User talk:Nick-D

My talk archive

Awards people have given me

HMS Winger

Hi Nick. I just did a bit of wikifying on HMS Shearwater (L39), and it say this fictional vessel represents the HMS winger of the Flower class. However, Winger is not listed on the class template. Just so you know why the categories are that way if I have it wrong--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted this one out, she was a Kingfisher class sloop rather than a Flower class. Montsarrat appears simply to have based the fictional ship on the career of one of a different class. I've overhauled the article and fixed the categories. Benea (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography of fly fishing

G'day Nick. At the risk of being accused of "canvassing", I am interested in why you take the position you take on this article's AfD. The article is almost entirely based on simple facts - this book was published within such and such a timeline, focused on this topic, and containing this and that which might be of interest. The only argument, I would have thought, might be with whether a particular book should have been selected rather than another book. And I don't understand why you liken it to a personal blog or website. Anyone, anywhere around the world, would be apt to come up with a similiar list. Where is the personal input in that? I am seriously surprised and don't understand why you take this position - and it seems to me Wikipedia will be diminished by the rejection of articles like this. Please sort me out. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that I explained myself on the AfD: this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to or fly fishing website so the material is totally out of place here. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that I may be too stupid to edit articles in Wikipedia, and perhaps should pull out. Still, I do not understand you. Compare: This is an encyclopaedia, not a naval history website, so the material on HMS Hood is totally out of place here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you're stupid - you are welcome to your opinion. I think that there's a lot of difference between an article on a thing (a battleship, election, CD, notable fisher, whatever) whose notability is established by multiple reliable sources and an article which is basically commentary on books. I'd have voted to delete 'Annotated bibliography of battlecruisers' as well, and have done so on other articles of this type in the past - which are consistently deleted as OR. It's actually an OK article for what it is, it just doesn't belong here. If it's deleted I'd be happy to use my admin powers to move a copy into your user space so that it can be moved onto a more suitable website (wikiHow perhaps?). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Xfd

Have reverted self here in relation to the Darwin Sayonara - due to my obtsue side comments not directly related - and taken good note of the notability issue for books - thanks for your trouble in pointing it out at Xfd and on my talk - will be much more careful with my comments re the matters of N and books. cheers SatuSuro 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fort Hommet 10.5 cm Coastal Defence Gun Casement Bunker

Hello Nick Dowling

In answer to your question as to why this article is notable, if you bothered to read the introduction you will see the words fully restored. As far as I’m aware this is rather unique to the UK. I don’t know of any other fully restored Nazi gun emplacement on UK sites. A lot of time and effort has been put into restoring this unique part of our recent history and it fully deserves its place on Wikipedia. I have removed your tag as it is really not justified. I would also point out to you that the whole point of putting the under construction tag on the page is for it to have a chance to stand on its merits as it progresses. A concept that appears to have gone over your Head!. I do not wish to appear to be rude to you, but it would have been a little more courteous of you to contact me with your concern rather than just tagging the page.  stavros1  ♣ 

At the time I tagged the article it consisted of a single line of text reading "Fort Hommet 10.5 cm Coastal Defence Gun Casement Bunker is a fully restored Gun Casement that was part of Fortress Guernsey constructed by the forces of Nazi Germany between 1940 and 1945" and no references which attested to notability at all. As such, it provided no indication of notability such as it being unique. Please don't get cranky when people tag articles, but assume good faith and take the comment on board. It's also not adisable to start one line articles which make no claim to notability and provide no references as

Its not a case of getting kranky!. I just wish to point out that the page was given a under construction tag at the time of its creation. The tag you placed on the page rather makes the construction tag pointless if going by your explanation of your contribution.  stavros1  ♣ 

Nick Dowling, could you explain the reasoning behind putting the deletion tag on the page that has a construction tag which reads Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days. This would help remove any confusion. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't tag the page for deletion and, according to my reading of the article's edit history, no-one else has. The notability tag is basically a request that editors provide sources to prove the notability of something and plays no role at all in any deletion process. I've had some of the articles I've created on obscure Royal Australian Air Force units tagged for notability and addressed those editors concerns by adding sources and then removing the tag - it's not a big deal. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Oberiko blocked

Oberiko's just been blocked after consensus he's taken months to achieve on World War II has been put in jeopardy with less involved and committed editors undoing his good work, though he breached 3RR in the process. This block removes the main person who's basically singlehandedly carrying the WP:MHSP effort. Would you mind looking into the situation and the WW2 edit history and then commenting on his talk page? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Aviation Regiments of the Russian Air Force

Just created this. Would you mind taking a quick look and leaving any suggestions for improvement on the talk page? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[1]...all here [2] realy--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't read Russian, so I can't understand any part of that page! Nick Dowling (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New Australian military history articles

Thanks Nick. ("You learn something new every day!"). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer

Three minutes to undo an edit, that is fast protection. Is it not useful to mention similar weight British and Korean vessels to get the idea across that not all flat tops are aircraft carriers? Even the Invincible class ships got the Harrier as an afterthought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.188 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from weight alone not being an indicator of ships' ability to operate aircraft, the comparison to similar British and Italian ships was already in the second para of the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

we should renominate it for deletion and propose a transwiki and come up with a detailed rationale for deletion this time.Myheartinchile (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I share your concerns. The editor in question has a long story of creating synthesis-like articles where selected quotes are used in cherry-picked way, obscure resources and information taken out of context are combined to portay Allies in the worst way possible. His stance on Allies was made public by him when he named countries fighting against Nazi Germany "a gang"([thing, there were other more or less temporary changes in the Western frontiers, not just the Bakker Schutz land-grab by the Dutch but also grabbings by the rest of the gang.) Other contributions include claims that WW2 was started by mass murder of Germans by Poles which prompted Hitler to intervene[3], or comparing Polish nation to war criminal Maybe the Poles and Milosevic are in the same class... Frankly as you likely understand I am very concerned with those edits and the overall impression they make. Especially since warning given to him didn't work[4]

Best regards. --Molobo (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As if I needed more evidence that I was still being stalked, here you are Molobo; fresh out of your block and the first thing you do is to go to articles I've edited. I invite anyone in danger of being taken in by the above text to compare mine and Molobos block logs.

• Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stor stark7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Molobo is a very persistent editor of Eastern Europe topics and has a, shall we say, very strong opinion. I sadly first encountered him several years ago when editing German history topics, and our relationship has not improved. In fact, the editor in question set my blood boiling by a very deliberate act. I had read the Hnet review of an autobiography by Martha Kent. There she told the story of how she, as a 5year old ethnic German child, for several years after World War II had to spend time in Polish slave labor camps. ""for us the camp was the normal place where we children experienced our youth" (p. 10). She describes in a very open, child-like fashion, and without even a hint of bitterness, the lice, diseases, living conditions, interactions with other prisoners and guards, and the fact that death was such a common experience in the camp that when her mother was sent away for several months to perform hard labor at a prison, Kent was certain she had died and would never be seen again." Very sad part of history, but what piqued my intrest was this: She moved to the U.S. and eventually suffered a mental breakdown, but.....""Even mentioning Potulitz would cause friends, friends whom I valued and who wanted only the best for me, to react negatively. They assumed that the people who instigated the war and made National Socialism possible--the Germans--did not have the right, due to collective guilt, to speak of their own suffering" (p. 296)." So I became interested in collective guilt. I eventually decided to write an article on the topic, and started drafting a rough structure in my sandbox. What happens next? Molobo stalks me there, and lets one of his friends know about it.[5]. A few days later this article appears: German collective guilt. Guess who the author was, and what the topic was. You guessed it, basically that all Germans are guilty monsters.

Now as you can imagine I was not happy, it put me off the topic, and I haven't really used the sandbox since, for concern of similar attacks. Nevertheless, Molobo finally managed to provoke me properly through some additional stalking, and he got his prise, i.e. my censure. I had seen somewhere that even before the war began there was bloodshed against ethnic Germans in Poland. The casualty figures were apparently a few thousand but were inflated to 50,000. See this text snippet I had no more information than a vague recollection of that, which was why I asked about it here, to which Molobo has already pointed, but rather underhandedly. He managed to provoke me rather severely there, but it had started and continued already the day before in the Denazification article. There I had added info on the PsyOps of the first few months, and on the camps in Poland.[6]. Naturally I was stalked there by Molobo, who went to work. Note for example the title change, and the removal of the Time magazine segment under false pretenses[7]. And then the circus was on [8], and here I went over the top which got me the censure.[9] Although I still wonder who it was that a day later pointed Loeth there. I have my suspicions, but we will have to await Loeths return to Wikipedia.

Next topic brought forth by Molobo; "the gang". It's rather cute that thats amongst the "worst" brought forth by Molobo. I did indeed used the word "gang" [10]. I was discussing a map of the postwar German borders with 52_Pickup, now an admin on a break. I was refering to the landgrab made by the neighbors[11], and I stand by considering those people a gang, just read the quote I was citing. "There was no denying them. It was just like misers with a pot of gold in front of them, they couldn't keep their hands out of it (I'm sorry to put it that way, but it was a rather unedifying spectacle to me)." As to the Milocevik comparison, please use the link Molobo so kindly provided. But please first scroll your way through what is accessible in these 2 google books. [12],[13]

Molobo is apparently concerned about me, as indeed he should be, I'm one of the few with the stamina to stand up to him. I on the other hand am gravely concerned about Molobo, and his actions, and their effect on Wikipedia and on its editors. an example at hand is the wearisome discussion at Talk:Karkonosze. And just look at what he has done after stopping by here....

• Atlantic Charter. Molobo has just edited it. He has no history of editing it, and it seems far from his topic area. Perhaps not surprising, the article is high up on my contributions list, since I edited it 2 days ago and have not had much time to edit lately. And look, It was my contribution that was severely cropped. At least it is a "neutral version" now, at least according to Molobo...
• Strategic bombing during World War II. Another article I added heavily to just 2 days ago and very visible on the first page of my contributions list. What happened here? Take a guess. But I have to admire him, he sets an example for all Wikipedians. Just look how cleverly he hides the deletion of a full sourced paragraph. Although this one is even better, the lost material is not visible when moving text around like this. Can you spot the difference? A hint, it is the paragraphs and citation requests that I had inserted that suddenly are missing. Another minor edit, no-one need check it since it has an m in the watch list, but ooops, what went missing?

And it just goes on, and on, and on, until we all learn from the good examples set...

Best regards indeed--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never run into Molobo very much, but he strikes me as a really nasty editor, for what it's worth. Buckshot06(prof) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06's reply

Commented on the article's talk page. Feel free to disagree with me there or at my talk. What do you believe should happen to the article? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aussie Military Portal receives many hits a month

Check out this link [14]. This should tell you how many people have look at the portal for each month, thats if you haven't seen this web page before. Cheers . Adam (talk) (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Military history of Australia during World War I

Hi Nick. Any idea why this was deleted last year?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the deletion log it was because it was an empty category at the time. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

United States military in Iraq

As far as I can tell, this new article is mostly a duplicate of Iraq War order of battle, USAFCENT, and United States Central Command, and I'm thinking of listing it for deletion. What do you think? Buckshot06(prof) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can go ahead and redirect it. How abrupt should I be? I can just do it, announce on the talk page, or whatever. Buckshot06(prof) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

Mrg is now adding Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars to every major branch article - artillery, cavalry, jagers etc, far too high level categorisation (apart from it's appalling grammar). I've reverted a couple but he's reinstated the cat; what do you advise me to do? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You could just ask me. What is so appalling about Armies of Napoleonic Wars? its a category, not a fully fledged English sentence, so get over it. There is no absolute need for a "the". The troop types were all a part of the period. There are no articles that deal with the artillery and cavalry of the period, so if a reader wants to know something about either, they have to go to the general article until someone writes them.

Personally I'm wondering if its actually worth participating in Wikipedia with people like you around. EVERYTHING I do, you manage to find something wrong with it, and not just in matters of editing, but conceptually. You want to correct grammar, fine. You want to be gnomish about articles I work on, fine. However, you seem not to have the concept of an reference work firmly understood. Its about adding articles and structuring their subject areas. If I can't write articles, at least I am going to string them together (structure) so users can follow from one to another.

What is your problem with Jägers? They were a name used for light infantry in German-speaking states and Russia during the period. I said so. The article said so before I added Russia to it. I can reference the fact if you want me to, just use {{cn}}.

If you have lots of spare time, and looking for something to do, you can take over on new article patrol in tagging an inserting supporting sections to reorganise articles per WP:LAYOUT, and reference them as you go off Google-books rather than letting stubs pile up. I don't know why others don't do it. Doesn't take much. Just insert

==See also==

==References and notes==

{{reflist}}

==Sources==

{{find}}

==Further reading==

==External links==

then go to the find template and find three sources to reference the article and bingo, no stub--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with Jager - and artillery, cavalry, engineers, etc, is that the individual troop types, according to your idea, could have every war they've ever participated in added in the same way you're doing now: you're starting off a slippery slope to ridiculous overcategorisation when you should only be adding these categories to the individual branch-articles-during-wars. Can you imagine the article Infantry with every war that's ever happened added as a category 'Armies of the X War?' It doesn't bear thinking about. Your idea of categorisation is about 90 degrees off from the majority of wikipedia. Buckshot06(prof) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really feel for you Buckshot06, what with the overcategorised Infantry article. I actually did not add that one, but just added Line infantry, which should be Infantry of the Line from which it is redirected (with your love of grammar). Its not my problem that there is no planning and coordination in how articles are created. Ideally each category should have main articles, and major subcategory articles, but they are not there. The reason my idea of categorisation is 90 degrees off from the majority of Wikipedia is because majority of Wikipedia has no idea where its heading...a part of its design. By the way, I has asked for suggestions on what that idea should be, and was offered only ridicule and negativity, but nothing much constructive, purposeful or visionary--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep reverting and/or raise it on the appropriate conflict resolution boards. I agree that Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars is bad grammar - it should be Category:Armies of the Napoleonic Wars, and a cat of this name should only contain information on national armies of this era (a few good articles on these topics have been created recently). Mrg: it's really important that you note the widespread opposition to your categorisations. These are not helpful and, to be frank, you are probably heading towards some form of block if you don't stop breaching consensus. I'd suggest that you take a few days off from Wikipedia and focus on article creation and improvement when you get back as this works for me when I find myself going down bad paths on articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If Buckshot06, or yourself think that the category absolutely must have a "the" in it, there is a process for requesting a renaming.

I have created a new category for troop types and moved the troop types there.

"widespread opposition"? So far, five or six people in World War II. Its not even 1% of the signed up members of that task force. Most of my "vocal" opposition is Buckshot06

Ahm, "some kind of block"? You mean you have to figure out how to block me? Usually that's fairly apparent. Please Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status. Either you participate in a discussion, which is how a consensus is reached, or, if you don't have the time or inclination, just leave it to others to express themselves on the subject, Buckshot06 excepted. So far I have not actually done anything wrong. Even category restructuring is a fairly routine matter in other Projects. You ought to get out more. Two of the very few people that participated in the discussion said its not necessarily a bad thing.

I'll focus on whatever I like thank you very much. You could give Buckshot06 same advice since he is firmly focused on my edits. I am actually destressing from my Eastern Front encounters because it seems every time I get to articles there I end up being uncivilly. Funny that.

However, after I do a bit of maintenance on some (really bad) Napoleonic related articles, I'm going back, so I guess you better practice your blocking if that is the only recourse you have to working things out.

Interestingly you are the only coordinator I didn't recently sent an essay on mainspace behaviour to because you don't have email, but Roger got one, so maybe if the two of you share emails he can share that with you. BTW, I didn't write it. Was written by a guy who has been editing since 2004.

Truly mate, if all you are going to do is threaten me and tell me what to do, you need not reply--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins are only allowed to arbitarily block blatant vandals and all other blocks can only be made after typically lengthy processes involving multiple editors (which typically includes multiple admins). I am not showing off my admin powers, but am trying to provide you with some advice. For your information, I have a policy of not providing my email address to people I know only through Wikipedia. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you suggesting I'm a vandal now?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		To Nick, for all the help with peer reviewing 11th Airborne Division and his helpful comments! Skinny87 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you wouldn't happen to have a reference for MacArthur not liking airborne units and wanting to use the division as a light infantry division with airborne capabilities? Skinny87 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank links

Hi Nick, I'm a bit new to the upgraded WP standards since 2005 or so. What made you decide to remove the Tank links as 'un-needed'? Dhatfield (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, got it. Dhatfield (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WW2

I don't really have the time to participate in that long winded discussion. Sorry. I took the advice here to "BE BOLD" and make the changes as an outside party without prior participation. If you liked the wording, I suggest you bring it up to the folks who are editwarring over it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuban Intervention in Angola AfD

Thanks for the suggestion - I was not aware of that board. However it does appear to be a sounding board for stressed people rather than somewhere to escalate and have action taken over an issue of non-consensus. Or have I missed something? FYI, the guidline I followed on content forks indicates that the approach should be AfD. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Allied submarines in the Pacific War

The Blair refs aren't EZ to track down; it'd take reading it again... The info is in there, here & there; for now, I'll tag the fns "passim", k? Trekphiler (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian Volunteer Marine Corps

May require second opinion to mine--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This was a clear case of CSD A7 (non-notable organisation) so I just speedied it. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User vandalism/removal of content

Please take a look at this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.249.89.156, as he is consistently removing content from military pages. You may wish to keep an eye on him preparatory to a possible block. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. He/she is now on their last warning. Meanwhile my 'favourite' vandal user:118.92.229.177 is back and posting nonsense, including on NZ articles now (the IP traces to Auckland). It's long past time to ban IP editing in my opinion. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you are not alone there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you may, or may not, wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Block_of_Mrg3105. Buckshot06(prof) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth pics

Nick, just wondering what you'd recommend re. a pic copyright issue. The one in question is of Richard Williams in the intro of the Chief of the Air Staff (Australia) article (which also appears in his article). The only source I'm aware of is the RAAF's official site and unfortunately the pic is undated and I think, judging by his appearance, it's after 1955 so not a natural for PD-Australia, unless I've missed something. I was going to leave requesting permission from the Commomwealth as a last resort - thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian military history task force

Hi Nick, I would like to enquire if I would be able to join the Australian military history task force? If so, do I just add my name to the list? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just added my name. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Can I apply for a hunting license?

Well, if you're dealing with a known individual and his sockpuppets, there's no need to go through the entire warning routine with each new account; it's perfectly acceptable to just block them on sight.

Does that help? Or did I totally misunderstand your question? Kirill ^(prof) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice

1. I hadn't consciously taken in the museum's chnage of address. If we can find a consistent pattern in the way they have changed, it would be a good job for a bot.

2. Thanks, I had been thinking about DYK, although I'm not sure which factoid to use: the well-decorated Wellington crew, the lucky Halifax pilot or...?

3. I will have a look at it.

Cheers, Grant | Talk 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

August Storm

Great! You've just made the re-edit I was trying to craft in my head, the term certainly should be mentioned. Buckshot06(prof) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

law schools

thanks for the note. also Talk:Griffith_Law_School#Merge_proposal Michellecrisp (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Milhist reviews March-May 2008

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the period March-May 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! Nick Dowling (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

Appreciate your comments either way at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narodnoe_Opolcheniye#Requested_move. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:World War II

Since you are one of the coordinators at the World War II task force, I think you should know that the World War II Portal is now featured. Bewareofdog 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dance-pop

Greetings Nick. I would like to register a complaint against a user. He/she is registered to IP address: 68.89.176.172. I see that you had blocked him/her previously. Anyhow, he/she keeps making unwarranted (or unreferenced) changes to the Wiki entry on Dance-pop. I realize that any and all Wiki articles are open to additions, subtractions etc., but this person keeps adding Soulja Boy, who ISN'T technically dance-pop. I wouldn't have a problem if he'd come into the talk page and discuss it; I added a talk subject to the Dance-pop page for duscussion, but he/she never responds, they just keep adding it. What should I do about this person? They seem to have vandalized a LOT of articles! Again -- this is the user 68.89.176.172

Thanks. Mirror Ball(Mirror Ball 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Pentropic organisation

On 6 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pentropic organisation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dance-pop: 68.89.176.172 is apparently someone named Mumble45

Hey again Nick. Thanks for your rapid reply to my other query. I see that someone that goes by Mumble45 person has again added Soulja Boy to Dance-pop. Also -- he has apparently had some conflicts with other Wiki users for making unsourced additions to the entry on Soulja Boy. This may or may not be the same person, as when I went to this "profile", this person had not apparent information and Wiki can't confirm his existence. Thanks again. (Mirror Ball 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)) Mirror Ball

Oh, and apparently

Mumble45 has been going around making a LOT of unsourced changes, lol. See Mumble45. (Mirror Ball 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Request

Hi Nick, it recently came to my attention that the article on Air Commodore Sir Hughie Edwards had failed to obtain B class status due to a lack of references. I have since added the much needed references, as well as additional information to the article, and I was wondering if you could please indulge me and assess the article as a third party, and ascertain whether it has yet acquired a B class rating. Please do not feel obligated to assess the article, you may, of course, say no if you wish. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		To Nick Dowling, for kindly assessing an article and upgrading it to B-class status on my request. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Nick-D, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF ACR

Quality review there, Nick! Well done, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Outsider needed

I need some advice re some what i consider really atrocious indonesian military articles - please let me know when i can provide you some links - I would be interested in your opinion - if you are at all interested - please let me know and ill fish them out over the weekend - cheers SatuSuro 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you that is a generous response - could i do further comments off wiki by gmail - is that ok with you? SatuSuro 07:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sent if you want to close it again SatuSuro 09:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: H-Net review

Hi Nick, in reply to your message on my talk page:

Hi Stor, Please note that I have been going through articles which reference the H-net review of the GI War Against Japan and removing statements which are not supported by the book. In particular, Schrijvers did not say that rape was a "general practice" - this seems to be the reviewers' POV and he shouldn't have attributed to Schrijvers - and neither the review nor the book support the claim that the rapes were motivated by the dehumanisation of Japanese people as was being claimed in the Occupation of Japan article (Schrijvers argues that they were motivated by a desire to "sharpen the agressiveness of soldiers" and "establish total dominance" and makes no reference at all to dehumanisation in this context). Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your intentions, Nick. Please, just to make sure there are again no misunderstandings, I did not insert that paragraph into the Japan article, not that I would expect you to have preconceptions or act rashly before investigating the full history of events... however it might be good if you also chose to inform User:IrishHaremOtaku, since he would seem to be the one directly affected in that article.

As to what Schrijvers wrote, yes I see now that you are right in that it was not made by Schrijvers, but you were wrong to remove it. That quote on rape which states it "was a general practice against Japanese women" should instead be attributed to Dr. Xavier Guillaume, Department of Political Science, University of Geneva.

As to dehumanization, the context they are mentioned in clearly shows that the rapes were affected by dehumanization. (bold by me)

"--to us they are dogs and rats--we love to kill them--to me and all of us killing Nips is the greatest sport known--it causes no sensation of killing a human being but we really get a kick out of hearing the bastards scream" (p. 207). This hatred heightened the dehumanization of the Japanese soldiers whether alive or already dead. Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated. "American soldiers on Okinawa were seen urinating into the gaping mouth of the slain. They were 'rebutchered.' 'As the bodies jerked and quivered,' a marine on Guadalcanal wrote of the repeated shooting of corpses, 'we would laugh gleefully and hysterically'" (p. 209). As the GIs closed in on the Japanese archipelago, the more the difference between combatants and noncombatants became fuzzy and almost pointless to them.

For instance, rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women. "The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000. A figure that does not seem unlikely when one realizes that during the first 10 days of the occupation of Japan there were 1,336 reported cases of rape of Japanese women by American soldiers in Kanagawa prefecture alone" (p. 212)."

From the page numbers used above you'd see that the rapes are mentioned in connection to the rest of the dehumanization atrocities. Further, according to the review Schrijvers also mentions the following on dehumanization in earlier pages:

Not surprisingly, this led to a dehumanization of the Japanese troops by the American soldiers. Such dehumanization is a natural phenomenon in war, yet it reached overwhelming proportions as compared to its parallel articulation in the European front in the case of the Italians or Germans.[7] The humanization of the Japanese soldiers came as a shock to some, as a "horrified" marine realized when he discovered naive and brightly-colored paintings in a blown-out cave on Iwo Jima: "The Japanese soldiers had children ... who loved them and sent their art work to them" (p. 165).

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)