|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|Military history A-Class medal with swords]]''''' 
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | Awarded for your efforts in developing [[John Hines (Australian soldier)]], [[Operation Leader]], and [[Operation Paravane]] to A-Class. Well done! [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 21:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
|}
Revision as of 21:24, 8 November 2016
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!
Mate you need to get off your high horse and give me an apology. If you check my history, and that of the page, I have had very little to with the "Panzer aces in popular culture" page, and all the history/shenanigans associated with it. I only came across it recently, and started adding in some references. I knew the "panzer aces in popular culture" article was there when I created this one, but as far as I was concerned, from the rather odd title, it seemed to be specifically about *german* panzer aces, and how they appear in literature (?). I was writing a broader article about Tank Aces from all nations....and that's about the third time I have explained that, so may be you should actually read the comments before you start casting aspersions about wikipedia contributors. People are allowed to create new articles on wikipedia, they aren't always aware there is some big dramatic backstory to a page/subject area when they create one. It's not my job to know every drama going on in wikipedia before I create a pageDeathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible ref for G550
Gday Nick. This article from Flight Global is a bit speculative so I'm not sure if it is of any use to you: [1]. They are reporting two a/c and also the possible ELINT / SIGINT role. I thought I'd post it here in case you hadn't seen it yet. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. The ABC news TV story about the purchase tonight also said that two aircraft were probably being purchased, but I couldn't find it online. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After I do all that typing pulling things together! Seriously, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TCG Anatolia
TCG Anatolia will be a highly modified amphibious assault ship With the capacity to carry F 35 lightning II B aircraft and possible future integration of Turkish made TIA TFX, fifth generation fighter aircraft is a possibility, so please refrain from altering any information on this page, unless you can back it up.
Please provide sources to support such outlandish claims. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Turkish ship will be equipped with a sky jump, ramp and a front lift in order to accommodate the operation of the short take-off and vertical landing aircrafts.
So, what is your proposition. The almost 50 year old retired Harrier or the F35 B.
Please provide references to reliable sources stating that Turkey intends to buy F-35Bs. I had a look last night, and couldn't find any. Please note the Australian versions of this ship also have these features, but Australia has no intention of ever operating F-35Bs. It turned out to be cheaper and less risky to retain the ski jump than substantially redesign the ship to remove it. A whole bunch of other things are needed to enable F-35 operations (special deck coatings, radars, magazines, etc). Please see the Canberra-class landing helicopter dock article. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Also note that even if the ship has the kit Nick mentions, the article in question says it can carry F-35Bs. That does not mean "Turkey will buy F-35Bs". Turning the first of those statements into the latter is classicWP:SYNTH. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, The Canberra class was designed to replace the Manoora and Kanimbla Amphibious transport docks, which in essence is a frigate with a dock on it, mainly used for transporting and or operating helicopters,LCM's etc which I'm sure you are aware of, they were not intended from the beginning to be used as an aircraft carrier. Reference from Canberra-class_landing_helicopter_dock. The ski-jump ramp of Juan Carlos I has been retained for the RAN ships, although is not intended for use.[17] The Spanish use the ramp to launch Harrier jet aircraft, and although operating STOVL aircraft was decided against early in the Australian procurement process due to cost and detraction from the ship's main role, redesigning the ship to remove the ramp would have added unnecessary cost to the project. This is my point, the Turkish ship is, as in the reference states from many Turkish sources as well as others, will have the capacity to operate F 35 lighting II aircraft because, It will be designed that way from the beginning.
Sidenote: This is my first article, as I'm new to wiki editing. I thought it would be fantastic to start a new article on wiki as, I'm familiar with military study's. Unfortunately I feel cornered,threatened and disrespected because, I have no badge or any sort of formality. I thought the community was respectful, understanding and helpful, I guess this Is where I was wrong, Bushranger this is partly do to you and the other, someone you may know, for now I'm done editing keep up the good work. Janissary out.
@Janissarywiki:As I mentioned on my page, you were simply being asked to follow Wikipedia policies. Saying "the ship will carry F-35Bs" - which is what the crux of this dispute in fact was - is not supported by the sources. "Capable of" is verifiable through reliable sources. "Will carry" - which is what you kept edit-warring to add the infobox - is not, and Wikipedia is very strict on its policy of no original research. Synthesis is what it is called when a statement in sources - "the ship is capable of carrying F-35Bs" - is taken to mean something the source does not say - "the air group will include F-35Bs". That is what it was attempted to explain to you, and that you were edit-warring - something else Wikipedia is very strict about - to try to add back. Under a strict interpretation of the three-revert rule, you could have been blocked - you were not, because it was being explained to you where you was in error, being new and unfamiliar with the policies. However, if you feel that being asked to follow the community policies means that you cannot participate in the community, then I am sorry to hear that. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bushranger}}I have read many articles and know theirs tens of thousands on wiki that do not have credible information because, the source is disputed and or unknown, or until the foreseeable future, but that does not mean information is not present and that's tanks to expert commonsense and higher probability then the verse. Take a look at the reference. [[2]]
The selection of the Spanish design was announced on 27 December 2013, while the main contractor is the Turkish shipyard Sedef. Although the Turkish Navy initially wanted a stripped down version of the Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) Juan Carlos I class, second thoughts led to a change of plans and the new version of the LHD will be able to carry 8-10 F-35B and 12 helicopters.
Theoretically, sure, like the Australian ships can with some fairly straightforward modifications. But Turkey isn't buying F-35Bs. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes, that is exactly the reference I looked at. It does indeed say the carrier will be able to carry F-35Bs. That does not mean, however, that the ship will carry F-35Bs. It means that if Turkey, in the future, changes their order for Dave to include the B variant, the ship should be capable of carrying it with a minimum of retrofit. It does not, however, mean "8 combat helicopters and or Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIB" is approprate for the infobox, as you were edit-warring to include earlier. Until Turkey 1. announces that they have ordered the F-35B and 2. says that they will be carried aboard Anatolia, including that is synthesis of sources and, thus, original research. Now, a line in the article that the ship's design is F-35B compatable is appropriate. But including it in the airgroup in the infobox is not. - The BushrangerOne ping only 10:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 4 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I recently violated my topic ban by leaving a comment here because I was under the impression I was allowed to participate in talk page discussions as long as I didn't edit any actual articles related to Nazism. I now know, from Maunus, that my topic ban covers all articles on Wikipedia so I won't make that mistake again. Sorry! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, would you like to do the summary on this one? If so, aim for around 1150 characters, including spaces (not wikitext). - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@Dank: could you please review this blurb to check that it looks OK? I'm also going to be out of town (and probably out of all forms of electronic contact with the world!) when this runs next week BTW. Thanks Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks a lot. I have no idea how I forgot that the blurb needed to be a single para - sorry for being so dense. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i would like to put an additional picture for the Indonesian Army page for further information increasement. Thanks - User: Gitoyo aryo
Hello, There's information on how to use images at Help:Files. If you want to upload images, please also ensure that they are compliant with Wikipedia's copyright conditions first. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nick, could you send that link to my other email please, something wrong with my primary one at the moment. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added you to the document :) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my RfA
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. There is another book review for the Bugle in the usual space. Take care. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to support you, and would do so in the future. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
citation
If that fact is "widely known", then you shouldn't have a problem providing a citation to support it. I don't doubt that it has a conservative slant under Windshuttle's editorship, but it is (or was) known to provide equal space to pundits in both sides of a debate. Perhaps I must defer to your judgement, I only know about adding cited facts and don't have your expertise in matters of war. cygnis insignis 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for your snarky post! Given your deep love of citations, I'm surprised you removed this without looking for a reference! May I suggest [3][4], [5] and [6]? More generally, I think this falls into the category of something which is so well known it doesn't need a citation - for instance this Menzies House article called Quadrant "Australia’s Conservative Journal of Record". Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you're invited to the Canberra meetup which will take place at King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on 17 February 2016. Bidgee (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my RfA
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to do so - good luck for your next attempt. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support!
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for co-nominating my RfA, Nick. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the real stuff
thank you very much for your dropping in at the freo submarine base! thats the real stuff. cheers JarrahTree 12:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC),
fyi i spent some time at awm and nat archives in perth some years back going through the japanese scare of march 42, and the issues of army camps being set up, I am a bit confused by your 'fact' tag. The 42 scare was very real in perth - they sent kids to live with relatives or family in the hills or country, the whole shamozzle I have seen plans that would amaze you in the awm archive, they had plans to work out how to render fremantle port useless. JarrahTree 12:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm pretty sure that the subs ended up in Fremantle as it was the bolt hole for US Asiatic Fleet warships which managed to escape the Philippines and Dutch East Indies at about this time rather than it being a measure for the defence of the Perth region (WW2-era subs being notoriously ineffective in defensive roles). The US was planning to go on the offensive pretty much immediately at this time, and viewed its deployments to Australia as being mainly preparations for attacks against Japan. I'm meaning to expand the Western Australian emergency of March 1944 article, and a "sister article" on 1942 would be really interesting. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good to hear that. I think as far as current thinking amongst the milhist people i know here the 42 scare was a bigger one than the 44 one. cheers JarrahTree 09:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krzyhorse22
Would you mind doing me a favour? Krzyhorse22 is still not very happy with my actions, as you will see if you check the bottom of my talkpage. Would you mind reviewing my recent actions, incl reverts at his recent edits (and his questionable edit at List of Presidents of Afghanistan) and give me any advice you think necessary? Just a sanity check really; my firm view is that he has a tendency to say uncivil things, and that more recently he seems to have a penchant for deleting information that is actually of use. Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krzyhorse22 seems to be a habitual edit warrior who assumes that everyone else is acting in bad faith and escalates disputes by making personal attacks. I suspect that they're well on the way to being blocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06 is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me and I don't like it. [7][8][9][10] I'm not an edit warrior, please stop accusing me. I explain my changes in a civil manner and use the talk page, see Talk:Afghan Americans for example. Calling someone a WP:POV pusher is not a personal attack, many editors use that term. [11] It refers to someone who makes controversial edits without citing any sources.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIHOUND says 'Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy.' Now the closing admin of the AN/I dispute, me, and User:Nick-D are all concerned about your continuing, repeated violations of WP policy, so the use of the term 'wikihound' is inappropriate: I'm protecting the encyclopedia by monitoring you. Buckshot06(talk) 01:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I correctly removed this info because that project has long been abandoned but you readded it. [12] You did the same kind of my reverts in other articles.[13] This makes you look bad.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox?
Did you ever think about creating a navbox for all of the "_ in Australian service" articles? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Sounds like a good idea to me, Ed -- not all the relevant articles have "in Australian service" in the title, e.g. it's redundant in the F-111C article title because that model was only operated by the RAAF, so a navbox is a good way to bring them together. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Created a draft that I think captures most of the relevant articles -- not entirely happy with the title though as, at its broadest, it could encompass all military aircraft operated by Australia and we're only focussing on specifically Australian models and service histories, so how to put that succinctly (or do we keep the title as is and add an explanatory subtitle?)... Also do we want to restrict to only foreign-manufactured/designed aircraft, which would eliminate the CAC Boomerang and Wackett (oh, and the GAF Nomad if it came to that)? We could make a judgement call on whether to add redlinks or create redirects for some of the more significant ones we haven't gotten round to yet, e.g. Dassault Mirage IIIO, B-24 Liberators in Australian service... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@The ed17: that looks good to me. I'd suggest including the Australian-only aircraft and adding the more logical red links. The Mirage III and B-24s are straightforward as they have full-length books on them. I'd also suggest adding the Sabre, CAC Canberra, Spitfire and Mustang as they're also heavily-covered. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question
I am currently in a dispute with another editor over a matter relating to due weight and NPOV in a BLP. As an experienced admin, do you have any recommendation for what forum would be most likely to resolve the disagreement in a binding way? Thanks in advance for any advice you might have. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Without knowing what the matter is you could ask other editors to comment at WP:NPOVN and any relevant wiki projects and see if that generates a consensus one way or the other. WP:BLPN is also an option, but seems to focus on violations of the policy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry for not responding to the pages. I am currently trying obtaining research for a thesis project at my school, so my ability to fully participate in this review project won't happen. I should have responded sooner. If no one is able to finish the project properly (though Magicpiano seems to be assisting well), you can rescind the review. I don't think I'll get any free time to look at the article extensively until after the 10th of March (at the earliest). LeftAire (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your well-argued comments. The Holocaust-denial aspect of the story is an important one, and I just think the whole thing is a very distateful idea. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for your comments. This is a great article, but the timing of the TFA proposal really isn't a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Things to see in Stockholm?
Hi Nick. I gather that you recently visited Stockholm, Sweden. Seeing as I'm going to spend this Easter in Stockholm, I thought I'd ask if you have any suggestions for things to see there? I'm thinking specifically museums/military history related sites. Will of course be taking photos for uploading to Commons while there. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I spent a few days in Stockholm last September. In regards to military museums, the Vasa Museum and Swedish Army Museum were the only ones I visited, but both were excellent (the Army museum was very different from what I expected - I thought it would be an old-fashioned place, but it was very modern and provides a very sceptical look at Swedish military history). The Swedish History Museum also has good sections on Viking/medieval era warfare. I really liked Stockholm, and hope you enjoy your trip. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. Despite having lived in Sweden for half a year a decade ago, I've never been to the Swedish capital before. Looking forward to seeing the place, and I'll make a note of the places you mention (looking forward to seeing how the Swedes communicate their shared history with my country, both as a historian and former museum curator). If you ever head to Norway, drop me a line, we have plenty of things to see here too. Manxruler (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, would I be right to assume that you regard Kurowski as an unreliable source to use on Otto Kittel? It is an uncontroversial page about a fighter pilot. The discussion started there. Stephan Schulze and K.e.Coffman have been asked several times for evidence that Kurowski's work on this man is fabricated or bias. They have been unable to do so. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think that Kurowski is a reliable source on any topic at all to be honest - he wasn't a serious historian. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1 November 1944 reconnaissance sortie over Japan 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, I noticed that you tweaked my wording on the divisional article and I wanted to share the below, which is sourced from my comment at Talk:Waffen-SS#SS_were_not_soldiers:
Out of curiosity, I looked at the section in the book by Neitzel, Sönke; Welzer, Harald (2012). Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying. to see how they treat the Waffen-SS in their discussion on the differences between Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS troops (from pp. 290 – 316). My results are below, arranged in the order of frequency of appearance on these pages (I'm using WSS for "Waffen-SS"; all instances of "SS" are about Waffen-SS):
So "SS-men" is appropriate; this is what sources that I used say. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but "SS men" sounds a bit like something they'd call themselves and is easily avoidable. Please revert me if you disagree though - the results of the searches you've provided is very useful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, Could please recommend/nominate me for the Adminship.--Jogi 007 (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with your history on Wikipedia, so I'm not in a position to do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shelling of Port Gregory - source of planes
Hi Nick-D - normally a cite ref rather than deletion is the response. However, the record states that sub spotted planes when it approached Geraldton. The most probable source of these was training base as they were the major base there. Hope this helps clarify the paragraph NealeFamily (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sorry for that - you're right that I should have added a tag or pinged you rather than reverted. Can you please re-add this with a reference? It certainly makes sense - it seems to have been frequent practice for RAAF training flights to have been made over the sea to deter submarines. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick-D for your gracious response. I still have some gaps in the information I need, but it will take someone with access to Aussie war records to fill them. There is something called the "Operations Record Book of No. 4 SFTS Geraldton" which is cited in the training school article that might give some clue as to flight movements when the submarine arrived. I would also like to track down the two destroyers the Japanese mentioned and the coast watchers. I'll stick a request on the articles talk page. NealeFamily (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this. The National Archives of Australia holds the operations record books of many RAAF units of World War II (which in some cases have also been digitalised), but I cant see the one for this flying school by searching the records on its website. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for directing me to the email address for Vandalism, I was completely lost on how to proceed. Have a great day! Lulu1984123 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, I have done a small amount of work today expanding the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article, but TBH I haven't done a very good job. Just a very broad outline. I don't have the sources or the time to do much more at the moment, unfortunately. Due to your excellent work on the Battle of Arawe article, I wonder if you would have anything you could add to it to flesh it out a bit. The whole campaign seems underdone with the campaign article needing quite a bit of work, and at least two or three battles still being red links (Talasea, Gasmata and Open Bay). I plan to try to devote some time to the topic, but probably not until the end of April as this coming month will be very busy at work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, It looks like the article is off to a good start. I'll see what I can add - I've found a few good photos on the AWM website which might be useful (though the photo of troops unloading stores is clearly a very good pick for the infobox given the uncontested nature of this operation). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick. I appreciate your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, I've also been doing some work on Battle of Wide Bay today (the Battle and Aftermath sections still need expansion). I've made a start on Battle of Talasea, also (the Battle section needs work still), but for some reason I'm having trouble getting motivated at the moment (very tired from work this week). I also plan to maybe write a short stub for Battle of Open Bay, maybe, just to round out the battles of the New Britain campaign series. If you are keen to help on these, too, that would be fantastic. Anyway, hope you have a nice weekend. I'm off to work for a bit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I think about it, perhaps the two should be merged to create an article called Battle of Wide Bay–Open Bay, as I don't think there would be enough information really for a battle article on each. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea given that this was all one campaign which only saw a small(ish) amount of fighting. I've been considering doing something similar covering the mini-campaign on the eastern shore of Brunei Bay in Borneo during June-July 1945. I'll look in on those articles, but also had a busy week, so may not contribute much. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, do you mind if I add myself as a co-nom for the GAN for the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article? I'm probably too involved to act as a reviewer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do - if I'd known how to do it I'd have added you initially. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have to have editing privileges to approve a pending change? WCMemail 13:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yes you do - please see Wikipedia:Pending changes#Reviewing pending edits, which also notes the location to apply for the relevant permission. Given that you've been a rollbacker consistently since 2009 I don't see any barrier to you being approved for the permission if you want it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, helped a newbie out but found my changes were also held as a pending revision. WCMemail 00:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just enabled the "pending changes reviewer" permission for your account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. WCMemail 00:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifiddling
Nick
Can I get your advice on what appears to be a fairly straightforward case of wikifiddling. On April 2, I noticed an article on my watchlist had been edited to remove South Georgia and other BOT from the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands, which is a parish covering BOT in the South Atlantic. It was created in 1952 to cover the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Island Dependencies, splitting them off from South America due to the problems with Argentina. The editor is claiming they're part of the diocese of Rio Gallegos. Having tried and failed to claim it was uncited, he's approached the owner of the website concerned lobbying him to change the entry. He is now removing the content claiming its uncited.
I've started the ball rolling with a comment on WP:NPOVNWP:RSN, would you advise any further action?
Hi WCM, I've commented there. The short version is that I'd suggest cross-checking against other sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Signature
There was nothing wrong with TWC adding your signature here. It's allowed per WP:TPO. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is: People should not change one another's posts, even for minor matters, unless it's unavoidable. I was clearly online, and could have been given a polite reminder here. There are also bots which correct sig stuff-ups automatically. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I clearly read You are allowed to append attribution (which can be retrieved from the page history) to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. wrong. Ta. clpo13(talk) 23:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can for people who are clearly online if you want, but only if you want to be a bit of jerk given it's easily avoidable. It's politer to just drop them a line or wait for them or the bot to fix the mistake. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd rather someone just fix my sig than bother me about something so minor. TWC has step over the line sometimes on talk pages in the past, but in this case, it's clearly good faith and helpful, perhaps other than eliminating the line space. I've added sigs myself several times, with no negative responses. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each to their own :) Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wtf...
...is this? ("Thewolfchild ,don't edit other editors' talk posts") I didn't edit your post, I simply added your name to the timestamp, because you forgot to. This is no different than adding an {{unsigned}} template. You reverting that, just so you could turn around and add it yourself, then scold me in the edit summary was a WP:DICK thing to do, and you know it. Anyone else you would've thanked, but you sure carry personal grudges for a looong time. (Why didn't you just tack on another unjust block while you were at it?) You're an admin, you're supposed to be a leader in the community, demonstrating standards of civility, collegiality and maturity. This was not up to those standards. - theWOLFchild 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rant: please see above, and a polite note here would have worked wonders. I'm not aware that I have a grudge against you? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each to their own :) - theWOLFchild 02:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for finding all the references and adding the correct answer!! It probably won't surprise you that it's the long-standing retention problems in the Navy after "civilianisation", rather than any gaff about their ability to handle higher sea conditions. But then again there is no suggestion that any shade of government had anything to do with the deeply problematic personnel policy that caused a whole lot of people to leave; just a policy, developed by people who were trying to improve things, that didn't work at all in the way it was intended.. Buckshot06(talk) 10:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I suspect that the Australian mining boom had a fair bit to do with it as well: the RAN lost a lot of its personnel to the mines at about this time, leading to major problems crewing the fleet (from memory, a couple of Anzac frigates and most of the submarines had to be laid up and the shortages contributed to the collapse of the RAN's amphibious force). Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 9 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keating
Thanks for your msg on my user talk page but would you mind copypasting that to the article talk page where it will be further useful? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi good to see youre expanding 44, I have too much OR material from my foray into things over here re 42 to be actually included, buit my understanding is that 44 was a bit like the 1st world war russian scare at albany, ephemeral and ghost like compared to 42. In the AWM there is a brilliant file of how they had planned to totally demolish all facilities at freo harbour in the event of any invasion. Also Graham Mcenzie smith's 'defending fremantle' - have ever seen or heard of it? give me your contact details offline and you can have a copy if you like...keep up the good work!! JarrahTree 00:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks basically right - though it did lead to lots of RAAF squadrons being moved to WA. I think that I have a copy of Mcenzie Smith's book. The relevant war diaries from garrison units in WA which are available on the AWM's website also make for interesting reading - this was taken pretty seriously at the time though it all seems a bit odd today in light of what we know about the war. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ahh yes, what melbourne thought versus the perth based higher brass, yes that explains things - thats where my unpublished work on the un-named army camp all makes sense. melbournes estimation versus on the ground in the west. seems to happen even these days JarrahTree 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
interesting - the cyclone between 7th and 14th, not sure what your refs say, but graham's inference is that it severely limited seaward searches - and limited intelligence as well as Bennett returned on the 8th... the melbourne vs bennett understanding of things... I really like the description of kittyhawk abd dakota landing every 10 minutes out at Kalgoorlie - and the fact that the big 4 from singers actually managed to sink something! (the behar)... i bet the radar and weather didnt mix well... JarrahTree 06:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
surely Indian_Ocean_raid_(1944) is all part of it as well, there is no specific article for the Behar, but the fate of the survivors was not exactly nice... JarrahTree 06:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I haven't got up to adding that. Smith's implication about the cyclone makes a lot of sense - the official histories are a bit unclear why the Allies reacted in the way they did, but the real possibility that a Japanese fleet could use bad weather to approach and then attack Fremantle during a full moon period goes a long way to explaining why this threat was taken so seriously. Have you seen any sources which cover how civilians saw this event, and how its remembered? It must have been pretty dramatic, even if censorship stopped it from being reported at the time. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, ive seen more about 42 than 44, might have to trawl trove while it is still alive
yeah the way the nla is bleeding, maybe the 2016 form of censorship for wp au articles will be the closing down of trove... JarrahTree 11:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. From what I've seen, there isn't a risk of Trove being shut down, but the problem is that the NLA no longer has sufficient funding to expand the service. Which by itself is a tragedy given what a vital resource it's quickly become. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry didnt mean to get political on your talk page, i find starving something like that brainless... anyways will try to double check some of the more obvious - graham m s has a very brief mention of the people taking the scare seriously, i suspect the 42 stories had crept down the coast by then (there is almost an industry on the 42 bombings and related issues and things on the north west - when i was in the airforce museum here in perth a few months back, the items about the bombings have grown amazingly.. JarrahTree 11:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landing at Jacquinot Bay 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 Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
World found!
Thanks for finding the world - I had wondered where it went! (Sorry, I just couldn't resist!) - BilCat (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long last few weeks for me, and I'm not talking or writing much sense at the moment ;) My emails at work are equally wacky. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It was just one mispaced letter. ;) - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it wasn't even necessary as the article has just been promoted! Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bougainville counterattack
G'day, Nick, what are your thoughts about moving User:Nick-D/Drafts11 into article space over the stub that is currently at Bougainville counterattack? It would probably need a histmerge (which requires admin tools), but I'd be keen to help you finish the article after that. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for prompting me: that's about 6 years overdue, and I've just copied and pasted the content into the article. My understanding is that as long as you link to the source user page the copyright issues are fine. I can't remember why I stopped work on this article - probably something to do with the level of detail in the official history - but I'd be happy to work on finishing it off. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, no worries. From a copyright perspective, you are right; I was just thinking that a histmerge allows you to re-role your Draft11 into something else if you want. But it's not a drama either way, just my OCD playing up! ;-) Anyway, thanks for copying it across. I will see what I can add to the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You edited the article at least once. I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Leader
Thanks for expanding the article, Nick. I'll have a go at adding some things from my sources as soon as time permits. Mostly agent and shipping related stuff. Manxruler (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. It looks like quite a few of the ships attacked with Norwegian, and it would be interesting to know what the Norwegian casualties in the attack were - if such a figure exists. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. In the books available to me there's the identities of the ships involved and casualty figures, and more. Manxruler (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have now started adding some info from one of my Norwegian sources. Couldn't really get the harv ref system to work, could you have a look at it? For now, I've just added one bit of info, more to come. Manxruler (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got the ref system working now. Will probably take a break for today and continue tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got the agent business mostly done now, onwards to the ships lost and the casualties.
I have one thing that makes me wonder, though. That quote of Robert C. Stern regarding it being difficult to determine which ships were permanently lost make no sense to me at all, seeing as reliable Norwegian books list the final fate of all the ships involved. By this I mean which ships were salvaged and not, and when the ships salvaged were salvaged. How do you suggest going about the ship loss details, seeing as what Stern writes is contradicted by Norwegian sources? Manxruler (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might well be that he was unaware of these sources - I was surprised when I saw the claim given that records are usually kept of that kind of thing. Could you please add material on this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange indeed. It's not like Norway is a closed-off country for researchers or anything. Will get to adding the ship info later today. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All seriously damaged ships have now had their had their final fates described, some other info also added. Next I think will be to tweak the lead and aftermath section to reflect that we actually know how many ships were sunk/damaged beyond repair etc. How to do you suggest going about that? Manxruler (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add this per your sources. They seem to be broadly in line with the English-language sources I consulted, but with very valuable additional details, so I don't think that there are any significant contradictions. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some difficulty making the numbers in the lead add up. By my count we've got two ships sunk (Rabat and Vaagan), three damaged beyond repair (La Plata, Skramstad, and Topeka), and six damaged (Cap Guir, F231, Isis, Kerkplein, Malaga, and Schleswig). The lead currently says five sunk and seven damaged, making 12 ships, not 11. Am I missing a ship here? Manxruler (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I can't for the life of me figure out the identity of Isis. Could you check your sources for further info on her? Could it be a misspelling of Iris? Iris was a German cargo ship operating in Norway at the time in question. Manxruler (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or Ibis? This German source states that a ship named Ibis was one of the vessels hit in the attacks. There's both German and a Norwegian Ibis sailing in occupied Norway in 1943. The tonnage is quite different between the two. Manxruler (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the name given for the ship was actually Ibis - fixed. I'll double check the other details. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Some online sources say the ship attacked during Operation Leader was the German Ibis (593 grt), but there is also the Norwegian Ibis (1,370 grt), although no sources which definitely refer to her mention her being at Bodø during the attacks. Manxruler (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Stern refers to the ship as a "small steamer", so I'd guess that it's the German vessel - though 1,370 grt isn't that large. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go with German Ibis then. Will go add the relevant redlink. Manxruler (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked your count of ships destroyed and damaged, and agree. I've tweaked the infobox accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good, good. Then updating the aftermath section is all I see still remaining to be done. Manxruler (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found the 12th ship, by the way, the steamer Wolsum which was "heavily strafed". Will add that a bit later, just have some RL things to take care of. Manxruler (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say about DYK nominating the article? Manxruler (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though I'm going to be out of town with no internet access for several days from tomorrow. The best hook I can think of is ...that Operation Leader was the only offensive operation undertaken by the United States Navy in northern European waters during World War II? How does that sound? Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got internet access, so I can nom it. Your suggestion was about what I had in mind, I'll sleep on it and see if I can perhaps spice it up a bit. Manxruler (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great number Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the correct number (including mobile phone views) was the even better 8,413. Added it to WP:DYKSTATS. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up for the article passing A-class. Now, I haven't been able to look for more German-language books at the libraries near me, but I'll get to that soonish. Also, I may buy a German book or two, I see some listed online that I would be able to use for other things (Wiki and RL) as well as this article. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for your huge contributions to this article. I'm afraid that I don't know any German, but adding German sources to the article would be great. As noted in the A-class review, I think that this article should be able to make it to FA class with a little bit more work: mainly fleshing out the German side of things to the extent feasible and giving the final product a close copy edit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been good fun working on the article, prior to this I had only heard about the operation in passing now and then over the years. Going for FA would be great, I could certainly contribute with more German sources, hopefully finding more on the German perspective, once I've located some books. Manxruler (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've proof-read the translations you'd added. Want me to translate the last couple of Norwegian titles still untranslated? There are also the German titles, I assume those also need translating, I could do that. As for the article in general, I've found a few German books I'm probably going to order rather soon, and I've found more English-language books on the subject at Google Books. Pretty much all those books say that five ships were sunk/destroyed in the operation, so I think we need to change the lead a little. It seems Stern doesn't have a lot of company in his conclusions as to the difficulty of assessing how many ships were lost. The Norwegian and German authors agree at five, and at least 3-4 English-language authors do too. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be great if you made those translations. That's interesting about the assessments, but is Stern more recent? Certainly the more sources on this topic the better. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Goody, will get to the translating when I can. Stern is not more recent than at least two of the the English-language sources I've found, his book was published in 2012, and I see at least one book from 2012 and another from 2013 amongst those who say five ships destroyed. The others are also recent, although a couple of years earlier than Stern. Manxruler (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Translations complete. Manxruler (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several German books should be on their way to me soon via Amazon.de. What do you think of the addition to the article I made today? Manxruler (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good - it's certainly a complex story! Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Although I do think that the German and Norwegian authors are probably the ones who has got the numbers etc. right, due to their natural advantages of having access to sources literally on the ground in Norway at the time of the operation and afterwards, while English-language sources will be naturally slanted towards the view of the pilots, we do have a situation where different authors give different numbers, so I think the lead we have now is fine. I'm looking forwards to seeing what more German books have to say about the operation. Manxruler (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was blocked shortly after reverting my post with the edit summary, "You're trying to report me, right?" Hilarious. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all involved in stopping this. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of old friends, do you remember the guy who turned up at numerous US WWII aircraft types, especially B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator, P-51 Mustang and a couple of others - who would make vast sweeping edits based on "expert sources" - and who considered other editors to be unaware of technical issues, of which only he was the fount of all knowledge? Well he is back at B-17. Irondome (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. I haven't watchlisted the articles involved, but please let me know if they return. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's Phil M, though I can't recall his full username. - BilCat (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cheers Nick. BilCat, he can be a pain when he gets into his stride that guy. Arrogant as fuck as I recall.Irondome (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is. Btw, he's also been editing on Ball turret this go around. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two minutes before I posted my last comment, he showed up on B-17 again on another IP, with the edit summary "Reversed disrubtine edits by billcat". He's supposed to be a professional, published author - I hope his editors charge him a lot! - BilCat (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are all on my W/L too so we got eyes on it. Recall he had a Fatal Attraction to B-25s as well. Oh well..Irondome (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected the B-17 article. Almost a year to the day to when I last had to do so... Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now he's making legal threats. He's been range blocked before, but with IPv6 becoming more common in the US every day, it might not be feasible this time. For the record, I've haven't used obscenities re: this user, as I very rarely use them at all. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is User:Philm540, who was banned for making legal threats before, among other things. It took me awhile to find the username. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's times like this when I wonder whether the people who support not requiring people to register accounts ever actually write articles, or participate in Wikipedia in any way really. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the blocks. I've run into genuine editors who do feel that way, including a few crusaders who insist on doing their editing by IP only to "prove" the worth of IP users. But as as far as the WMF goes, I doubt it. I've never quite understood the insistence on allowing unregistered editing, as almost nothing else on the internet allows unregistered participation. My cynical nature suspects an ulterior motive by the Foundation, but what it could be, other than making money off it perhaps, I haven't a clue. Leaving IP addresses open for the world to see doesn't seem like a safe thing to do. Eventually someone is going to be seriously hurt, killed, or otherwise harassed because someone discovered their identity, and then the Government and/or public pressure will force the WMF to take better security precautions. It just doesn't make sense to wait for tragedy to strike first. - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally put it down to the libertarian-style ideology in the open access movement, in which common sense restrictions are somehow seen as being a bad idea. I feel the same way about Wikipedia content being able to be sold for profit under the licensing conditions, and avoid working on articles with realistic commercial value for that reason. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand that then. Still, I don't understand why they are so callous towards putting people at risk. WP is used by high school and college students, and they are encouraged to edit on WP using IPs. Eventually, someone is going to be stalked or harassed in real life, and their safety put at risk. I have experience with vindictive users on here, and fortunately I was able to avoid off-wiki harassment because I have a dedicated e-mail account for WP, and they tried unsuccessfully to hack my e-mail. I seriously value my privacy and that of my loved ones, and I try not to give any clues to my off-wiki identity. If I worked for Encyclopedia Britannica or some other online reputable publisher, I'd have less of an issue with revealing my real name, as some people advocate that we do on WP. But I would never do that on WP as it is currently structured. - BilCat (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely: its a mystery to me why we put up with a system in which IP editors' location, internet provider and (if they're editing away from home) place of work or study can be easily identified by anyone at all. Registered editors are encouraged to have the details of any edits they make while accidentally logged out hidden from public view by admins to prevent this from being used against them, but the people who follow the "anyone can edit" invitation don't have this protection. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lützow and exile
I added more context to explain why the term exile fits the situation. Are you satisfied with the addition? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that clarifies things well - thanks a lot. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification - I'd be very pleased to comment there. I'd also be pleased to nominate or co-nominate you if you choose to go ahead with a RfA. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, if your offer stands, I am prepared to take a run at RfA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'll draft a nomination statement tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I've drafted a statement at User:Nick-D/Drafts3 - please let me know what you think. I'd be happy to look at your acceptance statement if you'd like a second opinion about anything. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick, I have added some comments there, including a draft of my responses to the standard three questions. If you could let me know your thoughts, I'd greatly appreciately it. Chees, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good - I've marked up some minor suggestions (in bold) to the answer to question 1 to strengthen your messages a bit. If you're ready, I'd be pleased to start the nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've transcluded it now. I think I got it right, but if you could take a look, that would be great. Thanks for your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick( reply to Panzer Aces article I deleted )
Hi Nick ! First of all I hope I am posting this in the right place,if not,you can delete it after you read it and reply to me back in private.( I do not know how to do that yet ) Sorry for deleting most of your article on Panzer Aces from Wikipedia.It was not a mistake,I wanted to add some other historic facts and I didnt know it was added by a verified user like yourself. First of all the Panzer Aces list is incomplete,in a bad order,and most of the Panzer Commanders there are not in their correct unit where they served. Example: Karl Korner was in the 503 Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung,not the Wehrmacht 503 , or Balthasar Woll,which was Wittmann gunner for most of time, also served in the 101 SS Schwere Panzer Abteilung,not the 101 Schwere Panzer Abteilung,and the list goes on. Secondly,I do not like how you put some lines like : The most famous German "panzer ace" and "the hero of all Nazi fanboys",[8] Michael Wittmann, I dont think those retarded Neo-Nazis got any idea who Wittmann was,apart from yelling White Power and hating other people I am a big fan(to use the word you said it in the article ) of Wittmann,Helmuth Wendorff,Kurt Knispel and most Panzer Aces. I am not a skinhead,nor a neo-nazi. I have relatives in my family that fought in the Waffen SS,and I know from them that they were not racist as modern history likes to depict them. Thirdly,I dont think Panzer battles were all about bushwacking and ambushing,as in Soviet Union Campaign ,Panzer battles were most of the time in open field,enemies seeing each other from far away. I dont think the Tiger was an invulnerable tank,but the crews were the ones that made it legendary. For example in 1945, one T34/85 destroyed 3 King Tigers in one day,so that does not make those Tiger II's invincible,as you said in your article. And I am more than sure that every nation would glorify their tank aces,lets not forget the American propaganda about Lafayette G.Pool, which is considered a tank ace destroying 258 enemy tanks actually from that number of 258,only 12 were German tanks.The rest probably german halftracks,motorcycles,schwimwagons or other troop transports. At least those German Panzer Aces didnt added to their list the armored troop carriers or trucks,only tanks and anti tank guns. Anyway,that being said,I am sorry for deleting your article,hope you can make some changes there,and I hope I can complete the list of Panzer Aces,with the kill count statistic,their true unit that they took part of and in the correct order. I wont make any changes untill you reply to me back. Cheers mate !
Hello, @PanzerSkad: Wikipedia doesn't have private means of communication, and discussion of articles is generally done on their talk pages - in this instance Talk:List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany. The content of the article reflects what reliable sources say - in short, that the concept of a "panzer ace" is dubious, and traces to Nazi propaganda which wasn't taken very seriously even by the Germans during the war. If you can provide reliably referenced figures for the number of "kills" attributed to the people on the list that would be good, but please don't add material without this. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing,I will do that in weekend,I will add their correct number of kills and their correct unit that they were part of,and I will try to add a picture with each panzer commander,if you would allow me . Thanks
Possible link spamming
Nick, could you look at User talk:58.114.119.159 and the user's contributions? I'm concerned they are adding inappropriate links, even in good faith. They're comments on their talk page indicate this, but also a misunderstanding of WP's purpose and the purpose of external links. I'm too tired to deal directly with it for now. Thanks for anything yiu can do to help. - BilCat (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill, I've just blocked them. Judging from their editing, this person may not have strong English-language skills, and hopefully my suggestion that they post potentially useful links on article talk pages in the future is helpful to them and others. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed site ban of Mangoeater1000 AN thread
Per WP:NOTBURO, there is no requirement to formalise everything. Do you seriously believe that an admin might unblock this guy? If not, don't waste people's time with a frivolous request. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree with you on the procedures here. But being rude to people who started a good faith thread on the admins noticeboard makes you look like a jerk. As I noted on your talk page, I'd suggest that you re-close it in a polite way. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, do you remember the fairly fractious deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilde Vernet y Sáez. The article has just been recreated by a new editor, as his first ever action. This screams sockpuppet to me and I have a sneaking suspicion it is Langus-TxT as he is currently blocked for an attempt at outing. He was particularly vocal about this article. Do you think I have enough for a sockpuppet report? WCMemail 22:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say so. I just checked and the article is quite different to the version that was deleted, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, Checkuser seems to support the idea and identified another account. However, there has been no further action on the SPI, [14]. Could you give me some advice on what to do next? WCMemail 13:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of a backlog at SPI at the moment. You could help the reviewing admins a lot by posting diffs that illustrate any behavioural similarities between the accounts. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could use an advocate, if you have time
See Talk:James Bond in film#Removing the ToC limit. I made plenty of mistakes here, but did nothing to deserve the initial accusation of edit warring, nor to be treated like a troll. Thanks for whatever you can do. I'm going to try to sleep now, and hope the user has come to some sense by the time I wake up. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's claimed that because the article is a GAN, two reverts to remove the TOC, one year apart, is "slow-burn edit warring". I guess this is going to have to be settled at ANI, because that is onwership to me. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FFS: you've been given good reason why this isn't ownership, and yet you still continue to make the same accusation. It really is nothing but rank trolling to continue with this utterly infounded accusation. As for canvassing another editor to come and back you up... Yes, ANI really will be fun after this. – SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment on the article talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving on from that page, as no one wants to take my legitimate concerns seriously. I'm still VERY upset with Schro's FALSELY accusating me edit warring in his first post, and silly rationalizing of his bad faith attitude expressed in that. Until he apologizes for that, I'll remain convinced this is Ownership on his part. - BilCat (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find a way to override the TOC, so this is no longer an issue for me. As long as I'm extended good faith by the users involved in any future interactions, I see no reason to continue with this issue. Thanks again, Nick. - BilCat (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per this, there are continued IP attempts to remove content from Nickolas Varvaris. Can we get a semiprot please? Timeshift (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In what I'm sure is an amazing coincidence, Mr Varvaris' seat is among those listed as likely to change hands based on the recent state of the betting market [15]. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Leader 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) 16:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, I think it's about ready to go unless you can see anything missing or in error. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, Great minds think alike! I just finished the from the editors section, and everything looks good to go. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operation Leader, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Operation Leader was the only offensive operation undertaken by the United States Navy in Northern European waters during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Leader. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Operation Leader), 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.
Could you take a look at this and the rest of the user's contributions? It seems to be related to reverts Fnlayson made in January! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not today I'm afraid Bill - I've just completed a lighting-fast international trip for work, and am spectacularly zonked as a result. Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just asking. Take it easy. - BilCat (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the user a simple welcome message for unsourced additions, not warnings, and get called a spammer, great. Another user gave the user warnings for that. Thanks for the help. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just been warned a second time for a personal attack- I think his last one is severe enough to warrant more than another template. Just FYI. Cheers, MuffledPocketed
It looks like they've left Wikipedia, so I don't think that action is needed at this time. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kharkiv and Kharkov
About your edit, there is another Kharkiv reference at World War II#Axis advance stalls .281942.E2.80.9343.29 section, third sub-section, instead of Kharkov. I made the alternate naming addition because I did not know that Kharkiv and Kharkov referred to the same city, and presumed other would also be confused. --Robertiki (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just changed that to Kharkov as well. In most articles it would be sensible to give the alternate names, but I think that this isn't the case in the World War II article given the large number of locations it refers to which have alternate names, as well as the high level nature of the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 29 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi there. You may have already seen my note on the MilHist talk page, but I am sending this short note to the regular writers and the editors of The Bugle to point them to a WWI projects directory that I've started (in my userspace for now). Would you be able to look and see if there is anything you might be able to add or advice on what is most useful? You'll note that I've pulled together Tom's timeline articles (which are wonderful, along with the op-eds). Maybe a proper index on the archive page of The Bugle would be useful, plus links allowing readers to navigate through the series? I have also tried to list all the WWI-related book reviews (but only from 2012 onwards), so please feel free to add to or copy that somewhere as needed if not already listed somewhere else. (I also dropped off notes on Tom and Ian's talk pages) Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's very impressive. I think that there might be some other GLAM projects, but can't remember their names! Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pratten's Australian Battalion Commanders
G'day, Nick, not sure if my recollection is correct, but do you have a copy of Garth Pratten's Australian Battalion Commanders? From Google snippet view, it appears that the book has lists of 2nd AIF infantry battalion COs. I was wondering if you would be able to help me solve a research question. Specifically, I was hoping to get page numbers from Pratten where he cites the COs for the 2/16th and 2/43rd Battalions. Also, I was hoping to get the full list and dates for the 2/16th. Would you mind checking the source and dumping the information here, so I can use it in those two articles? Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the 2/16th COs are listed on page 325, and those for the 2/43rd on page 328. The COs of the 2/16th were:
Alfred Richard Baxter-Cox: 26 April 1940 - 28 January 1941
Alexander Bath MacDonald: 20 February 1941 - 12 August 1941 (PMF officer)
Arnold William Potts: 12 August 1941 - 6 April 1942
Albert Edward Caro: 16 April 1942 - 13 December 1942
Frank Henry Sublet 30 April 1943 - 8 October 1945
I'd be happy to provide other details from the book (do you need the list for the 2/43rd?). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, that's great, thanks. I was able to see the list for the 2/43rd on Google snippet view. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with Today's DYK now on the Main Page
Hi Nick, I saw your name on the DYK page, and you look like an admin who might still be awake. My DYK was changed without my permission, introducing a repeated word that makes for very bad writing. The approved hook was "... that actors Peter Mullan and Jack Lowden, who portray pioneering golfing legends Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris in the 2016 film Tommy's Honour, had no prior experience with golf?" [16]. The hook as entered into Prep 2 and now on the Main Page uses the word "golfing" twice, which is really really bad writing. Can you change that to the original approved hook? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just made this change. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Nick! Speedy service. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my correction was much better, who says "experience in golf"? It's really awkward. Suggest my correction is restored. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't and isn't "experience in golf", and in the future please do not change hooks without prior permission. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"experience with the sport" may have been a good option. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. What sport? A DYK needs to be clear and immediately comprehensible. And it was also important for the unmodified word "golf" to be in the hook. "[T]he sport" just adds character length and clutter. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you dont want to mention how malcom changed the laws to benefit his election chances
Want to silence this fact?
Want to also silence the fact the DD was just an excuse to try and get advantage of the changing of the law to benefit his party?
Sorry whos being biased? Clearly you--Thelawlollol (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick-D. Regarding JFACTSU; it was only a short sentence so I do not understand how it is hard to follow. Also it did bring JFACTSU out of the shadows and led to a BBC News article as there are hardly any written third party articles about JFACTSU. The Telegraph also noted about Prince Harry's training too.
The General notability of having a Prince training there also serves its GNG. I think you were wrong to remove it, however I bow to your experience and expertise. Kind regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, My main concern was the rather passive and convoluted language and focus. Rather than say that the unit gained some kind of (almost certainly fleeting) exposure for having trained the Prince, why not just say that he was trained there? Regards, Nick-D (talk)
So why did you not change it rather than flat out deleting it? Having written it I would have preferred a proof read and edit rather than deletion. Kind regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point - sorry. How does what I've just re-added look? It would be worth looking into whether any other notable FACs were trained at this unit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy days! I have to admit your version reads better. Have good day/night. Kind regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RE other people trained - no-one notable as yet. There have been a couple but apart from an odd book from Sgt Bloggs, Prince Harry has been the only notable person. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service 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 Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A new user created this page - I redirected to Combat Support Group RAAF - is this correct? Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure to be honest. From Googling the term, it looks like there was once a RAAF unit of that name. But whether it evolved into the current Support Group is unclear (the lineage of the RAAF's non-flying units is rather complex...). @Ian Rose: what do you think? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the ping, Nick. Yes there was definitely an RAAF Support Command but I don't think it evolved into CSG. If my info is correct it was in fact an ancestor of the DMO -- see Aftermath section of the RAAF area commands article; I might just copy some of that to the new article and remove the redirect. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
On a roll -- redirected RAAF Maintenance Command to Support Command as well for the moment (think I might stop there for a while)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
crawley/point
G'morning to you - yesterday was upgrading the flying boat base info at crawley, western australia - and thought of you for advice, ok I had worked on the freo sub base from the point of the main name and place. The thing with crawley is that the americans and some sources identify the flyingboat base by the pelican point name, while locals think of the locality as where it had existed... I was thinking of creating a separate article as the mix of the flying boat base and the double sunrise could do with expansion - any thoughts? trust youre not too below freezing - Perth has a very brief respite of not so icy at the moment JarrahTree 23:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The wartime flying boat base in Perth is definitely notable in its own right, and would be a great topic for an article. I'm pretty sure that "Crawley" is the more common name for the base in Australia - I certainly can't recall seeing "Pelican Point", but I haven't read much about this topic. We haven't had any snow here since Wednesday, so things are looking up :) Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support - when you fly in at a low height, the point is a very definite marker on the swan river - it mightnt seem much from the shore line on land, but for any flyer short of good local maps the point was the phew we're there sign on the northern side of Melville Water. Thanks again JarrahTree 00:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phil M is back
Nick, I dropped a note about this on Milb1's page, but he seems to be away. See this edit and others at Martin PBM Mariner. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill, I've just blocked that account and - given Phil's editing habits - semi-protected the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much! - BilCat (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another one here. I'm not certain, so I'll watch out for 3RR until I'm certain. How he responds to my reverts should make it clear if it's Phil or not. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems borderline. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I'm not looking to get into an edit war on this, but by summarily erasing over 100 hours of work you are leaning towards inciting one.
On the issue at hand, I've looked high and low for data supporting the heavy fighter case. I'm an engineer and a pilot who believes in factual data. But, in this case the actual data seems to firmly support the light fighter as the more effective weapons system. In coming to that conclusion I have read over 2000 pages of pertinent books and professional reports and articles. Many of the reports are straight out of high level DoD sources and briefings, made at the general officer and Office of Secretary of Defense level. All I have really found supporting the heavy fighter case is the hope that use of more technology (slightly longer range radar) that the heavy fighter can carry will allow it to be superior. But, when that is put to the test of combat and extensive trials, the light fighter tends to come out on top plane for plane, and dominates in cost effectiveness. I have not been able to find any data otherwise, and I have really done my homework on this.
How about downloading the Pierre Sprey report on fighter effectiveness and reading that? He is a brilliant analyst and combat aircraft architect, and his report is probably the best thing in print on fighter effectiveness, chock full of hard data. I think then you will appreciate the article more.
I'm perfectly open to presenting the heavy fighter case, if any data that actually supports it can be found.
Let's not discuss this in multiple locations. And threatening to edit war is really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all - I'll comment there now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN
Hi. Since the checksum does not add up, how it is possible that the ISBN is valid? I can undertand that they published it with an invalid ISBN, but certainly the ISBN is not "valid". -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think we have to go with what it's published with, and the checker has a parameter for overriding the error message, which suggests it's fine to suppress the error message and leave the published ISBN once it's been verified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The National Library of Australia gives it as the ISBN for the work [17], as does Worldcat [18]. Presumably there's a bug somewhere, but it is the ISBN by which this work is registered. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
It seems you have something against me. You have to level how evil I am at every turn. A definition of "borked" is to damage or break. Therefore, I said "broken refs". There were three broken refs. I've used borked for over 30+ years now. It became popular in the '70s with the Muppet Show. It is a common expression, especially in computer field, which is where I work. I use it alot in edit summaries. Stop assuming I only write evil. Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember ever interacting with you before the recent discussion so I'm not sure where that comes from. If you want to be uncivil to well-meaning editors as you were in the WW2 discussion, you should be prepared to be called on it. Nick-D (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha perhaps I should say Bjork?
Monday morning attempt at WWII and its frequent misunderstandings and misinterpretations
Greetings of extreme evilness and uncivility from the west coast of this forgotten mainland appendage of Tasmania - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_units_and_formations_of_the_British_Empire_in_World_War_II stinks - the specificity of the line across the top specifies This category is for British colonies and dependencies without a World War II category only - I really thought that this sort of identifications has been hashed out many times and that we oz sttylians were by the stage of the wwii were not in any way dependencies of the empire - I do not believe the british empire even existed in WWII (in the way that I interpret history and terminology, and I have problem with the claim of This was because Australia at this time was a dominion of the British Empire in the main article on the subject, I was sure 1901 did more than what the average punter believes, but then I am a rail historian as well maybe that stuffs up my perceptions a lot) let alone have Australia as part of it - any thoughts on adding australian divisions dont we already have our own cat ? JarrahTree 00:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Brukner: Hi Robert, I've just reverted all these changes to articles I happen to have watchlisted. Aside from being odd history (Australian Army formations of World War II were not "British Empire" units, for instance) they were already in the appropriate child category. I think this applies more generally to your recent categorisations, and I'd ask that you start a discussion at WT:MILHIST or similar if you'd like to propose them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, thanks for your response, I still have a problem of the notion of Australia being in the empire in the second world war, there needs somewhere in an article or link to clarify what context Australia was in relation to the British - as a 'dominion' or 'commonwealth' and who specifically administered our military forces - imperial (?) or Australian administration.
Having done work at the AWM in Canberra and archive work in the National Archives on 1942 events as a researcher, I am finding this all a bit surreal.
I was under the impression that technically the issues of military and political history that we (Australia) were not necessarily a specific 'component' of the empire in any legal or political sense. This sort of issue will go on for ever if there isnt a definitive specific reference from something close to a verification of what we were in relation to what remained of the almost completely gone empire by 1940. I fail to believe (unless I am shown a good WP:RS on the issue,) that we were in the empire as we were prior to 1901, in 1940. JarrahTree 11:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I do not believe the extra category attached to ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_units_and_formations_of_Australia_in_World_War_II is correct in any way JarrahTree 11:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the frustration. There has been a mess of a dialogue at British Empire in World War II were the use of Commonwealth was rejected. Personally, I am appalled. As an editor, I shrug my shoulders. Australian forces worked under and over numerous Commonwealth formations. Imperial and dominion forces were allocated across Commonwealth military formations and were highly integrated. Please do not remove the category. All you are doing is disconnecting readers from further information about Australia, who are coming at it from the perspective of the Commonwealth. Robert Brukner (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you are misunderstanding wikipedia completly. It is not about an editor imposing an idea upon others, it is a process whereby consensus is arrived by collaboration, clarifying specific information and ending up with an enyclopediac principle over how knowledge is presented. (a) worked under and over commonwealth formations does not necessarily make us a part of an empire in its strictest sense, collaboration can be done by countries that were not necessarily attached in certain ways (b) please do not remove the category ? why not - where is the specific document or link that specifies Australia as an component part of an empire (c) disconnecting readers - further showing you are a new user... please, your comments to date show you are a new user, please understand that things are not resolved by telling other editors what to do JarrahTree 00:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment at Roberts talk page, and the ones here are as far as I go in this conversation, and I thank Nick for tolerance on using his talk page as a venue for dsicussing a milhist issue. I see no future in the issue, unless someone is able to come up with a very very good WP:RS that clearly shoots the bullseye relative the Australian 'involvement' or disassocciaton with the 'empire'. These sort of issues take up far too much time and space, and I have left my blob for it, and now move onto other things. Thanks Nick and Robert. As they say have a good day. JarrahTree 01:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with the use of Empire in the context. But I am picking and choosing my battles. At the moment, editors that are pushing down on a more nuanced perspective are ascendant. Regardless of what Wikipedians choose to call the British Empire and Commonwealth during the Second World War, it remains true that the Dominions played an integral role in, and made great sacrifices, in defence of themselves, their own colonies, other Dominions and their colonies, Britain and its colonies, and the entire Imperial system. Constitutional legalities are one thing. De facto command and control, integration of arms (not just collaboration), shared command, delegated command, the sterling area, etc... are elements of one very large complex story that Wikipedia does not address. Ignoring it does not resolve it. But at the moment I am not prepared to challenge the many editors (mostly from the US) who push back on the story. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert, My main concern is that the categorisations you added for the Australian articles are unnecessary, as the articles were already in relevant child categories of the British Empire in WW2 category. A secondary concern is that this was inappropriate in most cases as the articles covered Australian Army units, which were never integrated with any other British Empire formations. For instance, you added this category to Australian Army divisions which only saw service in Australia and its territories. More generally, while the Australian Government allowed the Navy and some of the RAAF to be integrated with British units (with RAAF graduates of the Empire Air Training Scheme being effectively RAF personnel), it generally took pains to keep the Army self-contained. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Australia article
Hi Nick, I don't know why u have undid my edit on Australia population density. The 2.8 density was a old one base on the population in 2011. Now the correct population density is 3.14 base on the current population of about 24 million.
Please provide references to support this. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Cruiser tanks are not the exact same thing as the Sentinel
There is very little parts commonality between the Sentinel and the other ACs. Between say the AC1 and the AC3, the only major parts you could swap at will are the tracks and suspension, and the turret ring, they really are that different.
All the sources I've seen treat the different variants of this tank together. As I understand it, the AC1 was the production variant and the other variants were only ever intended for trials purposes. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, most sources are wrong. When the last AC1 was completed the line switched to AC3 production, there's photographs and films that show AC3 parts being manufactured in large numbers and on the assembly line, and documents related to the order for 200 AC3s, and so on, and after the project was stopped the question of how to dispose of the something like 150 AC3 hulls that had already been cast. So there was only ever going to be 65 AC1s, and the follow on tanks bear about as much similarity to the AC1 as the Comet does to the Cromwell, which in spite of both being Cruiser tanks are not the exact same tank either ;) Ways (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add sources to that effect to the article? It certainly goes against what I remember reading. Regards Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it would help I'll try, it's mostly already in the article though. Your memory is probably fine, as I said most sources are wrong or misleading. For example there's a book published in 2011 that states that one of the features of the new design is that AC3 had no machine gun. In reality The GS specification calls for a coax. The stowage list includes a large quantity of Vickers belts. In tests there was a little concern about gases from the coax collecting in the turret, and that the ammunition rack might need to be adjusted to feed the gun easier. And photos from the outside show armour to protect the coax, and photos of the interior show things like the coolant tank for the coax. The only reasonable conclusion is the source, it this respect at least, is wrong. Ways (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bougainville counterattack 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 Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a well-meaning (and sensible) quibble, and I've posted a response on your talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, I came across a user manual today at work that used the term "human portable"... and it was written in the late 1990s! Apart from the professional embarrassment that the equipment was almost as old as me, I was surprised and the words sounded strange to my ear. But then I realised that in 15-20 years' time when my daughters are potentially serving, I hope that it won't sound strange to their ears. Just a thought. Sorry, it's been a long, weird day at work so maybe I'm getting a bit philosophical! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to see - hopefully the term becomes more widely used. Though the term does make me think of this new technological development... Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convoy Belligerants Query
Hi Nick, You reversed a change I made here. I note that in this convoy the two US military ships torpedoed were part of the convoy, not its naval protection and had no apparent combat capability. I have seen that in all other convoy articles that the "belligerents" listed are only for those flags of screening forces. Is there a wikipedia protocol or discussion, or whatever, regarding how to flag belligerents in a convoy? I don't want to make the same mistake twice. Robert Brukner (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, I think that the norm is to include all the countries significantly involved in battles in the infobox. Articles on convoys typically list all the countries which had ships involved, armed or unarmed (though most merchant vessels were armed in WW2). In the case of Convoy GP55, while the escort force was entirely Australian it included several US military transports and it doesn't seem like a good idea to leave the US out of the infobox given that both the ships which were torpedoed were American. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion
Hi, I wonder if you could give me a second on opinion on the expired PRODs that have been declined? Discussion here: User_talk:DGG#PROD. The PRODs have expired but have been removed with the suggestion to go the AfD route. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree with User:DGG: there isn't a strong consensus that these types of people can be assumed to not be notable, so AfD is the best path to go down. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Advice please
Nick,
Can I get your advice please, compare the article before and after it has been edited. Any mention of the higher estimates has been removed. Its the same with the expulsion of muslims from Spain, only the lower estimates are mentioned now. Its the same editor making these changes all over this subject on Wikipedia. He even tried to claim that the Jews weren't expelled from Gibraltar, despite the fact that it is a well known historical incident. I can't get any sense out of discussions with the guy, he simply assumes bad faith - please take a look at my talk page. He also edit wars relentlessly to force his changes into the article accusing people of being ignorant of Spanish history and asserting that unless you can speak Spanish you can't comment. What do you think, my concern is that this appears to be white washing history. WCMemail 07:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Regarding the History of the Jews in Spain article, that removal doesn't seem constructive given that the information is referenced - though full bibliographic details are needed as the sources weren't clear at the time of those edits. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you advise I proceed, I have had little joy in trying to talk with the guy, all I get back is a quite hostile response. WCMemail 10:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Talk:History of Gibraltar, I agree with Finnusertop's comment that the discussion would benefit from more participants, so that could be a good starting point - there are quite a few editors knowledgeable about this topic from when there was a push to develop articles on Gibraltar a few years ago, so you could ping them. It being just you vs them clearly isn't working. I'm afraid I don't know much about this topic so I can't be of much help on the details. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that suggestion, I pinged Prioryman and others involved in the GA review. What do you suggest about the editing that this user is doing, I find it troubling all of their editing seems to be about lowering the numbers of religious expulsions from Spain, only presenting the lower estimates and generally whitewashing articles. They're not in a topic area that gets much coverage so one POV pusher can do a lot of damage. WCMemail 12:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a clear pattern of vandalism, WP:ANI might be the best option. Otherwise, confronting them over one example of this might get them to stop it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Canberra meetup invitation (August 2016)
I'll be in Canberra from the 29-30 August, there is a planned meet-up at King O'Malley's (though I'm open to suggestions) from 6pm on the 29 August. Sorry for the short noticed, only had the trip confirmed this afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note - I'll comment separately there as the RfC seems to cover a wider range of issues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Advice requested
Nick, could you look at this diff, the discussion, and the article? I anticipate difficulty from the second poster, who originally added the text in question. If necessary, I can bring this matter up at MILHIST for broader input. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill, I struggle to get my head around how range finders (and bomb sights, which I think work on similar principles?) work, so I'm in favour of layman's explanations for these issues! Name-checking the technical terms is a good idea, but we shouldn't expect our readers - or me - to understand what they mean. Some of the folks who work on articles on warships are very cluey on the topic though, and I'd suggest leaving a note at WT:OMT as well as WT:MILHIST if necessary. I suspect that this topic forms part of the huge OMT work plan, or could be rolled into it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now for something completely different ... from my previous comment
Hi Bill, I that that article resulted from this recent discussion. The term does get used a bit, though nowhere as much as "Contiguous United States" seems to in the US. Tasmanians and the few thousand residents of Australia's offshore territories often grumble about "mainlanders". Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible map for Operation Pamphlet
Gday Nick. I saw your request for a map at the Graphics Lab and thought I'd give it a try. I've created a basic map so far but its the first time I've ever uploaded in .svg format so I was taking a punting to see if it even displayed (I usually use .png but that's not really helpful to others that might wish to reuse / amend at a later date). I've posted it here rather than at the Graphics Lab because I didn't want to prevent someone who actually knows what they are doing from taking your request (should someone be interested etc). Anyway my skills are evidently limited so it looks like it was drawn by my two-year-old in places so I understand if its not what you are after. However, if you do want to use the map then pls let me know if you want any amendments. Also what about marking convoy routes etc? Do you have a source for that? If so I'd be happy to *try* and overlay those (or anything else). Also do you want any place names etc? Anotherclown (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great - thanks a lot. Could you please mark the following locations: Port Tewfik, Massawa, Addu Atoll and Fremantle? I can then add the route the ships took from my source for this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made those additions now, although the locations (like the rest of the map) are approximations. The coast line is definitely not quite right, likewise the islands that I have shown but it probably works for illustrative purposes. Are they any other amendments req'd and / or suggested improvements? Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No - that works well. I've just had my first go at editing a svg to add the convoy route and uploaded a new version, but the default line in Inkscape is rather thin and I can't figure out how to make it thicker! - do you know how to fix this? Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work given its your first go (I've struggled to learn how to use the program for 6-7 yrs!) Re increasing the size of the convoy route:
Select the convoy route line using the "Edit paths by node" tool (2nd from top on the left hand side tool bar, under the arrow). Select "Object" on the menu across the top of the screen, then "Fill and Stroke" (a menu will then appear on the right of screen). Select the third tab ("Stroke Style") and change the "Width" field to the desired size and hit enter.
Hopefully that's clear enough but if not pls let me know what size you are after and I can change etc. Anotherclown (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - thanks for those clear instructions. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FAC mentoring
Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all Brian. The mentoring scheme is a good idea (especially in light of the limited scope of Wikipedia's A-class review processes at present), and I'm hoping it's a success. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Paravane 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) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick-D- the colours I have listed are in fact the colours of the RNZAF squadrons. For example the Red and black is the official 3 Squadron colours as you would see when personnel from that squadron wear there patches. White and black is painted on the side of 14 squadron Texans.
In that case, you should have no problems providing references to reliable sources. Please do so before readding this material. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References for what? It's there in the photos!!! 3 Squadron being a squadron that originated in Canterbury, colours being red and black. Don't think you know what you are talking about. Being ex RNZAF I think you will find I am correct
References to published reliable sources, thanks: this is the norm for all Wikipedia articles. If you're ex RNZAF I imagine that you'd be well placed to know what these sources are so this is will be easy. I don't add stuff I know about without adding references. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, now that 37 Sqn has passed GA, it occurs to me that Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service might be worth nominating for Featured Topic along with the 36 and 37 Sqn articles. WDYT? I considered whether 285 Sqn (another recent GA) might also belong but we never mention it in the 'parent' article and it might be stretching things a bit given 285 has no Hercs permanently assigned to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, That sounds like a good idea. I'm a bit surprised that we managed to not mention No. 285 Squadron in the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service article! - I'll have a go at correcting this, so it can be rolled into the nomination (my reading of the FT criteria is that a good article in the mix with three FAs is OK - but please correct me if I'm mistaken). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that -- I added a line, and of course feel free to tweak. Checking FT criteria again, I don't think it makes any difference re. eligibility if we include 285 or not: looks like the rule is you just need 50% of the topic articles (minimum of 2) to be FA, and the rest GA, to go for FT. With the parent article and 36 Sqn at FA, and 37 Sqn and 285 Sqn at GA, we can go for FT with or without 285 in the mix. As I say, my only concern with 285 is whether we can really say the C-130 is "in service" with it given it only gets them on loan (or when they're retired!). I was thinking for instance that ARDU probably has the odd C-130 assigned to it now and then but we wouldn't say it has them in service. OTOH 285's sole reason for being now is to train on the C-130 so it's probably not a fair comparison... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest ruling No. 285 Squadron in as its main/major role since 1999 has been to provide what looks like conversion and specialist training for C-130 aircrew, and it permanently operates simulators for the type as well as some airframes. However, as I only wrote about half of one of the articles in question here and haven't edited the No. 285 squadron article for more than ten years, I'm happy to defer to your judgement! Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was starting to come round to the idea of including 285 -- the unit is pretty well joined at the hip to 37 Sqn and when it flies anything it's Hercs -- but then began wondering if including 285 Sqn means we should also include 486 Sqn, which spent much of its existence maintaining the Hercs, and then I came back to thinking we should just keep it to the units that actually operated the Hercs, as opposed to those that trained on them or maintained them, leaving us with 36 and 37 Sqns. My feeling now is we just go with them, the unarguable ones, and if any reviewers put forward 285 we can always discuss and if necessary add it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point - a FT on C-130 flying units is the tidiest option (I agree that 486 Sqn would probably be out of scope - and if it was ruled in No. 84 Wing, No. 86 Wing and possibly RAAF Base Richmond would probably need to be ruled in as well). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: deletion of Sourcery Technologies page. Why?
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Tedb05's talk page. Message added September 14, 2:23pm PST. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I deleted that article as it didn't provide any evidence why this firm was notable. It also read like an ad for this business. Please see WP:ORG and WP:COI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this page deleted Nello - Company?
Hey Nick,
Hope everything is good at your end. I am still new to Wikipedia so I am not entirely sure how and where to reach out to you.
I wanted to ask in more detail about why the page which I created was deleted. The name of the page was called "Nello - Company". The reasoning that I was given was "A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)".
Just a bit of info about nello. We are a company currently based in Munich and we wanted to be present on the Wikipedia page as well. It would be great if you could help us out here.
Also as I mentioned, I am not sure If I am asking you on the right place. If it is not then apologies. Thanks in advance!
Hello, Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory or venue for you to promote your firm. Please take the time to read WP:COI and WP:ORG: the short version though is that you should not write about things with which you have a connection, and especially a commercial one, with. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler
Please don't accuse me of edit warring.
I gave reasons for the changes I made.
The reasons were just ignored or they were deleted before I could post them.
The German entry for the Fuehrers birthday is noteworthy and should be included because in itself it shows a basic difference in the German and Anglo Saxon attitude to Hitler.
In Germany the name Fuehergeburtstag (Fuehrerbirthday) has a 'public holiday' feel to it. Wythy (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to be accused of edit warring, don't edit war. I'm not sure that I follow your argument, or why adding a link to the German Wikipedia is the best option. But please do start a discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edit warring - there's a hole in your bucket. Regards, Wythy (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Richard E. Cole
Nick, could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole? I'm not asking for you to do deletion review, but for your advice on whether a filing for a review might succeed. The article was only redirected, not deleted outright, and there have been several attempts to restore the article without review since 2012. Cole is the last surviving Doolittle Raider, and was present at the naming ceremony for the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider on Monday. In 2015, the members of the Raiders were awarded Congressional Gold Medals. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Living History Film Series film about him also, per this article on the NMUSAF site. That article gives a little more about his service history in the war than we had in the WP article. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill, Based on the final version of the article, there isn't really much to sustain notability here. The documentary and recent media coverage certainly helps, but is he notable for more than a single event in which he didn't play an unusually prominent role? Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't really understand the dividing line for being notable for a single event. If he had died during the raid without playing a prominent role, that is understandable. But as a survivor of the raid, he continues to get coverage. It's too confusing for me. - BilCat (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One option (albeit the most labour intensive one) would be to have a stab at recreating the article and seeing what happens! I've done this in the past, with success. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean recreating it in draft- or userspace? It's clear that the page watchers won't allow a recreation in mainspace because of the AFD. - BilCat (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there still page watchers? If so, yes a draft/user space version would be the best option to demonstrate that this is a viable topic to concerned editors. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "final version" was deleted on Aug 25, 2016, so I'd say the watchers are still active. This s the final version before the AFD in 2012, and that's probably what I'd use to start with. I really know nothing about him at all, but I may try to view the film to start with. I'm also very weak on writing biographies. Do you know right off of an editor with experience in biographies, particularly US WWII servicemen? User:TomStar81 does a lot in regards to USN warships, but I don't know about bios. - BilCat (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ian Rose is our resident expert on biographies of aviators, albeit mainly Australian ones. I'm not sure if anyone specialises in US World War II bios at the moment. The Kaname Harada article I (mainly) developed before his recent death might be a somewhat useful model, bearing in mind that all you need is a solid stub. The Colin McMullen article I've recently posted might also be useful for inspiration - McMullen is also really only marginally notable. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the comments and advice. I'll contact Ian for his input. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Bill. I note that there are a fair few photos on Commons of Cole. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I've had a look at the deletion discussion, and the 2012 article snapshot above, and I also tend to think that, based on his record, Cole wouldn't necessarily sustain a dedicated article. If he was lead pilot in one of the planes, perhaps the argument would be stronger, but to compare with the Dambuster Raid, not even all the pilots there have their own article. OTOH, I think someone at the deletion discussion suggested a composite, list-like article consisting of short bios on all the crews, and that might well fly (pun unintended)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My edit at Talk:Hitler
Hi.
Are you serious? Remember, this is the talk page for Adolf Hitler, so it's possible that quite a lot of the content (read: absolutely everything) is about Hitler. Given that, what does a header such as "hitler" tell us about the specific subject of the thread? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Literally anything else would be better. The post was rambling, incoherent, vague, confused, so I replaced "hitler" with something appropriately vague. It is better, trust me.
Would you prefer I had written "Jewelry and stuff"? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 11:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree that the title of that section was poor, but having a section called "jews and stuff" at Talk:Adolf Hitler is insensitive at best. Britmax has come up with a better title. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I fear we've entered PC Land. I'll just make a quick exit while nobody's looking. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 11:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Whelan
Hi Nick-D
Thanks for this.
What I was going on was WP:ANYBIO rather than strictly military guidelines, as there is an overlap in this particular situation:
1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor – Patrick Whelan received the 1916 Medal posthumously.
2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - The Easter Rising only lasted 6 days, but it is a seminal event in Irish history. Patrick played his part in this significant military event and gave his life for his country. As one of the Volunteers, he is honoured at State events and annual State Masses in recognition of his sacrifice to help build the foundation of the Irish State.
3) The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication - This refers to the UK only, but Patrick Whelan is listed in 'Who's Who in the Dublin Rising 1916' by Joseph E.A. Connell Jnr. His story is also documented in Ray Bateson’s ‘They Died by Pearse’s Side’, with Patrick mentioned specifically on the back cover.
As well as being documented in the Military Archives, Patrick Whelan also has a building named after him – Whelan House, which is located beside O’Rahily House in Ringsend, Dublin. Both buildings were named in recognition of the men’s part in The Easter Rising of 1916.
Hello, Nick-D. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
42 scare
Seeing the quality of your 44 scare (which was so slight in comparison to 42), I have a very hard act to to follow, if ever descend from my scatterbrained edit pattern of present... JarrahTree 01:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great topic for an article. Even a stub would be very helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your encouragemet, it is always appreciated JarrahTree 01:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if ever told you on or off wiki - how impressed I was by the plans that i viewed in the AWM archive years ago for the process of blowing up of the whole of the fremantle harbour facilities in the event of an invasion in 42 - each building and item of value - and how to rig up the system - very well thought out JarrahTree 01:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting - not least as the officer responsible for this planning, Claude Choules, ended up as the last survivor of World War I. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this article says that the demolition charges were actually put in place for a few weeks! - I had no idea. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wow so the plans I was looking at awm were real and live - sheesh! - I think stub needs to start some time soon :) 02:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Horrible little stub [20] - titled as such as it seems a more neutral toned title JarrahTree 07:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good start to me! Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem for me I know minutiae about the February to November 1942 and the unbelievable plumbing details of army camps and the wierd troop allocation by the guy who blew in from singapore, not sure whether I can fit the stuff in... the photos of forde reviewing troops in the part of the hills above perth after the scare are spooky in their own way.. JarrahTree 08:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
every man and their dog and fleas have been playing with it now, it is enough to wonder why one bothers to create articles on wp en - they sometimes get so re-arranged it is a wonder they survive JarrahTree 04:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you might be willing to consider doing edits to Draft:"Panzer ace" in popular culture? I really think that the existing page should be TNTed, and the more edits are made to the main article, the more divergent the two versions would get. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Based on my experiences - including multiple unsuccessful attempts to nominate articles for deletion under WP:TNT - I don't think that it's at all likely that the article will be deleted outright. WP:TNT seems to have a pretty limited support base, and the concept of deleting articles as their history is a mild annoyance isn't grounded in any policy I'm aware of (I think that this is only considered OK in cases where Wikipedia:Oversight applies). If I'm wrong and the article is deleted and recreated, the content can easily be recovered and moved across by any admin - including myself. Personally, I think that we should be having a discussion about moving the article, and not deleting it so I don't really see the need to mess around with a draft at the moment (it would be better if the draft was put on hold until after the AfD concludes, IMO). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense. I will move over some of my edits into the main article then. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rawlinson
Hi Nick, believe it or not I've finally made a start on this bloke's bio, having found enough material to pretty well round out his RAF, as well as RAAF, service. He seems to have been almost completely ignored post-military though (no full obits such as Bobby Gibbes or Dick Cresswell received around the same time as far as I can see) so I'm scratching for any sources I can find from the 60s onwards... I noticed you cited 79 Sqn's 60th anniversary celebrations involving him to The Advertiser and the Geelong Advertiser -- you don't happen to still have those do you? I knew he was living in Naracoorte but I'd be keen to know any other details they mentioned about him -- for instance I only found today in the microfiche copy of his death notice in the Adelaide Advertiser that he had two kids, and that the wife I knew he'd married in 1943 (Thora) had apparently been replaced by a lady named Gwen... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I sourced those stories from the Factiva database via the NLA:
The only material on Rawlinson in the 'Peter jets in with plenty to celebrate' story is "Yesterday afternoon, in Naracoorte, he [Wing Commander Peter Campbell, the CO of 79 Squadron at the time] visited 79 Squadron's founding officer-in-charge Alan Rawlinson, 85, a highly decorated World War II RAAF flyer. Two of the Hawks flew from Edinburgh to circle Naracoorte in a salute Mr Rawlinson."
The 'Squadron roars home for birthday bash' is about the squadron's anniversary tour, and doesn't mention Rawlinson.
I hope that's helpful. As a friendly reminder, would you be able to look in on the Operation Leader ACR? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that Nick -- I have a login for NLA too and often use it to check TimesOnline but hadn't come across Factiva there for some reason, so that in itself was helpful. Finished off Op Leader too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Emu War" talk page
Hi Nick!
Please tell me why you decided to revert my edit to Talk:Emu War?
I thought it fair comment on a nonsensical claim by a one-edit user, EmuResearch. Any attempt to treat the so-called "Emu War" as an actual military campaign is ridiculous, and I think the point worth reiterating. Obviously, the article has been the subject of repeated vandalism, and I just wanted to reinforce how silly it is to try to write for The Onion on the pages of Wikipedia, where we're trying to create a reliable and useful reference work.
You were adding to the nonsense with your post (eg, "To claim that the results were emus 2000, Australians 0 would deny the emus their birthright as native Australians", etc). Please don't do this again. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: deletion of Sourcery Technologies page. Can I access deleted content?
can i access deleted content? would love to try and adjust it to be more aligned with wikipedia's standards, but don't want to need to reformat again and track down the sources. thanks for your help on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedb05 (talk • contribs)
Before I consider doing that, can you please answer the following questions (and not just with "yes"):
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable? Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16
The Content Review Medal of Merit
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Siegestor
What was the problem with the popular culture section?
Peashaw (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Peashaw[reply]
It was pure, and highly American-centric, trivia. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's him. I've just blocked these accounts. I wish that people would stop responding to this idiot's obvious trolling. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is, not everyone finds the fact that it is trolling "obvious". Without an explanation there is very little difference between content removed for trolling and unexplained removal of content. How this is to be done without playing with the borders of the Streisand Effect and WP:BEANS is another question. Britmax (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that hatting discussions with a note asking people not to engage with this person generally works. But his posts are generally statements rather than anything linked to improving the article, so I don't get why people are biting by entering into debates with them. I often think that Wikipedia would benefit from having a bunch of discussion forums added where people can chat about stuff. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Armored champion" book
Do you have this book? If so, I'd like to make a specific request, if possible for a copy of the Appendix 5 Japanese Armored Vehicle Production. If you are agreeable, a picture of the page sent to my email addy would do. I have a copy of Zaloga, Steven J. "Japanese Tanks 1939–45" (2007), which includes production charts; I just wanted to cross-check and see if his numbers have changed any. Ironically, its the one production chart they don't show in the Google Books preview for the "Armored champion" book by Zaloga. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kierzek, I'm afraid that I don't own that book - I was also relying on the elements on Google Books. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, as an interested party, could you have a glance at EGON system and counter-measures and give me a second opinion on whether it is easy to understand? Thanks Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, It's understandable, but it seems a bit out of place in this article. The material on how the system operated in particular isn't really necessary here: it would be better to note that the Germans introduced a new system and what it's results in this campaign were. The technical details would probably work best in an article on this system or similar. Great work with this article by the way! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more suited to the tactics bit. Dapi89 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just deleted that fine. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you just going through a few almost 10 year old articles drastically in need of improvement. Your help is always appreciated JarrahTree 10:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Batkhuslen
Nick, Thanks for blocking User:World Armies. User:Batkhuslen's contributions are very similar to World Armies. The edits occurred before World Armies began editing, so it might be worth keeping an eye out to see if the edits start again. - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bill. If they aren't one and the same person I'll eat my hat, so I've blocked that account. It does deprive us of entertainment like these edits, but there's better sources of humour online ;) . Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also. That's almost as bad as Fonte de regaz's ubiquitous sock farm and the fictional Malaysian crap they keep adding. - BilCat (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole bunch of people who do this on articles on the militaries of developing economies. I've permanently semi-protected a few such articles to stop particularly bad cases, and please drop me a line if there are any others you're aware of. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re; User:Histrange
Hello, apologies if this is not the place to put this, - and I retired my account many months ago, so am no longer editing, - but I would like to ask you to check to see if Offender9000, who was permanently banned in 2013, (and I gather you have since deleted many of his socks and new accounts) , is now active again as Histrange.
I also have reason to believe Histrange is a sock of another blocked (this year) user Turtletop.
All these accounts have been active at the Bain Family Murders article in the past and this year, and the edit war has resulted in the article being currently protected.
I have also noticed that Histrange is active on the Familicide article at present, and is making edits to bolster his POV on the Bain family murders.
The Bain topic and Familicide are both IRL, currently dear to the person who was known as Offender9000 at Wikipedia, (this year he has been fundraising for Bain ), so can you please check them out?. TIA
I will not be resuming editing on the Bain article as I was put off by the edit wars. Many Thanks.NZgreygoose (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NZgreygoose, I agree that these two accounts do seem to be the same person, and have blocked Histrange. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please semi protect the page again. The vandalism is high again. Thanks. - EugεnS¡m¡on 09:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It looks like the indefinite semi-protection may have been removed as an unintended consequence of a period of full protection. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
.png)
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist!) - BilCat (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Done Translations complete. Manxruler (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carlotm (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
