User talk:Nick-D

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

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)
Talk archive 15 (2016)

Awards people have given me

Military Historian of the Year

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For "...still writing high quality content after all these years (including by [one] incomplete count at least 6 GAs, 4 As, and 1 FA this calendar year - probably others) and [your] ongoing work for the wider project via the Bugle (and elsewhere of cse)", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For you contributions to the Featured Article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, you are hereby presented with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

		The World War Barnstar
		For you contributions to the Featured Article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, you are hereby presented with this World War Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any time for a review at FAC?

Hi, I have an article (very) slowly going through the FAC process: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Morgan/archive1. It relates to the 17th century privateer and politician Sir Henry Morgan. If you have any time to have a look, I would be very grateful, but I understand if your time is too limited to take part. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post a review during the next day or two. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Cairncross Dockyard

I have added the coords for the site and some more pre-1955 photos. It would be nice to have a present day photo but I suspect that there is no access to the site (this does not look promising). Still if I can find a moment, I will swing past it and see if there is any opportunity to photograph it. Kerry (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the photos shows a ship under construction which has 419 on the side of it. Is there any way to identify the ship? Kerry (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Judging from the fairly distinctive bow, that's a landing ship tank and so is almost certainly HMS LST-419 which this usually-reliable site ended up in the Pacific after taking part in the D-Day invasion of France in 1944. I think that the 1943 date of the photo is wrong - the British Pacific Fleet of which this ship was presumably part of didn't start arriving on the Australian east coast until late 1944. The site include a photo of this ship with another British LST in Brisbane in 1945, with the same marking visible on its bow. Thanks for the offer to get a photo, though I came to the same conclusion when I snooped around on Google maps! Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And Trove of course delivers stories about HMS LST-419 being in Brisbane in November 1945 and January 1946. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

German casualties on the Western Front in 1945

Hello Nick-D,

The edit you reverted on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany was agreed with Wikipedia editor "Nihlus1", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihlus1#German_casualties_on_the_Western_Front

I explained to "Nihlus1" in great detail why the figure of "410,000 killed" on the German side, which is based on Rüdiger Overmans' Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, makes no sense and must be dismissed as grossly exaggerated.

If you have any arguments to add to those of "Nihlus1", please write them down in response to this message.

Otherwise, I kindly request that my edit be left as it is, in the interest of Wikipedia's quality of information.

Regards, --Cortagravatas (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a discussion which should have taken place on the article's talk page so that it was visible to all the editors with an interest in this topic. The statement that the casualties are somehow "unknown" is totally wrong: there are at least two reliable estimates, and you did not provide a reference to support a view that there are no figures. The usual solution to this kind of issue is to include all the reliably-sourced estimates of casualties in the article rather than to attempt to pick and choose between them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Are there really at "least two reliable estimates" of German casualties for the period covered by the article Western Allied invasion of Germany, which is stated to be "22 March – 8 May 1945"?

Actually there are no estimates at all covering specifically that period.

General Marshall's figure of 263,000 doesn't refer to the period from 22 March to 8 May 1945. It refers to the period from 6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945, or to a longer period (Marshall's report, which also mentions Axis deaths in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy, is stated to cover the period from July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1945).

For the period from January to April/May 1945, there are the following figures:

I) 265,000 killed and 1,012,000 missing and prisoners of war on all fronts according to Das Heer 1933–1945 by Burkhart Müller-Hillebrand, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#Das_Heer_1933.E2.80.931945_by_Burkhart_M.C3.BCller-Hillebrand;

II) 1,230,045 deaths on the Eastern and Western Fronts alone according to Overmans, thereof two-thirds on the Eastern Front and one-third on the Western Front according to that author (the two-thirds vs. one-third split, as I pointed out in the discussion with Nihlus1, seems to have been plucked out of thin air; a split based on the relation of casualties on either front between June and December 1944, according to Overmans' own figures, would be 78.29% in the East vs. 21.71% in the West). The resulting figure of about 410,000 deaths on the Western Front between January and May 1945 is everything other than a reliable figure. It is, to borrow one of your expressions, totally wrong. It is a glaring exaggeration at odds with all known evidence about the fighting on the Western Front in that period. The Amazon reviewer of Overmans' book who I quoted in my discussion with Nihlus1 considers the figure exaggerated by at least a factor of 4. I tend to agree, for the reasons I explained to Nihlus1 on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihlus1#German_casualties_on_the_Western_Front. I don't think there's a point in repeating my arguments here; please read what I wrote and let me know if you have anything to add to Nihlus1's arguments.

The bottom line is that, if the information "410,000 killed" is left on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany, the reader will be badly misinformed. He will be induced into believing that this is reliable estimate, when in fact it is everything other than that. And if he doesn't look up the footnote, as will be the case with many a reader, he will be further induced into believing that the figure refers to the period of 48 days between 22 March and 9 May 1945 and that during this period Allied forces killed 410,000 German soldiers (about 8,542 on average every day, go figure) while losing only (15,009 + 1,482 =) 16,491 killed of their number (344 per day on average), a fantastic kill ratio of about 25:1. Everyone who is familiar with the history of World War II in general and of the theater and period in question in particular (in which there was no longer much fighting on the Western Front as German troops were increasingly prone to offer but token resistance and surrender en masse, quite unlike on the Eastern Front where fear of the Red Army kept them fighting to the bitter end - in the final days many German soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front tried to make it to the lines of the Western Allies in order to surrender to them rather than to the Soviets) will acknowledge that this is utter nonsense, not supported by any evidence. It is hardly compatible with the informative purpose of Wikipedia to offer such utter nonsense to its readers.

The most accurate information that Wikipedia can provide to its readers in this respect is that German casualties on the Western Front in the period from 22 March to 9 May 1945 are unknown, because there are no reliable estimates (actually no estimates at all, see above) covering that period.

Considering the above, I hereby request permission to reintroduce the edit that I proposed, and that Nihlus1 has already agreed to. Regards, --Cortagravatas (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC). Edited --Cortagravatas (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As above, I have no intention of discussing this kind of stuff on individual editors' talk pages. For that reason, I started a discussion yesterday at Talk:Western Allied invasion of Germany#German casualties. As a note, if you want to include material disputing Overmans' figures in the article, you will need to cite reliable sources which make this argument and not your own views or those of Amazon.com book reviewers, given that Overmans is clearly a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why, that rules out any discussion, since no "reliable source" has so far undertaken to dispute Overmans' figure, if only because such sources probably don't hang around Wikipedia and thus haven't yet fully realized what trash "reliable source" Overmans produced.

I'd say you're taking a rather easy and comfortable way out of addressing pertinent arguments against Overmans' figure - they are either my own or those of the mentioned Amazon reviewer, so however logical and well-supported they may be, they don't count because they are not from a "reliable source", i.e. an "authority" on the subject.

Maybe you should bear in mind what Carl Sagan wrote about the value of an argument from authority, which is essentially what your argument amounts to:

"Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."

And I also duly note your conveniently ignoring my argument that for the specific period in question, 22 March to 9 May 1945, there is not even an estimate from Overmans. There is no estimate at all.

Anyway, I'll post my arguments against Overmans' figures on the Talk:Western Allied invasion of Germany#German casualties, so readers can see what nonsense Wikipedia is offering them claiming that it comes from a "reliable source".--Cortagravatas (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC). Edit: where I wrote "9 May 1945", read "8 May 1945".--Cortagravatas (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

OP RED HAT ongoing issue notification

Hi Nick-D, There's an ongoing discussion (part II) about the deletion restart and rollback of Operation Red Hat if you would care to offer us any additional guidance. Thank you much. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

HarveyCarter?

Quality posts here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm wondering looking at the contributions of this editor, whether they may well be the banned editor HarveyCarter. Would you mind taking a look? WCM_email 08:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest: I'm not very familiar with HarveyCarter's editing style in these topic areas. This might be one for SPI, where a bunch of sockpuppet accounts were recently blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive). 09:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about HC either. However, it's extremely doubtful that a new user's first post would be this lengthy FA critique. He's almost certainly someone's sock. - BilCat (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've made an SPI report, pinged you both. Would appreciate any feedback as I'm not very good at these things. WCM_email 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 6 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Hi Nick, I wonder if you could help or provide some guidance. In the recent weeks, I've been the subject of what could come across as wiki-hounding from anon IP users:

• Special:Contributions/69.172.198.206 (Editing KC winner articles: "Reverting mass removal of material by coffman. Warned multiple times by several editors to stop." etc.)
• Special:Contributions/104.237.138.234 ("...but you still ignorant. You've been engaged in edit wars with multiple veteran editors")

Edit summaries, idioms, concerns expressed and articles edited seem to be in line with editors who exhibited similar behaviour in the past:

• Special:Contributions/HicManebimusOptime (blocked at ANI: Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime)
• Special:Contributions/Stonedtower (accused me at the KC winner articles of "antifa political activism"; warned at ANI: Personal attacks by Stonedtower.)
• Special:Contributions/2602:304:CF64:1D50:C450:94C6:E4FA:34A0 ("It seems someone is censoring information due to some personal agenda???" -- this appears to come from the same cohort of edits, possibly from HicManebimusOptime)

Is it possible with the admin tools to see if these new IP accounts are connected to the users above? If not, perhaps there are other avenues I could explore? Or just ignore and carry on? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Only the small number of people with access to the checkuser tools can see technical evidence - admins can't do this. Checkusers also won't publicly link an IP to a registered account on technical grounds. Your best bet might be to lodge a WP:SPI report asking for an uninvolved admin to look into whether these accounts are linked based on behavioural evidence, with the report being supported by diffs illustrating the similarities. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll wait to see if this continues. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalingrad-class battlecruiser

Nick, I've reverted 94.213.112.113 twice now on this article. He's provided more detailed sourcing, but it does not support the change that he wants to make as far as I can tell. I've invited him to discuss his reasoning on both the article talk page and his own talk page, but I don't know if he'll respond in any other way than reverting me once more, which will break 3RR. Hope that you can keep a weather eye on this situation as a block may become necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Red Hat material move to MK/SEARCH?

Hi Nick-D. I believe I've determined where to move some of the biochemical research materiel in my Red Hat draft. I believe it belongs under MKSEARCH but many or most of the sources cited to support it do not directly mention MKSEARCH in relation to each of the subjects. I think I need some advice on whether it is a good idea to move it there or not or a better suggestion on where to move it to. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Indian naval air squadrons

G'day, Nick, sorry to trouble you. If you get a chance would you mind reviewing your comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Indian naval air squadrons and letting Krishna know if they have been addressed? In the spirit of helping out, I had a go at trying to deal with what looked like your final concern. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, I've just replied there. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kaname Harada

The article Kaname Harada you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kaname Harada for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Hi Nick, you probably saw this on my talk page (not sure why it wasn't copied here) but just in case -- I guess we'd better go through the links in the next few days to make sure they're still there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd missed that to be honest! I'll also run through the article to see if it needs a bit of a spruce up. I'm going to be out of town on Sunday and Monday, so I'm not going to be much use in counter-vandalism efforts I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find the new URL for the media release "Royal Australian Air Force squadrons celebrate new role", but the others seem OK Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find, tks for checking! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to see it today, "the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse", service in collaboration, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Julia Gillard edits

In relation to your message, it was not edit warring. Check the edits I made. They were not simple reverts; each time I added material or sources to address the concerns raised by the deleting user. Jane-526 (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

PS. I have now added a talk page section where the most recent basis for deleting the content can be discussed. Hopefully it can be resolved there. Jane-526 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New Mailing List

Hello! You are receiving this message because you have added yourself as a member of the Roman and Byzantine Milhist Project. This is the first such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages, please remove yourself from here. 05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New sock at Bain family murders?

Hi Nick-D, you may have noticed yourself, but a brand new editor has re-instated material you removed from the talk page which was posted by one of User:Offender9000's many socks. My guess is this indicates he is back again, but I wasn't sure how to re-open an SPI after it has been archived, so thought I would ask you if you are able to do so? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutralityadvocate (talk · contribs) another one. AIRcorn (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that User:Gadfium has blocked that account. I note that the blog of the person who Offender9000 has claimed to be (and who has seemingly confirmed this in the NZ media while trying to have another Wikipedia editor publicly named) has a very similar looking post on his blog [1]. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And another one. Whats the policy on protecting talk pages? Pending changes a possibility? Range blocks for that ip address? Or should I just continue to revert and ignore? AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've just semi-protected the talk page for a couple of weeks to stop this block evasion. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting Iazyges to FA

Hey, I know that you have a lot of experience with FAC, and was wondering if you would help me get the Iazyges article through it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help - though I don't know much about this topic. What kind of advice are you looking for? I'd be happy to provide a pre-FAC peer review if that would be useful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly you advice on if the article is ready to go or not, and if there's any specific things you think need to be added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll post some comments on the article's talk page over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South China Sea raid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article South China Sea raid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Carter apparently hanging around at Norwegian Campaign

Hi Nick. Last year an anonymous user (using two different IPs) showed up at Talk:Norwegian Campaign (section "Pre-emptive strike?"), arguing for the addition of information claiming that Hitler "...had to invade before the British could seize control of the ports". Basically the wartime German propaganda tale. That, and arguing that British colonialism and the Blitz (who bombed whom first) is relevant in the context of the Norwegian Campaign. Now, another IP has shown up, trying to add the same claim to the article. Looking at the IPs, and their actions, this looks like it could be Harvey Carter. What do you think? Manxruler (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that does appear to be Harvey Carter for the reasons you note. I've blocked the IP. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

great white...

The thing about the Albany visit - it has been the only time that princess royal harbour had that number of ships of any form there at the same time - and I am not sure about the melbourne or sydney visits (not enough yet) to make separate stubs about the almost week long visits at each port - interesting is the coaling done at the albany stop - 4 ships of coal to get them stoked up for the trip to manila ! JarrahTree 03:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The visit to Sydney would probably warrant an article - it must have been the most powerful fleet to visit the city until the British Pacific Fleet in 1945, and the events around the visit were of a pretty significant scale. Great work with the Albany article. Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

nah scrappy stub (as always), trying to get some more Albany things up despite myself JarrahTree 03:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway

On 6 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that stockpiles of United States Marine Corps weapons and equipment are stored in caves in Norway as part of a Marine Corps Prepositioning Program? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article review process mentorship?

Hello Nick-D. I see that you have listed yourself as a "mentor" for people looking to obtain Featured Article status. I've written an article about Operation Grandslam, an uncharacteristically aggressive UN peacekeeping undertaking that decisively defeated the self-declared State of Katanga in 1963 and led to its reintegration into the (Democratic) Republic of the Congo, all part of the Cold War proxy conflict, the Congo Crisis. Altogether an obscure topic. It's already passed GA review and is currently being reviewed for A-class status, though the process has seemingly stagnated. Once it passes (or "if" it passes, to be politely skeptical) I plan on putting it through FA article review (it would be my first). It's already been looked over by a prose editor as part of the A-class review, and I've just about exhausted all the areas for which I can improve this article. There is perhaps some detail that could go into the "ONUC communications breakdown" subsection, but I'm not sure whether that is necessary... otherwise I've combed through every source I've found twice, and there is really little in terms of content and comprehensiveness that, in my opinion, escapes the article. A pair of fresh eyes would do it some good. If you have the time, would you care to assist? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to - with the proviso that I can't offer any expertise on the topic the article covers. I'll post some comments on the article's structure, prose, content, etc, over the next day or two. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Just like to let you know that I finished responding to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and sorry for the slow response to the review - I'll follow up later today. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-formal review request

Hi, per the excellent concept of FAC-mentoring, I wonder if you could have a quick read through HMS Levant (1758) and pass on any thoughts.

My last FA was about eight years ago, so I'm likely a bit out of date. I do wonder if the article is a little short, though there's plenty of recent FA's that are under this length. I also don't like ending any article with a quote, and appreciate there's varying views on how to represent elderly currency values in modern terms (eg. does inflation indexation have any meaning over 250 years, or should I find some relative examples like the cost of building The Greenwich Hospital, or an eighteenth century manor house).

On the other hand, the article passed Milhist A-class review, so perhaps I'm nitpicking. Views welcome on these or any similar points, if your interested and have any available time. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Sorry for the slow response: I'd be happy to post some comments on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no need for apologies, no particular hurry as there's a hundred more of these elderly ship articles for me to work on. Any comments on Levant very welcome whenever/if ever you have time. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

HarveyCarter sockpuppet

Hello, Nick-D. I'm pretty sure that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MikeyFinn is a sockpuppet of HarveyCarter. Interests, style, etc. He's been popping up like mad lately. If we counted all his edits as one account he would have lots, I'm sure. EDIT: found a IP address not blocked so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:638F:5000:E05A:7BA8:465C:A647 89.243.176.152 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that account does seem to be HarveyCarter Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Found a inactive sock -- aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MerillM and a recently used IPV6 address -- aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:638F:5000:807B:B579:8328:B324 Found an active IVP6 address today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:638F:5000:3901:6246:1DD5:8FB6 89.243.176.152 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

quack quacccccck

either a WP:SPA, or himself, or paid, or ?? [2] what would you do? I have left a COI template but have had to deal with so many individuals recently who seem to think they are in the position to fixup their own articles, not sure we dont need something extra to dissuade - a new template that is a hybrid COI/auto/whatever - JarrahTree 09:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That template is a bit wordy! I didn't know that it existed, and have previously written my own messages in similar circumstances (generally along the lines of 'it appears that you have a conflict of interest, please see WP:COI, and you may be blocked if this continues'. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it is found inside the drop down menu for talk pages of new users - and includes a range of templates - as part of Twinkle - 'welcome user' - which has about 21 various templates - some very useful, but ...

I have put the question at the national noticeboard - but suspect low interest JarrahTree 09:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South China Sea raid

The article South China Sea raid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:South China Sea raid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation Leader - update

Hi Nick. Just dropped by to say that I've ordered some books which I hope will give some insight into the German perspective on Operation Leader. I should get the books within the next 2-5 weeks.

There are also some other books which I think might contain some useful info, and which I believe I already own. I'm currently looking around in my (slightly disorganized at the moment) book collection. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, excellent. I think that this article can be brought to FA standard with that material :) Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is the plan. :) Manxruler (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands

After long attempts to reason with Johnvr4, he's split out of his userspace this section of the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat draft but continues to want his interpretation, wordings, and text to remain completely unchanged after it's been moved into the mainspace. Would you please mind taking a look at the article and, also, the end of the discussion at User_talk:Mark Arsten#Operation Red Hat again and advising me of any course corrections I should make? Cheers and best, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue rather than a content issue. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You both needed to notify me of this conversation like eight days ago! When did you plan to get around to doing that? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No we didn't actually. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Per advice from BrownHairedGirl, your response is technically accurate however, I would have appreciated it if you had.

What precisely are you basing your recent NOTHERE block suggestion on? There are sections above were you didn't respond to me (you don't have to). I've pinged you yesterday in several places for your review or advice as well. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope that you don't mind me being frank, but I believe that a block would be justified by your repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them (which is why I have ceased taking part in discussions concerning their content). Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff you want to publish, or that your approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your frankness. Now allow me to do the same. Stale complaints from back it 2013 when I was a rookie editor and didn't understand policy (including RSN) are irrelevant. Yes I used Nexus mag. I did that and I did not know any better then. What else do you want me to say? I was uncivil about it too. I am Sorry. Now there are sources to support nearly all of it and it's verifiable in reliable sources. So is the concern you have about Content or Conduct? A concern about conduct seems to be the concern of your focus but then throw "reliable article" that indicates some content concern.

Can you show me one unreliable article I created as a justification for your alleged concern? If you can't find one will you quit please repeating that assertion? I think what you are saying is that collaboration with editors who display an inability to listen and respond to the concerns...which is the very concern I have been raising and have pinged you in several places to review where that is happening now. Perhaps as part of the collaborative ethos, you could quickly help us resolve these problems?? The concerns you raised above had merit 4 years ago however the continued assertion of the same basic lack of understanding currently seems meritless and is unfounded unless you can show me where I made a recent attempt to publish an unreliable article or that material I want to publish, that another editor is fighting right now to put on the main space, doesn't belong on WP. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have in fact raised concerns about your recent articles in various discussions involving you. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that I in fact created a single one of the pages that you are referring to? Johnvr4 (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You should also know that Buckshot06 is content battling and edit warring in order to put BS into that article and I've stopped him (yet again). "From looking at the article's talk page" it "seems pretty clear" is that Mr. "But I have an advanced degree" has again pushed his POV while complaining about my editing. Above, you seem to be condoning it and egging him on. Since you said you've already looked and that you are basing your opinions on the fact that you did, Can we please take a fresh look at the talk page? The concerns (echoed above and elsewhere) seem...just extremely sad and pathetic and wrong given current discussion. Buckshot06's Strong views- which he's expressed on that content and on conduct appear at best misguided but remain meritless. Given the recent discussion below, Do you support his perception? You've consistently taken his side in our disputes and I need to understand why in order to proceed with that editor.

• Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands# Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV
• Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands# Confusion_of_1958-59_public_disclosure_policy_.28NCND.29_with_terrorist_cause_of_1970s_withdrawal_of_J-nuclear_weapons Johnvr4 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've warned you once about WP:PERSONALATTACKS, Johnvr4. Kindly please refrain from insulting me. WP:AGF is a core part of the way we do things around here. I would invite you to consider the possibility that Nick-D, BHG, Anotherclown, I, and possibly others have legitimate concerns about your editing POV and style. Please consider listening to BHG or Nick, even if not to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I warned you repeatedly about reading and verifying our sources!

Spectacularly, in your effort to correct me, you have only succeeded at insulting yourself. You raised the concern of MY POV and justified your own utterly faulty and repetitive edits citing your "strong views" and "advanced degrees". Quote: "And I have advanced degrees, so would be generally expected to be able to follow complex arguments." You were expected simply to Read the source and were asked to do that repeatedly! You apparently were wholly unable to follow that complexity and instead you posted a ridiculous message to my talk page (which I deleted) [3]

Given your repeated bogus assertions in using that source, the edit to my talk page appeared to be an exercise in absurdity which I wanted zero part of. If you took my reply to Nick as some personal attack then you should never had used that fact to support your own POV and failure to read our sources. Or respond. Or discuss. Or follow. Or understand.

Would you agree that you abused that source, then refused to read it further for verification and that responding to your message on my talk page would just be a waste of my time? (for emphasis)

"Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid. User:Nick-D, would you disagree? ... OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!!

You have destroyed your own credibility all by yourself.

Credibility destroying editing behavior is not all contained entirely in those alleged Terrorist threat links above either. Here is another example where simply verifying a source was entirely too complex for you... which resulted in yet another edit war and me having to hold your hand and then spoon feed you the sources that you claimed you had already reviewed- and which were already all over WP!! see:Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan# Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie Johnvr4 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

John, I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve through making serious personal attacks. You will likely be blocked if they continue. Please do not post on my talk page again. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth Police

Nick, I just stumbled upon the Commonwealth Police article, and saw the extremely long heading of A brief review of the world of the Security Service of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch! I wasn't intending to edit the article, but the heaading could certainly be shortened, though I'm not certain to what. The section is also no longer "brief" as far as the section goes, and should probably be converted from its current "proseline" format. Any thoughts or ideas? - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've had a go at shortening the title, though I'm afraid this isn't a topic I know anything about. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor issues

Nick, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Walther WA 2000#Article image is a fairly low-quality 3D rendering? This user has been replacing photos with his own renderings on several weapons articles, even restoring them when reverted. I haven't been active in non-aircraft military articles to know if all my reasonings in my responses their represent MILHIST consensus, and I may have missed some points too. I'm considering raising the issue at MILHIST if it isn't solved soon, so if I'm off, I'd like to know before that. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, My understanding is that this is a perennially-tricky article best handled on a case by case basis given that it's ultimately subjective (like you, I prefer a good photo in the infobox, but when these aren't available a graphic is great. But other editors have the opposite preference). In the particular example here the graphic does strike me as being superior to the not-great photo, though I might be missing something with the details of the image. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)