User talk:Nick-D/Archive 3

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


Happy New Year

Hi Nick

Happy New Year(I know you will read this tomorrow). Can you take a look at Carthage. A user who claims to have three academic titles in history has put a NPOV tag on the article because it doesn't mention that the Romans fought fierce wars with Carthage and the Carthaginians brought them almost to their knees. I think it is enough to say that they fought wars with Syracuse and Rome and that Carthage was destroyed. However, the academic wants an administrator to remove his NPOV tag. Thank you Wandalstouring (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at RfC: Should Vietnam MIA material all be here or be located in a separate article and summarized here. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct location of the discussion is Talk:Missing in action#RfC:_Should_Vietnam_MIA_material_all_be_here_or_be_located_in_a_separate_article_and_summarized_here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings (and some Milhist business)

First, happy new year!

Second, I've raised a couple of things here which could use swift responses. May I trouble you please to check them out?

Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick

Would you mind contributing your oar, either way, at [1]? Needs some expertise from people who have some Milhist experience who aren't me. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Traditional Banana Boat.jpg

Dear Nick-D, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks again for keeping the troops in line. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey Nick. I was roaming through the MILHIST Coord thread and saw you mention Max Hasting's Nemesis. I just got it for christmas and was about to read it - what does Hastings get so badly wrong in his chapter on Australia? Skinny87 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He greatly exaggerates the amount of unrest in the Army and strike action by unionists, and relies on strange sources (random news stories and cherry picked interviews with veterans rather than the massive secondary literature which is now available or records from the time). The chapter attracted a fair amount of criticism from Australian historians, who basically argued that while there was disquiet in the Army it was mainly limited to a few battalions and the industrial relations problems weren't that bad. I really liked the rest of the book though, and his examination of MacArthur's strategy in the last year of the war is excellent. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, yes, that sounds like Hastings alright - I have a few problems with Armageddon, as well. Thanks for that, I'll keep that in mind. Skinny87 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I enjoyed Armageddon as well, but his portrayal of the western Armies stumbling to victory didn't ring true to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nagging suspicion

Take a look here. Would I be out-of-order in suspecting that this is a unipurpose account? Cam (Chat) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, though it could just be a newbie high school kid with a bee in his or her bonnet. I'm a bit sceptical about the editor's professed level of nativity about how Wikipedia works though - they're clearly out to push their POV. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right—and it's not as if they're even subtle about it. Cam (Chat) 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'm going to let you deal with future disputes at WWI Talk. It's gotten so confusing that I'm not even sure what everyone's arguing about anymore. Cam (Chat) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't follow it either - Definetly a case of TLDR! I don't know or care that much about WWI so I'll watch and see what develops. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's just gotten absolutely ridiculous over the last week. Not only does the guy not know anything about wikipedia policy, but I'm not even going to consider helping with a rewrite when such hostility exists on the talk page. I do not want to go through what Oberiko did (no one does). Cam (Chat) 05:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - a group of motivated editors is needed to drive the kind of changes that article needs while fending off edit warriors. I suspect that Roger's not going to fork out that $US250 bounty any time soon. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the same situation applies at Alexander the Great. The easiest way forward is for an uninvolved admin to keep an eye on the article and to stay uninvolved. They can deal with the unreasonable stuff. (Gwen Gale?) It's usually only a couple of people who are generating most of the heat and the others start behaving once they realise that regime change has arrived ;) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

MIA article

I don't want to revert it, because I've done some reverts in the past and I don't want some admin who isn't paying much attention blocking both ToTheCircus and me. That's why I brought this to ANI, because I want someone to look seriously at this and finally taken some action against this user. I've done 40,000 edits on some of the hottest topics around without ever getting blocked and I don't want to start now ... Wasted Time R (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this last night. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been WikiTrouted

This is a WikiTrout

Dear Nick-D. This is a WikiTrout. You have been slapped with this WikiTrout for asking another editor to Meatpuppet on your behalf, by performing edits which you should have done yourself, or waited to do. This WikiTrout is bought to you courtesy of Goldman's Pharmacy, and Thor Malmjursson (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC). Thank you for your attention!

I apologise for bringing this up in the first place - that is one large trout. I'll pay for the medical services. neuro(talk) 05:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I am an administrator open to trout slapping, and sort-of deserve it. It would be good if another admin would protect that article. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Countess of Hopetoun and Sydney

For Countess, I'm agreeing with your assessment, and have categorised it as such. I think this is only the first or second pre-RAN ship to be placed in a RAN category, as most pre-RAN ships had careers of little note during this section of their histroy. Anyway, if more information comes to light that contradicts this, we can easily change it.

As for Sydney, feel free. The only local library (that I know of) that has Flying Stations is a university library, and its difficult for me to access it. -- saberwyn 06:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D

Thanks for the thanks regarding the pics I added to the Pacific Class Patrol Boat page. And for thumbnailing my pic on the LCM-8 page. I really don't know much about formatting and codes for Wikipedia, I generally try and find a similar thing from another page and just copy the codes there so I make a lot of mistkes along the way. I have a lot of pics and things I can add to similar type pages if I have the time both to do it and learn to how to do it properley. I wish wikipedia had been around 10 years ago when I had heaps of time to learn how to add/edit properly. Whats the go with Australian Dept Defence images, I can't work out if they are allowed or not, but given the amount of pictureless ADF topics where dozens of images are on the ADF websites I assume they can't be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angra (talkcontribs) 06:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just stick to posting my own images as although I read the link to the stuff you gave me, I don't fully understand it, so I'll play it safe and only post my own stuff. Cheers. Angra (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Strait of Otranto

G'day Nick, Found this website ([2]) which may be of help to expand your article. Some interesting statements including additional allied forces involved. Also the "Battle of the Strait of Otranto" appears to have also been an action in World War I. See [3]. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links - User:Anotherclown started the article BTW. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Juzhong

Thanks, I noticed you'd previously blocked then extended your block. It baffles me why some people even bother signing up, given their subsequent behaviour... and even more why they keep coming back ;) EyeSerenetalk 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Periods of WW II

First period of World War II, Second period of World War II, Third period of World War II - do you think these articles by Mrg3105 are notable independently, or should we just add quick notes into the main Eastern Front article? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

William Bostock

Hi mate, I'm happy to wrap up the peer review for this so I can get the ACR under way - unless there's anything further you wanted to add? Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with the ACR! Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMAS Jeparit

Updated DYK query On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMAS Jeparit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

United Districts Basketball Club

Hello Nick,

Firstly I can see you have made a marvellous contribution to Wikipedia and continue to ongoingly.

I am surprised that our well presented attempt at beginning our History for United Districts Basketball Club was deleted only day or so after I created it.

I noticed A7 as the reason attributed. I understand your concern, however give us some time and further references notability will be suitably established. I would be very appreciative if you could send me the source code for the deleted page, that I may be able to save my work and resubmit at a later date, after completing further work off-line.

Regards, Tim Muehlberg Web Manager UDBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.muehlberg (talkcontribs) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. There is almost no chance of articles on non-professional sports teams meeting the relevant criteria for inclusion (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) and you would probably be wasting your time. Please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:NOT#HOST as you should not write articles on organisations you are part of. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Making changes"

Hi Nick. Didn't mean to upset anyone. Reverting to a previous stable state is not the same as "making changes" against consensus. Most page moves should go through the WP:RM process to make sure that the proposed change is "vetted" by a broader audience, not just those who are watching the article in question. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Draft article accidentally created on Wikipedia mainspace"

Hi Nick. Many thanks for placing the article in the right place. It's all very new to me. Davshul (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing In Action (revert war)

Thanks for fixing things yet again. Unfortunately, I think that that you (and other administrators) will be forced to keep a permanent watch on the Missing In Action article. I have just added comments to the discussion page supporting your recent action. - Nabokov (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's just happened again. Thanks for fixing it. I'm sure it's abundantly clear to you by now that the almost-religious zeal of some Vietnam-MIA believers is such that they'll never give up trying to subvert the MIA article to their own narrow agenda. Give it a couple of weeks and there's sure to be another attempt. I suspect that for some people the term "MIA" is synonymous with Vietnam. In other words, any other reference to MIA which doesn't feature Vietnam in the "starring role" either simply isn't relevant, or is of merely tangential importance. Unfortunately, it's pointless trying to convince them that there's a need for balance in the article. Their beliefs are so deeply entrenched that nothing anyone says or does will ever persuade them that they are anything other than 100% right. The peculiar thing is that Vietnam-MIA believers have been given a perfectly reasonable compromise, yet that still isn't good enough for them. - Nabokov (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just done 2 reverts on Missing In Action. No prizes for guessing why. However, I can't keep on reverting it because of the 3-reverts rule. Please assist. - Nabokov (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm out of useful ideas on this one. My last post there was the most accommodating stance I could think of to take. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#User:ToTheCircus constantly reverting article against complete consensus of other editors is the reference for the previous WP:ANI discussion of this. I suppose it needs to be taken there again, but I'm not eager to do it myself this time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

WikiprojectBarnstar.png The WikiProject Barnstar
For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2008 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Roger! Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

Hey, thank you for your comments. I responded with my opinions on the matter, and your opinions would be much appreciated. :) The review is located here. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this is just another prod. Three other reviewers have looked at the article; the article's future lays in your hands. I would been in extreme gratitude if even just got discussion moving again. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better...

...[4] regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm playing around with the Howard Govt article to try and find my feet - I should have expected that Australian political articles would be more hotly contested than the military history articles I'm used to... Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Agreed. I've toned most of it out now (primarily because of TLDR syndrome;). Cam (Chat) 01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasan di Tiro

Hi Nick

There’s been a long-running dispute between an registered editor (Esemono) and an anon. I stepped in the other day saying enough and promised (naively?) to find a solution.

I don’t know much about the article content or the disputing sides - the article’s subject is/was a player in the Aceh conflict (and we think Oz Pol is controversial!). It seems that the registered editor has sought third party opinion which supported his position, and the history page suggests other editors support his position. Either way, the anon is not using talk page and reverting with misleading edit summaries. As I pointed out in the talk page, no matter the actual content of the dispute, the position of registered editor certainly seems closer to consensus, and seems to be going through the correct process – unlike the anon.

I offered a few general suggestions whereby if there was indeed conflicting reliable sources, then a way to acknowledge both would be of assistance.

Any suggestions? Semi protect? Either way, it can’t keep bouncing around like it has. If you can’t step in directly, some advice/direction would be much appreciated. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just warned the IP (which no-one had done previously - I think?) and will watchlist the page. I don't see the need to protect it given that it appears that only a single editor is disrupting the article. I'll watchlist the article and let me know if I can be of further help. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. Let's see what happens. --Merbabu (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Tom Derrick

Hi Nick. Tom Derrick is my next target for both GAN and A-Class, then eventually FAC. :) Any further info you can add on his final battle and death would be excellent. In Robert Macklin's book Bravest: How some of Australia's war heroes won their medals, it states that it is believed Derrick deserved another VC for his actions in the battle he died, but does not have much info on why. Thanks for the gracious offer. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for adding the photo. I intended to add one of his funeral when I got down to that section; still gotta finish the VC section yet! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read your additions; some very good information there. Thank you. Macklin states that Derrick was both unable to be evacuated but also refused it when he was as he wanted to make sure Freda was captured. Directing his men during this time, Macklin claims had fought gallantly and with great leadership to get to the position they were that night. The book also includes a quote from historian Michael McKernan that Derrick deserved three VCs; one for El Alamein, another at Sattleberg and a third at Tarakan. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd just let you know, Nick, that I just nominated Derrick for GA. I still have further expansion planned, but I believe it is good enough for GA in it's current form and thought I'll get that milestone up and running now. It usually takes a week or two before a reviewer comes along anyway, so it should be all finished by that stage. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you're starting to scare me, Nick. All along I've intended to add the photo of Derrick and Reg Saunders. Thank you so much for all of your additions to the article; I especially like the inclusion of his medals. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I figured that was the case; I spotted the photo of the sign you took over at Commons. Lol, I think you just got yourself in a whole bit of trouble by that offer; I would really appreciate it if you would be able to provide me with any photos possible, but please don't feel obligated to do so. I thought Derrick's portrait would have been displayed in the Hall of Valour? Thanks and cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nick, I'm just going through the "Later war service" section adding additional information. I'm up to the Freda engagement and am a little confused. From what you've written, the 2/48th Battalion attacked Freda on 19 May, and managed to gain a hold on 20 May; the day Derrick was wounded. In all of the other sources I have read, it states they managed to gain a hold on 22 May, and he was wounded on 23 May; dying the next day. Where did the discrepancy come from? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just made a progress save then, so we can sort out where this bloody discrepancy came from! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol, it's all good. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Found another discrepancy, Nick: "Derrick died on 24 May 1945 during a second operation on his wounds.[1] He was initially buried in the 2/48th's cemetery on Tarakan, but was later interred at the Labuan War Cemetery, plot 24, row A, grave 9.[49]" - in this section, the first sentence is covered by the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which only states that he died, and has nothing about an operation. In the second, it is covered by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which only states he is buried in Labuan War Cemetery; nothing about being re-interred after burial in Tarakan. Would you be able to dig out the cites for these two sectences? Many thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. Lol, I noticed; I can just picture you excitedly rummaging through your personal library searching for any mention of Derrick. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nick. I just finished up some work on the "Legacy" section, and then opened the A-Class Review for Derrick (here). I still plan to expand the lead a bit more, but the body is all done so I figured the review can be opened now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Do you know any good copy-editors who would be willing to have a crack at the article? I figure if we're going on to FAC it should have a good copyeditor have a look to iron out some problems before hand. I usually go to EyeSerene, but he's quite banked up at the moment. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Advanced Programs, Inc (API)

Dear Nick,

With much surprise I found out this morning that you deleted the entire site for the company Advanced Programs, Inc (API), with the reason of 'blatant advertising'. Instead of deleting historic and valuable information about a company, I would kindly encourage you to modify the text in such a way, so that it is transparent to Wiki standard.

Furthermore, I would also like to challenge you to take a closer look at other Wiki sites of US IT companies. The format (historic information, executive leadership and product information) is plenty of times identical, as API has used it. Therefore, the layout and information previously posted regarding API, has little or no variation to the Wiki standard being enforced towards those sites.

Thank you for taking the time to review and respond.

-Jerome —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talkcontribs) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was also speedy deletable as it contained no claim of notability. Please see WP:ORG for the relevant guidelines articles on companies need to meet. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

After having carefully read it, it is not apparent to me towards which standard we are not adhering by:

The standard of:

  • The scope of their activities is national or international in scale => API is a world wide company
  • Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.) => API had listed references to NATO's NC3A and the U.S. National Security Agency. Are more needed?

API is national and internationally recognized TEMPEST supplier and the organizations mentioned above verify this on their sites. Therefore, kindly advice what the next steps are, as I do want to relaunch the site ASAP.

Again, Wikipedia is hosting similar sites to companies in the same market space, while those companies are even smaller (in terms of revenue) or have less market share (in terms of geographical coverage).

The API site had a link listed to its company's news section, that clearly provide even more references.

Thank you again for your time and for helping me to getting this article conform.

-Jerome —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talkcontribs) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the material to your user page at: User:JAKS1975/API to allow you to work on it. For a company to be notable it needs in-depth references which are independent of the company - the company's news page doesn't count towards establishing notability. The NSA reference appears to be a dead link and the NATO reference is to an entry in what appears to be a database of suppliers - this isn't the kind of in-depth coverage needed. Please don't restore the article into Wikipedia until more independent references are added. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

I made changes to the text as you have requested and would like for you to have a look before I restore the article. I believe I removed all of the 'blatant advertising' and supplied as many references as I could gather; due to the nature of the company’s business though, you will understand that military organizations or intelligence agencies do not post online articles about their partnership with API.

Thx again for your help with this - Hopefully you will now give your seal of approval.

-Jerome —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that those references are sufficient- the first one is a database entry, the second one is a one-paragraph summary of what appears to be an API press release, the third and fourth ones only mention the company API was previously part of and appear to date before this company became an independent firm. That's just my opinion, however, and I have sought the views of other admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181#Comments requested on an article I speedy-deleted and which an editor wishes to restore after further work - please feel welcome to post there. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamato Class

Hey, I've fixed quite a few of the issues you brought up at the ACR of the Yamato-Class. Would you be able to check back in? Cam (Chat) 06:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, that looks good. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

See also

Yes, it had also occurred to me that, given that they are a relatively new editor, "Anotherclown" probably might not know what was going on! It also occurred to me that there might be a better place to have the discussion, but I couldn't think where. (In any case, young Bryce does not seem to have any interest in discussing the matter, so perhaps it's a moot point anyway?)

However, I am still a little confused about "see also" sections, in that although the MoS says that the sections can have their uses, it seems the WP FAC reviewers work by a different set of "rules". Is this interpretation of the situation by me accurate, or have I missed something? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "Anotherclown" is probably still rather uncertain about what is the "right" thing to do. How do you feel about summarising the situation and leaving them some useful advice? I'd do it, but I'm fairly confident that Mr Abraham would find something in my words with which he would agressively disagree. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive

Hi there Nick, could you possibly revisit the A-Class review for Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive. Any further comments would be most appreciated I think. Thanks, regards. Woody (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Military career of Keith Miller

Hello, have you noticed that the Australian War Memorial's online collection database has about a dozen good quality PD photos of Keith Miller playing with the RAAF team in 1945? Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I guess we have the all clear for PD now don't we with commons and the fact that some other clause has been made for them? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. The AWM's database now states that the photos are both 'copyright expired' and 'public domain' where appropriate, so they can be used for any purpose. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, pictures uploaded, and waiting at MHR <nudge for review> YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fellow on WWI article

Blocked him indefinitely. Just looked at some odd comments and noted that he's only got a few edits, all of them talk pages and seems to know all the policies already. Seems like a great big leg-pulling account saying Mein Kampf is a RS and comparing 1914 Serbia to the Taliban and OBL. I think you should be more cynical with some folks.... There's this guy on the VN War page who never edits and only drones on and one saying that the US didn't lose and nobody answered him luckily, except a few hard-core anti-US guys who did the opposite... No need to reply to him. I think he's been taking for a ride 100%. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally assumed that he was a potential edit-warring high schooler (with which that article is infested), but have been ignoring him since it became clear that he's a troll and, most likely, a sock puppet - today's post makes it pretty clear that they have a prior history. The perils of assuming good faith! Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you for the update. I'll keep a close watch on that. Cam (Chat) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re: David Whitehead

Hi Nick. In regards to recipients of the Croix de guerre, some publications will give them the postnominals "CdeG" however these are not official postnominals and would not be used in formal publications, engagements, ceremonies, etc. Also, as it is a forign award, even if it did confer postnominals Australians would not be entitled to use them. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


I've addressed all of your comments on the ACR of Japanese battleship Yamato. Feel free to check back in. Cam (Chat) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Well done on getting Military History of Australia during World War II promoted to A-class. I would imagine it would be quite difficult to summarise 6 years of Australia's involvement in a world-wide war into a single article, but you did a great job. Congratulations. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Second that - blokes like me do well in the unit- or person-level microstudies, but Nick's eye for the right degree of detail in those articles with a much broader sweep, such as Military History of Australia during World War II and Australian Defence Force, are a major asset to the project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, and thanks also for your excellent comments and suggestions in the ACR. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 202.37.68.x

Thanks for range-blocking this character. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The idiot is back and editing from 118.92.x addresses. Would it be possible to implement a similar anon-only block for 118.92.x for a week or so to send a message, or is this too broad? The 118.92.x addresses they've used are:
There are also some 118.93 addresses, but these are much less frequent. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I blocked the but the others are too spread out and there are a lot of people on that range, including many proper editors. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking into this. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Ian Rose's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Ian Rose's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  • You may not need that new left-facing tank pic...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On the WWII Corrections

No problem. I don't know if this is possible, but I would be in favor of a banner at top of the article where edit wars have gotten so bad that that every edit must first be discussed. The Be Bold Wikipedia policy of adding sources and correcting errors understandably can't apply in such situations.

No big deal at all, just a suggestion for some kind of indicator to give editors a heads up. It might also help those monitoring the page from having to revert so often (I just examined the history page of this article) by decreasing original undiscussed edits.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick

It came as a surprise to me today, when, as I searched for 'Man Scale' it returned a page claiming the page had been deleted. I found this quite strange, as i had read the article in question just yesterday and considered it a well reasoned, researched and considered definition. I c=checked back to confirm a few details and it had gone. Please amend your mistake of deleting the article in question and I'm sure you will be able to minimise the amount of inconvienience caused to researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man scale. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Bryce's

FYI. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the fourth quarter of 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal. -MBK004 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! (and thanks also for volunteering to look after this). Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


You don't see what's unusual about defection to a Communist country?

The article infers it was certainly considered unusual at the time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly an unusual thing for people to have done, but I don't think that it's an unusual topic for an article to cover - tons has been written about this, along with movies, documentaries, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Discussion?

Nick, my discussion communicates information in a concise, easy-to-understand manner. It is relevant to the topic, remains objective, and deals with facts which are supported through a reference. However, the response you left on my talk page is essentially a threat. If you have a look at, you'll see that personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia; and threatening people with blocking/banning for disagreeing with you is considered a personal attack. Behave yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you stop using Wikipedia talk pages to complain about politicians and promote an attack website then you won't get any further warning messages for doing this. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


I am afraid that you have not AGF'ed with my edits, or at least that is the way it appears to myself. I have responded to your comments at 3RR, please read them, and take note that I ain't no politically motivated editor. In regards to the Irish famine, the book that I have used as a reference is not on the famine itself, but rather on how the English press reported on the famine. Yes, Wilson did say in The Economist "it is no man's business to provide for another"..."if left to the natural law of distribution, those who deserved more would obtain it"...this said whilst the Irish were begging for assistance. Such attitudes within the British press lead Maria Edgeworth to say, "To leave all the misery consequent upon improvidence and ignorace, to say nothing of imprudence and vice, to their own reward (anglice punishment) an to refuse any relief by charity to those who were perishing and perhaps before the very eyes of the their death struggle, would require a heart of iron - a nature from which the natural instinct of sympathy or pity have been expelled or destroyed." That is some quite notable comments from both The Economist, and from a notable Irish personality of the day. It is this type of thing which will be expanded upon in the article. --Russavia Dialogue 11:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the article's talk page and respect the consensus of other editors there rather than continue your edit-warring and POV-pushing. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Two of the same article

Hi Nick. I just stumbled across the newly created article Alexander A. N. D. Pentland by User:Georgejdorner, however I was sure Pentland already had an article and, sure enough, he does: Alexander Pentland. I was wondering if you would be able to help me in this matter? As an admin, I figured you would know what to do in a case such as this, or would at least point me in the right direction. Would I request a merger, or ...? Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have broached the matter on Talk:Alexander A. N. D. Pentland, and suggested that article be merged with Alexander Pentland. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, User:Georgejdorner has agreed both on the article's talk page and my talk page that the two articles be merged, and that the information he added into Alexander A. N. D. Pentland be added to Alexander Pentland. Sorry to burden you with this, but would you be able to provide me with the guidence of what to do next, if you are able? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, as easy as a few copy-pastes and redirects? I thought it would have involved a more complicated procedure than that. Well, it's all done now. Thanks for the guidance and assistance, Nick. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Response. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I don't think that there's much more for me to add. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Caption of Helicopter on Vietnam War Article

I hope I am doing this correctly --- I believe the image is of a South Vietnamese Air Force 217th Helicopter Squadron chopper belonging to the 74th Tactical Wing, 4th Air Division. See Note the stars on the tail of the black & white photo vs. the red tail with yellow stars of the color photo. Also US Army and Air Force aircraft had United States Army or USAF in black letters on the aircraft. This photo does not have that. Also it is obvious that the soldiers sitting on the aircraft deck are not U.S. But it is the tail marking and the yellow ,red, blue and white Roundel see also on the fuselage that is the definitive clue. Meyerj (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wartime RAAF Groups

Hey Nick, that's great adding No. 11 Group RAAF (I assume it was just "Group" and not "Operational Group" like Nos. 9 and 10). Couple of things: 1) Does Odgers give an Order of Battle for 11 like he did for 9OG and 10OG/1TAF? 2) What's your feeling on the class of these three articles? I think they all pass B-Class criteria with the possible exception of coverage, i.e. they're quite succinct - WDYT? In any case I've not assessed 9OG because I created it or 10OG/1TAF because I've contributed a fair bit to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ian, 1) Yes, on pg 478 - I've included this in the article's text - it didn't seem worthwhile separating this as an OOB given that the group was both small and never fully formed (the 'Group' was to only have four flying squadrons it would seem) 2) I think that 9OG and 11G are Bs given that there's not much available on them and 1TAF is a start as it could be expanded. I'm obviously biased about 11G though! As a question for you, do you know how the decision to form this all fighter squadron group for garrison duties fits in with the results of the Morotai Mutiny? - it seems odd that the RAAF did this after it was basically acknowledged that this was a poor use of resources. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, all that's fair enough re. 1) and 2) - put a B on 11 Group just now. Re. your question, don't know off the top of my head but will have a look when I get back to the books later on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

EA-18Gs for RAAF

Nick, have you read anything on why exactly the Labor government wants to order is looking into the EA-18Gs? Is it just that they feel it's tme the RAAF have an organic SEAD/ECM capability? ANd perhaps the fact that sinece they are the same airframe as the F/A-18F Block 2s they are already getting, now is as godd a time as any to get them? Just curious, especially since Labor wasn't even sure the wanted to buy Rhinos in the first place! Thanks for whatever response you have. - BillCJ (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From memory, the rationale was that the EA-18Gs would greatly enhance the strike capabilities of the Fs while still being usable as Fs themselves when the jammers aren't carried. There have been a number of reports in recent years which have argued that the ADF's EW capabilities are very weak, so I imagine that EA-18Gs would be a significant step towards addressing this shortfall. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. And I imagine 18 Fs + 6 Gs isn't going to cost significantly more than 24 Fs, while adding much needed capability. Another point is that all Block 2 Fs will be convertable to G standard, so even if the Gs aren't bought now, some Fs could probably be upgraded in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds right. Ironically, the government has aparantly how been converted to the cause of F/A-18Fs and there was some serious speculation that the RAAF might double its order and reduce the number of F-35s. The government hasn't talked about F-22s for well over a year (for a range of obvious reasons). Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it could be a lot worse: They could be trying to buy the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)‎ to operate the Super Hornets from! - BillCJ (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been following the F-22 for the RAAF discussion closely Nick. What are the range of reasons the government hasn't been talking about F-22s for the RAAF for over a year? Also, if you would, could you double-check my recent blocks for propriety at some point? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 13:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The Australian Government put out feelers to the US Government to see if the laws banning F-22 exports would be relaxed, and was told that they were going to be maintained (though it will be interesting to see what happens once the F-22 production line starts to slow down!). Also, now they're in Government the Labor Party has received full briefs on the F-35's capabilities and this seems to have influenced the Defence minister considerably (though he still has a healthy skepticism over the project). Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well spotted. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I found it in the WP Super Hornet article! I just added it here for closure on the topic. - BillCJ (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There are also photos of the Defence Minister looking very happy to be standing next to a visiting USN F/A-18F at: How times change... (I voted for these guys and think that they're doing a great job, but... )Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SR-71 Blackbird

If you notice that the article is a 2006 GA, it might be a good idea to go through this: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if you have issues with it. I'm not defending the article, I agree with your assessment and placement of the refimprove tag. ({{Morefootnotes}} might be more appropriate) -MBK004 07:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that articles on high-tech spy stuff tend to attract nonsense, something a bit sterner than {{Morefootnotes}} is needed - it's safe to say that some of the uncited speculation about the SR-71's capabilities and underlying technology in the article is probably wrong and not supported by any of the books and websites at the end of the article. I'd have no complaints if you replaced the template though. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1st Independent Company

Hi Nick I've left a question/comment on the talk page for the 1st Independent Company (Australia) article a few days ago. Since you moved the page, I thought you would be best able to answer my questions and possibly even add a bit about the etymology of the unit to the article, explaining the different terminology and reasons behind the different name, eg why the rest of the coys are designed 2/ but not the 1st. Thanks. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

World War II article (photos)

O.K. I will, thanks Nick.--Jacurek (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PD-Australia again

There seems to be a dispute as to whether PD-Australia does stretch back to 1955 or whether it needs to be pre-1946, juding by the challenge at the following FA - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - help/clarifications needed. Jappalang thinks pictures of Bradman's 1948 team aren't old enough for PD-Australia citing URAA and something I don't understand. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

do you have a link to the commons debate? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Greater Brisbane League

G'day, I have provided references to notable sources for the GBL in the main article under Media Coverage. I hope this helps. Have a good one! JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 05:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That might help establish notability for the league as a whole, but probably isn't enough to establish notability for individual teams - WP:ORG requires more than just the routine reporting of results in newspapers. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Nick-D for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cirt (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Australian Defence Force - I actually wrote an article for Wikinews a while back involving the Australian Defence Department, nice job on getting this article to Featured quality status! May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can blocked users edit their own user pages?

Re: User_talk:The_Real_American#Userpage: I did not know that. I knew there was a flag to allow/stop them from editing their own talk page(s) but I thought User: was treated the same as the rest. That's the way it used to be. When did it change? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be mistaken - I'd assumed that because the editor could edit their talk page they could also edit their user page. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Women in Militry

Nick nearly all of the material on the women in the military page is unverifiable, why did mine deserve deletion? Is it because they are not inline with your own personal opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While you're right that the article needs a lot of work, most material is currently covered by a citation. You added a large quantity of uncited and speculative material. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you please answer my question as to why you singled out my uncited additions and did not fix up any of the rest of the article?

Could not they have been left in and the page marked for cleanup so that all of the page could be fixed?

This section "This point is countered, however, by the fact that women who are currently in non-combat roles are still exposed to the risk of capture and sexual abuse, yet are not given the weapons or training to adequately defend themselves through combat. Furthermore, it is argued that women who joined the military in combat roles would almost certainly be aware of the risks and accept them. It is also worth remembering that male soldiers are frequently abused by their captors, and this has on numerous occasions included severe psychological and sexual abuse. In general, it can be stated that volunteer soldiers are expected to have accepted the risk of such treatment when enlisting, regardless of gender." for example offers no citation. I added material to that which may also have been uncited, but was at least true. E.g. no modern army I am aware of does not put women through the same basic training (which is generally where personal weapons are taught) or trade/skills training. Yet you allow that material to remain. How is that presenting a balanced view?

Why do you not remove those portions? It has no cited evidence - which is the case for a vast portion of wikipedia? Why don't you edit/revert those portions? Why is it that editors alwaus revert. They rarely if ever say, well, the point or info is valid but is not in the right from, I'll edit it and put it in the right form? Instead they revert (delete really) whole slabs of info. You appear to be a military historian, so it seems likely that you know for example that training in modern forces is the same for women as for men, but you allow a blatant falsehood to remain, uncited, but revert my uncited correction. I'd be happy (well not happy, but I would be satisfied you were being fair) if you removed all of the speculative or uncited material, but when you just remove mine, it sort of feels a lot like you're doing it because it does not agree with your views.

In addition look at some of the citations,:

I.e. yeah people cite sources, but in a significant number of cases the citations are nothing more then personal opinion and rhetoric, published in blogs, personal homepages or at best non neutral think tanks/"news media", which which themselves cite little or no sources or citations. I.e. predominantly pesonqal opinion or blatant political lobbying.

So much for the vaunted citations.

Wikipedia really sucks in this way. You (editors not you personally) get credit as an editor for reverting material, but there is no obligation on you to fix the rest of an article, even though you (personally in this case) acknowledge it needs work. And there is certainly nothing that makes you (editors generally, not you personally) have to actually contribute any info.

People make a career out of reverting other people's work. They revert whole slabs where often only a single fact is in question. But they never actually contribute any new material to the wikipedia. They just revert other people's. I'm not saying this is the case with you personally as you do appear to actually contribute material, but it is a shortcoming of the wikipedia editorial system generally.

In addition if a factoid has a citation you let it stand, regardless of how good the cited evidence is. Even in the case of web sourced citations it appears the citations are not checked for quality, and I can't imagine that very many wikipedida editors go out and buy/borrow/read every book or non web source of eviddence cited in an article that they edit.

I am strongly tempted to break my internet connection, get a new IP, and edit some obviously false material with bogus citations, e.g. links to google searches and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide citations for all material you add, especially speculative material. saying that other poor material exists is true, but doesn't excuse you from needing to provide sources. Given that the article has major problems there's no reason to add to them by adding large quantities of uncited material. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And there is also no reason to remove valid info. In many articles editors seem to add a "Citation Needed" link. But if you are going to remove some material for thse reasons, why don;'t you remove all of the similarly "speculative" and uncited material in that article?

Again can you please tell me why my uncited sections were removed, but you allowed other to remain?

In some cases I can't prove that the material is incorrect. For example there is nowhere in the Aust defence recruitng info that says women outside of combat arms are not provided the same training as men. In fact they are but that is implicit as everyone does the same training except for sepcifci combat arms jobs.

Aren't wikieditors supposed to help people and encourage them? I'm not feeling very helped or encouraged. Youve ignored my questions twice and you have not provided any useful commentary on any of the points Ive made. I have no better understanding of why some uncited material and personal opinion is allowed but mine is not. Please help me to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact are looking at the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS page it specifically says that "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.".

You might also want to check the "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" and the "Just unencyclopedic" sections of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you quoted as well.

My additions were in fact aimed at making the article more balanced and more comprehensive. It really appears to me that you are simply enforcing your world view on the matters in the article.

So why have you reverted my additions instead of leaving them and marking the whole page in need of cleanup? <-- THIS IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I'd actually like to know.

And for the record again, this is not a rhetorical question Why did you remove my uncited material but allow other uncited material to remain?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, because it was speculative and uncited. You had already been asked not to include uncited material. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But the page WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you cited specifically says that uncited material is not sufficient grounds for deletion.

So why are you deleting uncited content I have added and not uncited content that other people have added?

Why are you unwilling to discuss this matter instead of simply repeating the same invalid according to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reason?

I've quoted the specific paragraph of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that I think is relevant to my argument - do you have any other grounds for deleting my contributions?

Aren't editors supposed to follow the rules too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one is stopping you from recovering the material from the article's history, removing the speculation and commentary, finding citations for the remaining material and then re-adding it. You are responsible for ensuring that the material you add meets the relevant quality criteria, and shouldn't rely on other editors to fix it up (see: WP:PROVEIT). Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would think you are responsible for following the rules that you cite?

Why won't you do that in this case?

And why won't you address any of the questions I have asked you in a meaningful way?

AV2767 Crusader

Hi, re the ship, other ship articles in the Category:Australian Army water transport units use the long name as suggested on the talk page. This also fits in with WP:NC-S. Do you know her homeport as Cementco and should the article be added to Category:Merchant ships of Australia? Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


That you have access to factiva - you saved an afd as far as i am concerned - well done - cheers SatuSuro 10:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got access through both the National Library of Australia's website and my local public library's website. It was interesting to see what happened to one of my favorite radio broadcasters of my youth. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

2/7th Independent Company (Australia)

Hi, Nick, I have re-written the article on 2/7th in line with your comment (17 February). If you could please take a look at it and see if it is now okay, I would appreciate it. I hadn't meant to cause any troubles. I suspect that other similar articles have also been culled from AWM (e.g the article on 2/3rd Commando Squadron (Australia)), hence I had used it for 2/7 and was trying to improve it with citations with a view to reworking over time. It is no excuse, though, I understand. So I consider myself thoroughly embarrassed. Anyway, if you could take a look at the updated version, I'd be grateful. Cheers.AustralianRupert (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Derrick off to FAC

Hi Nick. The article I just had at FAC has now been added to the promoted list, so I'm ready to take Derrick to FAC. Providing that he is still willing to do so, Roger has agreed to make a final pass through the article before it is nominated. So, hopefully, I should have Derrick's FAC up and running by tomorrow. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nick. I just thought I would drop you a line to let you know that I have just gone off and nominated Derrick for FAC. Thank you for all of your contributions, guidence and assistance in bringing the article this far; I truly appreciate all you have done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lukis

Heh, talk about on the ball (and obliging!) - I didn't even get round to listing it for assessment...! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got the list of new Australian military articles on my watchlist, so I spotted it that way. That's yet another great article. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism article

I wonder if you could look at Fascism#Political spectrum. The introductory sentence of this section is not supported by the footnotes, and much of the section is devoted to "left-wing fascism", which is not described elsewhere in the article. There has been discussion, but it has not been resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick thoughts on semi-protect

I thought that you weren't supposed to semi-protect the TFA unless the vandalism was getting absolutely out of hand, and if you did, it wasn't supposed to be long (as in hours, not days).... :/ Just my ramblings... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My idiocy. Onlt the move-protect was for a few days. *facepalm* —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Army

Not your usual area I know, but I'm trying to improve this 12,000 miles from most of my sources. Would you mind going through what you have that's relevant and improving things here and there? Best wishes Buckshot06(prof) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries - tally ho back to the Aussie articles... Buckshot06(prof) 09:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

There is an on-going discussion for the article on Fort Lewis that I'd like you to look at. An IP editor put the following blurb in the article: "On February 16th, 2009, two 16 year old girls were discovered in the barracks. One was dead, the other, unconscious." No source, no other info. I removed it, explaining that it was unsourced and seemed like local interest only. On the talk page, I've further explained why I don't believe this incident is encyclopedic or notable. The editor apparently is not familiar with the policies on personal attacks, nor did he familiarize himself with them when I pointed it out. Am I that far off-base (no pun intended)? I don't see wh this should be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

East Timor

I see you've met User:23prootie. WP:CIVIL and AGF prevent me saying more. --Merbabu (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Hey, I've fixed all the issues you brought up in Musashi. As an afterthought, could you also add what you believe is needed before an FAC? Cam (Chat) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


I made a comment to your proposal on the issue of the Bombing[s] of Darwin. Yes, I provided some sourced info. for that wiki article. Feel free to decide how you want to handle the article. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. The raid on Darwin is not my specialty. But since I had read an authoritative book on the massive Japanese attack at my University in Vancouver, I thought it would be useful to add some genuine information and footnotes for buff it up so to speak! I like international politics but my main interest is Ancient Egypt. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sound Relief concert

Re: your recent deletion of You Am I due to perform at Sound Relief concert which was referenced. Your 'Edit summary' states (Undid revision 273155018 by Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) not needed; YAI have performed thousands of concerts). Whilst it is probably true that YAI have performed thousands of concerts, I doubt that any have included a benefit performance in support of 210+ dead Australians? IMO, the historical significance of the benefit concert is notable. Would you like to discuss further your reasons for this deletion? Please respond at Talk:You Am I.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for AV2767 Crusader

Updated DYK query On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article AV2767 Crusader, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi mate, sorry to bother you - I was wondering if you could help me with something. I don't really understand the whole photo upload policy. I understand the basic copyright stuff, but not sure how to apply it in practice to uploading photos. I've uploaded one as a test - won't upload any others if I get it wrong. If you wouldn't mind, could you take a look at the photo I put on Michael Allmand - a British Victoria Cross recipient - and tell me if I've justified it correctly, or if I've committed a grevious copyright error. Sorry to dump this on you, but I thought you might know. I noticed you uploaded the image of Mark Donaldson, so it seems you might have experience in this regard.

I got the image from the United Kingdom MoD site which has Crown Copyright, but I believe that because it was created before 1 June 1957 it is okay to use. I used the templates from other similar photos that appear to be from similar sources (i.e. Imperial War Museum) - for example the image on Arthur Stewart King Scarf. Anyway, I won't keep rambling on. If you could have a look at it and say yay or nay, that would be great. At least from there I'll start to get an idea of how it all works. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That all looks fine to me. You probably don't need to use the {{Attribution}} tag though given that the image is in the public domain. The advice at Commons:Licensing is a useful reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, mate thanks for your help. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Women in the Australian military

Updated DYK query On February 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Women in the Australian military, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom intelligence community

You may be interested in this discussion on deleting (by redirecting) the United Kingdom intelligence community page. Earthlyreason (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Deny Flight

First of all, thanks for participating in the peer review for Operation Deny Flight. I think I addressed the concerns you brought up there, and thanks again for the picture, and I have now nominated the article as a featured article candidate. If you'd like to participate in the FAC, here's a link. Cool3 (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Nice photo! --Pdfpdf (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk

There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Landing at Dove Bay

Nick, Do you believe that the Landing at Dove Bay, by the 2/6th Cavalry Commando Regiment is notable enough to warrant a page? Your thoughts? Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though as a note it does seem a bit odd to be creating articles on individual battles of the Aitape-Wewak campaign when the article on the campaign is only a single para. An article on the landing at Dove Bay should cover the subsequent fighting and results of this operation rather than just the landing. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Will do some further research and expand and potentially create campaign box. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Derrick

Thanks Nick, but you also made some very significant contributions to the article and were instrumental in its passing as FA. Thank you for all of the time, work and effort you contributed to the article. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Military Ranks explanations (were i got my research)

Hi Nick

I receive since yesterday were I got the information regarding Philippine Military Ranks. Here are my answers:

Personally, I'm a graduate of basic ROTC course during my college days and at that time it is a compulsory to all male college students before the passage of R.A. 9163 also known as "National Service Training Program Act of 2002" (here is the link you can find that law:

I was a cadet officer with a rank of Cdt/1Lt. and I was a logistics officer in the entire corps air group(battallion). Currently, acording to my NCO who is my instructor, I graduated with a rank of sergeant in the Philippine Air force Reserve and in case of war and calamities according to R.A. 7077 also known as reservist act of 1991 i'll be called to active duty when the time comes. I was trained for two years and after that I decide to continue my studies particulary the course of engineering till I graduated in 2004.

I'm also a Filipino. As you can see, in what I posted in the information in the page of Armed Forces of the Philippines(AFP) in the wikipedia, you can easily identify, what kind of language I'm speaking. If you are asking were the links I got the information about the military ranks of the armed forces I can share it with you.

Here are the links:


  (although it was thought to us by my NCO instructor, we never use warrant officer
   ranks and insignias at the time the Armed Forces of the Philippines
   was establish in 1936 under National Defence Act of 1936 during the U.S. occupation 
   before WWII).


  (it explains thouroughly the Philippine Navy ranks and ratings).


  (this is how we get or the evolution of military ranks to its present day 
   beginning at the Philippine-Spanish War up to Philippine-American War or you call
   it in your American History the Philippine Insurrection).

 (from the Philippine Air Force website by just click the link: "chiefs of air force"
  then, click "gallery" and "ranks and insignias").

Let me explain further, if you will wonder why they are no ranks in Senior Master Sergeant up to Sergeant Major in the Philippine Army, the Philippine Marine Corps is using Chief Master Sergeant instead of Sergeant Major and Senior Chief Petty Officer up to Master Chief Petty Officer in the Philippine Navy? The answer is simple, they never updated the page. For example in no.4, you will see it was copyrighted since 2006 and they just preserve the site since it was created. Six Years ago, the website of the AFP has posted in their gallery the ranks of officers and enlisted personnel from E-1 up to E-9 and O-1 to O-10 from all service branches but lately after I tried to look for it after they updated their website it was never posted anymore.

On my personal experience, when we have military celebrations, I always salute NCO's mostly from the Air force and I'm very familiar with Philippine Air force and Army enlisted ranks but when it comes to Philippine Navy and Marine Corps, I need to ask my NCO instructor whenever I'm with him inside Camp Aguinaldo if I need to salute a unfamiliar rank coming from the Navy and Marine Corps and he says whenever your are in doubt just make a salute if your not familiar with their rank. There is a time when all enlisted personnel from all service branches gathered in one place and i saw a Navy NCO and I decide to salute him and he return my salute. I ask midshipman with a rank of ensign from La Salle university and ask him what kind of rank insignia on his shoulder, he replied "Ah that's a chief boatswain's mate and he'll soon be promoted to Senior Chief." I ask again: "What is the insignia look like when he will be promoted?" He replied: It's like the U.S. Navy ranks using an eagle at the top of the echelon but instead the eagle it will be a merlion with a sword on it's right hand at the top of echelon." "Are you sure?" I ask. "Well the Philippine Navy will adapt the U.S. Navy rank Master Chief so that it will be co-equal with the army, air force and marine corps." "You mean to say you don't have a Senior Master Sergeant or Chief Master Sergeant?" " Yeah, it will be implemented by this year." "I see!" Until now, whenever I go to Roxas Blvd, in the main headquarters of the Philippine Navy. I'm looking a sentinel on his arm sleeve to see if he has the rank of Senior Chief (Petty) Officer on what the midshipman from La Salle has described years ago. Until now, I only I see seaman first clas up to petty officers yet no Senior Chief up to Master Chief Petty Officers(well if they are inside their office doing office desk job there is no doubt about it). I only use to go to Villamor Airbase and very often in other camps, particularly in Camp Aguinaldo and Bagong Diwa in Quezon City and Taguig when we have military training every weekends. During weekdays we need to go to school to study.

I need also to inform you about in no.4 that, the officer shoulder sleeve insignia from Philippine Army and Air force are still being used from second lieutenant up to general. In Philippine Navy however since 2003, from the rank of commodore up to admiral they no longer use the old flag officer shoulder sleeve ranks instead, they adapt the new shoulder sleeves coming from the U.S. Navy's Flag Officer shoulder sleeves but still the title of commodore the lowest flag officer still remains in usage. Also, they are now using coat sleeve insignias similar from its U.S. counterpart with eight rays of the sun instead the star at the top with an inverted letter H in the middle coming from ancient Filipino alphabet "alibata" usually it is pronounce as "ka" for "kalayaan" meaning freedom in Filipino(it is actually an adaptation from the old Philippine Revolutioanry Army rank of a general in no.3). In Philippine Marine Corps, they are now actually using collar pin insignias for officers and even their uniforms have similarities from U.S. Marine Corps.

About the 5 star genral/admiral rank there is really a rank conferred to the President of the Philippines. I tried to find my old notes from my ROTC days yet it was lost somewhere but I can give you a link in which Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (President Marcos' former defense secretary) assures in a press statement about the rank of 5 star general and admiral in AFP which the current president is the holder of the rank which is an honorary. Here's the link:

I almost forgot, the translations from English to Filipino of officer ranks it is very simple for us Filipinos particularly in my case as an air force reservist. Every time we have military parades or presentation of medals and awards, the hosts' in stage usually speak in Filipino (but sometimes they speak in English) will announce the ranks of awardees in Filipino. As what The Commision of Filipino Language(a government agency dedicated for study and preservation of Filipino language) states: "whenever there are words and sentences that can't be properly translate and pronounce in Filipino, it shall be adapted or even possible the spelling of the words might be altered with conformity of it's use." Therefore, since my country has been colonized by the Spaniards and Americans we already adapt the words in which it is actually borrowed yet accepted as part of Filipino modern language with a purpose to avoid the Filipino language to become extinct as what the commission states. I hope I have enlighten your mind about what I said.

Until, then and Thank you for your time ---- dast138 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dast138 (talkcontribs) 12:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Nick. I am currently working on a biography of Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wells, the first Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, in my sandbox here. However, I don't really possess any sources that examine exactly why the position was created or why Wells was appointed to the command, or even the problems/limitations he faced with the position in its early days (eg. no official command authority with the position and being equal in rank to the other chiefs), and I was wondering if you did? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of material on this on page 43 of Making the Australian Defence Force by David Horner which describes how the position came about, what it involved and Wells not being promoted and having only limited staff after he was promoted to the position. I'll add this on the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, mate, I appreciate it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Nick! Hopefully we can make a decent article on Wells yet! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

CMF Units

Nick, another question. How do we name CMF units on wiki? 1AIF unit is listed as 1st Battalion (Australia), 2AIF is 2/1st Australian Infantry Battalion (should this really be listed as 2/1st Battalion (Australia), and should CMF, which have same name as 1AIF, be known as 1st Battalion CMF (Australia)?

I have noted that in some articles, especially bios it is incorrectly linked to 1AIF page when it relates to CMF unit. If we need to discuss this elsewhere to have consistency and rules, happy to participate. Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an agreed convention, and this is long-overdue. I think that 2nd AIF battalions should be 2/xth Infantry Battalion (Australia), 2/1st Pioneer Battalion (Australia), etc as per the names used by the AWM (eg, at [6]) - the inclusion of 'Australian' is a hangover from the era before there was a standard naming convention for military units and doesn't seem to have any particular justification. How to name CMF battalions which trace their lineage back from the 1st AIF and don't exist as Army Reserve Battalions needs to be discussed in a central location. My personal prefernece would be to label these the xth Battalion (Australia) and include both their WW1 and CMF-era history as these were in effect the same units. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Where do we go to have the naming convention discussed and agreed upon? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force seems the best location Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Haruna ACR

Hey Nick, I've addressed all of the issues you brought up for the ACR of Japanese battleship Haruna. Feel free to check back in. Cam (Chat) 20:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
And I don't even know why; Britannica's article on the subject is inferior to ours as a rule of thumb, seems odd. I've asked if IP-Tracing can be run on the IPs in question, so hopefully we'll be able to see where these lunatics are operating from. Cam (Chat) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

Hi. I filled the RFC from the dispute.

It started a year ago, when User:Steveshelokhonov added a lot of new stuff into the article. That contained many statements from the book of Nikolai Baryshnikov, who has tried to create a tighter connection between Finns and the Siege. His additions resulted article size to grow and I splitted it along the civilian and military viewpoint. He resented the splitting, but in the end the dispute calmed down to the more or less stable version, where I have added that "Controversy"-chapter, which base claim was also taken from that book of Baryshnikov. Also then a anonymous editor User: participated in discussion, effectively replacing User:Steveshelokhonov. I called for the 3O Talk:Siege_of_Leningrad/Archive_2#Content_dispute_Third_opinion but before any resolution was reached, the anonymous editor was blocked.

A new round started at January, when anonymous editors started to add similar parts of text to the article as year ago. While concentrating their talk page behavior to that "Controversy"-chapter, they have also changed numerous other sourced statements to claim something what the given sources do not support. Anyway, it is a mess, and I'd really, really appreciate any help to solve this permanently, so we don't have to go through this annually. --Whiskey (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think that the article had reached a stage where external views and possible intervention is needed. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Adil your

Hi. Can you take a look at this guy's edits to variuos subcontinental war articles. I don't rate him as anything more than a vandal with the sources he is using, and in any case, he is reverting against a consensus, in my opinion, eg see Khemkaran, and the ridiculous "source" that he is using. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone beat me to it - they've been blocked for a week. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fleet entry

Been there, done that, will be uploading photos to Commons over the weekend :) -- saberwyn 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work! I'm looking forward to seeing them. Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
First batch (taken from North Head as the ships entered) is uploaded, and galleried at commons:User:Saberwyn/2009 Sydney Harbour Fleet Entry. A second batch of the ships at anchor will be up in the next few days. -- saberwyn 07:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, those are great photos, and a major advance for our holdings of photos of RAN ships - great work! Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks muchly for the kudos and the barnstar. The second wave is now up for your perusal. -- saberwyn 07:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS quick check

I hope you don't mind, but I offered to check those two articles over for Sandy as she's got a lot on her plate right now. Overall they are both in pretty good shape MOS-wise. I did not carefully read them, just scanned for MOS issues. I made a few minor tweaks to each, mostly to add conversions or fix minor ref format issues. Remaining issues that I noted:

Military history of Australia during World War II
  1. Try to incorporate nonbreaking spaces where a line-break in a division name could be really confusing (such as "I Corps"). It's a pain in the ass, frankly, and I would not ding someone for failing to do it, but it's helpful to the reader.
  2. Please use either unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes in prose. Examples needing fixes are spaced emdashes in the North Africa section and hyphens-used-as-dashes in Advance to the Philippines.
  3. Be careful about over-capitalization: why "Asia-Pacific Region"?
  4. Ref formatting:
    1. I see a few anomalous "Page" and "Pages" instead of p. and pp.
    2. Some citations appear to be of the Beaumont book, linked to online chapters, but neglect to mention Beaumont, so they look like incomplete cites (refs 119, 134, 192 for example).
    3. Please convert ISO dates to the same date format used within the article.
  5. External links should not be a subsection of References.
Battle of Morotai
  1. This article has a plethora of endashes that should be hyphens (Australian-led, mid-July, counter-attacks, D-Day, counter-offensive, etc).
  2. Many of the image captions are complete sentences, and should have ending punctuation.
  3. Ref formatting:
    1. Don't use "pp." when citing a single page.
    2. Citations such as "Office of the Chief Engineer, General Headquarters, Army Forces Pacific (1951), pp. 272." should list the most important identifying information—the publication title!

Thanks for thinking to get these checked before FAC. I too have noticed more of 'our' articles getting dinged at FAC for MOS issues; I hope we can tighten up our A-class reviews so that we run into less issues at FAC. Maralia (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Australian light destroyer project

Updated DYK query On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian light destroyer project, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Good Luck on Making it as Coordinator again this Tranche! You have done such a great job, keep up the good work. I didn't really think I would be nervous about running for Coordinator, but it does make you pretty nervous :) Hope You Make it, Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 18:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I've responded to your nomination of this image for deletion. Could you please withdraw this - the image is PD in the US. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not in a position to do that, as it is not at all clear that the image is PD in the US. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nick

Our great friend Mrg is back, operating as User:Shattered Wikiglass and some anon IPs. Just a heads-up for now, but articles such as his new Dry bays are, er, wobbly. -Buckshot06


It seems we have our sixth official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

With Thanks

WikiprojectBarnstar.png The WikiProject Barnstar
For your leadership of The Military History WikiProject from September 2008–March 2009, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. Cam (Chat) 00:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

c-class vote

I was a little surprised by your comment. Perhps you could explain in what way you consider my edit to the vote preamble was inappropriate. In particular, how it constitutes disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If you seriously expect the vote to be a valid and binding result, then it needs to be be conducted in an impartial manner. The introduction as I saw it originally was plainly not this, rather seemed to summarise the benefits of the c-class grade as seen by those who wish it not to exist. Had it simply said do you support/oppose with no preamble whatsoever, then that would have been acceptable. Including a biased and inadequate summary of arguments certainly was not. Alternatively, you might have added a link to wherever the arguments have been properly discussed. As it is, if you feel my admittedly also rather inadequate summary of relevant points is unacceptable, I would suggest that you scratch the entire vote and start again. Given that a number of people have already voted, that might anyway be the better course. I would certainly not consider a vote conducted on the terms outlined at the moment could be regarded as binding in any regard. Sandpiper (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for LCM2000

Updated DYK query On March 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article LCM2000, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


There are currently 12 members with 20 or 20+, and it has been less than a week so far, that means there is two spots left. The turnout has been great. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the break

Thanks, Nick. The breathing space is much appreciated, and will hopefully give the subject time for some valuable and positive reflection. —Error -128 (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Nick-D! Is that better to remove the military infobox at the World War II sub-section of the article Batangas like you did? Kampfgruppe (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think so: it doesn't seem suitable to include this kind of template on non-battle articles, especially when the entire content is uncited and a bit dubious. From memory, the infobox was added by an IP editor who's been spamming articles on the Philippines with dodgy claims about the role and organisation of the Philippines guerrilla forces in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

IRA and Spanish Civil War

Thought your removal of IRA from infobox correct in retrospect. Had considered doing same but opted to 'fix' an IP contrib by piping. Should have gone with my gut instinct. RashersTierney (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fictional character IQs

Hello! I am doing some searching and it does appear the subject of intelligence of fictional characters is something covered in scholarly sources, such as Patricia M. Puccinelli's Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction (P. Lang, 1995). Anyway, I believe the article can be dramatically revised to be about the intelligence of fictional characters as depicted in fiction and as such believe that we can use some of the verifiable information from that article for that purpose. Again, what I propose is an article based entirely on such secondary sources as Puccinelli's mentioned above and that only lists those IQs of characters also verified in other secondary sources. Might you please reconsider so that we can use what we can from it for these purposes? And as others know I do tend to follow up my ideas for such rewrites (see rescue barnstars on my userpage). Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The old issue at WP Indonesia

Hi we need either a good Milhist ed (or yourself if you either have the time or the inclination) who is prepared to come in and have a squizz at the military hardware list freaks work of recent - in WP Indonesia. It seems to have spurts - so if you could or would suggest a good candidate - the project needs an invasion of an experienced milhist eye to review the current state - it would be appreciated SatuSuro 04:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples of this? I'm happy to look into it and post notifications for other editors to review what's going on. Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thar she blows : - literally all the sub categories and the articles that are the names of the categories.

The main issue for those of us as at WP Indonesia is that we have lists freaks - usually copyvios and web pinches - they just love them lists :( - not sure that I have had enough milhist exposure to see whether other countries suffer from the same affliction.

Cheers SatuSuro 06:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Or try List_of_current_ships_of_the_Indonesian_Navy. --Merbabu (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything outrageous there, but all the unexplained and uncited additions from IP editors are very concerning - I've been beating my head against the wall over the same kind of stuff in Philippino military articles. This is an excellent and fairly recent reference which can be used to verify and cite the article - I just did some very quick spot checks of major warships and recent changes and the results were patchy - some of the stuff seems to be nonsense but most of the content seems OK-ish. I've taken to reverting, warning and, if needed, blocking IP editors who make repeated uncited and unexplained changes, and that would be a good approach here. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Merbabu got in there - I do hope that was a good answer to the question at my talk - thanks for your response - if I come across any other ones over the next week or so I'll drop a note SatuSuro 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh I forgot we have our friends like [7] to keep us bemused or amused - whichever SatuSuro 12:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey - thanks for keeping an eye on the Indonesian military-related articles. --Merbabu (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear I'll second that SatuSuro


Hi Nick. Sorry to bother you once again, but Ian has just completed a review of Henry Wells (general) for the ACR and has requested that another sentence be added to elaborate on how/why the CCOSC was strengthened during Scherger's time. Would you be able and willing to do this? As ever, if you are too busy or would prefer not to, then please do not feel obligated to do so. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Rauschning

Dear Sir, An encyclopedic article abuot world war II which does not mention the atrocities against the Germans in the east since august 1919 can not be taken seriously. The democratic german governments in weimar-republic published several "Weißbücher" about this problem, which became acute after Pilsudski´s death: "Bromberger Blutsonntag"!. user talk: jäger —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Please discuss this on the World War II article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

British Imperial Lifeline AfD

Sorry about that: it was not intended to be personal, but it is a fairly common occurrence where editors just don't read WP:BEFORE. I didn't see any claim of notability problems, just that the article was bad, and thus was "worse than nothing". Which he could have fixed by 30 seconds of editing. Frankly such deletion debates are both common and a massive waste of everyone's time, and people won't know this unless you tell them. Sorry, I really do think this is an important thing to communicate, but I'll really try to be more circumspect in the future.

Thanks again, T L Miles (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Nick. You had reviewed SMS Roon a couple of days ago (I had listed it over at the requests for assessment section), and you had commented on a couple of sourcing problems it had. I added a few citations to the section you mentioned; can you take look at it again for me? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the two sentences which begin "Roon was decommissioned in 1911;" needs a cite. Other than that the article looks great. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to track down where I had seen that fact, and I couldn't find it anywhere. Then it occurred to me that I might not have added it, so I checked the history, and lo and behold, another user did in fact add it. I dropped a line on his talk page asking for a source (if he could remember 2 years ago). The only thing I've been able to find online that mentions the decommissioned/recommissioned bit is this German website, but I doubt it qualifies as an RS. The irritating thing is, I bet I know where I could find it—Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1860-1905, but the darn thing is out of print, and I can't find it anywhere. Anyways, I'll drop another note if and when I get it straightened out. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Yep, drive-bys are archived immediately, but there is a set procedure so it is best to ping Sandy or Maralia, just like I did here: User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Drive-by_nomination_at_FAC -MBK004 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

American forces casualties

I have given my reply and my reasoning at the page for your discussion. I think I have stated a fairly solid reason why the article is needed.BobaFett85 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded again.BobaFett85 (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a proposition at the discussion, what if we could only list those killed outside of Afghanistan in the article. We would delete the names of those killed in the country itself. We would say that per 608 soldiers have been listed as killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Uzbekistan, while we would put a list of the 28 killed in those other countries? But we also put a notice in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan that no more adding of names of soldier's names, rank and age killed in the war be added again since that too would be a violation of the memorial rule. We would list just a few high-notable deaths among soldiers. Are you okay with this?BobaFett85 (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Query re: Hands On Learning Australia page

Hi Nick, I hope this is the right spot to ask this question, please advise if there is a more appropriate spot as I'm obviously new to WP. I note that you have flagged the Hands On Learning Australia page as requiring verifiable third party references... are you able to provide a little more info about how the ones already on the page (other than the one the organisation home page) fail to satisfy this critereon? Thanks Blippy (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference to ABC radio and The Age newspaper. Is this the kind of thing you mean? I thought the academic report would be better than either of these though... Cheers Blippy (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Have also added a few more references now. Hopefully this addresses the issue satisfactorily... I'd appreciate some further direction if this isn't the case. Thanks again, Blippy (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick, sorry to be pestering you, but I'm not sure what the protocol is from here. Is it up to me to clear the notability flag, should I be asking you to take care of it, or is there some other process? Cheers Blippy (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

I think I've got it sorted Nick - congratulations on your election result BTW. Blippy (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Sorry Nick, this is feeling a bit like stalking. I think I'll go have a lie down and leave you alone now! In some ways it's been good having that tag hanging over the page, it inspired me to do a lot more checking than I would have otherwise. Cheers Blippy (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Coordinator of the
Military history Project
March 2009 — October 2009

Congrats on your re-election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg

Milhist Coordinator elections
I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

Arilang reponse

Please check my talk page. Arilang talk 08:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Coalition casualties in in Afghanistan <--> American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

I don't like what you did, I tried each time (if available) info about their background, age etc. And you made it to something very dry and impersonal. Why if I may ask, you deleted all of my work, without asking, so why ? Perelada (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't touched either article. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

I have stated my opinion and my respons at the deletion discussion. But, like I said over there, I have a compromise proposol if you wish to discuss it so we can not delete the article but still make it as not to be too much of a memorial. My proposal is to delete the names of all soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan and just leave the paragraph which states the 608 number of killed in those countries with as it's source. But, we leave the names of the 28 soldiers who died in other countries while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan, along with their sources, so that the deaths of those 28 can be confirmed and linked to the war. Is this OK?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No; that would still be a POV fork from Coalition casualties in Afghanistan and would contain original research. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no original research here. First of, 636 names have been listed in the article with solid references, thus 636 died. As to explain the source., a highly notable source, has listed the names of 608 soldiers to have died in Afghanistan or as a result of wounds received in Afghanistan. Another 24 soldiers were listed to have died in other Arabian countries, while supporting operations in Afghanistan. Also, another four servicemen have been found to be missing from's list, but were confirmed by DoD to be victims of operation Enduring freedom, their deaths are also listed with references. Thus the final number is 636. No original research here involved. Also, you didn't answer my question about your wanting to delete this article and not those other articles. Also among them is included Coalition casualties in Afghanistan since it itself was the first one which listed the names of the soldiers killed. I simply shortened the article with the moving of the content to this new article. If you are so against it why didn't you delete the content of Coalition casualties before since it itself was in violation of the memorial rule?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why most of the info from from Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was deleted, and the other page was put on for deletion. BobaFett85 mentionned the overload of info or sth. But now the info will be lost for ever, all mine and other's their add's are lost for ever, by one single move, so why ?. (and don't consider this as an attack ~ please) Perelada (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the article's talk page and is currently being discussed at the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Will you please give me a response to what I said about the original research accusation and to answer that other question about why not deleating those other articles, including Coalition casualties in Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I was thinking, and I think I have found a solution for the dilema. Currently it is still unclear what the result of the nomination will be, five have opposed deletion, five have confirmed deletion and one said to withdraw the nomination until the dispute is resolved. Thus we have a standof as some would say. So I think I have found a solution satisfactory for both sides. The main problem here is the Memorial rule. I will tell you now, in principle I SUPPORT that rule, I am against lists of soldiers killed in wars. But I clearly made my point clear why I wanted the list, to shorten that previous article and to find a definite number of soldiers killed. So my solution is the following - We delete all of the names, ALL of them, but we will make up a new list, a chronological list of attacks on US forces, a chronological list of deaths of US soldiers in the war. But we will not put the names of the soldiers, just the numbers of how many died in specific incidents. A kind of list like those others: List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan, List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports, List of Afghan security forces fatality reports, Timeline of Somali war (which in essence only lists deaths of people in the war by date). If it would be in that form than the article would not be a memorial. What do you say, would that be alright?BobaFett85 (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you created a list of individual fatalities which is third largest article on Wikipedia tends to strongly suggest that you're not actually "against lists of soldiers killed in the war" as you claim, and the bad faith you've displayed in this and other discussions means that it's not worth discussing article content with you as you can't be trusted to stick to a consistent position or honour promises you've made. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Now your just uncompromising. I am trying to resolve this dispute here. Like I said I am against the lists of names of soldiers killed, it's just that I thought that this was the best way to find a real solid number of fatalities of OEF - Afghanistan. I did the list since there was already a list with names in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, and as there were already articles on British, Canadian and German casuatlies with names I thought nobody would mind. I wasn't watching if it would be the third largest article or something. What? You think I wanted to waste my time doing such a big list. Bad faith? I have tryied on three separate occasions to find a compromising solution with you and you don't want to talk at all. I think you should cool of a bit and consider what I'm saying. First of, it wasn't me who recomended the creation of the article, it was Jezarnold, it's that I took it upon myself. I have not showed bad faith at all. Second, I wanted to reference the circumstances of the deaths with DoD references since you yourself said icasualties is not verifiable even though all of the major news outlets use it, also I've been telling you, even though the DoD stated a lesser number than icasualties all of the icasualties's names were confirmed by DoD press releses. Third, TheFEARgod recomended we do the chronological list. And you didn't answer my question. What would be your position if instead we did the article as a chronological list. It wouldn't be a memorial.

Listen, I don't know what personal problem you have with me. I myself have no problem with you. For some reason you think that I am a trickster, which I find highly offensive. Recently I have had some hard fights in discussions with various users who are highly stuborn and dogmatic. Listen, I will change the whole article like TheFEARgod recomended and construct only a chronological list, without names, no memorial. If it would make you feel better block me indefinetly if I go back on my word. But I will tell you this my word is a thing not to be doubtfull about. If I have to cite Al Pacino from Scarface I have only two things in this world. My word and my balls and I don't break them for no one. So I'm asking again, will you agree to this compromise and stop this stupid fight?BobaFett85 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article as you please. The fact that you've been recently placing messages on different editors' talk pages which contradict with your stated positions in the AfD and the above message is consistent with your previous behavior on articles such as Allies of World War II (eg, stating on Publicus' page that you'd reduce the size of the article only if there's no other option [8], telling Bali Ultimate today that the article was created to prove the DoD figures wrong [9] and canvassing for votes today to avoid a precedent against articles which list fatalities [10]). Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Allies of World War II??? I have no idea what your talking about? I never edited anything over at that article. What are you talking about??? As for searching for votes yes, I was talking to some of my old editor friends who share the same opinion as me. And yes I was talking with Publicus about the compromise solution. Since obviously we were at a dead end with negotiations I suggested to him we find a compromise with the removal of the names and inclusion of the chronological list. As for the DoD's figures, I said it because it is wrong and the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was using that incorect number. That's no secret, I already stated this on the begining of the discussion I think two or three times. Remember what I said? All of the names that listed were confirmed by DoD but the number didn't match up with the DoD's summed up number. I already stated this when we started the discussion. Ckeck my numbers 1,2,3 at the beggining. Since you said fine I will start editing the article this evening to change it's structure and content so for it not to be a memorial. But please tell me again - Allies of World War II??? I realy have no idea what your talking about there?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confusing you with User:23prootie on that particular article - they've got a similar editing style. I'll strike the above comment on that article. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem buddy. Back to topic, you said at the discussion Those kinds of articles are also often deleted when they come to AfD. Those that I listed to you have not been nominated or deleted. I think Iraqi insurgent casualties was nominated two or three times for deletion and all three times it survived the nominations with overwhelming majorities because editors found the article is nedeed since no definite other source for the summed up number of insurgent casualties exists. And that one particulary exists for almost three years now. Listen Coalition casualties in Afghanistan already had the list, with names, but was never nominated for deletio and it was as much of a memorial as this article is. I am now proposing that we just move that existing content to a separate article so we shorten that one and do the same list that was in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan in this new article, just only without the names so for it not to be a memorial... C'mon you can at least agree with me it wouldn't violate the Memorial rule? And would be much better suuited as a new article then to be in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan and make that article which should be just an overview article that long. Also, the article you mentioned, list of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008, was in violation of the Memorial rule, this kind of article I am proposing wouldn't be.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Listen, I will not start the reconstruction of the article until we can say that we resolved the dispute of the nomination, the violation of the Memorial rule. Have we resolved the dispute and found a compromise? Can we ask for the nomination to be withdrawn. Wouldn't want to totaly reconstruct the article for it just to get deleted. If we say we found a compromise I will start on the reconstruction tonight and remove all of the names.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you mad at me or something? Are you not talking to me? C'mon we can find a compromise. Lawrencama just laid out that we replace the names with a table in which we would put the numbers of killed by province or country. That's just what I have been saying, to do something like that. C'mon, please reply.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have restructured the article to meet most of Wikipedia standards now. Tell me what you think? This is without the list of hostile incidents incured by the US forces. This has been agreed to in principle by EnigmaMcmxc and Lawrencama and done per discussion with them. We would state both the icasualties number and the DoD number, both of them, we wouldn't leave out any of them. Yes the official lesser number reported by DoD is the official one, but most medial outlets, CNN, BBC, AP and others are reporting the higher number given by icasualties and most regard icasualties's number more notable than DoD's. But I have laid it out and now several editors have agreed to present both numbers and per Lawrencama's proposols to point out how we came to icasualties's number. I have now come to the point that I am to tired to discuss this any more and if you still want it like that I would also go the extra mile and forget the list of incidents and not iclude it in the article because of the POV issue. We would only maybe list several notable incidents of large numbers of fatalities from large battles like operation Red Wing, opeartion Anaconda or battle of Wanat.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


You're more than welcome to revert - I won't argue - but I don't think it's a significant change at all; it's just expanding on a couple of points made to note relevant dates (ie, it's a bit odd to note the Treaty of San Francisco but not the Paris Peace Treaties or the 1956 not-quite-a-treaty). I did leave a note on talk explaining what I'd done, since it arose from a query there.

Do you have any particular problems with any of it? It's uncited, because I don't have a general history handy to cite it from, but it should be fairly easy to draw some cites in from either the relevant articles or from whichever standard text you prefer - I don't want to go to the effort of doing so if you don't think it should be in the article, though! Shimgray | talk | 12:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that it might be too detailed for the article (which is deliberately written at very high level), but that's just my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Mmm, fair enough. Mind you, it seems a bit odd that we don't actually discuss the "conclusion" of the war, the treaties, anywhere in the article - you'd think we could at least work in a passing reference! I'll have a think about this one. Shimgray | talk | 11:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

German submarine stranded 1921.jpg
I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!

I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.


...and very welcome! Thank you very much ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AV-1356 Clive Steele & AV-1355 Vernon Sturdee

Hi Nick. Seeing as your a bit of a amphibious craft nut, you may be interested in the following links for both AV-1356 Clive Steele & AV-1355 Vernon Sturdee and 32 Small Ship Squadron information while in Vietnam. Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've been meaning to write articles on both ships and the squadron for a while now. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

John Herington

Nick, given your interest in the official WWII history and your recent bio on George Odgers, just letting you know (in case you weren't aware) that there's an entry on Herington at ADB (and a good portrait from AWM). I have him on my list but way down - I know you'd do a fine job if you feel like it. On a related subject, looks like I'll be joining you at the Historiography Task Force...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I'll add him to my to do list. I've also been intending to do an article on Allan Seymour Walker, the medical historian. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


You wrote:

"Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Defence Materiel Organisation. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)'

The additions were all referenced and factual. They were newsworty and reflected significant leadership issues in the DMO that are all on the public record. As such, they are not in breach of policy and I believe there is a good case to have them included. (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi mate, what sort of chance do you think Morotai Mutiny would have for TFA? Of the FAs I've written, it'd seem to generate the broadest interest so had the wild idea of nominating for 20 April (yearly anniversary). That plus the fact it'd be 'my' debut TFA would give it 2 points but not sure that it'd score anything more given that it's been FA for less than a year, plus the plethora of military articles in that space (though I wouldn't say we have that many air force articles and certainly not many 'mutinies'). Anyway, as an important contributer to it, I'd value your thoughts...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I think that it would have a good chance, especially given the anniversary aspect. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Ban enforcement request: User:BobaFett85 (latest sockpuppet of banned User:Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ActionRequest (talkcontribs) 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


User:Tenmei has filed an ArbCom case against me and I have done a little research on Tenmei and noted you have interacted with this user. Can you help provide an opinion about him? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece–Jamaica relations (2nd nomination)

Having just been deleted after an AfD you initiated, this has now been restored. (The old "keep trying until you get the right result" game.) You may be interested in the discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi and sorry to bother you again, but could you please check out this and this? I could understand if there was significant dissension in the voting pattern, but there was unanimity in favour of deleting. - Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WWII radio

You're probably right. Should we change the WWII page to a disambiguation page? I wanted to see if what I saw yesterday was true: that someone had put the call letters WWII on an actual radio station. It took some doing.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. The World War II article is viewed 40,674 times per day, so its not appropriate to have a link to a tiny radio station right at the top of the page as its likely that any of those readers will be looking for the radio station. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There already was a disambiguation page. There were three options: (1) move the text as is from the page, which I did.(2) move the page, which would have required db-move before I could do it. (3) Redirect, which seemed pointless.

With the first option, someone could delete the page Mlaffs created in the future, or maybe it's not even necessary. I credited Mlaffs with creating the text in the edit summary.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't think of a better example of a situation where there's clearly a primary topic, as supported by the page hit statistic you've quoted. Any of those people trying to get to the World War II article by typing WWII into the search bar will now end up at the disambiguation page. Having it as a disambiguation page is also going to be a magnet for incoming links — there are now somewhere in the neighborhood of 850 links to that page that will have to be individually piped to the World War II article, and I'd bet that 99.9% of the time that WWII gets linked in the future, the person will not be intending to point to the radio station. I really believe that the way it was previously set up as a redirect is the best approach, in which case the appropriate solution for disambiguation is a redirect hatnote pointing to WWII (AM) on World War II. If you're worried about highlighting the radio station specifically, the other solution would be an "other uses" hatnote pointing to WWII (disambiguation) instead, which also has the benefit of accounting for any other uses of WWII that might pop up in the future. Mlaffs (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what he said on World War II when he reverted me:

I don't think its suitable to have a prominent link to a small radio station at the top of this very high traffic article

You can see this edit summary in the history for yourself. I asked him a better way, suggesting the WWII page be changed to disambiguation.

Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted myself and gave Mlaffs' reason in the edit summary. Now all we need is the go-ahead from NickD for the hatnote.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I decided to see what would happen if I searched for "WWII radio." The radio station, of course, is the first thing to come up. But imagine my surprise when I did a search for "WWII". No one, in all the years this could have been in a disambiguation page, thought of the album by Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I need some advice. I looked at the guidelines for redirects and disambiguation and didn't see anything that fit this situation. However, I did see something that needed addressing. One guideline said Eagle's Nest was a disambiguation page used for Eagle Nest, Eagle Nests, and Eagle's Nest. Why not Eaglenest? There is a mountain where I go in the summer which is one of the tallest in the area, and very prominent in the particular location and postcard photos and the like. I should write an article on it, but it could be difficult to put all the information together. However, I did add uses of Eaglenest to the disambiguation page and the word to the guideline, explaining how it might be an example of how to have multiple words on disambiguation pages. But I don't think I did it quite right.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to rejoin the "real world" now. If anyone knows where I can get advice on any of the above, I can read it tomorrow.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the relevant pages' talk pages, and not mine. Feel free to add the disambiguation note to the World War II article. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mlaffs did it. Thanks for your help.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian light destroyer project

FYI: I have left a comment along with my support at the ACR. While it will in all likelihood be closed as successful even if you don't fix the issue, it will come up at FAC, which I assume is the next stop for the article? -MBK004 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment and your vote - I'll fix that up. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Saberwyn has beaten me to it. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Kure (July 1945)

Hi Cla, Do you have any sources on this topic? I'd really like to expand the article, but amazingly little seems to have been written on it. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into the sources on the US bombing campaign against Japan and was surprised to find that there apparently is no, "definitive" tome that covers the entire topic. Instead there are books on different aspects of it. I listed all the references that I could find here, none of which I currently possess. Unfortunately, the US Army official history of the campaign hasn't been uploaded to the Hyperwar site yet, there's only a placeholder for it there. The only book I have right now on the topic is this one (B-29 Hunters of the JAAF) and an article from World War II history magazine about Curtis LeMay. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I should have looked more closely at the article, it's not about the B-29 raids. I think I have Frank's Downfall book and that's it. I'll check to see what other info I have. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I just looked through my books. I guess I don't have Frank's book. I looked in Dull's Battle History and in Retribution and Eagle against the Sun and they don't have anything about this raid. Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea has a three-paragraph description of the raid, naming most of the major ships involved, the number of sorties, and a list of the Japanese ships destroyed and damaged. I'll use that to check the article to see if it has any info that could be added. Cla68 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's amazing how little has been written on this topic; it wasn't every day that the USN sank four capital ships and lost over 100 aircraft! Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

WPMH ACR.PNG The Military history A-Class medal
For prolific work on Military history of Australia during World War II, Battle of Morotai and Australian light destroyer project, all promoted to A-Class between January and April 2009, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re BobaFett85

Indefblocked when I'd just left a barnstar as encouragement because I thought they showed signs of maturing as an editor after that recent AfD. Oh well... :P EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to block him four different times on Thursday when he came back under two new sock puppet accounts and two different IP addresses. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, Nick.  Roger Davies talk 22:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Roger. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of quintana roo

I dont mind i have no argument on the deletion on that. please do so as i cannot get enough information for this article (Homan05)

Darwin Olympic SC

Hi Nick -- I don't think Darwin Olympic SC merited a speedy deletion -- today I was planning to add details about its Northern Territory Northern Zone Premier League titles -- the team is the most successful in the NT from the past few years. It has the same level of significance as all the other Premier League teams at a state level in Australia. I don't think we need to go to a deletion review -- let me know what extra details you'd like on the article and I'll put them up. Australian Matt (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has no references to demonstrate notability and doesn't really assert notability. I've updated the template. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the template. Re: Darwin Olympic SC -- I've added links to the official FFNT webpage and also the results of their Championship & Premiership winning year. Any other necessary details? Australian Matt (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes: references which establish notability as required by WP:ORG. A massive (and unreferenced) soccer database doesn't seem appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A massive soccer database seems fine to me - but I agree that we need references establishing its notability, which Darwin Olympic SC has. Could you outline which added refs you feel would be required by the page -- one that is better sourced than, for example, 5th Brigade (Australia)? Australian Matt (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you please add stories and articles from major magazines, newspapers, etc? - the requirement is that 'An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources' which I don't think that website provides as its coverage isn't significant. I don't care enough to delete the article again BTW, so you don't need to discuss this here. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a great argument by the way, especially when the other crap concerns a 3,000-person strong Army unit which has seen action in two World Wars. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the ticket! I was holding my trump card here. Thought the Brigade article would grab your attention. Happy editing! Australian Matt (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
*rolls eyes* Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:HMAS Onslow

Thanks for the assess. Most of the 'cite needed' material relates to the sub's six appearances at the pointy end of the Fincastle competition. The problem is that I can't find a reliable, published source for this information. -- saberwyn 11:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have any sources for that either. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That's cool. I've left a question at the Fincastle comp article's talk page asking for assistance...see if anything turns up from that. -- saberwyn 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Roger! Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties

The reason I listed the 250,000 famine dead, with a credible in print Russian source, is that right wing revisionists in Germany today are making an unsupported claim that 5.7 million died in the post war famine. If you check International Historical Statistics you can confirm that that the death rate in Germany in 1946-47 was about 1% above the level of 1948-49.Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Also you may see sources in print such as Martin Gilbert that list 3.8 Million German civilian deaths in WW2. This figure is based on German demographic estimates that include post war deaths due to the expulsions and famine. In the footnotes it is pointed out that these losses are not included with WW2 casualties since they occured in the post war era.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Richard Phillips

I know. This afd is more to get people thinking about the merits of deletion, and it is in light of his current celebrity status that I offered to meet people halfway in the nom be noting my openes to merging or redirecting. I doubt the article will disappear as a result of this afd, I suspect there will be consensus against retaining it but not enough consensus to merge, redirect, or delete, which means it will be closed in a few days as "no consensus". Once that happens I intend to give the article 60-90 days to grow; failing that, I'll fire the afd guns again and see what happens in round two. Thanks for the input, though, as they say: every little bit helps :) — an unlogged in TomStar81 (talk · contribs) (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright crisis

CopyClean Barnstar.png The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar

Thank you very much for helping deal with the copyright crisis over Easter weekend. Your help was greatly appreciated.  Roger Davies talk 07:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the Barnstar Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Belgrave Football Club

hey nick-d. appreciate the work you do for wikipedia in administering. just curious about why you redirected the 'Belgrave Football Club' article to the 'Yarra Valley Mountain District Football League'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Striker161 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it had no indications of notability and it seemed a better option than speedy deleting it. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Otto Becher

Hi Nick. I am currently working on a biography of Rear Admiral Otto Becher in my sandbox here, and I was wondering if you had access to the Official History of Australia in the Korean War or some simular book? I ask because the only information I really have on Becher while in command of HMAS Warramunga from 1950 to 1951 in the Korean War is the information supplied by his Australian Dictionary of Biography entry and the AWM award cards for his DSO and US Legion of Merit; all three of which provide very little. Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my butting in (but you should be used to that!) but I believe I have access to all the Official Histories at the Mitchell Library in Sydney - not in tomorrow but should be able to take a swing by on Friday if you can wait till then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No prob with you butting in, especially with such good news as that! I probably won't have access to a computer from now until Saturday, though, so don't worry about the wait. Thanks Ian! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the Korean War official histories I'm afraid. I do have Up Top out from the Library at the moment if it's of any help. By the way, I also have borrowing rights at the ADFA library if you're ever after anything obscure. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I just checked Up Top's index, but Becher isn't mentioned. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, done - I took the liberty of directly updating your sandbox, Bryce. Glad you asked for this, actually - wait'll you read about the 'Murphy Method', not to mention how he ensured his promotion came through on time - enjoy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Excellent job, Ian! An extremely interesting, yet slightly comical, piece. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you certainly picked a good subject with Becher, Bryce - great job yourself! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
How could I not with all of those decorations? ;-) Nar, I had come across him some time ago and he seemed like quite an interesting man, so hopefully I can do him some justice with this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Australian frontier wars

Updated DYK query On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian frontier wars, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Adolf Hitler‎

Please read THIS regarding this edit. Seen Here. You Say "article was a copy and past of the main article with no apparent changes or reason to be separate)" Now, Did you say that because it was me.--Michael (Talk) 09:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus there to remove the content and there was no need to create an article with identical content to the main one. What do you mean by "Now, Did you say that because it was me"? Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Cole

Many tks for that tidbit re. running against Drakeford, Nick - BTW, haven't forgotten your other suggestions from the ACR just because it's closed, will get round to them when I have a minute... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I was pleased to see that my guess that he deliberately stood against his former minister was correct ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


I reverted you when I meant to hit undo, apologies for a lack of an edit summary. I tend to take a little time to make edits, because I put a lot of thought into them, but I suppose 22 minutes seems like an eternity to many regulars. cygnis insignis 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I've done that a few times. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Pacific Ocean theater of World War II

There is a merge proposal and discussion on the talk page of this article. Inputs are welcome. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Aaaaahh! Almost had a heart attack. Whereever I go in the room, his creepy eyes follow me. :-) --Surturz (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He always looks so happy! ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


re: [11]. My mistake, should that have been "Fart Work Australia"? :-) --Surturz (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

o insinuate all sorts of errors and

HMS Eagle

Hi Nick, we have an IP editor who is hitting this article with a series of small edits without any edit summaries or discussion. Without going through a whole lot of references that I do not necessarily have to hand I can not tell whether the changes are legitimate good faith or not. Some of the changes do at least seem reasonable as simple copyedit changes, but this sort of activity makes me nervious. I have left a message on the IP's talk page, but I doube he will ever look at that. Any ideas? - Nick Thorne talk 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally consider unexplained and uncited edits from IP accounts to be indisguishable from vandalism and revert them if the IP editor doesn't respond to a warning. As the IP in question is editing from a stable IP address they can be assumed to have received and seen the talk page message, and even if they haven't they're violating the first of the five pillars all editors are expected to stick to. To cut a long story short, if you're uncomfortable with these edits then by all means revert them. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, you hit the matter on the head, of course. My concern is that it would be easy insinuate all sorts of errors (deliberate or otherwise) through this approach, and although many of the changes do seem to be harmless, and even desirable, its the ones that would require research to check that worry me. I think I'll wait 24 hours to see if I get a response and if not I'll get out my reverting stick. - Nick Thorne talk 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly right - some vandals do deliberetly introduce lots of small errors into articles so there's no reason to assume good faith if they don't respond to your message. Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Hey Nick. I'm working on the PIAT article at the moment in my sandbox, and in a WT:MILHIST discussion a few weeks back you said you'd take a look and see if the Aussies made use of it; I was wondering if you could take a look at your sources and see if there's anything? I'd be greatful for anything, even a snippet - I'm having to dig through dozens of books just to assemble an Operational History section. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. My initial skim over my sources only turned up a few odds and ends. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the comments about the PIAT article. I should have realized the VC section was too long, so thanks for the comments. I'm thinking of cutting it down to one or two (hopefully) small paragraphs still using the Gazette citations that sum up each time it was used to win the VC. Does that sound better? And thanks for the Australian and Commando bits, they're dead useful - getting info for this article is blooming difficult! Skinny87 (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
One para on the VCs would be best, I think. I wasn't able to turn up much information about Australian use of the PIAT, and my source on the Commandos doesn't say how many were normally used. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Righto, sounds like a plan. I'm off to Birmingham for a day out, but hopefully I'll have time when I get back to condense the section down. Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (schools)

Hold on to your quick action revert finger for a moment! SilkTork *YES! 00:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the status quo you need to discuss it first as this was marked as a failed guideline following a discussion on the article's talk page. With all respect, I'm reverting you. I'm sure that there's a case to be made for labeling this as an essay, but please discuss this before overriding a consensus decision. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Reverts are really not helpful here. See talkpage. Pause. Think. Respond. Let's move things on, eh? SilkTork *YES! 00:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, if you want to override a consensus then you should discuss it first. Please don't arrogantly override the views of other editors like this. I've just reverted you, and am up to three reverts (so won't revert any further!) - please discuss this on the article's talk page before changing the tag again. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

Thanks for your comments on this article's A-Class review - it's been an uphill struggle so far. Do you think it's ready yet for FAC - it took a beating last time round, and I don't want to renominate until it's ready. Any comments regarding points to address for FAC (rather than only A-class) would therefore be appreciated. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's ready for a FAC. Good luck! Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Some says not knowing of some ugly truth is better for everyone. :-) That sounds eekish, but I found that he recently contacted one of the involved editors in the fiasco for that matter.--Caspian blue 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Confrontation art

Wow an inspiration to us all to see good quality arts like that jump up in an anzac weekend (sic) - I put the malay and indon project tags on even if it correctly is about oz - good stuff! SatuSuro 01:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If anyone had ever kept track of the number of oz high ups (pollices and dep heads) who used to go in and out of indonesia in the last years of suharto - it would make a good book or at least article - but the chances of anyone ever writing about that i think is zilch unfortunately - anyways - to keep dodgie stuff out of all this its an endless task - so thanks for your part in cleaning it SatuSuro 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I appreciate the way WP:Indonesia folks thank other editors for fixing up articles by the way. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Dont start me off - we dont have a residential admin for a project of 5,000 + arts - its a nightmare - anybody who helps in anyway always deserves thanks - I am sitting nervously on the edge of an issue with - section gamelan creep - which I hope may never happen - but fragile articles (ie border line for general WP purposes but ok for the regional projects usually) - potentially at risk from warring eds in the height of battle (sic) over a list of gamelan groups (yes) - and it makes me realise that when i was suggested for rfa 2 year ago - I should have taken it! SatuSuro 08:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well no need to even think of it after what you just did after that :) ahem - welcome to the circus - but hey about 40 of them are no longer editing or never been seen for over a year - should do a cleanup! SatuSuro 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of Indonesian topics is pretty limited, but I seem to edit enough topics within the scope of the project to make membership worthwhile. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Honoured to have you - hope its not too problematic for you at any point to be involved SatuSuro 08:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Military history of Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Military history of Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And I forgot to mention over there, I hope you take this one to GAN seems to be an excellently researched article! Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations on the recent success with the Take Ichi Convoy. It was promoted before I could vote for it. An excellent article on an event that I wasn't aware of until you wrote about it. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Thanks also for your comments and edits to the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert tennis

Recent revert then revert at 2002_Bali_bombings has concerned User:Glebesam and he has asked me how to go about resolving the issue - i thought I'd try opinions of some admins first - sorry to bother SatuSuro 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. The edit war is very slow and fairly polite so there's no need for admin intervention at the moment. I've just sought to reinforce your warning. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Military history of Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation

Updated DYK query On May 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Military history of Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're so right

I was informed by Teeninvestor that Tenmei created an (to me another one) attack page on me.[12][13] and continues his harassment campaign as forum shopping admins.[14][15] In this situation, what would I do except recording his behaviors?--Caspian blue 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei sets up another harassment campaign to ANI

Since you've well aware of Tenmei's subpages that have attacked you once and now me, would you give your opinion on this one? Thanks. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attack_page--Caspian blue 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion list

As a member of the Bilateral relations task force, you maybe interested in this new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion Ikip (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand Air Force

Hi Nick, thanks for the cite; I couldn't believe how much New Zealand pays, but obviously they are ready to pay that amount! (If it is in New Zealand Dollars it is not so bad, but still... ) anyway- thanks for the cite :-) --noclador (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah those are NZ dollars. I presume (and hope!) that the $771 million includes support for the aircraft throughout much of their lifespan. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Need a favour from an admin

Nick, would you be able to do me a favour? Could you use your admin mop-fu to access the last revision of the deleted article CFA Dispatch and tell me what the full prod deletion rationale was?

I think the rationale was mine (and much longer than the rationale given in the deletion log, but that's my fault for being wordy), and I think that the same or a similar rationale is appropriate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Fire Service dispatch, but want to double check before I go and put my foot in my mouth.

If you could do this, thanks muchly. If you can't or unable/unallowed to, thanks in advance for your trouble. -- saberwyn 09:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Prod rationale you added was:
This article as it stands is a "how to" guide for either the community or for the CFA volunteers themselves, regarding how to respond to a bushfire fire. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not, instruction manuals and how to guides are not appropriate for the website. The community should be relying on far more reliable and stable sources than Wikipedia for this information, and a Wikipedia article should not seek to duplicate or replace proper CFA training materials.
Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. -- saberwyn 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

AWM Image policy

Hi, mate, sorry to trouble you but I was hoping you might help regarding a matter of policy. I am currently doing the GA Review on 7th Infantry Division (United States) and have a query about the public domain claim on one of the attached pictures. The picture in question is [[File:AttuSnow.jpg]]. I accept the pd claim as was definately taken before 1955, but my query is about the way in which it has been cropped. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the AWM requires its photographs to be used with the AWM watermark. Is this correct? And if so, does it negate the PD claim? I suppose that if the image really is copyright expired, then all rights also are expired and then in reality no attribution (i.e. watermark) is required?

Sorry if I am being verbose and indistinct. Do you see what I'm getting at? Any assistance in this matter would be great. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If I might jump in, my understanding is similar to yours, i.e. "if the image really is copyright expired, then all rights also are expired and then in reality no attribution (i.e. watermark) is required" on the image itself. The file of course requires a source and an assertion of it being in the public domain. I routinely remove the watermark from AWM pictures; originally I didn't bother but was advised to do so by WP image experts who were satisfied that the PD status meant AWM need not be credited on the image itself (made sense to me and still does). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for that, Ian. It's good to get another opinion, even (or should that be especially?) if it confirms one's own...;-) Do you agree with this, Nick? — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The PD-AU tag obviously isn't right, but the photo is out of copyright in both Australia and the US and can be edited in any way. The originally uploaded image from the AWM's database has the catalog number P02018.119 and its record in the database has a copyright status of 'Copyright expired - public domain'. I think that it's good practice to retain the AWM catalog number in the image's Wikipedia or Wikicommons record though, but this isn't compulsory, much less enforceable. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: gibberish

Not to sound rude, but where you are getting your information from? There is no "government policy" on "alterations" -- come on, that suggests "snipping" the numbers in Iraq and "stitching" together a war against the Taliban. The increased deployments to Oruzgan Province relate to the build-up in terrorist networks, and the organizational reforms in the new white paper relate more to the ADO than the ADF. Ottre 07:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Rudd Government‎. I've cited my sources and am happy to discuss wording there. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty RfArb

I posted what I think should be Tenmei's punishment at workshop. Please have a look.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. While editing restrictions of some sort are clearly needed, I think that a one year ban may be excessive - I'd suggest compulsory mentorship and behavioral-tyle restrictions in the first instance. I like the irony of Tenmei's vast and unreadable response to your 'User:Tenmei should be reminded that WP:TLDR is disruptive' suggestion! ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


I just wanted to say thanks for your help with the Military history of Australia during World War I article. Your contributions and suggestions helped get it to GA status.

You probably have a few of these, but please accept this Barnstar as a token of my appreciation. Cheers.

WikiprojectBarnstar.png The WikiProject Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions and excellent suggestions in relation to the Military history of Australia during World War I article. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and congratulations on this excellent article Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

I have undone this version of the article, because the additions were unsourced (which violates Wikipedia:Verifiability), and were written in the first person (which is discoraged per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First-person pronouns).

I note that the article has been the subject of edit warring recently, which is never good for the encyclopedia. I am posting this message to the talk pages of the involved contributors, and hope that they come here to discuss the issue and come to a solution, instead of resorting to coninual back-and-forth in the article itself. -- saberwyn 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked the edit warrior after they continued their behavior following an large number of warnings in the last few hours. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My timing is atrocious, isn't it. I understant that this user's actions have resulted in a lot of heat and noise over the past few days, but would you consider lifting the block if they state an intention to discuss the issue instead of starting the revert war anew? -- saberwyn 09:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
They can edit their talk page and I think that a 48 hour block is justified given the number of times they'd been asked to discuss this and warned against edit warring (including two messages which were last warnings before a block was implemented). I've got no problems at all if you'd like to request a second opinion at WP:AN or contact another admin directly though. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On consideration, I think its a reasonable block. Lets see if anything results from it. -- saberwyn 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Paupa New Guinea

Thanks for your help, how do we get a flag up? I can't do it.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Here is the Flag of Papua New Guinea I don't know how to get it on the page--Woogie10w (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't: that flag isn't suitable as PNG didn't exist as a country at the time. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

130th Engineer Brigade

I have responded to your comments on the A-class review of this article. Please let me know what, if anything else, can be done. Thanks! -Ed!(talk) 23:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Demobilisation of the Australian military after World War II

Updated DYK query On May 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Demobilisation of the Australian military after World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Any idea

Why Terendak Military Cemetery doesnt even get a mention on wikipedia - we have dead Australian vietnam war miltary interred there and the search comes up zilch? SatuSuro 13:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Because no-one has written the article yet ;) Someone was creating articles on Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries a while ago, but this flow of articles has stopped. I don't think that there'd be much doubt that the cemetery is notable. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom update

A proposal for the solution of the Tang Dynasty case on ArbCom has been developed, in which several sanctions have been suggested for Tenmei. You may be interested in the ongoing discussion herediff.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei called you a "problem that has to be resolved". You may be interested in responding to this comment. diff.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Forward air control

Your participation in shaping the Forward air control article would be appreciated. Please see its talk page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

If you have served on any of these vessels or have any real positive contribution to make - fine! Been there done that. Out of here anyway - the whole Wikipedia project has become totally corrupt! Regards Medcroft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medcroft (talkcontribs) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for James Willis (RAN officer)

Updated DYK query On May 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Willis (RAN officer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


A bit odd that none of the other Aussies have chipped in.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame. Maybe they think that the article is perfect ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have a look at it - what and where is the article in question? - Nick Thorne talk 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's for the Australian Defence Force article (which is a FA, but needs an update). The PR is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Australian Defence Force and any comments would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep chipping away at it with the stuff that doesn't need any knowedlge. I have no military knowledge about anything except the stuff I write about directly. As you're in Canberra I was wondering if you could help with the Lake Burley Griffin FAR. I think my non-ACT status makes it harder for me to sense what is needed or where to look efficiently YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I didn't even know that article was a FA, much less that it was up for review. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you fine with me changing the date formats to yyyy-mm-dd? at the moment, there is a whole mixture....YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer dd-mm-YYYY so that it's consistent with the article's text, but that's just my preference. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


NYB has finished posting at proposed decision. You may want to comment.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Department of Post-War Reconstruction (Australia)

Updated DYK query On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Department of Post-War Reconstruction (Australia), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC on Military history of Australia during World War II

How about starting the FAC on Military history of Australia during World War II? IMHO it's FAC and sufficiently stable…--Oneiros (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It needs a copy edit for MOS compliance - the items which need to be worked on are in the 'MOS quick check' message above. It's been sitting on my too-do list for too long. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I've covered most of these (1,2,4.1 and 5); I leave 3 to you. I don't see 4.3: citations must use ISO dates according to the templates doc.--Oneiros (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Great work! I'll have a shot and the remaining items with an eye to launching the FAC by this weekend. Nick-D (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just started the FAC: All comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of Australia during World War II/archive1 Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New subjects have a title header like this

Separating responses with lines prevents the problem of extensive replies sliding off the right side of the screen in endless retrogression.

I realize my method of response is unusual, but it is allowed by Wikipedia.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian Commonwealth Naval Board

I just started this article as a stub. I had a hard time finding anything on it post World War II, which means that I wasn't sure when the board ceased to exist. Cla68 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


[16] rootology (C)(T) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Check my edit summary [17] . Just having a moment of levity through satire, as MZ noted with "Though this thread is arguably better than any other currently on the page, so...." Happy editing to you. Keegantalk 08:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Ah, I apologise. Faulkner actually doesn't get sworn-in until the ninth, correct? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep - I don't think that Australia had a Defence Minister between Fitzgibbon's resignation and Faulkner being sworn in. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed (TalkContribs) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bio info

Hi Nick - the material is still here [18] despite the speedy deletion. I'm not sure how to get rid of it - can you help? Thanks Jasper33 (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I just purged the page's cache (following the instructions at: [19]) and I'm now seeing a redlink for bio number 13, and I think that this should have updated the page for everyone. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Doh, cache purging. I should have remembered. Thanks! Jasper33 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries - it's about the only technical Wikipedia thing I know how to do ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It's back [20]! Jasper33 (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I've re-deleted it. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Beret info needed

Hey there!

I am looking for some information from Shelby Stanton's Green Berets at War, which you list as having access too. I'm trying to expand/reference Project GAMMA, which your book should have info on from pages 211-214. Any info you could send me would be helpful, or if its easier you could just provide a reference or two yourself; whatever's most convenient.

Thanks for you time! Cerebellum (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just added some material - the coverage of the trial should be expanded. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

History wars Discussion

I ssume this is the way to reply to your message about re-arranging (the disvcussion so it could be followed. I can see why it might be disruptive to edit a talk page and I thought seriously about it and simply moved discussions that were scattered over many pages under headings that are used in the article so that people new to the page might have a reasonable chance of seeing what had been discussed and what hadn't. Nothing else was changed except making new headings where relevant based on the Article headings, and making sub-headings for bits and pieces of discussion of those topics without changing their orginal titles or content. This talk page was getting extrordinarily difficult to use, and since editors with strong opinions are more-or-less civilly trying to resolve differences here rather than having revert wars on the main article, I was trying to be helpful. But I guess there's no way to check that, though the changes were explained. I guess it will just have to stay shambolic if that's Wikipedia policy. Regards Keepitshort (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All fixed back to the fascinating discussion as it used to be. 12:53, 14 June 2009 Keepitshort (talk | contribs) (324,784 bytes) (Since it is apparently WP policy to leave talk pages as they happen I have reverted to (undo) Keepitshort (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Titan Globe

Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester16 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion confusion

I'm a bit confused here. The nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion was barely up for one day (if even that long). Aren't articles that are being discussed for deletion supposed to stay up for 7 days (aside from "speedy delete" articles, of course)? Ω (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles which meet a speedy deletion criteria can be speedy deleted at any time. The article was a clear case where CSD G4 applied as it was essentially identical to another article created by the same editor which had been deleted as the result of an AfD discussion. I have no problem at all with you taking this to deletion review if you don't agree though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
nah, there's no need to create an issue out of this or anything. I was just curious, is all. To be honest, I'm only really participating in AfD discussion out of boredom. The reasons given for deletion (or real lack thereof) actually do bother me, though. There should be fewer nominations and more work at improving articles, in my (very humble) opinion... Ω (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Please note that I've requested oversight for this at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request for oversight Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian colonial conflicts, rather than "frontier wars"?

Hi Nick-D, I bumped into this newish article on Australian frontier wars while I was checking your talk page to see if there was an editor with knowledge of Martial Law, since I have dug out the sequence of proclamations in Tasmania by George Arthur and the Castle Hill one of 1804, and the one associated with Bathurst in 1824, and it's worth a sub-article. The point is that, since the Governor was both head of the Civil authority and Commander in Chief of the Military, what could he do by a Proclamation of Martial Law that he couldn't do by an ordinary Proclamation or even a Government Notice? Arthur used all, at different stages. The main Martial Law article is weak on British Empire applications, but they weren't uncommon, and there seems to be a formula, which we have probably inherited, even now. From what I've seen,the only extra powers seem to be (1) using Military rather than Civil Law to try offenders, and (2) enabling the Civil Power (ie Magistrates, ie major land-owners, or other "respectable" folk) to call on military assistance directly. Thus one part of this is a query if the Military History project has anyone on board who can help on an Australia sub-section in Martial Law that I'm working on at User:Keepitshort/TasmanianMartialLaw. And where, for example, does WP deal with more modern AU forms of Military assistance to the Civil Power, such as the use of NORFORCE for logistic support in the NT Emergency Response/ Intervention/ Invasion belong? And use of military in disasters? - which seems to be mainly under Martial Law at present, and mostly relevant to the US - eg Hurricane Katrina. And what about Martial Law applied to the Castle Hill rebellion, which was definitely a military and colonial conflict, though not directed at any "frontier" and not Aboriginal people. Or the Rum Rebellion, which was an Australia scale military coup-ette, and another Australian colonial conflict that is part of military history, which generated some interesting Proclamations after order was restored.

The other point is about the Australian frontier wars article itself. The refs are many, but meaningless since most are just an author's name, year, page. thus, not VRs, but whoever added them presumably has the book/s, and should fix, which no-one else can from the information given. More importantly, there's some "history wars in embryo" there, as with the whole "Terra Nullius" business, which I think belongs as a "Terra nullius debate" section in the History Wars article, not here. Fact-wise, what is here is wrong, or at least chasing the irrelevant red herring of the term "terra nullius", because the legal issue was ownership of "wastes", and the definition - not seriously tested until the Mabo decision - that all of Australia was a "waste" and thus the propery of the Crown, just as a "waste" was in the UK. This was actually assumed rather than declared for practical application until Governor ?Darling? disallowed Batman's treaty for the site of (now) Melbourne about 1835. What Captain Cook thought and /or wrote in his journals is neither here nor there, let alone whether anyone used the phrase "terra nullius". For example, the Royal Charter of the VDL Co in Tasmania, or the AA Co in NSW, in 1824/25, included a grant of "wastes" but it was up to the Governor/s to work out what was and wasn't a "waste". One only has to look across the Tasman to see that if the local residents objected violently and successfully enough, you got treaties PDQ (which were then ignored when the numbers were more favourable, mind you, as with the successive Xhosa Wars in the Eastern Cape at much the same time, and in the US: not sure about Canada.)

But in AU, until Mabo,the law was interpreted to mean that all unallocated land was the property of the Crown, so it had absolute right to say who could go where, as in Macquarie's Proclamation of 1816 that was associated with clashes near Sydney. And, if it leased it to a settler, and Aboriginal people went onto it, under Civil Law they were trespassers, etc. And if they killed someone, or vice versa, it was murder, while a Proclamation of Martial Law was nothing like a Declaration of war, since it simply changed the legal jurisdiction and the grounds of defence. So although these things were called "wars" at the time, according to the (British) law they were at most internal disturbances of the peace, and dealt with as such. Plus, the term "war" creates an impression out of all proportion to the scale, at least from the British point of view. The so-called "Black War" in Bathurst leads to - 75 troops being sent. And lastly,with a query over dates of self-government for colonies and the last use of troops, this is only "military" history in colonial times, not post 1901. So, wouldn't this be re-titled more appropriately as Australian colonial conflicts? Lastly,the accounts here are very different from, and at a quick check marginally better than, the accounts of the same things elsewhere in WP, so they should be harmonised. On the other hand, some of the "History Wars" notions being introduced, eg whether deprivation of land did or didn't cause starvation, are inappropriate, so can we have a article that just describes the clashes as they happened, and avoid inserting POV's from the History wars? I would appreciate your thoughts on how to keep this as a "Military history" article, rather than a battleground, before I do any editing on this topic. regards, Keepitshort (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The entry in the 2008 edition of The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History on the fighting is called 'Frontier wars' and there's a general consensus in the other sources that these were indeed 'wars' (see, for instance, Jeffery Grey's A Military History of Australia or John Coates' An Atlas of Australia's Wars - both are among the standard works on Australian military history). The minority view that the fighting was something other than 'warfare' is acknowledged in the 'Historiography' section along with a link to the History Wars article where this debate best belongs. As far as I'm aware, there isn't an article on the Australian military's role in providing assistance to the civil power, though it would be good if there was. The full publishing details for all the references I added is in the 'References' section, which allows a summary to be used as notes to prevent pointless repetition of the full refs - I've successfully used this system in four featured articles and it hasn't been raised as an issue in my current FA nomination. The cited material in the article is in line with what's included in the main military histories of the fighting (see Broome, Coates, John Connor and Grey, for instance). The uncited material apparently sourced from Michael Connor disputing the stuff with cites should go in my view as it's not properly cited and is a WP:UNDUE violation, but it would be best to discuss this - succinctly - on the article's talk page rather than here so other editors can contribute their views. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Battle of Greece - 1941.png

Hey, Nick-D. The Commons admins have decided that they are empowered to correct the license on this file, so it is okay for it to be added back to Military history of Australia during World War II. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jappalang (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Coral Sea

Thanks again for your help with the article. Cla68 (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Article naming

Hi Nick. Given your experience and interest in naval articles and the Australian military, I was hoping you would be able to provide me with some advice regarding the naming of an article? The other day I discovered a full listing of those who have held the position of Commander Australian Fleet and its preceeding positions, so I thought I would attempt to create a some what decent article on the position. However, I am unsure on exactly what the article's title should be, and I was hoping you would be able to advise me on this? There isn't much that actually states the proper title of the command, but I think it's Fleet Command Australia (or Australian Fleet Command, maybe?). Would you have any thoughts on the matter? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Navy calls the position 'Commander Australian Fleet' on its website ([21] - see also the official Australian Government directory: [22]) and the command 'Fleet Headquarters' ([23]) so those are probably the best bets. The 2008-09 edition of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Defence Almanac refers to the 'Fleet Commander' when discussing their responsibilities. The article naming convention seems to be to use the current title of the position as the name of the article and include a list of previous incumbents and their titles - eg, Chief of the Defence Force (Australia), Chief of Navy (Australia), etc. As such, I'd suggest creating the article as Commander Australian Fleet and saying that they lead the Fleet Headquarters. I do have to confess to not understanding the RAN's command structure though - it's very complex! Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's also how I read the very confusing paragraph on the topic at: [24]! Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance, Nick. To further complicate matters, however, the RAAF equivalent is Air Command Australia, which possesses an article under the title RAAF Air Command (and also includes a list of incumbents). So, should the title instead be RAN Fleet Command, or Australian Fleet Command, or some such? I don't really understand the RAN's command structure either; I just hope I can present some kind of decent information that states the responsibilities of the command! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The services don't seem to have coordinated the titles of their operational commanders - when the Navy moved away from Maritime Command the Army stuck with Land Command. From memory, the RAAF article is rather old and may be wrongly titled. I think that Commander Australian Fleet is the way to go for this position. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
To butt in, RAAF Air Command is correctly named, being the organisation that's led by the Air Commander Australia. What you need to decide is will the new article be focussing on the organisation (RAN Fleet Command) or its commander (Commander Australian Fleet)... By the way, just for fun, Headquarters Air Command was called Air Headquarters when I contracted there in the 90s (equivalent to Land Headquarters and Maritime Headquarters at the time - yes, once they even had consistent naming). When it switched for no obvious reason to Headquarters Air Command a few years later, the running joke was that it was because the RAAF got sick of it being referred to as Airhead Quarters... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry also to butt in. The precedent to use is that of the Royal Navy and in this case, Commander-in-Chief Fleet. With all commonwealth navies, the commander's title is the most formal name for the entire command:- eg Mediterranean Fleet was actually 'Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean.' So I'd go for Commander Australian Fleet as well, and add the FOCAF listings as well if you have them. Buckshot06(prof) 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, guys! It appears that the best way to go would be with Commander Australian Fleet, so I'll go with that. The source I came across lists the commanders and positions back to 1859, when it was under the scope of the Royal Navy's Australian Station. However, I'll only go back to 1913 with the article to when the RAN was actually established, and might add the Australian Station commanders to that article. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ian and Buckshot. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin

hi again Nick. Do you know anything about the Weston Foreshore development. It's been brougth up but I don't know where to start YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not - I've vaguely heard of it, but don't know anything about the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Publications by biography's subject...

Hey Nick. Over at Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (incumbent president of Indonesia), a list of publications by SBY has been added to the article. Is this appropriate? If so, what do you think is the best way to present them? The Indo project is a bit thin right now, so i thought about asking on the (always charitable) Australian notice board. Anyway, maybe you could reply on the SBY talkpage. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just provided my two rupiah on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


I've done some more work on it, added stuff about Kingston, and accounted for all the statements. I guess strcture and polish are remaining. Please do comment/reply on the structure. I think it's close to safety. Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Liberia

Would you mind casting another quick glance over this article to give an appropriate updated thoughts? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


I will suggest you to acknowledge that I'm a person with independent criteria. So don't you try to recruit me. From the page you directed me to: The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care. --Againme (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So, now I deserve a warning for working for free for this Foundation and creating a perfectly useful article? This is incredible... I better be looking for more grateful charities... --Againme (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Indian Ocean raid (1944)

Hi Cla, do you have any references on this operation? I recently created this article and am thinking of developing it to at least A-class standard. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two books that have some information on the event:
  • Mark Felton's Slaughter at Sea has one entire chapter on the Behar massacre.
  • Eric Lacroix's Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War has some detail and background on the status and operations of the Japanese cruisers involved, but little detail on the actual operation itself. If you don't have access to either of these books, please remind me when you're ready and I'll go through and add any information from these two sources which seems to be helpful for completing the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for those references. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, most of the current pictures of the Japanese cruisers involved in Commons aren't very good. I have some better pictures that I'll try to upload over the next week, starting tonight, family demands permitting. Cla68 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be fantastic - the only clear photo of Tone is pretty low quality and the others aren't a great deal better. Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I hope to get the rest of those cruiser pictures uploaded soon. I get delayed because I have to rely on my wife to translate the photo captions for me when I scan and upload each picture. Cla68 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cla! Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fall of Saigon

No need for ref, by definition, read ch. 1 of this link. Sea888 (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Civilian casualties number update

Hi there Nick. I just saw that you reverted my update of the civilian casualties number on the page War in Afghanistan (2001–present). If you take a second look, you'll see that the links point to the article Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), that the figures are from there, and that the previous figures had no other citations than that as well - the civilian casualties article is the citation. I had first updated that page with fully cited sources and then updated this page in turn. The earlier figures were also the result of my work, only they go up to December 2008 while this updates them to available estimates as of May 2009. If this makes sense to you, can you undo your revert? If not, I'll check back here to read your reasoning. Cheers (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If the estimate of total casualties isn't supported by a citation to a reliable source it shouldn't be used anywhere. The totals in Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) are not cited and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles anyway. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I would see it as falling under this: WP:NOR#Routine_calculations
"This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived."
The civilian casualty totals are simple additions of well cited figures, and meet the Wikipedia requirement of being easily verifiable.
Many of the other totals in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article and many other war articles are based on the same kinds of simple additions, including the figures for "Afghan security forces" and for insurgents killed in the Casualties and losses box. Those, by the way, were added by User:BobaFett85 and, in my opinion, are not very reliable or verifiable. In the Strength box, the number for "US non-ISAF troops" that is shown is also the result of a routine calculation (in that case it's a subtraction) ... (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that various ranges of estimated casualties have been reported in the media, these should be used. In my view, the weakness of the current approach is that it's not proven that those are the actual ranges of estimates - who says that there aren't other reliable estimates out there? As the totals can be cited, its not appropriate or necessary to add up ranges from the estimates mentioned in the article. Given that User:Top Gun and their various sock puppets (including BobbaFett85) have greatly damaged the reliability of articles like this one, it's important to make sure that everything which can be cited is cited. But that's just my opinion, and it would be better to discuss this on the article's talk page. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's just like any other Wikipedia article written in good-faith: it's solely based on what the community of editors can find as available sources and include in the article. As with any other Wikipedia article, we can never 100% guarantee that we've included everything, but we count on other editors to add information if they notice it missing. I've included in good faith all published estimates that I have come across, and there really are only a small handful of citable sources compiling and publishing civilian casualty estimates for Afghanistan (UN, Human Rights Watch, Associated Press, etc.), so I'm pretty sure I've encompassed them all. The range is also presented as a "range of available estimates". Still, if by chance a published estimate from a reliable source was inadvertently left out, just as with any other Wikipedia article, another editor in the community will notice and include it and adjust the range in an easily veriable way (as per the WP:NOR#Routine_calculations policy). The range information is useful and highly verifiable - I think it would be a real shame to lose it.
ps. I agree with you on User:Top Gun - his methodology was unreliable and wasn't based on adding up a very small number of published estimates but on adding up hundreds of individual reports that he sometimes seemed to arbitrarily select - and he propagated his totals into so many war-related articles. (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake

It wasn´t my intention. I forget about the tag, I'm restoring it right now... Regards. --Againme (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you did it already. --Againme (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Nelson

You ditched the Nelson Rumsfeld image...? Timeshift (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and kept the one of him with Gates - there didn't need to be two photos of him hanging out with US Defense Secretaries (which was a core part of his job at the time). By all means swap the Rumsfeld one back in though. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Roger! Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Consultation and question

Hello, I wanted your opinion on one thing and to ask you a question. I saw the article List of private contractor deaths in Afghanistan and thought that the article's name should be changed. Because, the article doesn't list only private contractors. Editors didn't only add contractors but also aid workers so it also lists foreign aid workers killed in the war. So I thought that the name should be changed to something like List of private contractor and aid worker deaths in Afghanistan. I wanted to ask you first because I saw that you recently protected the article from vandalism so I wanted to consult with you about the name change. Also, the question, this will be my first changing of the name of an article since I started editing here on Wikipedia two months ago - Do you change the name of an article using the 'move' option?LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The only editor to work on the article has been repeatedly banned for adding fiction to articles (among other things) so its content shouldn't be considered in any way reliable. I only locked the article to prevent them from editing it under new accounts and I don't mind what it's called. If you'd like to rename the article you use the 'move' button - instructions are at Help:Moving a page. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for the input. I thought about it a little more and decided not to change the name since, after thinking about it, those aid workers are also working for private companies in some sence of a way I quess. It's a murky line there. Also, one more question, I saw that when you blocked the article you removed the last two reported foreigner deaths from the list. Why?LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
They were added by the permanently blocked editor User:Top Gun in violation of their block. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What accounts is/are this/these blocked editor/editors using? I mean, are they using a specific ip range. I am guessing they are using anonimous ip's since you blocked the article for anonimous users.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
They've used both sock puppet accounts and IP addresses. Please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Top Gun and the very partial list of IP addresses at User:Top Gun. The article is semi-protected, which stops relatively new accounts and IP editors from being able to edit it. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I checked out those lists of the ip adresses they are using that you pointed me to and it seems to me that they are constantly changing their ip's, so I don't think you will be able to permanently block them. If you don't mind, I checked out the references for those two last deaths on the list that you removed and vandals or not those two sentances were sourced properly, so I will re-insert them but so not to be totaly copycating them I will try and find some other refs from more mainstream sources for verifiability, maybe cnn, bbcnews or foxnews. But I would suggest you something, you blocked the article for one month, as far as I see it these users are persistent vandals, so a one month block probably wouldn't be enough to discourage them so I would suggest you lenghten the block by a month or two more.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Go for it, but it would be best not to update the number of total casualties unless you can find a cite for this particular figure (one of the vandal's hallmarks is making up their own casualty figures based on adding up the figures in random news stories). Under the protection policy the duration of article protection should generally be relatively short so that new and legit IP editors aren't discouraged. I've watchlisted this article, and if the vandalism returns after the protection period ends I'll reapply the protection. Nick-D (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought about it and I think it should be noted that the numbers are based on all of the news articles put together, thus not compleatly evidence-proven so to speak. I don't think there is a reference for the summed up number of foreigners killed. So I will add those two to the numbers so the tabled numbers wouldn't be different from the numbers on the list, but again I'll add a warning so to speak that the numbers are not definite since they were original research in a sence of the the word by the blocked editors.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I copy-pasted the sentances for those two deaths from that blocked editors edit. But have put more verifiable references than those they provided. Also, I noted in the article that the numbers provided are only reported numbers based on the news sources that are used in the article and that no definite number has as of yet been provided. All the time I am thinking that the article is in violation of the Original research (OR) rule, but again it is within the limits of legitimate since those blocked editors provided references. The article is not in clear violation thus not for deleation but it is borderline.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey I did it, sort of, I managed to find a partial number and provided the reference in the article that by July 2007, 75 contractors died.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese ammunition ship Kashino

Updated DYK query On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese ammunition ship Kashino, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again

Hello again, wanted your opinion again on another article you blocked, I guess from the same vandals. I was fixing a bunch of grammatical and style errors in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan and updating the number of UK soldiers killed since nobody was updating them and I saw another editor comment that the list of Danish soldiers killed should perhaps be made into a new page and replaced with a summary in that article. I would agree with this opinion, since the Danes are already mentioned in the lower part of the list, so then the same thing is mentioned twice in the article, and I hate repeating. So I thought it would be best to create an article in the style of those like the Canadian, German and UK forces casualties articles. What do you think?LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have any opinion - I'd suggest that you raise this at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Recent discussions there have not been supportive of the creation of more of these sorts of articles, but it would be the best place to gauge opinion on this issue. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Aus in VN

Looks like you'll have to do it if we're going to get anywhere. I don't know anything... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War II

Thanks for the review, I did take some time thinking about SOE was it part of the army etc. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries Jim - the article is off to a very good start. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WW 2 Casualties

Hi, please keep an eye on World War II Casualties. I had to revert unsourced material that 23prootie posted. I sent him a message reminding him about Wikipedia policy re: Reliable Sources. I hope this does not turn into an edit war. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Emu War Humor

I do not think it is nonsense, Wikipedia can be a little more humorous, it does not take away from the article at all. WP:Humor says we can add a little humor, I know it is a bit of a sensitive topic in Australia and all, but I fell it is appropriate. --Conor Fallon (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a guideline or policy, and I don't see how what you want to include is at all compliant with it anyway - you haven't provided any sources. As an Australian with an interest in military history, I can assure you that this isn't a sensitive topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:F-FDTL Parade (NZ Army photo).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:F-FDTL Parade (NZ Army photo).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:NZ MRV (NZDF).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:NZ MRV (NZDF).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:NH90 NZDF.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:NH90 NZDF.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:RNZAF P3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:RNZAF P3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that this editor and his mate are not much interested in discussion, they seem to think that simply stating that if in their opinion an image should be deleted, then it is game set and match for the debate. I do not have any respect for people who when asked to explain their position on something simply re-state their original assertion and expect that somehow, magically, that makes them right. - Nick Thorne talk 03:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree Nick. The only reason they're offering for why this photo should be deleted (along with a range of other NZDF photos) is that they don't think that they're necessary. That's a very weak reason to delete long-standing fair-use photos with an accurate fair use claim. Some people really have too much time on their hands. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Oh, the biased Australian would have been softer than WMC. LOL. So much for preferential treatment, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm.... ??? I didn't know you were friendly towards me. uess I was to angry to see that.--23prootie (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Allies of World War II page is a total mess now. /World War II Casualties

[[25]] I`m giving up....--Jacurek (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User Proodie23 made some unsourced changes to WW2 Casualties, I asked him to discuss on talk page, his response was the talk page is full. This is a total didregard for the rules here at Wikipedia, the guy is a confirmed edit warrior!--Woogie10w (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he has bad intentions, I think he just does not understand how important it is to have an accurate and verified information. I'm under impression that his edits are not really well thought thru and have some kind of emotional and ethnic undertone.--Jacurek (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread on the Talk:World War II casualties# Werner Gruhl talk page re the recent posts ofUser:23prootie. I would appreciate your comments --Woogie10w (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion would be appreciated

I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agreee, I am trying to prevent an edit war by getting comments on his source. He could destroy the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WW2 Casualties

Please review my post at Talk:World War II casualties#Civilian Casualties in Asia. What is your opinion?--Woogie10w (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)