis. I am wondering, do you still have access? If so, would you be willing do a small favor? Google tells me that this article verifies that John Frederick Boyce Combe was made GOC of the 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (my next, on and off, pet project). Would you be willing to take a peak and, if you can access it, update the 46th Div article with the info?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm afraid that, from memory, the Taylor and Francis resources never actually came through - I received a notification that they were waiting for a certain number of applicants, but never got a notification that access was granted. I might (but probably wont) have access to this through a library database though, and will check over the weekend. Regards. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it had, since the date was so long ago. Thank you, however, for seeing of you can take a peek at it when you have the time :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked, and I'm afraid that I don't have access to this resource. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @EnigmaMcmxc:, I can't check the citation, but I can send you the article itself if you wikimail me. All the best with the project! ——SN54129 09:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick, I have sent you a wikimail.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EnigmaMcmxc: It was Serial Number 54129, not me, who offered the article here - I'm afraid that I don't have access to it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Sorry about that (not sure how I missed that!). Thank you for your efforts Nick, and I shall now attempt to contact the correct person!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Long Tan

Do you think this article would be a candidate for GA or A-class? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes I think that it would easily meet the GA or A-class criteria. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about this battle though, so my ability to help is limited. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warrowen Massacre

There's a number of reasons why the claims about this supposed "Warrowen Massacre" are highly dubious, I'd go as far as to call them an obvious fabrication. Some claims are clearly made up and it is most likely a colonial era fiction. The article relating to the matter is up for deletion, for good reason, please wait for the conclusion of that discussion before re-adding this highly dubious claim to the List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. The Kurnai people are owed the basic decency of proof/evidence before their ancestors are accused of massacring innocent men, women and children and flaying their bodies. It's not a small deal to make such claims and the sources for such a claim need to be rock solid. article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Warrowen_massacre Bacondrum (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at Talk:List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. You should note the sources which state that what the ANU Press work happened did not given that we don't dismiss scholarly sources because a Wikipedia editor doesn't like them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One brief quote from an archaic source in an ANU press work does not qualify as verification. The scant coverage of this massacre is evidence of a fiction. Bacondrum (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great topic to discuss on the talk page, not here. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Moved from elsewhere.

While I suspect that the above is entirely factual, I don't think that admins can block accounts because another editor states that they belong to them. If you'd like the account to be blocked log into it and request a block per WP:SELFBLOCK (I'd suggest that you note in doing so that it's a declared alternate account to avoid issues around the problematic use of alternate accounts). Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll consider that. Dunno if I’d want to ask someone I’m not familiar with, for obvious reasons. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945), introducing: "The early hours of 10 March 1945 were among the worst in human history. United States Army Air Forces B-29 Superfortress bombers attacked one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, using weapons and tactics carefully designed to destroy cities. The result was the death of at least 88,000 people and the destruction a quarter of Tokyo. This was the single most devastating air raid of World War II, including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and marked the start of a campaign which left most of Japan's cities in ruins by the end of the war only a few months later."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Operation Inmate, covering "a two day long series of air attacks and naval bombardments conducted by the British Pacific Fleet against isolated Japanese-held islands in June 1945. Somewhat oddly to modern eyes, the main purpose of the operation was to provide the Allied airmen and sailors with combat experience before they conducted more demanding operations against Japan itself. The Allied force achieved this goal, and incurred relatively light casualties by standards at the time, though the Japanese later reported that the attacks had caused only minor damage. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the tactics used during naval operations in the final months of World War II and the circumstances endured by cut-off Japanese garrisons in the Pacific."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Adie

Hi Nick, would you please have a look at Kate Adie and associated history and talk pages? I haven't had time to delve into his/her particular claim about Adie not being there, but the IP editor appears to be contradicting what is well-sourced in the Tiananmen Square article, the opinion piece they're citing doesn't support the content they want to add, plus it's a BLP. Or should I report it somewhere else for any available admin to look at? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only noticed you'd been away after you removed the template upon return. I have now raised an RfC on that article, and will let that take its course. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Hey Nick, just reminding you to come back to Featured article candidates/Roar (film)/archive1 to make your judgements on the state of the article now and to see if I addressed your issues adequately.

Best regards, -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrecting C/R

Hello Nick @Nick-D:, Would it be possible to have a peek at the most recent attempt at User:Bigeez/sandbox? I believe we are on track for finalising some earlier issues brought up with Paul (@Paul Siebert:). Your input would be most welcome, along with Paul's, before I post it on talk:World War II. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and many thanks for your prior support; message me here or on my User talk:Bigeez or both. I would much rather proceed with editors' guidance prior to posting. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll look into it soon. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Nick-D:, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC) here. I am recovering from some health issues. Shall I post the C/R proposal on the talk:World War II page? Or rather, would you suggest constructive edits or correct it as you see fit on my sandbox at User:Bigeez/sandbox, prior to me doing so? All the best, cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eli, due to the COVID-19, I am very busy, and I am not sure I will be able to do anything in close future. Please, feel free to do whatever you want, and, probably, later, when I'll have more time, I'll join your work. I wish you guys to be safe.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Paul Siebert: I am still not myself even though I and I self-quarantined while the virus test came back negative. I'm convinced that I had it and was a false-negative test. Stay safe and God bless! Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigeez: Sorry for not following up here - things have been crazy here as well. This material is looking good. As a few comments:

  • The 'Collaboration' section would be better as two or three paras. Quite a few sentences list lots of examples, and are logical options for trimming.
  • This section also only covers collaboration with the Germans. Collaboration with the Japanese was also significant, and of a different character.
  • The resistance section should note the importance of Communist movements across Europe - for instance, the French resistance only really got going after Operation Barbarossa led the French Communist Party to align itself against the Germans and go on the attack.
  • "In the Balkans, both Churchill and Roosevelt aimed to keep Greece and Yugoslavia free from Stalin's attempt at control.[100] Churchill's gamble paid off, because both never entered the Soviet bloc" - this seems simplistic. Greece stayed in the Allied bloc due to the "percentages" agreement between Churchill and Stalin.

I'd suggest posting the material on the talk page for further editing and discussion. Thanks a lot for your efforts here. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick-D: Sorry for having been out of the loop , reeling from recent health issues and family. Thank you. And great points, especially not realising Japanese collaboration was left out somehow. Will ork on it. It's just being out of sorts that has had a major effect. God bless. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space


Your deletion of cited material

I note your deletion of NPOV material on the Victorian Appeals Court pages. Please place your reasoning on the comments page of wikipedia. As you threaten elsewhere: If you start edit warring, you will be blocked. Observoz (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were violating WP:BLP, and editorialising by claiming that the judgement was "controversial" and emphasising just how wrong those judges were. You are plainly editing with an agenda here. Please note that I was intervening here as an admin. Your more recent edits to the judges' articles are better. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you are not suggesting the judgement wasn't controversial? You accuse me of "agenda"?? May I say that my "agenda" is to update a series of articles on the most controversial wrongful conviction in Australia since Lindy Chamberlain. This is kind of essential work for wikipedia. Observoz (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are editing BLP and other articles with an obvious agenda, as noted in your post above. Don't. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References to GeGaLo Index

Thank you for the input concerning references to the GeGaLo Index Nick-D. I am not very familiar with talk pages, so i am posting my response both here and on my talk own talk page. I thought Energy Strategy Reviews would be a good source. To me it looks like a serious peer-reviewed journal, published by Elsevier, a major scientific publisher. I have referenced it several places because I think the change in status of countries due to the ongoing attempt at a transition to renewable energy is something that is missing from many Wikipedia articles. Some countries are going up and some are going down, and that is a big global shift. I also see that many Wikipedia articles lack references, so I thought good to add a references. And now that I have read the article and have the information, I thought it would be an efficient way to make a contribution to many different articles. I should also admit that I am very concerned about climate change, and I don't see that as a subjective political agenda. And I have some extra time due to coronavirus quarantine, nice to spend on Wikipedia. I am very sorry if that is all wrong and will stop doing it now.JonFredriksen (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razing of Friesoythe

Hi Nick, I was just checking the source while you were reverting -- your memory is good by my reading... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. It's a very interesting-looking book (I only read the bit on Friesoythe). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read a fair bit of it, to get context for the bits in the article, and it is fascinating. His thesis - here - while a bit of a variation on the theme, is also good. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship question

Hi Nick,

I am beginning to explore the FAC nominating processes for the first time, and see you have listed yourself as an FAC mentor with a specialty in military history. I have an article that I am interested in putting up for review, but would like to get a little bit of feedback first (pre-mentorship, perhaps?). If you are interested in giving the article a brief look-over, and letting me know whether you think it has a shot at FAC, and maybe which criteria it is lacking in, I would appreciate it. The article is Sampson Mathews, a soldier and politician from the American Revolution-era. Not sure what else to say, and let me know if I'm going through the right channel for this!

Thanks, Newtack101 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not at all familiar with this person, but I'd be very pleased to look in on this article. I'll post some comments on its talk page later today or over the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! Yeah, anything that would help me move in the right direction would be appreciated. Newtack101 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newtack101: I've just posted an informal review on the article's talk page, which I hope is helpful. I've watchlisted the article and would be happy to discuss it further: the article is in good shape, and with a bit of polishing should be ready for FAC. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, thanks for checking out the article, taking the time to provide feedback, and offering to discuss it further. Yes, the issues you pointed out are very helpful, and it's also helpful to know that overall the article is in good shape. When I've addressed the issues you've found, I will seek the Military History Wikiproject A-Review. Cheers. Newtack101 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal article

Hey Nick, you've helped me out in the past with access to journal articles. I don't suppose you have access to this? Any help would be great! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do have access to that article (via a Wikipedia Library subscription to T&F Online. I don't have your email address though - could you please ping me an email? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I might ask you for another T&F article later! hjmwiki at gmail dot com. :) Thanks Nick! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back home now. There are two others I'm after if you have access [4] and [5]. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the third one, but have sent you the other two. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick! Those are really helpful. I'll ask elsewhere for the last one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welles

I think Welles credentials are top rated for biographical commentary on a top leader in 1940s. He was I think FDR's #1 "famous" campaigner in 1944, and took a very prominent role in foreign policy (esp Latin America) --he is most famous for his biographical/fictional study of a contemporary political personage (Hearst). Furthermore his commentary is crisp and to the point re Marshall. (I did NOT make the original addition) (and please debaters beloing in the talk pages not the edit summaries) Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Welles a notable authority on George Marshall? his looks like a totally random addition by someone, especially given the reference is some YouTube video (not a reliable source), and I have no idea why you're edit warring it back into the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welles was a profound observer of American life and politics with a lot of attention to foreign policy. As a biographer he did the best film bio ever done. What more expertise do you want for a 3 sentence commentary? Rjensen (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

time for protection ?

Andrew Forrest might require some protection, the interventions are fairly regular now JarrahTree 08:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, done. The article needs a lot of work though - it reads like a PR puff piece for Forrest. The criticisms of his business practices and approach to philanthropy (for instance, his approach to assisting Indigenous Australians or the donation he made to a group accused of climate change denial as part of his response to the bushfires this year) are missing. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - appreciated - JarrahTree 08:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mentoring for FAC

A while ago, you left comments at Talk:James P. Hagerstrom#Informal review at my request for FAC mentorship (User talk:Nick-D/Archive 18#Mentoring for FAC). Sorry for the long delay, but I've addressed your comments and would appreciate if you took another look to assess its FAC readiness. Thanks, ~huesatlum/ 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberstalking?

Hi Nick

I was being bothered on Facebook and Twitter by an Argentine nationalist (now blocked). An account registered a year ago and dormant has suddenly burst into life, the name of the account is virtually identical to the account I've blocked. It's quacking rather loudly. Last time I had a problem with someone stalking me I was threatened with a block for outing, which kind of leaves me in somewhat of a quandary about dealing with this.

Any advice?

WCMemail 07:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WCM, I hope you're doing well. Something like this needs to be handled off Wiki to avoid outing. Given that this involves what sound like sensitive matters, I'd suggest contacting the Arbitration Committee via the arrangements set out at WP:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee, though they might refer the matter on. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFA nom

Hi Nick, were you going to nom Operation Inmate for TFA? June is open now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea - I thought that all my 1945 FAs had had a TFA run, but missed that one. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with FAC prep

Hello, Nick-D. I am currently working on the Meghan Trainor article, and have been using the comments you left at its prior failed FAC as guidance. I have opened a PR page to discuss further development of the article and would be glad to have your input. Thanks.--NØ 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll look in on this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I should leave a little reminder in case this slipped your mind. No worries if you changed your mind or lack the time to help with this, though.--NØ 15:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Sorry for being slow here - I'm tempted to blame COVID, but am not sure how... I've just posted some comments in the PR which I hope are helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on infobox

Hi.. I have disagreement with another editor regarding infobox to be used. Could you please take a look this discussion about infobox to be used, maybe you can share opinion on that matter. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Prime Minister of Australia

Hey there! I saw that we've ended up in a bit of an edit war with the logo for Prime Minister of Australia. Let's try and sort this out over here instead of edit warring. I've just added a rationale to the image's file page, and I'm not including it to "make [the article] pretty" as you suggest, but to identify that the PM's main role is to lead the Australian Government in an executive capacity - the PM is the personification, if you would, of the Australian Government, hence making this logo relevant and appropriate for identifying the role of the PM. ItsPugle (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on your talk page, the logo is generic and has no specific association with the PM. As Wikipedia's rules on the use of non-free images are conservative, I don't think that a fair use claim can be sustained here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I thought that the fact that the PM is the executive leader of a federal government would qualify the reasoning, but I guess your perspective outweighs mine :) ItsPugle (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Georgia counterattack

G'day, Nick, I hope you are well. I have been doing a bit of work recently around the individual land and naval battles of the New Georgia campaign. Pretty much done with most of the land battles (stopping at B class for most of them at this stage) except the article about the Japanese counterattack. Given your work on the Bougainville counterattack article, I was wondering if you might be keen to work together on this one? In terms of scale, this counterattack was not as large as the Bougainville effort, so the article probably would only ever be long enough for GA, I'd hazard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yes I'm well and am looking forward to the end of working from home this week. I hope that you're doing well too. I'd be happy to help with that one - for instance, by working up some material on the Japanese naval reinforcement effort and helping with the other topics. It's been a long time since I've read Miller's excellent history and I'd forgotten that the Japanese almost over-ran a US Army divisional command post in this campaign. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, I think I am done with this article now. I hate to ask another favour, but given the recent feedback I have received about my writing, would you mind taking a quick look and maybe giving it a copy edit? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do so over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Bermudaresident

Bermudaresident, who you blocked yesterday, has been doing considerable ongoing ranting on their Talk page which I have just ignored, but felt it might be worth drawing your attention to the new final sentence on that page, which reads to me a threat, although not a particularly effective one I would have thought. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The combination of someone who claims to live outside Australia and has little interest in Australian politics but yet is seeking to cite ANAO reports and drag the matter to a parliamentary committee is head scratching... Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Quite puzzling, and seemingly unaware of the image being presented. (Along with a few other things.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

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) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query re: The Bugle

G'day Nick and Ian Rose, how would you feel about me adding the names of new project members for the month to the "From the editors" section of each Bugle edition? Might be a nice way of welcoming them? Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob AFAIC, PM -- we try to showcase editors with their first A-class or Featured articles, or ACMs, so why not new members? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This also sounds like a great idea to me - thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

Hi Nick, Thank you for reverting my edit to WWII. I understand what you are saying but my concern is that by only providing the year range (1939 to 1945), the information in the opening sentence is just too vague. It could represent a time span of anything between just over 5 years (end of 1939 to start of 1945) and just under 7 years (start of 1939 to end of 1945), when it was in fact pretty much exactly 6 years. Would it be OK to just include the months, e.g. "September 1939 to September 1945"?
And what about WWI? Were the start/end dates (28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918) more definite in this case? Again, saying "from 1914 to 1918" is vague and could represent a time span of anything between >3 to <5 years.
Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney, Thanks for your comments here. Given the issue with whether the war ended in August (when the Japanese stopped fighting) or September 1945 (when the artificially belated surrender ceremony took place), I'd suggest leaving it as it is. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the literature on World War I to have a sensible opinion on its start and end dates. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Nick, looks like we have to stick with the year range for WWII then. As for WWI, I'll wait and see if anyone else challenges my edit there. I might do a minor copyedit on the WWII lead section today, so feel free to revert any of my changes. I'm used to reverting other people, as a pending changes reviewer, so a little of my own medicine does me good! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21st Independent Mixed Brigade

G'day, Nick, given your work on 56th Independent Mixed Brigade, I wonder if you have anything you would like to add to 21st Independent Mixed Brigade? I created the article today based on only a few sources, so there is still room for expansion in a few areas. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find a suitable image yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add anything (especially from Ness' excellent book), but you've done a very through job already! Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Nick, I stumbled across a short synopsis in Rottman, figured I'd do something different from the usual. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great topic to work on - I was surprised at the extent of the literature on this topic when I worked on the 56th IMB article, though you need to piece it together. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I've added some extra details from Ness and the US Army official history, but it's pretty marginal. The US Army official history goes into a bit of extra detail on the 170th Infantry Regiment's movement from Rabaul to New Guinea, but I'm not sure how much is needed in the article as what's there now summarises things well. Checking Ness inspired me to start the Hong Kong Defence Force (Imperial Japanese Army) article, on another unique IMB. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this -- nice work on the new article, too. Hope you are having a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For The Bugle?

Hi Nick, I am not sure if this reaches the threshold of being newsworthy, but today I had my 25th FA promoted, 18 months and four days after my first. This puts me 45th on the all-time Wikipedia-wide FA tally. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Yes, that's definitely worth including. To do this in 18 months is remarkable - I think that my peak is 5 or 6 FAs in a year. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I note that you have written most of the content for next month's "In the News"; if you also feel this is newsworthy you may wish to include it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle FAC

Hello! Pinged you a few days ago, but wanted to see if you had any more feedback/criticism for the Space Shuttle FAC. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki News and My Royal Young

I'd noticed that many regular English Wikipedia users and I have all received the same LTA message on Wiki News. I tried to revert one of the edits on a different user talk page and I was warned about that from blanking by a abuse filter. I then tried to explain to Wikinews: admin action alerts but when I clicked submit, the abuse filter took action and blocked me indefinitely on the site. Unfortunately that edit can't be proven from this Abuse filter log. And here's the block status the filter imposed.

By posting to the administrators notice board, hopefully someone can revert these edits made by the LTA without having trouble from the edit filters. I have never made a single edit on Wikinews so that would be my problem as a new user. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, While it looks from email alerts like I've also been receiving those messages over there, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with how edit filters work and have never been active on Wiki News so I can't be of much help here. Any issues affecting Wiki News need to be handled there, as Wikipedia admins have no influence over that site (the admin tools are specific to individual Wikimedia websites). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space


C/R re-Resurrected

Hello @Nick-D:, it's Eli Bigeez (talk). After some ups and downs, I have re-worded C/R on User:Bigeez/sandbox. Please help me as only you know best. I will not post on the talk page until you give me the nod. Feel free to comment. God bless, cheers, Eli. Bigeez (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigeez: That still looks too long to me I'm afraid. I'd suggest starting a general discussion on the World War II article's talk page to get a wider range of views though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Nick-D:, Got it. I'm delving into cutting it down. Cheers, Eli. Bigeez (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Nick-D: cut most of the examples, but kept a few where needed. See User:Bigeez/sandbox. BTW, congrats are in order for receiving the Military History Project award. Cheers, Eli. Bigeez (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal with swords 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Operation Catechism, Bombing of Obersalzberg, and Operation Boomerang. Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edits in italian campaign (ww2)

hello, im (my ip number is huge, so i cant type it), i see that the last edit you made to Italian Campaign (World War 2), wasnt very constructive, being similar to vandalism, if you see any error, Discuss on the talk page before removing content. 2804:14D:4486:513:99C3:86A7:5E90:883F (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per WP:BRD, the onus is actually on you to explain why this material should be added. Calling other editors vandals is obnoxious. Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt say you ARE a vandal, i said the edit you made is similar to what vandals and historical revisionists do, removing content, and i already said to you talk about removing it before go and remove, what i did wasnt vandalism, so, it doesnt need to be reverted in the exact second it was made.2804:14D:4486:513:5D35:9F60:5D43:82B5 (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undeclared conflict of interest

See Talk:Rotary engine#Ralph Watson Special Engineer and Special:Contributions/Trevshef. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, as they haven't been warned about edit warring I've just done so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe I did post a 3RR warning on one of the IPs used to add the same information before the registered user showed up. (Presumably they are the same person.) - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise there was IP edit warring as well. Anyway, I've watchlisted this person's talk page and will respond if there are further problems. As a side note, as an Australian I'm always impressed by the enthusiasm New Zealanders have for developing aerospace technology - my all time favourite is the guy who tried to build a cruise missile in his garage - Bruce Simpson (blogger)#DIY Cruise Missile. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Iles

I don't edit content on Wikipedia often, so apologies for the novice errors here, if there are any.

I am concerned that a legitimate page (Martyn Iles) has been deleted for reasons that are not valid.

Martyn is worthy of the page, and I am not clear why it was deleted.

I can see there was a blocked/banned user in the mix, but I can't see why that effects the validity and legitimacy of Martyn's page.

Can you please reinstate the page, Nick, and I am happy to correct any issues with it, as I am on Martyn's team.

I note that other pages related to the ACL, Lyle Shelton and others in the "ACL orbit" remain, as they should... so it's just this one that has been deleted.

Many thanks.

Alicam (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article was created by a banned editor attempting to evade their ban, with almost all its content being added by them so I won't be reinstating the article. You can create another article on this person if you wish, but please ensure that he's received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO first. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see from your user page that you're the Chief Communications Officer at the ACL. You cannot create an article on this person given that he's your boss and your job is to promote him and the organisation - please see WP:COI for why. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm sure someone else can do it. My issue is simply that, empirically and factually, the content of that page was fine. The content is relevant and necessary. How do we get it back up there? Can you not do it, and "own" it, as a starting point? Alicam (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonia Source Review

I'm new-ish to MILHIST, so I'm unaware of what exactly happens after a source reviews hits some snags on the spot checks. The Newtonia one did not reflect well on the article, and was honestly embarassing for me. What happens next? I've responded to all the points at the ACR, and like I said, I'm willing to provide quotations from the print sources in a subpage somewhere for any spot checks from those you would like. Hog Farm Bacon 02:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Have you reviewed any references other than those I spot checked? As noted in the ACR, I'm concerned about the number of issues here so I'm worried that there may be others - have you checked for them and addressed them? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

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) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C & R revisited

Hi @Nick-D: see User:Bigeez/sandbox, a little more boiled down. Should I post on the talk page? Cheers, E Bigeez (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick-D&oldid=967558780"