User talk:Nick-D

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June 2008–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January 2009-July 2009)

Awards people have given me

Re:Atlas Cavar

Repositioned myself as weak keep at afd. Article still needs help though. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Doltna block and authoblock

Nick, your autoblock when you blocked doltna probably had rather a lot of collateral, I've determined that the user is a rather over-enthusiatic colleague, and I htin I should be able to sort out the editting. It was well-intentioned, but could have been done better. David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note David. I've just unblocked them - a 24 hour block was probably too long anyway given that the edits appeared to be overenthusiastic but essentially good faith. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RAN White Ensign

Hi Nick, thanks for your info on the AWNB. I take this to mean that on eg. Battle of the Coral Sea, I should replace the {{flagicon|Australia|naval}} to be something like UK|naval. Is that right? Slac speak up! 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg is the right one to use, I think. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

World War II

I've just replaced the subheadings as they made zero substantive change to the article (no text change at all, in fact) and substantially added to the ease with which a large summary article can be navigated. Such as at the similar articleCold War. I examined the Talk sections and saw no such prior discussions of merely adding more subheadings.

I would like to think that such non-substantive changes could be made to the article without some sort of automatic revert. If there is an actual problem with merely adding subheadings (again, zero substantive change to the article), I would of course be more than willing to discuss it, but none has been raised so far, including in the above paragraph. I'm not sure what such a complaint would be as the article is substantially easier to navigate with subheadings on the various topics, but again, I would be more than willing to discuss it.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nick, I just noticed that you also mass reverted a huge number of typo and source fixes and adds to unsourced sentences by me and others, which are in no way major changes and not under any kind of article policy. Please do no do this again citing article policy, as many of these are simple conventional Wikipedia source and typo fixes. If you have a problem with any specific substantive change, that's one thing, but please don't mass revert simple fixes.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing - I manually removed the sub-headings and left the text unchanged. Please check the diffs of my edits. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

History wars

I understand your concerns about my unilateral rewriting of the Background and Black Armband Debate sections. I had the same concerns myself about a renewed bout of edit-warring. But we've been locked in a stalemate with Likebox for months over the Genocide debate section and nothing seemed to be happening to improve other parts of the article. So I took the chance that if I removed some of the excessive quoting and rewrote some of the badly disjointed sections in as balanced and neutral a tone as I could manage (and I've kept tweaking it to try and make it more NPOV), others might bypass the Genocide debate section for a while and do something constructive with the article. So far no-one seems to be protesting that I've 'ruined' the sections that I've rewritten. I'd be happier if others would join in and do some NPOV rewrites on other parts of the article, where it's needed, or at least make some suggestions on the talk page but, otherwise and so far, it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Perhaps my cunning plan is working?? Webley442 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Convoy GP55

Hi Nick. Following the closure of the ACR, I wanted to come here and post a few comments on the above, but got a little preoccupied with other things. ;-) That said, I have now completed a review of this excellent article and have come up with the following suggestions/pointers/comments:

• It should probably be clarified in the lead that the convoy took place during World War II.
• WP:Alt text is required for the images. Alt text is basically a newly enforced requirement in which you add "|alt=" in the image mark-up followed by a brief, but concise, description of what is actually in the image. This is in place for the aid of blind wiki uses, so they get an idea of what is in the image. As an example, for File:I-68.jpg, you might like to have something along the lines of "|alt=A black and white photograph of a submarine in a body of water with a land mass in the background".
• MOS:NUM recommends the use of a slash ("/"), rather than an endash, to separate the dates describing a single night.
• The year that Centaur was sank should probably be clarified.
• What exactly was the purpose of the convoy? Why was it formed? What was its objective?
• There is a large amount of repetition of the word "and". Would it be possible to replace some of these with alternate words?

I hope these are of some help. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are excellent comments - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

History Wars

You seem to be interested in history wars. There is a major problem with this page, that the fringe theories of Windschuttle and quadrant, which have next to no academic support, are being presented as if they were majority opinions (or even opinions worthy of respect). Fixing this is difficult, since another administrator (PBS) has taken the position that introducing mainstream sources is not allowed. This leads to severe editing problems. There is no "nice" way to fix this. What is absolutely required is another person (other than myself) willing to take a hostile position. Hopefully you are willing to be jerk number 2.Likebox (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on that article in my role as an administrator only - I've got no intention to participate in the discussion there, and certainly not as a 'jerk'. If you feel that it isn't possible to constructively develop the article I'd suggest that you make use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I'd suggest making a formal request for comment to bring in the views of other editors. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did the formal request for other editors twice, with nobody willing to step in. I also asked a few people if they could help, but nobody really wants to touch it (that includes me--- this is really annoying). The reason, I think, is because the situation requires taking an antagonistic position, and nobody wants to antagonize. I will bring it up for formal dispute resolution if all else fails. But I am worried that the people there will not take time to read the literature.Likebox (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about editor misconduct and can demonstrate this then there's no real need for people who know about the literature. Evidence that editor(s) are relying on a narrow range of literature which covers only one side of the debate could, for example, be useful in seeking mediation of the issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Wise

Hey Nick, all athletes on the Australian WBC Roster or have been in a previous World Baseball Classic pass WP:ATHLETE due to them playing at the highest level of amateur sport. Also Brendan Wise competes in the Eastern League currently which is a fully professional tier of Major League Baseball. However, I have added a couple of secondary sources to prove notability and can provide more if Wise's notability is still under a cloud. All the best! JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for adding those refs. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlog resolution

I noticed here that you removed the 'resolved' tag that was added but then put it back. I am wondering, has it been? Perhaps they have been done (I don't know how to track which admins are doing work on the buildup) but I am not sure if it was resolved properly. Also, the person who backed it up in the first place has made promises to fill it up again by doing the same thing to my contributions, so I would expect this to be a potentially ongoing problem. I think solving the root of the problem (seal leak, as opposed to bail buckets) would be a more useful resolution. Since Bettia initiated the topic, it would be good to hear the reply as to the progress. It's somewhat concerning that the one causing the issue was also the one to state (prematurely IMO) that the issue was resolved, especially since, as long as this is allowed to continue, it would be an ongoing problem as these would just keep getting tagged for undeserved speedy deletions. Even so, I can agree with the idea of collecting the conversation into a single area. Tyciol (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tyciol, The backlog of speedy deletion nominations was the issue which had been raised at the Admins Noticeboard. As this backlog had been cleared, the matter there was resolved as no further admin action was required. The discussion of whether the redirects are worthwhile and speedy deletion nominations justified probably best belongs at the ANI thread. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin

Thanks for your help YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

World War II

Could you please explain why this was deleted? This is a highly recognized resource of primary government documents used by scholars all over the world. Also, is this the correct place to ask about these changes? Historic Government Publications from World War II, hosted by Southern Methodist University, contains 343 informational pamphlets, government reports, instructions, regulations, declarations, speeches, and propaganda materials distributed by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) during the Second World War. Thanks!--signed Digitaldomain (talk • contribs)

As the article is about all countries experiences in World War II, it seems inappropriate to have links to relatively small collections of material from only a single country, especially as you've been adding links to the Southern Methodist University's collections to a range of articles without any explanation of why the link adds value to the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally this has also been under discussion here; I've warned Digitaldomain about spamming these links. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WWII

Dear Nick-D. Since you initiated a discussion about some recent changes in the WWII article could you please comment on my recent post there [1]?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

vc WINNERS??

I wasn't aware that the VC was either a race or a competition. Hence, I wasn't aware that one "won" one. Please educate me. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's longstanding usage. British MoD is happy enough with it, obits in The Times frequently use it in obituaries and other articles related to the VC, the OED's first definition of winner is "One who gains something, esp. by effort or merit;" the definition of winning a competition etc is the secondary definition. David Underdown (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go! To quote somebody else: "You learn something new every day. Sometimes, some of it is useful." Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Guy Royle

Hi mate, postscript to Convoy GP55 FAC, did you have any plans to turn that red link blue? If not, I might have a go sometime - does he have an entry in the Oxford Companion though? I notice he's missing from ADB... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing so, but I did look into it a while ago. There are some excellent portraits of Royle on the AWM's database and a reasonable amount on him in the official history. David Stevens A Critical Vulnerability: the impact of the submarine threat on Australia’s maritime defence contains a critical evaluation of his role in the fighting in Australian waters. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, funny you mention the AWM portraits, I happened across them by accident the other day and that contributed to my giving more serious consideration to an article. Well, we see who gets to him first then...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Emu war?

You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict. Are you Australian by any chance? This would make for a serious conflict of interest case against you if true. Koalorka (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you continue denying the Emus their history? This is prejudiced revisionism at its worst. Koalorka (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't threatened to block anyone. Please don't add any further nonsense to this article though. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Black War as in List of Massacres

Have to disagree with your grounds for reverting my change, was in the process of writing my reasons in more detail and some suggestions for the talk page when I noticed you had reverted me, so I thought I'd discuss it with you before posting it.

Firstly much of what is there about the Black War is uncited and has been for a long time but more importantly, the article does have a clear scope, ie its title specifies it quite clearly as a list of massacres and it is almost entirely about specific incidents. As such it can be very useful as a starting point for understanding the extent of mass killings, as a reference to specific incidents, and also for bringing in the debate over whether the evidence for particular incidents is credible. (I'm aware that there are a couple of exceptions in the article eg the Wiradjuri Wars which I would argue should be revised by listing specific incidents involved in the various 'wars' and in the description of those incidents linking to the article on the various 'wars' involved.)

I agree with specific battles being included especially as there is grounds for sometimes calling a battle a massacre. If we include the Black War there, however, it carries an automatic implication that the Black War, and every individual incident in it, was a massacre, ie the indiscriminate killing of helpless human beings, whereas most historians agree that the Tasmanian Aborigines were anything but helpless, they were effective fighters and initiated many attacks on settlers. If we restrict the 'List' article to what the title says it is about and leave the Black War to the standalone article, we make it a lot easier to clarify the issues peculiar to each of the individual articles. The Black War is simply too broad a topic for the 'List' article. Webley442 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

I've done some work with the article based on your ACR suggestions. When you get a moment, can you check back and strike the addressed points? I could use an update on what still needs work and whats been addressed, as well as any new concerns you have. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done - I hope my comments are helpful. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected temple

Hi, since you're active admin, could you look at this request Template_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Request_for_replacement and edit it? Since editing the template is only allowed for admins, so I need your help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick! Although the replaced images are not good, but well, the previous images gave a wrong impression. Have a nice weekend.--Caspian blue 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Let me know if you find better replacements and I'd be happy to swap them over. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kujin

Hi Nick, I have added references to the Background and Aftermath sections of Battle of Kujin. I am looking at expanding the Battle section as I came across some more information. Also loking to expand Australian battles and commanders in Korean War. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Great work, I've just reassessed the article as B class. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted P3 image

Hi Nick, you may be interested in my comments here [2] - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I think that it's disappointing and frustrating that the photo was deleted. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what really gets up my nose is that these people seem to think that simply re-stating their position and ignoring eveything that everyone else says is OK. It is not. Frankly, I am a bit fired up about this and, as you would know, I have had nothing to do with the image before it was listed for deletion. Unless we get a reasonable outcome I intend to escalate the issue. This whole process smacks of people thinking they own Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of asking for a deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I made another post on D's talk page, if he does not respond appropriately to that then I agree, let's go for it. In fact having read WP:DRV I have been considering going to WP:AN/I, given the way this whole thing has evolved. However, before doing that I would ask for your advice, given your no doubt greater experience on such things. Also, I am not sure about the correct protocol - I know that anyone can make such submissions, but is it considered good form for third parties like me to nominate such actions? Let's see what he comes up with for now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, anyone can start a DRV. I've started one or two for articles I didn't create after I thought that the AfD was closed incorrectly. From looking at the logs of recent fair use photo deletions, it seems to be pretty rare for them to be kept, even when there is a consensus that they meet the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion re: HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156)

Hi, Nick. I've got a query about HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156), and am requesting the opinion of a wiser head.

At the end of June, 131.236.160.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added content to the article reflecting the frigate's deployment to the Gulf for anti-piracy operations. About a month later, I came across the article and removed some of this information, specifically relating to 'Ivan M. Ingham', the commanding officer of Toowoomba for this deployment, on the justification that "only COs who have a major impact on the history of the ship should be mentioned in articles". Over the course of the past few days, the IP user undid my edit, I re-did it and repeated my reason for doing so, and the IP user undid it again. He/she/it added a line to the article that Commander Ingham is the first CO of an Australian warship to "conduct UN sanctioned anti-piracy operations", which I do not think is sufficient justification for inclusion as Cmdr Ingham is doing exactly what any other officer put in his position would be doing.

However, instead of reverting back to 'my' version, I've come to you for a third opinion on the matter. What do you think? -- saberwyn 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't like articles which include lists of commanders (most of whom are non-notable) or identify the current commander (who will change every couple of years or so) so I'd prefer to take it out. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph and explained my reasoning on the talk page. The IP has reverted back. I'm not sure how far I want to escalate this.

I've reverted them and protected the page for three days to allow for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the wrong way to "talk", While I am fully acquainted with Wikipedia as a browser, editing is not my forte. In regards to the 'edit dispute', I cannot understand why a Commanding Officer should not have his name included on the page. You are correct in stating that they change ever few years (18-24 months to be precise); however, during this time a ship in the RAN is commissioned because it has Commanding Officer. Being selected for command of a ship is an achievement in itself, and undoubtedly, when they have moved-on into the wider navy, for good or bad, they have left an indelible mark on the 'soul' of the ship. This is even reflected in the fact that all Commanding Officers have their names recorded on a Honours Board. In further regard to you quip on 'names' - why does the Chief of Navy have a web-page entirely devoted to him? I am not saying that he does not deserve one (on the contrary), merely I am trying to indicate that despite size the Chief of Navy is to the RAN as a Commanding Officer is to a Ship. In the end, it is unjust to removed his name on the basis that you do not think it is appropriate. Furthermore, I speak with authority in such matters - personally knowing CMDR Ingham, he is currently one of the highest regarded Commanding Officers in the RAN at present (Just type his name into the web). Furthermore, I am soon to finish my degree (BA in the UNSW@ADFA) in Naval and Military History, and I will hopefully be approved to study for my Honours. I have been reading this page and notice that you mention Dr Stevens &c. and specific reference to Canberra - are you in the Navy? I assume someone with your knowledge has either a serving relative or is in service them self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.236.160.101 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please discuss this at Talk:HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156) so other editors can participate in the discussion? I think that the main issue is in relation to the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which basically state that people who haven't received much coverage in professionally published works (newspapers, books, high-quality websites, etc), generally shouldn't be included in articles. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way - I'd encourage you to register an account (though this is by no means compulsory) and/or participate in the WikiProject Military history. We could certainly use more editors with borrowing rights at ADFA's excellent library! I live in Canberra, but neither I nor anyone in my family is in the military. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1

Have you seen this? Is it feasible? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really - the article needs more work and the nominator hasn't made any significant contributions to the article in at least the last 6 months. The coverage of her time in the Med, for example, is very sketchy and there's only a few sentences on the events of her final battle. I'd suggest that this FA nomination be closed as it has no reasonable chance of passing. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd Support Group

I notice you moved this page to 2nd Support Group (Royal Navy) and I wondered why; theres nothing on the talk page about it and the move log just says ”common unit name”.
Is it? Are there any other units called 2 SG? ( though I’d be prepared to argue Walkers group was the most famous)
I’m not desperately bothered, I'm just wondering what to call the next one: We don’t differentiate as a rule, do we, unless there’s more than one? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems a generic type of name - various 'support groups' have been formed as part of military units, not to mention 'support groups' for people in various circumstances. As you point out, this is probably the most famous '2nd Support Group', and I wouldn't mind at all if you moved the article back. Great work in creating it by the way - it was long overdue. Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) also had a formation called '2nd Support Group.' Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply; on reflection, there's no harm in specifying RN for the unit, and it's probably good practice, so I'll be doing that (and Buckshot your comment confirms it). And thanks... Xyl 54 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Allies gain momentum" section

Nick-D
I put a modified version of this section on the article's talk page. I am waiting for your ok to introduce it into the main article.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gov2Taskforce

Hi Nick-D, I understand the language used in the link to the talk page you removed may have been a little broad (e.g. calling for contributions) - however I think some reference to the work in progress talk page at this point could be relevant.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gov2Taskforce&oldid=309346451

All of the suggestions listed on the talk page are external links to the original suggestions. These are valid submissions to the Taskforce and are an important part of the overall information about the Taskforce.

I'm assuming you removed this content in line with point 4 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought ? Or perhaps is there some other wikipedia policy relevant here?

BTW: I'm not trying to argue this point with you...just trying to clearly understand why this was "not appropriate". I see these suggestions to the taskforce as documentary historical references that should soon be promoted to the main article. But obviously I'd like to do this in line with wikipedia policy and in an appropriate way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmanson (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not appropriate for articles to contain text encouraging people to make submissions to Government reviews or for talk pages to be used to track such submissions - please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please start your own wiki if you'd like to do this. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D - I do have quite a number of wikis of my own...however I thought wikipedia was the most open and un-biased place to put this "community" content. This content is valid documentation of historical records of submission/suggestions to the Taskforce. The "content" of the submissions may relate to the WP:NOTSOAPBOX (or probably MORE accurately "Original Thought"), but the fact that they "are submissions/suggestions" themselves is a fact that is worth noting in a coherent record. And they were on the Talk page after all, to be discussed and refined before they were promoted to the main article. I think you're treading a very fine line here between policy enforcement and subjective judgement calls. Robmanson (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be used to create a historic record of submissions to inquiries - all content needs to be notable, meaning that it's been covered in secondary sources (see: Wikipedia:Notability). There's no need to recreate the content of the Australian Government's website. What you posted at Talk:Gov2Taskforce appears to be an attempt to organise further submissions (eg, "Please add your suggestion here ... These entries should also be placed in http://www.Australia2.org.au for discussion and prioritisation by the Australian community"). If you'd like other editors to comment on this, I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Yongju

Hi Nick, I have added additonal references to Battle of Yongju and was wondering whether it is now a B Class article? Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, great work Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Go the Wallabies! --Newm30 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rollback

Thnaks, but no thanks. I wouldn't use it enough to justify it. -- saberwyn 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Nick-D. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:History wars further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile) GA review

Hi, Nick-D. During an A-Class review you stated that the Arrow (missile) is a "good article". May I ask your GAReview for this article? Flayer (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

? Flayer (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

? Flayer (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

An Award!

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your outstanding contributions to three or more featured articles I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tom Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I wish to apologize. When I saw that you had posted on the page, and discovered the page locked so that I was unable to reply, I jumped to conclusions and made a wrong assumption, without checking the log (which I didn't even know I could access). I don't want any animosity between us or with any of the admins. I realize due to the actions of Dr. Steel's fanbase in previous years, there is no love lost between the parties involved; therefore I am trying to remain amiable and compliant with whatever the admins wish here, and try to put a "new face" on things. But in this case I assumed and made an ass of myself, as they say. Anyway, when you get to be my age, you know when to admit you were wrong. :) Again, my apologies. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

E.C. Wackett

Nick, following on from your ACR comment, I've added a tidbit on the progression of the Air Force technology-wise during the war - when you have a chance could you see if this is what you had in mind? I'm planning to submit for FAC after Joe Hewitt completes so any thoughts would of course be useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that's exactly what I was thinking of. As a suggestion though, I think that the second paras in the World War II and Post-war career sections are a bit long - they look huge on my 24" monitor. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tks mate. I've split the second WWII one at a logical point, the second Post-War one is a tougher proposition without IMO damaging the flow but will consider. On my monitor the third Post-War seems just as big, although a greater proportion of that appearance is due to the image on its right-hand side... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe that second post-war one wasn't so tough after all... Can you let me know if you think the last post-war para would benefit from a split beginning at say In 1953, Wackett established advanced diploma training...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The para's length isn't too bad, but it wouldn't hurt. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Nick-D has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Black project working group, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries Tom ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Freedman

Hi Nick, could you do me a favour please. I don't actually own a copy of Freedman's Vol II, could you cite the fact that I added here please. I'm gonna be taking the article to GA soon! cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, and I've taken the liberty of updating the other Freedman reference so they're from the same (and most recent) edition. Could I suggest that you nominate this article for an A-Class Review? I think that it would easily pass. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that nick, much appreciated. A-class review ay, I might just do that :D Ryan4314 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nick, in the past you expressed an interest in whether the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" should be used in the Gazelle article[3] I have now raised the matter in the article A-class review if you are interested. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Teardrop

On September 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Teardrop, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

hehe

From the academy page on coordinatorship:

...make sure you change the "name" parameter - several new users, as well as a few veterans, tend forget to do this and others are thus forced to check and fix the error as it appears.

Glad to see you caught it. Though I have a good feeling that you'll be reelected this term, I still wish you good luck with the elections. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, though I was hoping that no-one would notice ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Adminstrator abuse

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

That's three years to the day (give or take a few hours) since joining the site that I've kept a clean block log. The trout's in the post, and I hope it seriously stinks by the time it gets down under. Seriously, no worries, I'm glad you caught it :) EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, your true identity finally revealed? I think I'll wait until you've got an article at FAC or something :) Regarding Mrg, thanks for your help with the whack-a-mole; I noticed their re-emergence on the Arnhem talkpage. It's a shame in some ways as they do make some good edits, but from their comment on my talkpage ("...if you can find ONE SINGLE CASE OF ME USING SOCKPUPPETS, I will gladly never edit ANY Wikipedia article again") I am starting to wonder if there are some other issues. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice move

"10:09, 8 September 2009 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked Nick-D (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Block evasion)" -- This was good :)). You just made me laugh continuosly for about 2 mins. :)) --Eurocopter (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While you're on a spree, I think it's been a while since Jimbo was last blocked. Seriously, are you sure this account isn't compromised? EyeSerene^talk 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be giving the block button a bit of a rest I think - its clearly malfunctioning due to all the recent blocking of Mrg and Top Gun socks ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably wise, before it achieves sentience. I've edit-conflicted myself with multiple tabs before now, but your multitasking is much more impressive :D EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rofl Nick. Enjoy the lolcat. :-D —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I think that it might take a while to live this down. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So, are you evading a block, or wheel-warring with yourself? I get mixed up on Wiki terms sometimes. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both, I think. It's what us rouge admins do. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchuria

Regarding the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945), there are a few things that, to me, seem inconsistent, and I was wondering if you might be able to explain them to me?

• The article says 'the Soviets named it the "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" '. However, outside of Wikipedia, WP derivatives and David Glantz, I have not been able to find a reliable source to verify or support that statement, and the article itself doesn't quote a supporting reference. Can you identify a source and/or a supporting reference?
• The article immediately follows with a Russian phrase saying "Lit. Soviet-Japanese War". Again, no supporting reference.
  • If it translates literally as "Soviet-Japanese War", then why is the Russian name "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation"?
  • Why would the Russians call it the "Soviet-Japanese War"? There are several conflicts that could be referred to as a "Soviet-Japanese War"; it seems unlikely the Soviets would label just one of them as THE "Soviet-Japanese War". What did they call the others?
  • Reading the talk page archives, EconomistBR says russian WP calls it "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945". That makes sense. But it is still not the same as "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation".
• Similarly, no sources are given for the names "the battle of Manchukuo" or "the Soviet invasion of Manchuria".
• A source is quoted for "the Battle of Manchuria" (Maurer, Herrymon, Collision of East and West, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1951, p.238.), but personally, I haven't ever seen that term used.
• (Note: I am deliberately NOT including "August Storm" in this conversation.)

So, in summary:

1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from?

2. Where does "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" come from?

3. Where does "(Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War)" come from?

4. Why is what's stated in the article inconsistent and unreferenced?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105 was the editor responsible for endlessly seeking to have the article named the 'Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation' and most of the other issues you raise (his disruptive editing over this and similar articles contributed heavily to him being indefinitely blocked). The article's current name was the result of a very long discussion on its talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; it explains a very long and tortuous history very concisely. (Well done!)

So, I interpret your response as:

Q1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105. - No supporting reference.

Q2. Where does "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" come from? - A2. "Attrition". - No supporting reference.

Q3. Where does "(Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War)" come from? - A3. ? (Not answered.)

Q4. Why is what's stated in the article inconsistent and unreferenced? - A4. Because that's the way it happened.

Do you you agree with that summary?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In brief: 1) Yes, 2) Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page 3) Not sure 4) Yep, and because it was subjected to a very tedious campaign of disruptive edits by Mrg Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Toy block

Nick-D is hereby awarded the toy block for accidentally blocking himself.

You might as well have an award for it. Thank you for the entertainment. :) Durova³¹⁴ 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well earned ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Haygood

Thank you for adding this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military; I was looking for something like this list earlier, when I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but I was too clueless to notice the link on the right side of the page. Now I see it. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha...

...shakes head. --Merbabu (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's not that much worse than what was left in the article... Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I know - i read the talk page comments and I thought "how hard can it be - surely a copy edit will fix things". But, upon reading it. groan. It's not so much the way it is said, rather it's the decisions on what is included and what isn't. Anyway, I've likely caused controversy over my work at the Hawke-Keating Government article. --Merbabu (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate companies

Want your opinion on this. There are 15 odd separate non-combat companies listed at Category:Numbered companies of the United States Army. Now that the 722nd's been deleted, should I do a mass AfD on all of them? Or do you think some are notable? Appreciate your thoughts. Buckshot06(prof) 09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some may be notable - 295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA) has a book which covers it for example (I'd be willing to bet that the book was written and published by the unit, but this may not be the case). From looking at a random selection of the others, most seem to make a claim of notability (eg, that they were the first or only of one type of unit) so aren't speedy deletable, though 220th Military Police Company (United States) probably is. I'd suggest speedy deleting the ones which make no claim of notability and are unsourced and nominating the others individually. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Type 45 destroyer

Hi Nick. You reverted my addition to the aforementioned article commenting 'uncited, appears to be personal opinion'. Perhaps we can discuss specifically the problem you see so the text can be integrated in a mutually acceptable way? --Wranadu2 (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your addition as it wasn't supported by a source. If you can provide a reliable source which unfavourably compares the Type 45s with the large AEGIS ships then please include that in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The text I added contained links to the articles for each class which show they carry greater numbers of VLS tubes than the Type 45, and a link to the Standard missile article demonstrating it's greater ranger than the Aster-30. Is this not sufficient? --Wranadu2 (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's original research. Please provide a citation. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is uncontested and well sourced in the respective articles that the Type 45 carries 48 VLS cells and the, for an example of an AEGIS ship, Ticos carry 122. I don't understand then how this is OR. (not that I'm unwilling to try). --Wranadu2 (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What you want to include in the article is text disputing the head of the RN's claim that the Type 45 is the best air defence ship in the world. For that you certainly need a citation, and I suspect that it won't be too hard to find one using Google and/or searching on news websites. More generally, all material in all Wikipedia articles needs to be cited. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how there is any dispute - it is a simple matter concerning number of missiles carried and the range they can reach - rather than any analysis of capabilities which could be argued either way (which would enter the realms of OR). The 1SL is a political appointment much more than a military one, and of course he is to claim the Type 45 is the 'world's best air defence ship' despite the fallacy of this statement shown by the numbers. However, I respect what you have said. I'll take your advice and see if I can find a third party source, and cite as appropriate. If not, then I'll leave it out completely. Thanks for your comments! --Wranadu2 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section I added and found some suitable references that dispute the superiority of the Type 45. Hopefully this time it's acceptable to stay! --Wranadu2 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Block of 85.134.164.15

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Normal Wikipedians have to go through a series of warnings before a block is instated. You should not block users after only two counts of vandalism just because you have the ability to. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 12:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

*Shakes head, wags finger* Nick, Nick, Nick ... I'm going to have to send you into timeout now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Blanking the featured article of the day is a particularly serious offence, and it's perfectly standard for people who do that to be blocked in case they do it again, particularly when their only other edit is vandalism (this makes it pretty clear that the blanking wasn't an accident). The block was only a 24 hour 'soft' block and a registered user whose first two edits were outright vandalism would have been blocked indefinitely, so I don't see any problems with this at all. WP:BLOCK does not state that editors 'have' to be warned before a block is imposed by the way. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Nick on this one; the IP's first edit is particularly egregious. It's a clear demonstration of the user's intentions here, and the primary purpose of blocking is to prevent damage to Wikipedia, which is exactly what Nick did. An excellent block, I say. Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq

Would you consider redirecting this article to Operation Slipper or Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Kure

I feel your pain, Nick. I'm looking for sources for Operation Ironclad, the Battle of Madagascar, and there's no book devoted to it; I'm having to find bits in dozens of books. Would the USAAF official histories not have a few pages or a chapter on the bombing? Skinny87 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The USN and USAAF histories have a few pages on the raids, but they don't allow the article to be expanded beyond its current state. Given the scale of the attacks its really surprising that they didn't give the raids more extensive coverage. Madagascar is easier in my view; as the relevant volumes of the British official history have reasonable coverage of it. Have you seen that the full text of the second volume of The War At Sea is now online? The relevant volume in the excellent series on the Asia-Pacific Theatres also has at least a couple of chapters on this campaign and might be the best source if you can find a copy. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! I've got access to my university's electronic journals for a limited period until I graduate in January, although it might cut me off at the end of this month. If there are any journal articles you know of, I'd be happy to find them and try and email them to you or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the offer. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this about the Kure raid listed on a WWII forum board, but I don't know if it helps you any. I'm still looking for more sources. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked in a couple of forums if anyone knows of any other sources with more detail. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cla! Hopefully it will turn something up. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heya Nick, I have a book that remarks a bit on the March raids on Kure; Reynolds, Clark G. (1968). The Fast Carriers; The Forging of an Air Navy. New York, Toronto, London, Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company.. I added a para on it to Japanese battleship Haruna:

On 19 March 1945, American carrier aircraft attacked the remainder of the Japanese Navy at Kure. Damage was light due in part to the base being defended by veteran Japanese fighter instructors flying Kawanishi N1K "Shiden" or "George" fighters.[29] Led by the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, Minoru Genda, the appearance of these fighters, which were even or superior in performance to America's main fighter, the F6F Hellcat,[29] surprised the attackers, and several American aircraft were destroyed.[30]

I don't have the book with me at college, but next time I go home I will scan it for any info on the July raids. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Murray Robson

Hi, I wonder if you can help me. There are some good images of Murray Robson on the War Memorial site [4] but I don't seem to be able to put them on Wikipedia. Would you be able to do it for me? It looks to be one of your areas of interest. Is there a page that explains simply how to upload pictures - I was once able to do it but seem to have lost the knack. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the instructions at Help:Files and WP:UPLOAD? Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I had a look, but they don't seem to even start to tell me how to do it. Castlemate (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you're having trouble with exactly? The basic process is to save a copy of the photo to your computer and then upload it from there, placing {{PD-Australia}} in the licensing/permission field where the photos are out of copyright. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit War Again on the Allies of WW2

Please take a look at the ongoing edit war at the Allies of World War II An Admin needs to get involved Thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that I've been involved in editing this article, I'm not able to use any admin rights there. The best places to seek intervention would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and/or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You could also ask one of my fellow coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject to look in on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Several of them are admins and can protect the article (which is what it, at minimum, needs) and block disruptive editors (which also seems justified). Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I am about to give up editing Wikipedia, it has become a waste of time Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you don't; you're a great editor. I've un-watchlisted that article as it isn't worth the grief though, so that could be an alternate strategy. Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Other editors have had to revert 23prootie on a number of WW2 related articles.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While I have your attention, question. What role if any did the 11th Austrailian Div have in the war? --Woogie10w (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

23prootie has a very long history of edit warring, and is probably heading towards an indef block. The 11th Division fought in the New Guinea Campaign and New Britain Campaign. Why do you ask? Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-14

I'd ask that you reconsider your assessment of this article as you down checked it for information which simply isn't available for the vast majority of Soviet aircraft of the 1950s and 60s. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the article, but still don't think that it's B-class. I do sympathise with the problem of obtaining adequate sources though; I've written quite a few articles on obscure ships which have used every available source but which have been assessed as only start class as these aren't enough to provide a comprehensive account of the ship (Japanese ammunition ship Kashino and HMAS Heros for example). That said, I'd encourage you to re-list the article for assessment if you'd like another opinion on it; it's certainly a good article and I wouldn't be the slightest bit offended if you ask for a reassessment. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Locke

I've reverted your deletion to Matthew Locke's article page, please see the discussion page on that article for more info. Cheers JFonseka (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!

Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While I covered much of what you're asking after in my comments on the most recent election page, I do have the further following comments:

• I enjoy working with the other coordinators and members of the project. The quality of the project's work, and relative absence of drama, is highly satisfying.
• At the last election I proposed splitting the main project talk page into a series of thematic pages due to the huge amounts of traffic it was receiving. I didn't try to implement this, however, as the number of posts dropped sharply and there was no longer a need for it
• My main irritation with Wikipedia is the amount of latitude given to disruptive editors. Obvious POV pushers and edit warriors are given countless chances before being permanently blocked and too many admins are willing to reduce the blocks which are imposed. This discourages good editors, especially when they're hassled by these jerks. Banning IP editing is also long-overdue in my opinion as it encourages and facilitates vandalism (the process to sign up a new account is pretty painless, so I don't see it acting as a deterrent to casual good-quality editors).
• My suggestions for the upcoming term are to develop some guidance for editors on common notability questions (eg, of military people and units - I intend to start drafts of these when I get back from holiday) and start work on rationalising the current set of task forces. Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will eagerly await your proposals for TF reorganisation. Large tracts of military history are uncovered by a specialist task force. I wish you the very best in your re-election. AshLin (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Holiday

Have a nice one, Nick. Anywhere nice? Skinny87 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to the US for a few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:F-FDTL_ADF_20080208adf8239716_015.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:F-FDTL_ADF_20080208adf8239716_015.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SoWhy 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of HMAS Melbourne up for deletion

Hi Nick, you might be interested in the discussion here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WWII archive

Dear Nick,

I wanted to look through WWII talk page archive and found archices ##31, 32 are missing. Do you have any idea what happened?
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I've had nothing to do with the page's automatic archiving. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean these archives were lost?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Coordinator of the
Military history WikiProject,
October 2009 - March 2010

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:1st Aust Seige Bty (AWM E02048).jpg

File:1st Aust Seige Bty (AWM E02048).jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1st Aust Seige Bty (AWM E02048).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:1st Aust Seige Bty (AWM E02048).jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:CAC (AWM 00626-06).jpg is now available as Commons:File:CAC (AWM 00626-06).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HMAS Manoora (AWM 300984).jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMAS Manoora (AWM 300984).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Caldwell (AWM OG1998).jpg is now available as Commons:File:Caldwell (AWM OG1998).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:29 Bn (AWM E02790).jpg is now available as Commons:File:29 Bn (AWM E02790).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:12 Bn (AWM P01436-003).jpg is now available as Commons:File:12 Bn (AWM P01436-003).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Blair Wark.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Blair Wark VC AWM P01046.001.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Boomerang construction (AWM 043183).jpg is now available as Commons:File:Boomerang construction (AWM 043183).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HMAS Goulburn (AWM 300709).jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMAS Goulburn (AWM 300709).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HMVS Nelson (AWM 300054).jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMVS Nelson (AWM 300054).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HMAS Dubbo launch (AWM 011737).jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMAS Dubbo launch (AWM 011737).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HMAS Waterhen (AWM 044789).jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMAS Waterhen (AWM 044789).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wackett trainer (AWM AC0154).jpg is now available as Commons:File:Wackett trainer (AWM AC0154).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wirraways Wagga (AWM P01254-006).jpg is now available as Commons:File:Wirraways Wagga (AWM P01254-006).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wirraways Wagga (AWM P01254-006).jpg is now available as Commons:File:Wirraways Wagga (AWM P01254-006).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Fantome (AWM 300645).jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMS Fantome (AWM 300645).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:3rd Dental Unit (AWM E02371).jpg is now available as Commons:File:3rd Dental Unit (AWM E02371).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:4 bde (E02758).jpg is now available as Commons:File:4 bde (E02758).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Another company level deletion

Saw you were interested in the earlier discussion. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States). Buckshot06(prof) 21:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Very belated thank you

Hi Nick. I was thinking about it the other day, and I was absolutely horrified to remember that I do not award you anything—nor thank you properly—for all of the effort you put into the Tom Derrick article. I feel so very ashamed that all of this escaped my mind, and must have had you thinking all of your efforts went unrecognised. In truth, this is not the case. I cannot thank you enough for everything you put into that article, and without you it would by no means be as good as it is today. Again, I am so extremely sorry that your efforts went unrecognised, but I do wish to—very belatedly—present you with a little something as a thanks and token of my appreciation:

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For his excellent, esteemed and far reaching efforts in the provision of references, sources, information and guidance to the Tom Derrick article prior to, during, and through its accession to the Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article processes, I am very pleased to present Nick-D with the Guidance Barnstar as a thanks and token of my appreciation. Thank you very much. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I really enjoyed working on it, and it's wonderful that it's a FA. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An FA that you were integral in developing. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Chuan-Ni ??? - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force - Requested articles

Hi Nick, nice work blocking yourself, lol. A question I have for you is whether the Battle of Chuan-Ni referred to in the requested articles of WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force, is actually supposed to be the Battle of Chuam-ni. I cannot find any information on the Battle of Chuan-Ni. I believe that User:Anotherclown may be the person who added the Battle of Chuan-Ni? I have left same message on Anotherclown's talk page. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Western Wolves FC

Im going to create the article again, with so many references, what do i need to do to convince you. If you live in melbourne, play soccer and know soccer then you wouldnt delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoccerOnly (talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hist merge

Nick, are you able to do hist merges? Tata Advanced Systems Limited was cut-and-pasted to Tata Advanced Systems today. If you aren't able to do it, I can post at the Holding Pen. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bill, I don't know how to do history merges. Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks anyhow! - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Hat Dich

Hi Nick, wondering whether I can get your valued comment on Talk:Battle of Hat Dich regarding moving of article. See previous comments left by me. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know anything about that battle, so I can't be of much use. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian Women at War

Hi mate, just wondering if you have Patsy Adam-Smith's Australian Women at War close at hand. I paid a quick visit to the Mitchell Library to see what there was on Mary Bell (Commandant Women's Air Training Corps who lost out to Clare Stevenson as Director WAAAF) for my next article, and then clean forgot to check the index for her while I was reading other interesting stuff. If you have it on you, so to speak, could you check if Bell's in there? If it's not convenient, don't worry, I can probably get along to the Mitchell again by Friday. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book, so it's no hassle. I'm afraid that Mary Bell isn't mentioned. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, my subconscious knew something... No matter, I have enough to go on with elsewhere - many tks for checking and saving me a special trip! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm looking forward to this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucky day.

You want tips? How about straight from a guy that has done exactly what your wanting to ban more quickly with less effort? If you don't want to ruin your rep on Wikipedia then try one of Encyclopedia Dramatica's articles of vandalizing Wikipedia to look at their methods. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft engines

You asked if I was intending to write more of these articles; the answer is yes. Is there one in particular you're interested in?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Take Ichi convoy, Convoy GP55 and Operation Teardrop, promoted to A-Class between April and October 2009, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)