This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Nick-D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 ping me or 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.

It is my personal policy to provide no assistance at all to paid editors as I don't want to do their jobs for them. I will likely remove any posts made by such editors here without responding.

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2013)
Talk archive 13 (2014)
Talk archive 14 (2015)
Talk archive 15 (2016)
Talk archive 16 (2017)
Talk archive 17 (2018)

Awards people have given me

Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier[edit]

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
  2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
  4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
  5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Review Request[edit]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet

Would you mind reviewing this closure. I don't believe this was a candidate for a non-admin closure but in particular he missed the recommendations by AlanScotWalker concerning closure. WCMemail 12:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't, but my closure was based on the consensus that the subject in question is independently notable. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The closure looks fine to me: lots of experienced editors had looked into the matter, and had reached the conclusion that the article should be kept. The kind of comment AlanScotWalker made goes without saying: an AfD closure doesn't preclude a move, though I'd suggest that any such more go through a formal WP:RM procedure given the AfD comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018[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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mentor sought[edit]

Hi Nick. I have an article, Razing of Friesoythe, the apple of my eye, which I wish to submit for FAC. The instructions state "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". On the list of possible mentors was your name - an easy decision. So can I persuade you to take two paces forward and help me get this article through the FA process? If so, do you have any thoughts, suggestions or instructions before I formally submit it. Assuming that you think that it is submittable.

I should warn that this is the first Wikipedia article I wrote, the first article I submitted for B class assessment (at the time that seemed a heady ambition for it), my first GA, my first (and still highest viewing) DYK, and the only article I have submitted for peer review or ACR. So objective I ain't. That said, it got a thorough going over at ACR and views seemed positive.

So, what do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be very happy to help. I'll look in on the article over the weekend, and leave some comments about its suitability for FAC. From having reviewed it at the ACR, I agree that it is certainly well on track. Regards Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I've left some comments on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Les bon assessors[edit]

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
It is with great pleasure that I award this barnstar jointly and severally to auntieruth, AustralianRupert, Kees08, Nick-D, Peacemaker67 and Zawed. It has been earned partly for helping to nurse Razing of Friesoythe through ACR. I was awed and humbled by the amount of attention, effort, detail and support the six assessors brought to the task. But mostly it has been earned by your doing the same thing for many, many other articles week after week, month after month. Assessors sans peur et sans reproche. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


For blocking the sock. Can you keep an eye on my talk page, in case the harassment continues? A several-hour semi would be appreciated if she returns. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries at all Bill - I'd be happy to do that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like the sock is back on another Northern Virginia IP. - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I've just semi-protected the article for 24 hours. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

FAC mentor?[edit]

Hello Nick-D,

I had a Facebook conversation the other day with a retired editor with lots of experience with Featured articles. This editor had helped me with the Good article review of Harry Yount, and the article reached that goal in 2013. This editor expressed the opinion that this could be a Featured article, so I am asking if you would be willing to assist me with that process. Thanks for your consideration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I'd be happy to provide some advice on this article. I'll leave comments on its talk page over the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I've posted an informal review at Talk:Harry Yount. I think that the article is well on the path to FA, but needs some improvements first. As well as adding some references, I'd suggest fleshing out the coverage of how Yount was seen at the time and is regarded now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


See Ahunt's talk page, where an IP hopping troll is causing havoc. This is the IP that Sarek blocked earlier. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another example of why we shouldn't permit people to edit without first registering an account. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Would solve a lot of problems. But I'm sure this one has at least one registered account already, indefinitely blocked of course. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
You'd never catch me editing with a open IP. Don't these trolls realize how much we know about them from a bare IP? It's one reason I'm against open editing in general, as it leaves kids open to predators. Someday some kid will get killed, and the Foundation will get a lot of the blame, and rightly so. But it will be too late then. - BilCat (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It's bizarre that IP editing is still permitted (presumably as part of some kind of Silicon Valley libertarianism which prioritises 'freedom' over common sense and responsibility to the site's users, including those who missuse it). Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The cynic in me figured they found a way to monetize it, though I haven't a clue how. It's just never made any real sense to me otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia[edit]

Howdy. Not sure whatcha did, but the result was Gillard, Abbott & Turnbull being knocked out of the living former PMs section. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to have been anything I did - my only recent edit was to revert an IP who was fiddling with the photos for no stated reason. It appears to be fixed now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Found the problem. The IPs fiddling put the images into two rows. With one row (as it now is) the last four are past the screen shot, requiring page movement to the right to see them. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Australian Flag Society article[edit]

I agree to your deletion request for now. It might be that another wikipedian proposes an article on the same subject in the future which I will feel free to contribute or not contribute to. Aussieflagfan (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.


  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Operation Linebacker II[edit]

Nick, when you get back, could you look at Talk:Operation Linebacker II#Editwar? The issues should be self-explanatory. I'm trying to find a source, but it may take me awhile as I'm not that familiar with quality sources on the subject. If you aren't either, do you know of some other editors who might be? Thanks. (Yeah, I know I didn't handle my initial response well at all.) - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @BilCat: while I don't have any sources at hand, I think that text is largely right, but exaggerates things a bit. Linebacker II seems to have been effective as it was a short sharp shock in which the scope of the US bombing campaign was expanded for a limited period in response to a breakdown in negotiations. My understanding is that it worked as the North Vietnamese were motivated to cut a deal at this time, unlike during the massive US bombing campaign over previous years. The USAF still didn't "fully unleash its power" though, as rule of engagement remained in place and (obviously) nuclear weapons weren't used. The use of naval mines, which the article barely mentions, to close North Vietnamese ports was apparently particularly effective. I'd suggest asking for other editors' input at WT:MILHIST. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018[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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

FAC help[edit]

Me and Iazyges are working on promoting multiple of his A-class and GA articles. I would like some help with going through the mess of FAC. Thanks, Clikity (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Which articles are you referring to, and how can I assist? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nick-D His articles displayed on his user page (opus meum). We are trying to promote a large amount of them soon. We would like some advice to help us get the articles through the FAC process. He's tried and failed, but I think we will succeed this time. Go look at his articles and see what looks best. Clikity (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, That's rather a lot of articles to look through. Can you please let me know which ones you are focusing on? Also, what kind of feedback would be helpful here? Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, the two we are doing right now are Iazyges and Marcian. I would like a review for these. --Clikity (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I provided a pre-FAC review of Iazyges a few months ago: what would be helpful at this stage? I'll try to look in on the other article over the next week or so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D. I am about to start a copy edit of Marcian for GOCE, so if you haven't looked at it already, you may wish to hold off for a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Lion-class battleship ACR[edit]

I responded to your comments a while ago, but I expect that you've been distracted of late. I know that I have been!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry: I completely missed that. I'll check in today. Thanks very much for the prompt. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

1944 versus 1942[edit]

2 versions of the message deleted as they could have been misconstrued, about the 44 scare monolith. Have left a general introduction to the issues as I see them at the WA noticeboard. Hope it goes well. I gotta get something more specific to the photo than the 43 anti aircraft emplacement. JarrahTree 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The coverage of the Fremantle-Perth defences in the AWM's photo database is largely focused on 1943, unfortunately. There also aren't many photos of the submarine base. If the WA State Library or Archives has better coverage, it would be great. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC) JarrahTree 14:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

July to September 2018 Milhist article reviewing[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 14 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).


Administrator changes

added JustlettersandnumbersL235
removed BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.


  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

1942 and 1944[edit]

I find it quite excruciating to watch ga/fa discussions where I have worked with the archival material (1942 and 1944), and am aware of the nuances of meanings for journalists and military officials of the time (1940s were a different age) - and the perceptions that this latter time and context have so little appreciation to nuances of then. Arrgghh. I think I should stay away from the discussion. JarrahTree 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018[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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, October 2018[edit]

Letting you know that a sockpuppet by the name of Ah_Ger_K that you added a sockpuppet block message to in September removed your block message today, which appears to be against WP policy. I've reverted that edit. If I am in error and did not understand the situation correctly, feel free to correct my edit. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, My understanding is that blocked editors can remove block messages if they want. The reason for the block is permanently recorded in their block log. If the editor asks to have this account unblocked, the reviewing admin will also check the talk page history and contact the blocking admin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


needs attention [1] - not exactly the most civil editor that I have seen JarrahTree 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Is this a one-off? I've blocked the account, but did this happen out of the blue? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparent link-spamming[edit]

Nick, User:Cowanb has been adding links to a website he apparently has connections with to a bunch of aircraft articles. See here for an example. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Have you discussed this with them? While ADF-serials doesn't meet our criteria for a RS (I think), it's a high quality amateur website which is often the best source on the use of various aircraft by the Australian military. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I haven't discussed this with the user yet, as I wanted to get your opinion first, as being from Australia, you might greater knowledge of the site, which you did. My main issue is that the link isn't being used as a source regarding sevice in the Australian military, but is being added indiscriminately to the EL section of many aircraft articles, including some which may not have served in Australia. User:MilborneOne has begun removing the links as COI spam, and I agree with him that it is. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, that sounds sensible. I like the site, but it needs to be linked with care. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

  • Library Card translation
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

History wars[edit]

You reverted an edit that I made to History wars. Anyone seriously studying the history wars will be interested in seeing some primary source documents. Moreover, some historians (e.g. Keith Windschuttle) have claimed that other historians have willfully misrepresented primary sources. The wikilink that my edit provided, to Historical Records of Australia, comprises tens of thousands of pages of primary source documents (a large majority of which are online). Thus, anyone who wants to check the claims of misrepresentation, or who is seriously studying the history wars, will find the wikilink helpful. Hence, I ask you to undo the revert.  FlagrantUsername (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Links included in see also sections should generally have a clear link to the topic of the article. The histories wars article discusses a dispute in Australian historiography, and I don't see how it helps readers to list various collections of primary sources - not least as this implies that there might be something controversial about the collection in this context. Can you work the link into the body of the article to explain the link? (for instance, do some historians argue that (over) reliance on these sources leads to a biased perspective? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
According to MOS:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Moreover, your claim that "there might be something controversial about the collection" makes no sense to me. The wikilink is clearly useful to someone studying the topic. As for editing the body of the text, you are welcome to do so.  FlagrantUsername (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
But how are these topics related? You're coming across as spamming links to this article you created to be frank, and I don't see how it's helpful to readers. Can you please work the link into articles? If you're unable to explain the link in the article, I'd suggest that it's probably not going to be very useful for readers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
You have previously violated WP:BRD. You are now violating WP:GF. Your comment also does not seem to consider the arguments that my comments have raised.
I kindly ask you to read the article History wars and the article Keith Windschuttle (which is cited by History wars), then consider the position of someone studying this topic, and then reconsider my comments above. Afterward, if we still have no agreement, we could go to WP:DR; if we do that, my preference would be for WP:DRR/3FlagrantUsername (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm familiar with the topic of the article (I also wrote much of the article on the Australian Frontier Wars). I genuinely don't see how people who are studying the history wars will understand the purpose of linking to these documents without any context. As noted above, can you please work this into the article? I have no idea how I've violated BRD, of AGF given that I'm discussing this with you following your bold addition of the link, and am actually keen to see this added to the article in a way in which readers can understand and use. Surely you can come up with a referenced sentence which could be added to the History Wars article explaining how this is relevant if there's a reason for a see also link? I'd suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page if you'd like broader input on this matter before escalating to central dispute resolution boards (as recommended at WP:DR, etc). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
You earlier said that I was “coming across as spamming links to this article [I] created”. Despite that, you now claim that you “have no idea how [you’ve] violated” WP:AGF. Your claim is amazing.
You are right that I should have opened this discussion on the article Talk page. My excuse is that I had initially assumed your revert was due to a simple oversight on your part; so it was not worth cluttering up that Talk page. I have now opened a relevant discussion there.
As for Australian Frontier Wars, the article is so biased that it could harm the reputation of Wikipedia, at least for anyone interested in Australia. I have now added an NPOV notice to the article and opened a relevant discussion on the article’s Talk page.
FlagrantUsername (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. I think we're in agreement on the Frontier Wars article - can you please add material to the article on the topic? I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with fairly confrontational tactics - I'm keen to see these articles improved, and throwing accusations of bias and personal attacks around really isn't helping anyone. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


G'day Nick, thanks for your tweak on Rescue and Communication Squadron RAAF. I wonder if you wouldn't also mind taking a look at RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, That article looks great. I've made a few minor wording tweaks. It's a fascinating story - in 2011 I visited the memorial to the Berlin airlift at the Platz der Luftbrücke and was pleased to see a small acknowledgement that Australia had been involved, though I can't remember what it was exactly! (and, from checking my photos, I didn't photograph whatever it was). Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) There's book on it, only 66AUD :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That's available for free online! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, Nick. My wife and I are hoping to visit Germany in the next couple of years (she is German on her mother's side), so I might see what I can find and maybe take some pics. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it was something pretty dull like a mention on a noticeboard explaining the memorial! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.


  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm back[edit]

I'm back. I feel better. I've just asked how to approach an article at the tea house. I apologize for anything that was rude/abusive. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Socking by User:Kuru666.[edit]

Hi the articles that were edited by Kuru666 are regularly being targeted by what I am sure are socks. I wonder if there is anything that can be done? Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to protect those article - can you please tell me which ones are being affected? Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much here they are, some have already been protected but for relatively short periods and each time the protection comes off they get socked.
  • Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done I've already protected this one Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Already protected Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem to be subject to ongoing editing Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
They have been editing others but the edits do not seem tendentious but I'll keep an eye out for more but as they are IP hopping it's not an easy task. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've only protected one of those articles as there wasn't recent block evasion at the others - please see my comments above. I've watchlisted some of this person's main targets and will respond if this resumes, but please drop me a line (or report it at WP:RFPP) if this returns. As a reminder, edits made as part of block evasion can and should be reverted on sight. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm watching them too and will continue to revert. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC comments addressed[edit]

I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Erin/archive1. See if they're satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018[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) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Source check[edit]

Nick, would the source used in this diff be considered reliable? It reads more like an armchair editorial. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bill, the tone of that article is a bit odd, but it's presented as a news source, and is a reliable source. It's the central website for the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloids and the somewhat more substantial newspaper The Australian, and has decent editorial standards. The source is suitable for the material it's being used to cite, and could also be drawn on more extensively (BTW, it seems only yesterday that various over-excited commentators and thinly-disguised Russian propaganda was presenting the Su-57 as being the greatest warplane of all time, and vastly superior to anything the West could produce...). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Landing at Jacquinot Bay[edit]

G'day, Nick, I was wondering if you would be keen to take the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article to ACR? From mid-next week, I have a bit of time off from work before the December posting period, so was thinking it might be a good diversion. I have access to some of the sources, but not all (for instance not Charlton, or Bradley), so was hoping that you might have them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I'd be very happy to do that. I still have copies of those books, and am also planning a trip to the National Library of Australia next week in case there's any other works which need to be consulted (the only one which springs to mind is Alan Powell's War by Stealth: Australians and the Allied Intelligence Bureau, 1942–1945 which may have some extra material on pre-landing AIB/guerrilla operations, but as Long summarises this topic there's no reason to wait to check before starting the nomination). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, Nick, the nomination page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landing at Jacquinot Bay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for starting this. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)