This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Nick-D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

As a note to my fellow administrators, I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me. I have no delusions of perfection, but it's basic courtesy to discuss things rather than simply over-ride other admins' decisions (it's also required by policy). I'm quite likely to agree with you anyway!

A ferry arriving at Mosman Bay ferry wharf

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2013)
Talk archive 13 (2014)
Talk archive 14 (2015)

Awards people have given me


Possible ref for G550[edit]

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)

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)
I think this is it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Now confirmed according to this. Anotherclown (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
After I do all that typing pulling things together! Seriously, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

TCG Anatolia[edit]

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)

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)
(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 classic WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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 Bushranger One ping only 08:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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)
(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 Bushranger One ping only 10:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history service award
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)
Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My topic ban[edit]

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)

Your GA nomination of 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia)[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 13, 2016[edit]

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)

@Dank: Will do Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
Thanks guys, looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia)[edit]

The article 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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)

Indonesian Army Edit[edit]

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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)

I've just added you to the document :) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg 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)
I was pleased to support you, and would do so in the future. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


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)

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)

Canberra meetup invitation[edit]

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)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale 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)
I was pleased to do so - good luck for your next attempt. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support![edit]

Peace dove.svg 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)

the real stuff[edit]

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)

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)
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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

(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)
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)
@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)


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)

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)

Siege of St. John's GA Review[edit]


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)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Hitler Diaries[edit]

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)

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)

Things to see in Stockholm?[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Otto Kittel[edit]

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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1 November 1944 reconnaissance sortie over Japan[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)


Is this a Topic ban violation? Please see: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Walther von Brauchitsch/1, comment from Jonas. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was, but he owned up to it at the time: User talk:Nick-D#My topic ban. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


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):

  • SS man/men (13)
  • WSS men (5)
  • WSS soldiers (3)
  • SS troop(s) (3)
  • WSS members (2)
  • Men from SS division [name] (2)

All other references appear once:

  • WSS fighters
  • Elite National Socialist troop
  • Nazi soldiers
  • SS ranks
  • Elite troops
  • Himmler's soldiers
  • SS soldiers

I returned most of most of my other Waffen-SS books, but it appears * MacKenzie, S.P. (1997). Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach.  predominantly uses "Waffen-SS men" (see this Google books preview and put Waffen in the search box instead of Hausser).

So "SS-men" is appropriate; this is what sources that I used say. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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)
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.
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of 1 November 1944 reconnaissance sortie over Japan[edit]

The article 1 November 1944 reconnaissance sortie over Japan you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:1 November 1944 reconnaissance sortie over Japan 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations for Adminship[edit]

Hi, Could please recommend/nominate me for the Adminship.--Jogi 007 (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

Shelling of Port Gregory - source of planes[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
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)
No worries Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Landing at Jacquinot Bay[edit]

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)

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)
Thanks, Nick. I appreciate your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
Cheers, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pending Revisions[edit]

Do you have to have editing privileges to approve a pending change? WCMemail 13:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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)
Yes thanks, helped a newbie out but found my changes were also held as a pending revision. WCMemail 00:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've just enabled the "pending changes reviewer" permission for your account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. WCMemail 00:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)



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?

Regards, WCMemail 22:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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)


There was nothing wrong with TWC adding your signature here. It's allowed per WP:TPO. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Each to their own :) Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

wtf...[edit] 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)

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)
Each to their own :) - theWOLFchild 02:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Defence Force Correctional Establishment (Australia)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 16 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Defence Force Correctional Establishment (Australia), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Newfoundland dog serves as both a mascot and a rehabilitation animal for Australian military personnel detained at the Defence Force Correctional Establishment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Defence Force Correctional Establishment (Australia). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Defence Force Correctional Establishment (Australia)), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Protector-class IPVs[edit]

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)

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)

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews[edit]

CRM.png Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
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)
Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your presence is requested at ANI[edit]

An old IP friend of yours has forgotten to notify you of WP:ANI#Please Remove: Nick-D. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


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)

Done Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

42 cf 44[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

Your GA nomination of Landing at Jacquinot Bay[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)

Your GA nomination of Landing at Jacquinot Bay[edit]

The article Landing at Jacquinot Bay you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Landing at Jacquinot Bay 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 Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


WPMH ACR (Swords).png The Military history A-Class medal with swords
Awarded for your efforts in developing Operation Pamphlet, Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, and 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) to A-Class. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

World found![edit]

Thanks for finding the world - I had wondered where it went! Face-smile.svg (Sorry, I just couldn't resist!) - BilCat (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
No worries. It was just one mispaced letter. ;) - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
And it wasn't even necessary as the article has just been promoted! Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Bougainville counterattack[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Talk:Elian Gonzalez custody battle#Requested move 22 April 2016[edit]

You edited the article at least once. I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation Leader[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
Got the ref system working now. Will probably take a break for today and continue tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
That looks great - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think we should go with German Ibis then. Will go add the relevant redlink. Manxruler (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Good, good. Then updating the aftermath section is all I see still remaining to be done. Manxruler (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
What do you say about DYK nominating the article? Manxruler (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Manxruler: I've started the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Leader. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Very good. I'll monitor it and help out as needed. Manxruler (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
8,057 views, not bad at all. Manxruler (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a great number Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Nick, it looks like a user you blocked, User:Sdghgrret5er, has returned as User:Ancestor of Nick-D. - BilCat (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
Thanks to all involved in stopping this. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks. That's Phil M, though I can't recall his full username. - BilCat (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Yes, he is. Btw, he's also been editing on Ball turret this go around. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Exactly. - BilCat (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I think he is back. B-17 Same MO, etc..Irondome (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup, it's User:Philm540. - BilCat (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Lützow and exile[edit]

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)

Yes, that clarifies things well - thanks a lot. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for opinion[edit]

G'day, I've opened a discussion here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#AustralianRupert. I would be interested in any advice you could give. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)
Excellent! I'll draft a nomination statement tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @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)

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)
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)
Cheers, yes, I'm ready. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Great - I've just started the RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AustralianRupert. The next step is for you to accept the nomination, and then for you and I to transclude it (the instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate). Good luck! Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
That all looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick( reply to Panzer Aces article I deleted )[edit]

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)

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[edit]

Nick, could you look at User talk: 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)

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)

‎Proposed site ban of Mangoeater1000 AN thread[edit]

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)

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)

Advice please[edit]

Javier Ignacio Caballero (talk · contribs)

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)

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)
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)
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)

I could use an advocate, if you have time[edit]

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)

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. Facepalm3.svg Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
I'll comment on the article talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

Semiprot for Nickolas Varvaris needed[edit]

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)

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)

Your GA nomination of Operation Leader[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)

Nick could you Semi Operation Barbarossa?[edit]

Harvey Carter is having a rampage :/ Irondome (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown has beaten me to it - thanks Dennis. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Leader[edit]

The article Operation Leader you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Operation Leader for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Leader[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If your mop is recharged...[edit]

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)

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)
No problem, just asking. Take it easy. - BilCat (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

  • New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
  • Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
  • New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


I think you missed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Appears to be the same person. Calidum ¤ 07:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just blocked that account. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for taking care of it. Calidum ¤ 07:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


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, Muffled Pocketed

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)

Kharkiv and Kharkov[edit]

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)

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)

Reference errors on 29 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WWI directory and Bugle articles[edit]

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)

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)

Pratten's Australian Battalion Commanders[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Problem with Today's DYK now on the Main Page[edit]

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)

Hi, I've just made this change. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Nick! Speedy service. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
"experience with the sport" may have been a good option. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
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)

Clearly you dont want to mention how malcom changed the laws to benefit his election chances[edit]

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)

That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2016[edit]

Hi Nick, this one will hit the Main Page on the 17th. I trimmed it to 1133. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

DYK for Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 9 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian Army have operated Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)

RAAF Support Command Comment[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No prob -- created RAAF Logistics Command too (just a redirect to Support Command for now). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
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)


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)

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)
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)

Phil M is back[edit]

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)

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)
Thanks much! - BilCat (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Yes, that seems borderline. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service[edit]

The article Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service 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 Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Light fighter article[edit]

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)

Sorry to have you dragged into this[edit]

Information icon 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)

No worries at all - I'll comment there now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


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)

(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)
Ian Rose. Sure we even provide {{Listed invalid ISBN}}. I am just commenting the difference between listed and valid. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award[edit]

CRM.png Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
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)

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

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

borked up refs[edit]

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)

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)

hahaha perhaps I should say Bjork?[edit]

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 - 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)

Hi, That does seem odd - there's a perfectly good Category:Military units and formations of Australia in World War II which is where the Australian units belong - they weren't "British Empire" units. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@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)
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)
Furthermore I do not believe the extra category attached to ttps:// is correct in any way JarrahTree 11:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Australia article[edit]

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian Cruiser tanks are not the exact same thing as the Sentinel[edit]

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)
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)
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)
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)

Your GA nomination of Bougainville counterattack[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)

Is this a battle worth fighting?[edit]

See User talk:BilCat#portability of bazookas. Thanks for any advice. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Convoy Belligerants Query[edit]

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)

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)

Second opinion[edit]

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)

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)

Advice please[edit]


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Canberra meetup invitation (August 2016)[edit]

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)

RFC Comment[edit]

I saw that you commented about the lead of Singapore. There is actually an RFC above that. Do you mind if you move your comment (which you added below) to the RFC section Talk:Singapore#RfC_about_lead_section. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Advice requested[edit]

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)

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)

And now for something completely different ... from my previous comment[edit]

Mainland Australia. Seems like it could be covered sufficiently elsewhere, and probably is already. Conversely, there is Contiguous United States,which Mainland United States redirects to, so perhaps there's room for expansion. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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)