User talk:Nick-D/Archive 11

Fortress of Mimoyecques FA nomination
Thank you for your help with the featured article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques. I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a related article, Fortress of Mimoyecques, for consideration as a featured article. If you have any comments on the nomination, please leave them on Featured article candidates/Fortress of Mimoyecques/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I'll provide some comments on the nomination later this week. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please revert your recent edit on Samson
Nick,

The section where you removed my edit is absolutely awful in its current form as it proposes an insane conspiratorial idea that Israel will destroy the world. But some people have been arguing to keep it. If it remains it needs to be clear that this is not Israeli foreign policy but rather the opinions of some experts and the rantings of some lunatics.

Zuchinni one (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not going to restore that unreferenced material in which you attacked the reputations of various people. Please see WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not attack anyone, nor would I. But that entire section is trash as it stands and it needs to be clear who is saying these things.  I am happy to find another wording that you find less offensive, but I can't stand seeing people promote conspiracy trash on wikipedia as if it was the official foreign policy of a nation.  Zuchinni one (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please find reliable sources which argue the opposite then and use them to add material to the article - please see WP:NPOV and WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See the talk page ... the first portion of my edit was a restatement of previously referenced material in the article which I did forget to re-reference ... the second portion was simply a statement to clarify that the rest of the section did not reflect Israel's offical foreign policy. Neither is POV or orginal research ... but I do admit that I forgot to put in the references.  Zuchinni one (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's not run two discussions in parallel. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Look Nick, your an admin, a huge contributor to military history here, and in general I respect you and think that you are trying to make wikipedia great. I think that I am going to refrain from participating in the debate about this article for a little while.  I made some mistakes and did not handle things as best I could.  This is mostly because I feel so frustrated about something that appears to me to be obvious.


 * This article starts out talking about nuclear deterrence in a very reasonable way ... and it discusses what is basically a MAD scenario of deterrence quite well. And then turns into something that implies Israel has a secret agenda to destroy any who oppose it or possibly even the world by creating a nuclear winter.  Those ideas come from fine sources ... and people speculate about stuff like this all the time.  Its RS enough to be in wikipedia, but it should NOT be presented as if it were real foreign policy rather than guesswork, imagination, and wild conjecture.


 * You're a good admin ... make this page right. I'm recusing myself from it.  Zuchinni one (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Admins have no extra say on the content of articles. As noted above, if you're aware of reliable sources which provide different accounts of Israel's nuclear strategy, please use them as references. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No but you do have a say in making sure that articles follow Wikipedia guidelines and present information in an NPOV manner. As far as references that present a different view ... the rest of the article is full of them.  They don't mention that Israel does not want to destroy the world, because they are not written as a response to that ... rather they just talk about actual policy. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

ARA Belgrano
Hi Nick, I've left a message at Talk:ARA_General_Belgrano explaining the re-addition of the ombudsman statement you removed from the Legal Controversy section to the Aftermath section. Please stop by when you have the time and tell me what you think. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Landing at Nassau Bay
Hello Nick—

And Happy New Year. I see that you are the original author of the Landing at Nassau Bay. One of the recommended readings is Morison's Battle of the Atlantic Volume. Is that your intent? Seems like the wrong ocean. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think you've gotten me confused with - I've never edited that article. I have read that volume of Morison's history, however, and it's definitely not the right one - the correct volume is Breaking the Bismarks Barrier.  Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick. Thank you.  I apologize for my confusion.  You did create its talk page, but that's just not the same thing.  I clicked on the history of the wrong tab. &#9785; I should've been clued in when there were no more edits &#9786;  I'll make the edit.  JMOprof (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Thanks Sandy, and happy new year to you as well :) Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Aotearoa!!
Talk:Belgian Army - would you kindly consider providing some input at this RM? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for No. 78 Squadron RAAF
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Demba Ba
Hello Nick, can you take a look at this situation. It's been going on quite sometime & nobody has made an intervention. Regards ★☆ DUCK IS JAMMMY ☆★ 05:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, now I can get some sleep. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Australian National University Classics Museum
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Lending Club
You might like to comment at Talk:Lending Club/Archives/2013. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan Metro
Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian Army in World War II
Gday Nick. The review for this article is here Talk:Australian Army in World War II/GA1‎. This really has been a collobrative effort between a number of editors, including yourself. Indeed if I recall correctly I believe you actually started the article originally. So if you're interested your involvement in the review would be most welcome. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I've enjoyed working on this article, and will help out with the GA review. Hopefully we can also take the article to at least A class status. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, do you have any objections to the article being nominated for A-class this weekend? Sorry to rush you, but I'm heading away for six-seven weeks in February, so I'd like to try to get this one through ACR before then. In some ways this has become the defacto Milhist COTM for January... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I'll have a go at the POW section today to give it more of an Army focus, but other than that it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will look to nom tomorrow, then. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rapier (missile) and Malaysian Army
It was in Malaysian service, but with the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File problem on Commons
Hello Nick,

I recently created a new version of this file:. But since it had been transferred to Commons I didn't have the permission to overwrite it so asked AustralianRupert to do it for me. He has had a go but the changes don't seem to display and neither he nor I can get it to work. I was just wondering if you had any Common's expertise and if you could work out the problem? Essentially the changes were to add B Coy, 6 RAR (minus). Either the 00:03, 12 January 2013, 00:14, 12 January 2013 and 00:17, 12 January 2013 now look right, just not the current version. I suspect this might be a cache problem but have tried purging and it did nothing. Maybe it might come good of its own accord? Any assistance or advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The truely weird thing is it displays fine in the thumbnail on my User page, but not in the article. And not when you click on the thumbnail... I'm stumped... Anotherclown (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just had a go at reverting to the 00:17, 12 January 2013 version, but that didn't work for me either. I'd suggest seeking help from the admins/experts at Commons - I presume that it's some kind of cache or coordination issue. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do - I appreciate you trying. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed now, apparently its an issue that will fix itself in time but you can "trick" it into displaying by changing the image to a non-standard size. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name
Hi Nick,

Thank you for your comments on the 2012 tour of She Has a Name FAC. If you would be willing to weigh in on Sandy's recommendation to rename the article, your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud(finale)
I have responded to Devanampriya's demand that I and Takabeg answer questions concerning the battle. I have no interest in his interpretation of the battle nor will I be adding other results to the template even though they are clearly backed by university sources. I do not see any edit warring starting since Denampriya has what he wants in the result section of the template. Not until Devanampriya can be held accountable for his original research and suppressing/mitigating of other university sources, will the article be edited with sources other than those permitted by him. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may wish to pursue dispute resolution using the procedure outlined at WP:DR then. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have filed here. Hopefully I did it right. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

 * Thanks a lot! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud
Hi, i contacted you regarding the change made by IP to Battle of Jamrud while there is no consensus yet and matter is under dispute resolution. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I've just blocked that account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Theman244 is a POV-pusher and a sockmaster who removed scholarly sources from the article and you Nick-D wrongfully blocked an IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.124.43 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I blocked an edit warrior. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II
Hi Nick,

I saw that you reverted Tempaccount040812 name change of this article back in December due to lack of consensus etc. Due to Staberinde's recent comments on the talkpage, I have started looking at various ways to improve the article. One of them is, I think the name needs to be changed. My proposal, which has so far not been responded to on the talkpage, is to rename it either Mediterranean Theatre of War or the Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre (which would include the dropping of Madagascar and the east Africa fighting from the article, per Staberinde's comments, my own agreement, and how the official histories describe the fighting. Thus 'Africa' would become somewhat redundant). The names come from the American and the British official histories, respectfully, of the theatre. I have not been able to find out what, if, the Germans and Italians named the theatre. The German official history is termed "The Mediterranean, South-East Europe, and North Africa 1939-1942" and I have not been able to find if there is an Italian history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba p again
Sorry but he seems bent on disruption and has started a thread on WP:ANI, I would be grateful if you could comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me"
Believe it or not, others feel that way too.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:The Second World War (book series). Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the speedy addition of a cite. My concern is with the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown", which seems to be included more for the purposes of obscuring meaning than anything else. We should be as precise as possible, and if there is indeed a good link describing the prerogative powers of the monarch as "reserve powers of the Crown", then I'll have no objection to you equating the two. Thing is, I can't find anything that's an really good source. This description, from the Parliamentary Library looks to be a solid source for the Governor-General's reserve powers, but it is quite distinct from the prerogative powers of the monarch. Further discussion on the article talk page, please. I really just wanted to let you know that I wasn't having a go at you personally by asking for a further cite. The one you provided is excellent, it just doesn't support the precise wording in the article. --Pete (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a citation to that effect while you were typing that message ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

CA 52
I've answered your comments, when you get a chance. --Rschen7754 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service
Gday again Nick. I think there may be a copy/paste error in the MILHIST assessment on the talk page. Or did I miss it at ACR? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I copied and pasted the tags from the F/A-18 in Australian service article and missed deleting that field. At least I didn't declare it a FA as I've done in the past through similar dumbness. Thanks for letting me know (especially so politely!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all - I was sure that was the reason. Another very interesting article too BTW, I'm enjoying this series. Anotherclown (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I'm really enjoying writing these articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Abbott
I've replied on my talk page. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust train France Section
Hello Nick-D and a Happy New Year. I have now finished the more complete version of the "France" section within Holocaust train that I had promised late last year and posted this at Talk:Holocaust_train. I hope you are available to provide your input. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Jerry - I'll give that material a look. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Military camouflage
Hi Nick-D, thanks for your prod, I wasn't ignoring you but missed the un-transcluded comments. Have fixed that and responded to everything (and the other reviewers). Hope it's looking better now... Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. I'm about to knock off for the evening, and will check your responses tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone is placing blocks on my talk page with your name on it
Strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See below, and feel free to add a trout. I must have 'blocked' dozens if not hundreds of editors! Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Half-trout
(Well, half of one... kinda grosser, if you think about it.)

You're sharing this trout with, for inadvertently "blocking" everyone accused of edit-warring withiin the last 9 hours. No worries, and clearly this is about as honest a mistake as there is, but, to paraphrase National Treasure, someone ' s gotta go to jail get trouted. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I sure deserve that! I wonder why I did it? (I wasn't even editing while drunk or crazy!). Thanks for the note. I'll now throw myself at the mercy of WP:ANI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship classes
Hi Nick-D, I noticed you reverted Anzac-class frigate. I have also noted a number of changes to hyphenate all classes of warships in RAN service e.g Paluma-class survey motor launch, Leeuwin-class survey vessel, etc. Not sure if we need to raise this higher. Editors are doing this apparently to meet WP:NC-SHIPS. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've just left a note on the talk page of the editor who moved the articles to that effect. It's not in line with WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy and trumps what looks like a rather wrong-headed guideline. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Proper English requires a hyphen for compound adjectives and the WP:Ships naming convention reflects that. COMMONNAME isn't applicable as I've seen the hyphen used and not for ship class names in published books and the navies themselves. There have been several lengthy discussions on WT:SHIPS over the issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not applied to Australian warships in any Australian source I'm aware of (most obviously, the Royal Australian Navy's website). It's also not used in the American-published The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World. It does appear to be used in Jane's Fighting Ships though based on the online edition. Maybe its used by other countries, but these are effectively made-up titles when applied to Australian warships, and it doesn't seem appropriate to me to apply them. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The hyphen seems to be less used in more recent books, but I'd be curious to see how the WW2-era classes are referred to in books on the RAN published throughout the Anglosphere. Don't know if I'd buy off on an exception solely for Australian classes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but the hyphen looks unfamiliar to me. The RAN doesn't use the hyphen in its articles on historic warships (see and  as a couple of examples selected at random). Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The RAN is using proper grammar as the hyphen only comes into play when the noun is modified by a compound adjective, i.e. Bathurst-class minesweeper or 15-inch shell. If the word class is the noun in that phrase, then no hyphen is needed, i.e. "The Bathurst class were built..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it'd be nice to have a common naming convention across all of Wikipedia's ships... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, to be honest, unless there's a common naming convention across the English speaking world. Checking my references on the RAN indicate that the use of hyphens in class names is fairly rare. WP:ENGVAR seems to apply here, at a minimum. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Because we're a global encyclopedia, and we like to have relatively consistent naming conventions. ;-) I don't see the big hassle here either, but if it's grammatically correct, I don't see a clear need to not do it. But that's just me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather like diversity in articles myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I hate the odd-looking and both commonname/commonsense violatinghyphen additions as much as you do, but, much as happened with the en (or was it em?) dash being forced through on dates in aircraft-by-decade categories, there reached a point where it wasn't worth arguing anymore about. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this would be a good time to update NC-SHIPS, which I was following regarding my moves. Plus other members are also moving templates plus other articles and also correcting text. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I open a can of worms? The world is a diverse place and sometimes an encyclopeadia cannot cater for every diversity. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've started a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 36 Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

KFC
Ok, I've responded to your KFC comments. Featured article candidates/KFC/archive1 Farrtj (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign improvements
Hi!

I was wondering if you would be interested in helping me improve the Gallipoli Campaign article towards being a good article nominee?

I outlined a list of things i feel are preventing its nomination as a good article.

If not i understand.

Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Retrolord, and welcome to Wikipedia. World War I isn't my strong point, and I don't have many references on the Gallipoli campaign so my capacity to help out isn't huge. If you'd like some help to work on developing this article to good article status, you could post a message at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (you may also want to sign up as a member of the project :) ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard
Just so you're aware, an FPC thread you were in got linked from there, and is being somewhat discussed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud
They are still editwarring. And accusations of sockpuppetry are being made on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any edit warring, and there clearly is some sockpuppetry going on (I'm pretty sure that the latest round of edit warring before I protected the article included an editor who'd logged out in an attempt to not be identified and sanctioned for this; I don't have a clue who this was though). Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Request assesment
Well, i didn't know whom or where to ask, and because of this, i though i should come back to you for an assessment of INS Jyoti (A58). Thanks! --Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, If you're looking for a good article assessment, that needs to run through the formal GA process (eg, WP:GAN). From a quick look at the article, it seems in good shape, though information on her 2002 and 2012 activities is missing and the material on her activities in some of the other years is pretty thin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will try to improve those. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 15:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Joint Task Force Impenetrable Jargon
You may or may not be pleased to know it probably was copy-and-pasted (can I used hyphens, since this isn't an Aussie warship ;), but not from the internet, a NATO official document seems more likely. When they put up the command website they may use exactly the same wording. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's something to look forward to then! ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hint
Take a look at this and then check out the history of this. Cheers! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence! Blocked and deleted. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled
You have "been around" for a while, and thus I have sought your opinion on more than one occassion. Hence, I'm rather puzzled by two of your recent edits and/or the accompanying edit comments. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * remove unnessessary honorifics from the infobox
 * a) "unnessessary" sounds like your POV. I was under the impression that WP:I just don't like it was a totally inadequate reason for removing good faith edits. Please explain.
 * b) "unnecessary". The whole of wikipedia is "unnecessary". Do you intend to remove the whole of wikipedia? I expect not. Therefore, what is your explanation for deciding that this small piece, rather than anything else, is "unnecessary"?
 * an article already exists on that topic - Yes, it does. Why is that a reason for removing a link to it? Logic suggests that if it didn't exist, you couldn't link to it. And vice versa, the fact that the article does exist may, along with other factors, be reasons to link to it. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why the fact that "an article already exists on that topic" is a reason to delete a link to it. Do you think you could explain that to me please?


 * Why the confrontational approach to uncontroversial changes? Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I must be missing something, because that is exactly the reason that I am trying to politely ask you to explain yourself - i.e. it appears to me that you are taking / have taken a confrontational / aggressive / dismissive tone, and you have made zero attempts to explain your reasons. Again, it is your POV surfacing when you say they are "uncontroversial changes". You are making zero attempt to understand why I'm asking, or even what I'm asking - you are just making a confrontational / aggressive / dismissive reply containing no information. Also, I'm seeing no evidence of you "assuming good faith", either.
 * I repeat: I'm rather puzzled by your approach; it doesn't seem to be consistent with what I have come to expect from you.
 * Hence, again, do you think you could explain this to me please? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By-the-way: I have no desire to sour what I consider to be our good working relationship. It's just that - I'm puzzled. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're really coming across as over the top here - I do respond to questions which don't include suggestions that I'm trying to trash Wikipedia! To answer your questions: I removed those honorifics from the infobox per what I understand the usual convention; the honorifics aren't normally included in the names for these people in when they're discussed books and articles (eg, David Hurley is normally called 'General David Hurley' in newspapers and the like, and Stephen Smith only gets 'The Hon.' in official-type documents) and don't appear in the body of the article, and so aren't needed in this infobox. I removed the links to the new article as the old article it duplicates more or less exactly was already linked (in the infobox in the ADF article and in the other article whether the editor replaced the link to the old article), and has much more content than the new article. I've suggested to the editor who created the new article that they merge the two. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your rationale by answering a number of questions I didn't ask. I had absolutely no doubt you had a rationale, and that it would be reasonable. That wasn't my point. Nor my intent.


 * Sorry, but you're really coming across as over the top here - Really? Are you sure you are reading what I wrote, rather than responding to what you think I wrote? Similarly, I'm totally puzzled as to how you can conclude from "Do you intend to remove the whole of wikipedia? I expect not." that I'm suggesting you are "trying to trash Wikipedia". Again, it seems like you are responding to what you think I wrote, rather than what I actually did write.
 * To cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s, please note that I am 'not (and was not) complaining about what you did. What I did was tell you I'm puzzled by the reasons you have stated for doing what you have done.
 * Now that you have stated and explained the reasons for doing what you did, I'm even more puzzled by your edit summary explanations - the edit summary explanations seem to bear little or no correlation with the actual reasons you state for making the edits.


 * So, if I am correct in concluding that the reasons you stated in the edit summary were NOT the actual reasons for your edits, then I am no longer puzzled. I hope that clarifies my intent, and my puzzle. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Registration?

 * Unfortunately, I don't think there is. Ceasing IP editing is regularly proposed, but the Wikimedia Foundation (and many editors) is strongly opposed to making such a change. The edit filters help a lot though. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a signifcant movement once to require Sign In To Edit; I stumbled across the page, but have never been able to find it again (gentlemen, start your conspiracy theories!) ; it involved a petition, heavily backed by editors who actually work in the trenches, that was sent up to WMFs ivory tower - where it got utterly lolno'd. Unfortunatly the only way SITE is ever going to be required is if we have another nasty kerfuffle like the one that ended the ability of IPs to start new articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Does that mean that we need to start a nasty kerfuffle? ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Any time this is pushed, tell me. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm starting to get annoyed enough about IP vandals that I'm considering actually doing something about it. My problem is: What? The list of 'Pages that link to "Template:User anti-anon"' contains well over 500 entries, so there's a decent sized initial "target audience". (Or at least I hope there is!) Any advice on how to proceed? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:VPP is probably the appropriate forum to propose this, though its a Perennial proposal. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PERENNIAL: This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past. It should be noted that merely listing something on this page does not mean it will never happen, but that it has been discussed before and never met consensus. Consensus can change, and some proposals which remained on this page for a long time have finally been proposed in a way which reached consensus, but you should address rebuttals raised in the past if you make a proposal along these lines.  If you feel you would still like to do one of these proposals, then raise it at the Village pump.
 * Perennial_proposals
 * Hmmmmm. Thanks for that. It sounds like I'd be embarking on a crusade to flog dead horses. Or am I being too pesimistic? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of DistrictBuilder article
Hello sir! Good day! Just gonna ask a question, why was the article deleted? -- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sir, just message me back in my talk page. Thanks! :D -- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 13:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, just read the reason sir (its found in the deletion log). I understand it now.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 14:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, - see the 'Hint' thread above. The article was created by a blocked editor, and was a continuation of the spamming which lead to the block. There's no need to call me sir by the way! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated "Holocaust train" Draft
Hello, Nick-D. Thanks for commenting on my suggested update for the Holocaust train article. I thought your feedback was good, so I have revised it to add more about the U.S. controversy and replied to explain Marrus's writings on the Toulouse case. Please let me know what you think, when you are able. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Re- Battle of Jamrud
Hi, Nick

Three IP's tried to revert the edits on Battle of Jamrud. I am sure these reverts are done by same person. You said page will be protected for one month, but it's actually not. There is still discussion going on. These three IPs are 182.177.74.223 (which was blocked by you for one week and no activity thereafter), 182.177.124.43, and 182.177.79.242 and last two of them are from very nearby location. Can you please look into this matter. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I'm not sure why the protection didn't stick - I must have stuffed up when I applied it. It's protected now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit assistance
Hi, I have added the costs to Operation Astute, but I am having some problems with the formatting. Would you be able to have a look and see if you can see what is wrong with it? The Australian Red Man (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, you were missing the |} needed to finish off the table - I've just added this. Great work with adding this information (and mastering the not-very-good coding for the tables), and welcome to Wikipedia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No worries - thank you for creating this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oz Military Categories
Good heavens you're quick off the mark! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured_picture_candidates/HMS_Hood_2
I apologise for not getting the restoration done in time for the original nomination, but it's done now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Adam. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR at AK-103
Hi Nick, I just noticed a 3RR violation by two different editors at AK-103. Both editors performed 4 reverts. In the meantime, I should point out that the two sources being added by Special:Contributions/Theoccupiedkashmir are invalid and look like they're plagiarized from Wikipedia, so it was probably correct for the other editor to remove them. ROG5728 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC) "Actually only TOK is over 3RR; the other editor is at three reverts, but not beyond (yet). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * At the risk of stepping on The Bushranger's toes, I've just blocked both those editors for 24 hours as 1) was edit warring without any attempt to discuss the matter and 2)  was edit warring without any serious effort to discuss the matter and continued edit warring by re-adding the material with a tag stating that it needs a citation. I have no objection at all at either editor being unblocked early if they provide a commitment to knock this off or demonstrate that they've since read WP:EDITWAR. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification about a block
Hello, Nick-D. Three days ago, you blocked RussHawk for BLP violations. He made an unblock request, denying having made BLP violations. I declined the request, because it was abundantly clear that you were right, and he had made BLP violations. However, it seemed to me that he did not understand what the issues with his editing were, so I took the trouble to explain to him why he was guilty of BLP violations, and also what some other problems with his editing are. He responded to this by making another unblock request, accompanied by a long and detailed post, in which he explained his thinking. It seemed to me that he now showed a clear understanding of what had been wrong with his editing, and that he was not likely to do the same again, so I unblocked him. (I did consider consulting you first, but it seemed to me that what I was doing was not actually over-riding your decision, but making an independent decision in a different situation, as the circumstances had changed, and the reason for the block no longer applied. Nevertheless, if I had known about your note above beginning "As a note to my fellow administrators..." I probably would have consulted you, as you evidently have a stronger desire to be consulted than many admins. If you think I was wrong not to consult you, then I hope you can accept my apologies.)

Anyway, some of the things that RussHawk wrote, both before and after the unblock, led me to look further into the history, and I found two facts which seemed surprising, and I would like to hear you view about them. Firstly, I was surprised to see that you had blocked the user without his having received any warning or explanation as to what was wrong with his edits. Normally, blocking without warning is reserved for the most extreme cases, way beyond what seems to be the case here, and I wonder why you chose to do so this time. Secondly, the problematic editing was on the article Andrew Laming, which you have edited many times, and one of RussHawk's edits was even a revert of a revert you made. This seems to me to make you involved, and it seems at best questionable for you to block an editor in such a case, where you were in dispute with him, albeit on a small scale. Please note that I am not questioning your reverting, as the content you removed was clearly a BLP violation, and you were right to remove it: I am questioning only your blocking of an editor under such circumstances, rather than seeking an independent administrator.

I hope you can clarify for me why you took the action you took, and also whether you still think you were right to do so, and if so why. I am particularly struck by the fact that once he had received an explanation of what the problems were, he understood, and accepted that what he had done was unacceptable, which suggests that he might well have mended his ways if he had just been given a friendly explanation, rather than being bitten with a completely unexpected block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi James, I concur with the unblock, and as this was pretty straightforward there's no real need to have consulted me. I'm not seeing the controversial aspect of blocking someone whose only editing since October 2011 had been to add material to the article of a living public figure calling them a racist though, and don't think that you're correct about the 'involved' aspect. I had posted a longer response to you, but I've just removed it as it was written while tired and cranky from a rather busy-but-dumb day at work; it's obviously available in this page's history, but I'd ask that you ignore it as it's long winded and cranky. I'll post something a bit longer than this, and hopefully rather civil, tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As a shorter, and hopefully more civil and coherent, version of what I wrote yesterday: 1) I'm not 'involved' as virtually all my contributions to that article have been with my admin hat on (it was an unwatched BLP which had been turned into spam for this guy which I cleaned up and then watched; I always vote for the other side of Australian politics, so there are no political motivations here - quite the opposite in fact) 2) the edit of mine which RussHawk reverted was removing a flagrant BLP violation (eg, the 'racist' material) so I'm not sure why you find me responding to this to be at all problematic 3) the block was imposed as RussHawk was essentially a BLP-violation only account given the pattern of his or her editing: it's pretty obvious that you can't go around calling people 'racist' anywhere, and doing so was his or her only purpose for returning to Wikipedia after more than a year away 4) given that RussHawk was quoting WP:BLP to justify calling this guy 'racist' in his or her initial unblock requests shortly after being blocked, I don't at all agree that a warning would have been productive and think that this actually supports my decision to go straight to a block - which per the usual arrangements can be lifted once the editor commits to stop their behaviour 5) all of the above is entirely in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks very much for that clarification. I do accept most of what you say, but I don't agree with all of it. I fully agree that the editing was a "flagrant BLP violation", and that reverting was right, and I attempted to make it clear that I was not questioning that, and that my query was only about the block. I have not checked every one of your edits to the article, but I am willing to accept that they were done in an administrative capacity. I still think, though, that there was no good reason for not giving a warning first: the worst that could have resulted was that there would have been one more unacceptable edit to revert before blocking, and the best was that the user would have got the message. Even if you thought the former was vastly more likely than the latter, no significant harm could have resulted by giving him a chance. You say "I don't at all agree that a warning would have been productive", but the point is that neither you nor I knows whether it would or not. In the absence of positive evidence, we are obliged to assume good faith, which is what you are patently not doing: you are asserting that you believe that a warning would not have worked, for which you have no evidence other than your assumption. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, in my experience politically motivated BLP-violation only accounts do not respond to warnings of any sort, and this editor's initial response to the block is a pretty typical result of such warnings - eg, they're ignored or it is argued that policy somehow supports the abuse they're trying to include in the article. I'm not going to assume good faith about someone who thinks its OK to use Wikipedia as a platform to repeatedly call a public figure a racist as they're clearly not acting in good faith. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Book you might be interested in
T.B. Millar, 'Australia's Defence,' Second Edition, Melbourne University Press, 1969. SBN 522 83917 7 (note pre ISBNs). Is here on my desk. Have been meaning to ask you about it. Do you want it? - if so I will try and figure out how to send it over. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think that I already have a copy of that book - if not, the local libraries have it. Thanks for thinking of me though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Laming
Had left a comment on the article talk page. Maybe you should have read that first before you accused me of unconstructive editing. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A major problem with the Laming page is the disruptive editing from his supporters (or staff? - one IP address is in the Australian Parliamentary Library). It is essentially censorship. Is this editing not "politically motivated"?RussHawk (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it is, but it can't be proven - if you look through the history of the article, it was heavily spammy at one point. Thanks for pointing out the Australian Parliamentary Library IP though this could be a public servant playing with the article during their lunch break for all we know... Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Request clarification/advice on how to name ship-class articles
At Bristol-class interceptor craft, two editors Trappist the monk and Oldag07 made two different edits for displaying the article name. Can you advice which is a more appropriate version, as i am confused which is the correct edit. See diff. Or guide me to the relevant policy page. Thanks a lot! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, it depends on if the class is named after the lead ship of the class or not. For instance, the Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carriers - as the lead ship is USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), the class name is italicised. The Tribal-class destroyer, on the other hand, is not italicised, as the lead ship is HMS Afridi (F07) - the class is named after the naming scheme used for the class, not the lead vessel. In the case of the Bristol class, as the class is built by Bristol Boats, I presume that this means the class is named for the builder, not whatever the Indian Coast Guard named the first boat, so it shoudn't be italicised. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the fantastic explanation! :) I'l keep this in mind. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Bushranger :) Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Patton ACR
I think I've responded to all of the comments you posted there. Let me know if there's anything else I should fix. — Ed! (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Hi Nick, could you take a look at this user's edits? I've warned him twice, but he has continued to apply thumbnail settings and/or large images in infoboxes across dozens of different articles (no communication from him either). Obviously, per the MOS, we don't use the thumbnail setting in infoboxes, and we don't use large images there either. This is what he's done in all of his edits. I also warned two other IPs that apparently belong to this same editor: User talk:121.54.44.159 and User talk:121.54.44.178. ROG5728 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See also this new user account, which was apparently created by the same person. ROG5728 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history
You aware of this? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like to comment here at all: Administrators%27_noticeboard? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just commented there. ANI seems back to being a train wreck... While you obviously need to take part in the discussion, you're not going to be able to make all those people happy, as you seem to be the bad admin who must be punished for today. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated - thanks for your comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. The show seems to have moved on today (some other admin is copping it no doubt). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Australian Flying Corps
Carabinieri (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

KFC
I have responded to your comment Farrtj (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for your assistance
Hi Nick,

Thanks very much for your earlier help on the FAC review of Fortress of Mimoyecques and my other related FACs. I wonder if I could ask you to look at my most recent FAC, Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1? It has a very heavy military history slant to it (not surprising given the history involved) so it might be something that you would be interested in. If you have any comments, they would be most welcome. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure - I'll post a review over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks very much. I'll look forward to seeing your comments. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, just letting you know that I've tackled all of your comments and am awaiting your feedback on any remaining issues. Prioryman (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I was waiting for you to address the final point on the current state of the economy, and missed that you'd done so. I've just supported - keep up the great work. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance
Hi Nick. Could you please use your magic wand to delete a page from my user space (or tell me how to do it myself). The page is here - Nick Thorne  talk  07:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, I've just deleted that page for you. Unfortunately non-admins can't delete their own user pages, so the best way to get rid of them is to directly ask any admin to delete them or use the db-u1 tag. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, thanks for that. Sorry about the delay in replying, been a bit distracted lately.  Anyway, once again, thanks. -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

NZ SAS
Congrats Nick - thought I maybe should mention that new orgn source to you, but you found it first !! It's 2013. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm going to start a discussion about whether the article should be moved to 1st New Zealand Special Air Service Regiment. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thought. I'd like to move all the carrier strike groups to 'Carrier Strike Group 1', rather than 'Carrier Strike Group One'. This is in-line with the way the rest of the U.S. navy groups are listed on Wikipedia and the Navy does it both ways. The point is I can see in the future horribly convoluted titles such as 'Cruiser-Destroyer Flotilla Thirty-Three' or suchlike, which get really ponderous. But I anticipate an enormous amount of resistance from User:Marcd30319. How do you think I should best attempt it? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best to use the request move process, and advertise the discussion at WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS so that it's not you vs him. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

can you direct me
Hi Nick, I have a description of engines, boilers, and auxiliary Machinery for the USS Iris document dated 1885. I'm trying to figure out if it would be of some use to someone on here. Can you help direct me to someone that might find it useful. Skully09 (talk)skully09 —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, The best place to 'advertise' this would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships or Talk:USS Iris (1885). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

March Metro
Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 22:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Samaritan
You're one! :) Thank you for helping out a friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanWinchesterDiaries (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - and welcome to Wikipedia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud
I tried editing Battle of Jamrud only to find out its protected. When will the article protection be lifted?  Caden  cool  16:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The protection is set to expire at 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC). Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft
I'd like to db-spam this. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got a vague (and quite possibly mistaken) memory that it it already had been nominated for prod deletion when it came up years ago. Given that there was a fair bit of discussion of this article (mainly negative) at WT:MILHIST at the time, an AfD might be the better option. I'd vote delete on notability grounds alone. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the "Embassy English" article

 * Hi Nick, I am the creator of this article and would like to discuss more closely the reason for your deletion of this article. I was aware of the issues the article had from the beginning thanks to actions done by NawlinWiki. He/she PRODed it with regards to promo/advertising style of writing and not enough notable 3rd party references but I then made significant changes about the promotional tone that convinced him/her to remove the PROD. It was made clear that I would have to still work on collecting those references which I have been doing since. Bear in mind, all this only happened yesterday and I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia - this was only my first article. So please consider making it available again so that I can do more profound research for those sources.
 * In regards to notability, what is your view on an entity that has won the best chain school of the year four times in the past six years, has a load of excellence awards from languagecourse.net in recent years and has accreditations from all the major governmental language education bodies in countries where it runs its business? Doesn't the above mentioned constitute quite a major notability? As I wrote to NawlinWiki, I have many more 3rd party sources which I was going to cite under the article in the upcoming days. Embassy English has a dedicated page on its web just for the accreditations and awards, please refer to it here - http://www.embassyces.com/about/accreditation.aspx. I hope this reasoning will help change your mind. thanksKucherjan (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Kucherjan, I deleted the article as it was total spam - it was referenced only to the organisation's website, and was written in a highly positive tone. Do you have a relationship with this organisation? In regards to what's needed to establish notability, please see WP:ORG - in short, for an organisation to be notable it has to have been the recipient of in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. I'd be pleased to upload the article to your user space so that you can work on it, but will not do so without assurances that this isn't going to be used to advertise this organisation. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Australian Aboriginal Tribes issues
I have pointed out the mess we have when Category:Wyandot people seems to be using people to mean something else than Category:People from Michigan. I am hoping people consider more the problem of the issue of multiple people meanings being interspesed before we do anything to make a bigger problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Manoora Dili (20060528ran8098578 008).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manoora Dili (20060528ran8098578 008).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. —Bkell (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for your advice
As you've kindly reviewed History of Gibraltar for FA, I wondered if you had any thoughts or advice on the issue raised at Talk:History of Gibraltar? Please feel free to comment there if you do. Prioryman (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher: Small Update
Nick-D,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

Another user has made a slight update to the article. I was wondering if you could read the second last paragraph in the "Capture" section to see if it flows with the rest of the article. I have also found and placed a reference to that sentence and added the book to the bottom of that page. It would be appreciated if you could look at it and fix anything that needs fixing. Adamdaley (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a topic I know anything about Adam, so my odds of improving the article aren't great ;) I'd suggest that you may any changes to the edit which you think would be beneficial. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that you may not know anything about the article. I was concerned that the new additional information in the last 48 hours may have slight (or even a very small percentage) compromised the "A class" assessment. I am currently working on the new information that has been added by Africai. Adamdaley (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing?
This edit may violate WP:CANVASS. The project is not directly implicated in the RfA, the message has some bias ("a long-running member of this project"), and the audience could be partisan. If it is inappropriate, please remove it. Glrx (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's standard practice to post such messages for editors whose focus has largely been within the scope of the project - the notification obviously cuts both ways given that it raises awareness of the nomination among people who don't consider the nominee suitable as well as those who do. I have amended the message to remove the 'long standing' bit though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand your position. Glrx (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe a larger discussion should be had after the current RfA. I can see where such a notification could be neutral, but just as easily it could be used for WP:votestacking, forcing us to look inside the head of the poster to determine their motives for placing the notice to determine if it was canvassing or not. I've been pretty active in RfA for a while now but haven't run across this.  To offer a personalized example, if I were to run for Arb (don't worry, it will never happen) and I posted a notice at WP:WER, I would expect everyone to be rightfully upset and consider it canvassing, regardless of the motivation.  That is the problem, it puts us in the uncomfortable position of determining motivation, and we are not judges.  Again, perhaps a larger discussion is due, after the RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 11:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble I have with calling this canvassing is that it opens the door to the possibility of not being able to post a notification anywhere, except, perhaps, a central 'RFA board' - which could easily get buried and forgotten. What would happen if you held a RFA and nobody came? Having someone post notices themselves that "I'm running for admin", I can see as canvassing. But a notice from another editor on WikiProject pages, neutrally worded? That's another kettle of fish, and we should assume good faith. Of course, this opinion will get you a breath of air, for everything else including the cuppa Joe I so desperatly need there's MasterCard. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The flipside is the example I gave, since a Project where an individual is active is more likely to be favorable to them than not. It is difficult for me to picture a project as "neutral", but perhaps that is my lack of imagination. Some yes, others no, so we admin are forced to read their mind when they post it.  I just used my best judgement based on my understanding of policy, just as you guys are, this just isn't something that has come up in a long time.  Unquestionably, no one was trying to break any rules here, but the lack of clarity on the issue started some drama on the RfA talk page, which I attempted to shut down.  As for neutral areas, the user's talk page is surely neutral. FWIW, I can't imagine an RfA that no one would show up for, the gauntlet always attracts plenty of attention.   I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, and there are good arguments on both sides, hence the need for a larger, calm discussion or RFC at the Pump or wt:rfa next week.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 15:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I for one would prefer more, rather than less, editors that are actually familiar with a candidate voting in their RfA. Alerting individual editors that are friends of the candidate might be vote stacking, but a neutral RfA notification message in a Wikiproject can only lead to a better RfA outcome IMO. --Surturz (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my view - the people who are best qualified to comment on RfAs will often be the people most familiar with the candidate's history, and so where there's a strong connection to a Wikiproject a notification seems a good idea. This also helps to raise awareness of the process of applying for adminship, which new editors are unlikely to be familiar with. That said, I do see where the arguments against this are coming from. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Aus-NZ productivity recommendations
I think, perhaps, open up a new article just for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotoruan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I really doubt that this report passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It received some media coverage when it was completed, but as far as I'm aware is yet to be adopted by either government. Please see WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Businessman
Thank you for protecting aka blocking the editing by non-admin users to Business Man telugu page in the Article namespace sir. You did the right thing. It would be better if you extend the expiry period. Thank you sir. Have a nice day and happy editing. Raghusri (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to keep the protection duration to a minimum so as to not prevent productive editing - the goal with the shortish protection was to stop the edit war only. Please let me know if the edit warring resumes and I'll either re-protect the article to block the edit warring editor(s). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K. sir. Now i understood your intention after reading this. Surely, after the expiration i will tell you the thing, if the edit warring resumes again (or) not! Thank you for your co-operation. Have a good day. Raghusri (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello sir! No edit warring occured again. If it does then i will inform you. Have a good day and happy editing. Raghusri (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)
G'day Nick, did you have anything else you thought should be addressed on this ACR? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry - I forgot all about commenting on that ACR :o You've addressed all my comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq
An article that you have been involved in editing, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

AWM images
Hi mate. First off, really like the Old Parliament House shot -- one of the best you've had in that spot... Next, did you discuss something somewhere about the more specialised AWM image licensing they seem to have adopted, e.g. CC BY-NC? I'm finally working on another article, on No. 1 AD, and I see the best relevant photo is AWM copyright and CC BY-NC, which I don't think helps us very much since it can't reused commercially by people ripping it off WP. Possibly I'm just out of practice, but maybe it's better to try a fair use rationale... WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, The AWM still claims copyright over the photos with those tags I'm afraid (though I don't see how they can sustain a claim over that particular image within Australia...). It's images such as this (picked at random) where they don't claim copyright internationally. The licensing doesn't seem consistent here - this 1959 image (also picked at random) taken not far from where your photo was taken is marked as being PD! Short version: I agree that a fair use claim is needed, though this may be a case of something going wrong in the AWM's database. Thanks also for the nice comment re the photo! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at least the no-nonsense "copyright expired -- public domain" is still around, and sometimes you get happy inconsistencies like the Sabre one you've noted. The annoying thing with my No. 1 AD pic is that AWM copyright should in effect mean Commonwealth copyright, which on WP (as opposed to Commons) you could invoke Clause E of PD-Australia since it was taken more than 50 years ago -- but I bet someone would argue the point... ;-) Guess I'll go the FUR route and see how I go... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be worth sending them an email noting that this image appears to have been miss-labeled and asking that this be reviewed. My understanding is that the Sabre is marked the way the AWM intends things to be marked given that its moved into the public domain and the 1 AD one isn't marked correctly given that it's actually PD; I could be mistaken about this, or there could be something else going on with the 1 AD photo (eg, it could be a non-government photo which has been donated to the AWM, but they're normally pretty good about marking such records in their database). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Eighth Route Army
Hello Nick-D,

Would it be possible to put a temporary IP editor block on Eighth Route Army -- there is an IP editor from the Philippines who insists on adding a "see also" statement linking to the Malaysian Army, which has bullocks-all to do with the article's topic. I reverted the entries three times, no idea why they are being made, and of course, the IP addresses vary a bit each time so their talk page(s) are worthless in this instance. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, That gets the prize for the weirdest thing I've seen on Wikipedia for a few days. I've just semi-protected the article for a week and warned the editor: please let me know if this nonsense continues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind
I changed the WM-Au member to a single template that can be categorised in the future. Feel free to undo the change. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good change - thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD - Legal abuse
Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No. 485 Sqn
You're on the ball. I was thinknig about giving you a heads-up on this; I'd like to change all the 485-490 series. Then have to figure out whether to rename No. 10 Squadron RAAF to No. 2210 Squadron RAF (just joking)!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you shouldn't do that to 10 Sqn ;) A few years ago there was a discussion over whether the 'Australian' Article XV squadrons should undergo a similar move, and the consensus was that they should remain at No. 4xx Squadron RAAF as this is what most sources call them (while also noting that in many cases the units contained few Australians and weren't under the control of the Australian Government). I'm not sure what the situation for NZ is, but if 'RAF' is more common then the moves would be a good idea. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see 92 Wing wasn't formed until the late 1970s. What were the wings directing 10 and 11 beforehand at their separate bases? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure to be honest - Ian Rose will probably know. The RAAF's historical organisation is pretty confusing and very badly documented in published sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly none of us have anything better to do... ;-) Yep, I think 10/11 Sqns just came directly under the relevant area/operational commands until 92 Wing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, can we dig up an orbat of the RAAF in 1950, 1960, and 1970, with all applicable wings, groups, and commands? Where would one look for sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've thought of that myself and have checked in a few areas because I've written most of the articles on RAAF wings here at WP (Nick did the excellent 1 and 80 Wing articles), and I'm working on and off on an article on RAAF area commands, but it's a bit hit and miss. For instance, George Odgers wrote a series of books on the Air Force, generally under the title RAAF or Air Force Australia in the 1980s and '90s, which are fairly useful in that regard, and there's also titles like Defence Reporter and Australian Aviation Yearbook that occasionally pop up in my searches. I checked a book or two Odgers wrote on the Air Force in the '50s or '60s that are in the Mitchell Library but they were more about deeds than organisation, unfortunately. Then again some wings' operations books are digitised at NAA, but not all, and not for all their existence (frustrating). Are you thinking of little orbat articles, or just interested for reference as and when needed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * HAve you considered going directly to the Office of Air Force History, http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Contents/About-APDC/About-APDC/7/Office-of-Air-Force-History.aspx ? Seemingly at Defence Establishment Fairbairn. Would ring them to locate a historian rather than an administration clerk who might obstruct you, and then send that historian an e-mail. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also would you mind mounting your draft somewhere? Cannot find it in your five drafts. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, would prefer set Structure of the Royal Australian Air Force in 1955 or something of the sort. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've spoken to the Office in the past, having become acquainted with them when I wrote some of the base articles for the Units of the RAAF in 1994-95 (only wish I'd agitated for articles on wings, groups and commands, but I came to the project very late in the piece)... Anyway, a lot of what they provided me in my early days at WP is now online through the Air Power Development Centre. With unit histories and so on, unless they've been 'published' on the net, they're not that helpful as WP sources.
 * Re. the commands article, I tend to write my stuff in Word docs that I can work on anywhere, with or without the internet.
 * Structure snapshot articles sound like a good idea if we can source them -- now I'm getting back into articles a bit, I might raid the books at the Mitchell again and see about taking down the broad organisational data from the Odgers books, and anything else I can find. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ravi Rikhye at Orbat.com will publish any re-presentations of OAFH docos we might write. Who's your contact at the OAFH- I'll talk to them myself. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bugle
Hi mate, just letting you know I've finished a draft of Project News and will quickly go over the other sections, then I'd like to despatch ASAP, since Prioryman/s triple-TFA should occur today (from 11AM our time of course). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian, I've made a couple of tweaks, and it all looks good to go to me. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Book review
Hey noticed you need a book review for the bugle cant wright one this week I am a bit busy. But I was wondering if the book Killing Rommel would be a good book to review for the bugle. Thanks Nhog (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great - when you're ready, please post the review at WikiProject Military history/News/April 2013/Book reviews. We try to get the Bugle Out in (or about!) the third week of the month, so something in the next couple of weeks would be perfect. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WW II PR
I've requested a PR for World War II, and thought you should know, as you seem to be a regular editor of that article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Norman Selfe
Here it is - relisted. Featured article candidates/Norman Selfe/archive2. Cheers :-) Wittylama 09:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I'll post a review over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. As someone who's commented on the Norman Self nomination, and now that the nomination is nearing the bottom of the FAC list with no new recent comments, I'd like to encourage you to make a statement of support/oppose or add new comments. This is the second time the article has been listed for FA as the first time was closed citing a lack of overt support votes. I'd hate for that to happen again. Sincerely, Wittylama 09:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder - when I last checked in a couple of weeks some of my comments had not yet been addressed. I've just commented there. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Eighth Route Army (again)
Hi Nick, any chance Eighth Route Army could be protected for a while again? The "Malaysian Army" linker is back. It is quite odd. Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've just blocked their latest account and protected the article for a month. As before, please let me know if this happens again. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Nick. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Op. Hardboiled
Hi, you recently left a review at my FAC :) I think I've addressed all of the matters you raised, if you get chance to stop by and take a look see if there is anything else that needs looking at that would be awesome :D Cheers --Errant (chat!) 13:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Naval History
Hi Nick-D, I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help. Thanx -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, That's not really my area of specialty so I don't have anything to add. I'd suggest posting at WT:MILHIST if you haven't already done so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rolf Harris
According to WP:FULL, edits can be requested on the talk page. Please can you unlock the talk page as I have an uncontroversial edit I want to propose. He does live in Berkshire. Widefox ; talk 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not going to unlock the talk page given that it was only being used to violate WP:BLP. If you tell me exactly what change you'd like to make to the article I'll consider adding the material, but it might be best for this to wait until after the various rumors have died down. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although almost moot now as the block is expiring..can you put padlock signs on the article and talk page, and my understanding of WP:PP is "If a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Request for edit, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing." I'm no admin, so I guess you're following a higher policy?
 * My edit is "He has lived in the UK for more than five decades, residing in Bray, Berkshire.
 * ...but now I know the correct place for my edit request is RfE (never needed it before so this has stumped me)...I shall follow that procedure. Do agree with you about BLP violations of course. Widefox ; talk 00:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't following some 'higher policy'; I just wasn't aware of that guidance. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem ✅ - I meant WP:OFFICE as from my limited understanding/experience BLP full for both is rare (there's no template). Widefox ; talk 14:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP also gives admins discretion to lock talk pages when they're being used to violate the policy (see Biographies of living persons and the earlier note in the policy that WP:BLP applies away from article-space). I didn't add the protection templates as there's a bot that automatically does this - it doesn't appear to have worked on the talk page though unfortunately. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I'm guessing the bot is locked out too on full protection. Thanks Widefox ; talk 16:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

== The nominating of Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule ==

I have replied to what you wrote. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for the Baadshah (2013 film) article protection
Hello sir. I request you to protect the Baadshah (2013 film), because the film is released today and so many nonconstructive and test edits are occurring while i am editing. Please protect the article from unregistered users, non autoconfirmed users for a period of two weeks. Hope you will protect sir. Thank you. Raghusri (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, The volume of vandalism doesn't seem very large, and there appear to be far more productive edits from IP accounts than vandalism, so I don't think that it would be suitable to protect this article at present. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K. Sir. Please see today's edits a lot of nonconstructive edits from IP's. I am reverting those daily. Please check again once. Thank you sir. Raghusri (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Unless I'm missing something (which is always possible!), you appear to have only reverted a single edit today. I don't like IP vandals either, but that level of vandalism isn't even close to the level needed to justify semi-protecting the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K. As per you wish. Raghusri (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Globemaster GAN
Hi mate, just seeing if you were monitoring the review, it's ready for you to check back. BTW, another great shot at the top of the page here, particularly like the dust at the point of landing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, I'm currently editing the article right now to take your comments into account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

EAst Timor Defence Force
Hi Nick, have recently found some Timorese decrees which suggest the structure of the F-FDTL may have changed significantly; a land component and support component, rather than the structure that we portray at present. Would like to check with the US DOD document you got, but it seems to have been removed: would you mind flipping me 'Embassy of the United States, Dili (2010). "U.S. Military Engagement: 2009 in Review". Embassy of the United States, Dili. Retrieved 18 July 2010' Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check to see whether I saved a copy of that tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

April Metro
Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

TFA
Hi mate, discussion at WP:TFAR on a suitable article for Anzac Day this year and one of yours has been mentioned -- see under April 27 -- Charles Eaton (RAAF officer). I nom'ed the latter but Hawkeye suggested doing it on Anzac Day (which probably makes more sense) but I could just as easily shift it to a non-specific date. Your thoughts welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Ian - I've just commented there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches
Hello,

I closed this as delete, but User:Diego has pointed out to me that the BLPPRIMARY issues mentioned in your nom to have been resolved, something that I missed, and something that none of the participants voting "per nom" addressed. COATRACK really does not seem applicable since I don't see a NPOV issue with the article; it is about what it claims to be about. Since the most convincing argument--the sourcing--has been resolved, I am tempted to reverse my deletion. I wanted to get your input first, however. Feel free to reply here, although commenting on my talk page might help centralize discussion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

John Moulton
In reference to the deleted article John Moulton (medical practitioner) I'm wondering if you might reconsider your opposition to this article. I have recently read WP:NRU and feel that it conclusively proves Moulton's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. I hope you will agree and assist me in it being reinstated. As the team doctor he was an administrator of a "High Performance Union" for a long period and also at the time of winning the Rugby World Cup so he is clearly deemed notable by current standards. Castlemate (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Notability of individuals is determined solely by the availability of reliable and independent sources which provide in-depth coverage of their life. If such sources exist about Mr Moulton he's notable, but notability isn't inherited by his job in the Rugby Team in isolation. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ADF
Hey There,

I edited the "Current Expenditure" section of the ADF article with the US concerns about Australian defence spending in 2012. I didn't leave an explanation because I'm relatively new to this and didn't know it was required. The articles cited are from 2012, which is much more recent than many in the overall article and I think still relevant because Australian defence spending has not been raised as a percentage of GDP since. I have taken the word "recent" out though, due to subjectivity.

Regarding your second comment, I think that American defence spending cuts since are irrelevant to the discussion. They have not retracted their critisism and neither has Tony Abbott so I consider that they both stand. Incidentally, even after cuts the Americans spend roughly double on defence as a proportion of GDP as Australia does.

Cheers. Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think that this would be best discussed at Talk:Australian Defence Force, and I've moved it there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Book Review
Nick, I've got a book review for you at the end of [|my sandbox] on the Japanese Navy's air service. The one on the RN in the Med still needs some work. Feel free to edit as needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that - it's an excellent review. I hope that you'd borrowed the book! I've just posted the review at WikiProject Military history/News/April 2013/Book reviews without any alterations. Please let me know when the other review is ready (or post it there yourself :) ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. The RN in the Med review needs further thought, though I'm having problems thinking what else could be addressed in the review. If you've got any thoughts, I'd appreciate them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could expand upon the summaries of the activities of the fleet written by Professor Halpern (eg, do they make the book a good choice for editors looking for an overview of this topic?) and comment on how well selected these documents seem, but there's not really much to be said about compilations of primary sources such as this. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: military history of Australia during World War II
This is a note to let the main editors of military history of Australia during World War II know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The military history of Australia during World War II began with Australia declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939. By the end of the war, almost a million Australians had served in the armed forces, primarily in the European theatre, North African campaign, and the South West Pacific theatre. In addition, Australia came under direct attack for the first time in its history. Casualties from enemy action during the war were 27,073 killed and 23,477 wounded. While most Australian forces were withdrawn from the Mediterranean following the outbreak of war in the Pacific, they continued to take part in the air offensive against Germany. Australian forces played a key role in the Pacific War, making up the majority of Allied strength in the South West Pacific. The military continued offensive operations against the Japanese until the war ended. The war contributed to major changes in the nation's economy, military and foreign policy. It accelerated the process of industrialisation, led to the development of a larger peacetime military and began the process with which Australia shifted the focus of its foreign policy from Britain to the United States. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Herc in Australian service
Well the article's up now, and submitted for B-Class assessment first off. Also created a DYK nom here, so feel free to tweak or add an alternative (I'm aiming to review someone else's hook on Sunday)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian - and nice work fixing up that photo. I've just added a few more odds and ends to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, I don't know why I hadn't used Always There before -- must've confused it with Always First, which I have. BTW, for my next trick, I'll be creating articles for 90/91 (Composite) Wings, the ones specifically/temporarily created for Malaya and Korea. I think I finally have enough data from the usual disparate sources to take them on... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't use that book as often as I should either, which is a shame as it seems pretty good. It's good to see the links at List of Royal Australian Air Force wings turning blue, though I added another four yesterday! Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm going to try and flesh out the 84 and 92 Wing articles eventually as well -- planning to raid the Mitchell's collection of printed RAAF News copies to see if I can't nail down some dates and other useful info. BTW, the Herc article is now at GAN -- took the liberty of listing you as a co-nom so you can take your share of the credit or blame... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm planning a trip to the AWM Reference Centre in a few weeks time to consult a few really obscure books, including their manuscript which has the key dates and locations for all the RAAF units of World War II - please let me know if I can look anything up for you (I have the status of 86 Wing in 1945/46 on the list to check). Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good -- haven't been to the AWM for years as I haven't had occasion to travel to Canberra since my Defence contracting days, but I guess I should bite the bullet and just do it sometime... Till then, WWII wing orders of battle and especially establishment/disbandment dates would help. Aside from 86 Wing's disbandment (if applicable), what I need are:
 * 72 and 73 Wing disbandment dates/locations.
 * 75, 83, 84, and 85 Wing establishment/disbandment dates/locations, and OOBs at any given date/location.
 * 81 Wing establishment date/location.
 * The other wartime ones I've found on digitised unit histories from NAA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian, I'll add those to the list. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Found the 81 Wing info I wanted in an RAAF News in the Mitchell. Another issue indicated that 84 Wing formed on 11 September 1944 and disbanded in 1946, but locations for both those events and any OOB(s) mentioned will still be useful -- as will inaugural COs and any other notables serving with each of the wings I've noted. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, nice work. I hope that you didn't have to spend too long going through old newspapers for that information. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian: thankyou for intending to take a crack at Nos 90 and 91 Wings. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Whining about propaganda again
Nick-D,

In a recent comment on the MILHIST forum, I alluded to what I perceive to be a relatively common practice; that of the introduction of propaganda into the EN Wikipedia. This diff is an example of what I referred to. As a disclaimer, I'm an old guy whose roots are primarily Scottish and Walloon, so I hold no ties to either parties mentioned in the diff. But I find it curious the diff maintains an ethnic distinction in one case while in the other case, the ethnic distinction is simultaneously removed yet promoted to a more official ("government") status. To me, it subtly suggests that the one party deserved to get their tanks smacked by this missile because they were in conflict with the legitimate authority in the country. Am I just too damned sensitive about this kind of thing? I left the diff alone because it is not too blatant, I don't wish to appear to be a Wiki-crusader, and I agree with the quote at the top of your user page concerning arguments with anonymous entities of the internet. I would appreciate your views on this. If I'm overly sensitive to these kinds of edits, please advise. Thank you, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, That edit does seem to reflect a POV of some sort. I don't know much about the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia to know whether 'government' is accurate/common usage or not, but it clearly reflects a different viewpoint. This is all over the place though - for example, lots of our coverage of the Vietnam War is written from an American perspective in which the US troops are fighting people identified only as 'Communists', and I imagine that you wouldn't have to look too far to find a questionable use of 'terrorist' or 'aggressor' in articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm also fond of banging on about the problems with using German terms for WW2-era things for which perfectly good English-language equivalents exist on the grounds that they're imprecise and can have a mystique of sorts attached to them, but I've never won a great deal of support! To cut a long strong short, I don't think that there are any significant programs to deliberately insert biased wording, but this kind of thing does add up to be a significant problem and I personally favour using neutral and plain-English terms. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much and very well done: I've not even had the time to add a further note at WP:AIV that I've seen only a flash :-) . Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - I had a feeling that they'd keep coming back. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he'll back. Anyway, he's back, just to troll (again and again and again) in his talk. Could you please expand the block of Perrys Conscience (and, btw, MidTex) to the option cannot edit his talk page? Thanks. Could be useful to eventual further sockpuppets also. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur that TPA revocation for general trollishness is called for. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * beat me to it. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with editor
I have been involved with this[] only as a passerby attempting to help. I don't normally get involved with these things. I noticed on the users talk page you have been involved with this editor previously and I didn't know where else to go or how t go about this. User:G PViB has continued to editwar with the same issue and displays quite the attitude. If you are not the right person to handle can you please notify another admin to review? This guy just isn't getting it, unfortunately. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, has looked into this, and I agree with their response, including their warning for G_PViB to be civil. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Better picture for the Norma Redpath article
Thanks it really is a much better picture dnw (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - I'm pleased to have been of assistance. Next time I'm passing through with a proper camera (rather than a camera phone) I'll try to take a better photo. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Take it to the talk page"
Obviously I'm interested in engaging in a dialog on the talk page if there is consensus that the material (added by a community banned user) satisfies policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. You are, in fact, cordially invited to participate in that discussion. Thus far, however, contrary to your own advice, you and other editors seem to be interested only in edit-warring. Why is that exactly? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the aggressive post assuming bad faith? I wasn't aware that there was a post on the talk page - thank you for pointing it out. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvously a revert with an edit summary of "Take it to the talk page" when there is already a post on the talk page is totally inappropriate.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See above - I wasn't aware that there was a post on the talk page. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did it not occur to you to check?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do make mistakes occasionally you know. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments left at RfA
Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Buckshot06 talk page.
Thank you for your constructive comments in the ongoing discussion between myself and Buckshot06. However the issue is not one relating directly to an article being written or to specific edits. It is to a specific action that Buckshot06 failed to carry out in February of 2012 in relation to. I am still waiting for him to give any sign that he does understand what the actual issue is.Graham1973 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on Buckshot's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong answer. I see you missed the one person (Myself) who didn't take part in the February 2012 discussion because someone couldn't be bothered to notify them it was taking place. I cannot trust Buckshot06 for that reason.Graham1973 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

External link
Hi Nick-D, could you please give me the reasons as to why the external link was inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunksood (talk • contribs)
 * Because it had almost nothing to do with the subject of the article. Please see WP:EL. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi Nick-D, I'd like to ask you a question about this comment of yours please. You write: "Moreover, given that bans are only ever applied to people who have well and truly exhausted the community's patience..." So, my question is: what is "the community"? For example user Russavia is a member of the community, is he not? On the other hand you and other 3 users left one of the community's project because of Russavia:Jimbo Wales writes: "Russavia, this statement is so horrific that I am more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken. You should be ashamed. and so on, and so on. So, is this a good thing to "truly exhaust" Russavia's patience or is it a bad thing? Thanks. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure that I understand your question (which might be based on miss-reading my comment; bans are applied to editors who have exhausted the community's patience, and not as a way of punishing people per-se). As noted in my edit summary at Commons, I don't have a high opinion of Russavia and am not interested in being part of a project he's leading. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I just meant to demonstrate to you that it is incorrect to talk about exhausting the community's patience because there are actually two communities. There are thousands of users editing Wikipedia. Usually not more than 30 users participate in the community ban discussions. Usually the users who participate in the community ban discussions are the same users. The vast majority of the users have never taken a part in any community discussions especially in the community ban discussions. Because only 30 users or so participate in the community ban discussions, each vote matters. Russavia participates in the community ban discussions. His vote is taken into account. You do not have  a high opinion of Russavia, and you are not even interested in "being part of a project he's leading". Then you probably should not care about Russavia's vote in the community ban discussions, should you? Let's say that there are a few more users like Russavia who participate in the community ban discussions. Then we could assume that somebody who is banned by the community of russavias  probably was banned for doing a right thing, and certainly was not banned by the community of Wikipedia. Regards. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a dodgy local consensus is always a problem. I've never seen it occur in relation to a community ban though in all my years here, and hopefully it's never happened. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Owen Gun
Hi, Nick -

Regarding your recent comments on my edits to the Owen Gun article, I would like to make the following inquiry: supposing an editor such as myself does see a weapon credited to one military or another in a firearms museum, is there any way he can use this as a source for an article? I have provided the photograph of the exhibit in question (part of a larger display which included several submachine guns, all supposedly ex-RhSF) but apparently that wasn't enough. The image seems to have been accepted without difficulty by former RhSF veterans I remain in contact with, and the camo scheme - a uniquely Rhodesian SOP type - appears quite authentic.

Perhaps I can get a qualified individual to verify the authenticity of both picture and weapon?

--Katangais (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Did you see that exhibit yourself, and what museum is it in? (and does this museum have a reputation for historical accuracy?). I can't find anything on the internet which confirms that Rhodesian forces used the Owen Gun, and a written source would be much superior. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've actually seen the exhibit in person - it's at the RSA National Museum of Military History at Saxonwald, Jo-burg. Their official webpage: http://www.ditsong.org.za/militaryhistory.htm.
 * Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that's a reliable source. I'd suggest citing the museum display you saw directly then rather than a photobucket image. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions on how I could cite the exhibit directly? --Katangais (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of the name of the exhibit and the date you viewed it would do the job (eg, something like 'National Museum of Military History, Firearms gallery, as at XX Month Year). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Schwarzkopf
Made some changes. Take a look: Featured article candidates/Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr./archive1 — Ed! (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Take another look. — Ed! (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have made a third effort at it. — Ed! (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: this article; I've done some looking around for additional sources, but I can't find anything else biography-wise in either the library or books.google. Is there any source you'd suggest? — Ed! (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the rush
Hi Nick-D, I'm Sabretoothbeast, I'm apologize regarding to the photos copyright issues that you have warned me. But as an Admin, you should not use your power to block an account easily about issues that is not related to your country (even if it not irrelevant to Wikipedia), but i do respect your effort as an Admin to preserve the rules on this site. So, to make sure the longevity of my account i will try not to do the same mistake again. —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, great. There is no restriction whatsoever on admins responding to issues in articles concerning countries other than their own, and there's actually a general expectation that admins will work across all articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Teardrop
Hi Nick, my apologies for not noticing that the bot hadn't told you about this article's main page appearance. I don't know why it didn't and it didn't occur to me to check whether the bot had missed this part of its regular task. And further apologies for the duff image - it looked better than the alternatives but I didn't appreciate the image status problems. Thanks for an interesting article, though - I thought it would be appropriate for VE Day to have something from WW2 and the timing of the Operation fitted nicely. Regards, BencherliteTalk 15:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was a good choice (though I am biased!), and accidents happen. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Input request
Hello Nick-D

I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Since I value your judgment as an administrator, perhaps you could look at this and give us your opinion?  It went unnoticed, but it's a serious problem with someone putting Nazi references into articles. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As your RSN thread was structured in such a way that it strongly directed uninvolved editors to conclude that the source was 'Nazi', I don't have any confidence in the results of that discussion I'm afraid. RSN threads should lay out the basic details, and seek genuinely fresh opinions. I'm unfamiliar with these source and don't speak Polish or German so I can't undertake my own assessment. As such, I'm not willing to follow up on this by sanctioning that editor. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do note that these are definitely sources from Nazi Germany and are not involved in RSN thread you pointed out (both are examples of publications from Nazi Germany the user adds to articles) And now we also have claims in line with Nazi propaganda that creating Polish Corridor was a crime and insinuations that people researching Nazi war crimes have "low motives" Also while I understand that you don't speak Polish or German, we have German admin who confirmed that the user was banned on German wiki and operates a sock farm. He speaks English, so if you have any questions it might be worthwhile to ask him. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC) /font>]]
 * Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
 * Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935

User:Rmuney
Smart move. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the comment Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI
Hi Nick - I have made some comments at Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71 that might be of interest. Would love to hear back from you - really keen to get back to contributing. tim (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

World War II casualties of the Soviet Union
An edit war seems to be brewing over at World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. An anonymous IP in Moscow keeps inserting unsourced rant into the lead paragraph. You may want to consider protecting the page if this persists.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just warned them for edit warring, and will block them if this continues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another anonymous IP just plugged in a big section of POV rant based on OR, on Russian Wikipedia they protected the article--Woogie10w (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since May 5th these people have gangbanged the article seven times with POV rant--Woogie10w (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This was my post at talk--Woogie10w (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

DavidYorke71 and Timothypgraham
Hi Nick. DeltaQuad's given a checkuser result at Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71 which confirms Timothypgraham = Tim-m-m-m-m (which we already knew, plus Timg231, of course). Howeever, checkuser suggests that it's this group is related to DavidYorke71. Given that Yorke's previous socks have generally been flagged fairly easily by CU, I'm inclined to give Tim the benefit of the doubt; I shared your suspicion of his edits, but his explanations seem plausible to me in the light of DeltaQuad's findings. I therefore propose unblocking his oldest account (Tim-m-m-m-m) and leaving the other two blocked. What do you think? Yunshui 雲 ‍ 水  08:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have just unblocked. Thanks for following up on this report. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Grand, glad we agree. I'll go archive the SPI now. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive proposal for June
FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for that very kind comment, and thanks also for your work modernising the references in the World War II article - I've been meaning to do this for ages, but have never gotten around to it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Australian Military history (WWII)
Hello Nick,

have you seen this? I just startet translating the article into German (here) and was a little confused about that reference as I couldnt find details about it. Maybe you can help me with this one? Thanks --Bomzibar (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another point, I thought you mixed the publication year of two books in the section Air war over Europe and fixed it but as I started translation and looked at the use of the books, is it possible that the years were correct and you mixed the authors Stevens and Stephens? --Bomzibar (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mix those up a bit :o 'Stevens' is solely about the submarine and anti-submarine operations around Australia, and Stephens is about the RAAF's campaigns. The 'Stevens (2006)' references should have been to 'Stephens (2006)', so your edits have unfortunately made the problem worse. Could you please revert them? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just made this fix - thanks for spotting this! Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I ask first next time. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Skywhale
The DYK project (nominate) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible Bugle contribution
Hi Nick. I just saw your request for contributions over at the milhist talk page. I have knocked together a review of the last book I read at User:Dumelow/Sandbox2. If you feel it is suitable I am happy for it to be included in this months or a future edition. I would be grateful if you could check it over for grammar/style etc. as this is the first such writing I have done (not sure it it is a bit long?). Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. That's an excellent review, and I've posted it at WikiProject Military history/News/May 2013/Book reviews - feel free to edit it further. I've been reading that book on and off for a bit over a year now - it's very good, but the level of detail is pretty daunting! Windrow's earlier work The Last Valley is one of the best military history books I've ever read. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

8th Route Army
Hi Nick,

Eighth Route Army has been vandalized again with the same Malay nonsense. This diff looks like the last valid version. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've just turned on pending changes for that article for a six month period to stop this idiot. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign
G'day, Nick, I've requested a peer review for Gallipoli Campaign. If you have a free moment, would you mind taking a look? The review page is hear: Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll post some comments (though I don't actually know that much about this campaign, despite being an Australian war history nerd...). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bugle/FAC
Hi mate, just tweaked the op-ed, feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Plenty there that struck a chord, especially re. Omaha. I don't know if you want to quote Les Carlyon's "You must see the ground", but I always liked its simple directness. Once I've added awards from April, are you right for this issue to go out? Unrelated, could I trouble you to delete an out-of-process FAC page for me? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, Given that I've (strongly) opposed at least one of the previous FA nominations of KFC by that editor, it would probably be best if another admin handled that task (it's an uncontroversial task, but if I perform it the editor might misinterpret the action). I'm happy for the Bugle to go - I have Carlyon's book on the Western Front, but am yet to read it (everyone says it's great, but it's so huge!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Page deleted! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good old talk page stalkers -- tks Ed! Nick, no prob, quite understand. Re. Carlyon, yeah, it is big, have to admit I've only read the intro myself, but that's where the quote was... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks also from me Ed. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great op-ed, Nick. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Nick-D, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Military History talk page that you are one of the coordinators for the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm interested, but I'm a bit wary of emailing editors without a lengthy contribution history as this reveals my email address. Could you please provide me with a link to more information about this survey? I'd be interested to know more about a) who you are b) what the purpose of the survey is c) why you're conducting it and d) what the privacy arrangements you're operating under are. From your user page it appears that you're a student at a well regarded university, and the well regarded university I attend requires ethics clearances, information handouts for participants, etc, so I'd appreciate seeing more information to guide my decision on whether to participate or not. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, I send you an email explaining the purpose of the survey and some information about myself. I also send you the survey questions. If possible, you could response to the survey using email or just reply on my wiki talk page. Thank you very much for your interest and time! Best regards. Xiangju (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sacred historical places
Nick,

Regarding your latest article in the history monthly The Bugle. The photo with the words "Historic Area: No games, picnics or sunbathing," reminded me of the time I toured the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. I was speaking to a friend while we were inside the Alamo, and one of the lady volunteers rushed over and whispered to me, "Please speak more quietly, this is a sacred place."

I look at her for a second or two, and then replied, "Yes I know, I saw the Jim Bowie and Davey Crockett salt and pepper shakers in the gift shop." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a great story! Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nexus 7 FAC
Hi, I believe I have addressed all your issues at Featured article candidates/Nexus 7/archive1. Could you please have a look? Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do - sorry about the slow response (I remembered that I'd forgotten to follow up on this on my way to work this morning!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals
Hi Nick. I've opened a peer review for List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals with the aim of improving to to A-Class and possibly FL standard, and was hoping that if you had a spare minute you could take a look? Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maskirovka
Thanks for the assistance, its people like you with good common sense that keep me here on Wikipedia after seven years. Notice how the users IP address keeps shifting, Russian Maskirovka may be at work here.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind comment! Engaging with subject matter experts such as yourself are one of the things which keeps me here. While some vandals deliberately hop between IP addresses, it's becoming increasingly common for ISPs to allocate different IPs when people log in and out (which some editors use to attempt to evade blocks). Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bau sekali...
Hi there - thanks for that. Incidently, "bau sekali" means "smells bad". mature hey. I've tried to get the guy to talk about his edits. no luck. see Jepara Regency. --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - I'm actually rather shocked to learn that it's possible for anyone other than bureaucrats (or at least admins) to completely redirect user pages in that way. That looks like the usual list of random facts which blight articles on Indonesia, so removing it would be a good idea... Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Base user pages should not be moveable by default... who would want to move them except vandals? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

NZ Articles
Nick - just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your input on the New Zealand articles you have been looking at over the past couple of days. It is very refreshing and reassuring to have an editor of your experience come through and independently help sort some of these articles out - many of us have been battling for some months to try and improve the quality of them, all too often without success. Clarke43 (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I'm trying to get a feel for how big an issue this is, and it seems to be pretty big. The BLP violations are particularly concerning. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It may become apparent that many of the issues on the articles come back to a single editor. It is frustrating as he has outed himself as having COI in the NZ Justice sector and admits that he has strong bias but then goes on to make major edits in support of that bias (including self-referencing his self published book) - time and time again on a wide range of Justice and crime related articles. A search on the history on various noticeboards, talk pages and mediation pages brings up the same issues with him over and over again, but unfortunately nothing has come of it so far. Clarke43 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm thinking that a topic ban is probably necessary given that this is an ongoing problem. The proposal for this will need to be supported by diffs to demonstrate the COI and problems, as well as evidence of previous interventions having failed. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you need help pulling this together - please don't hesitate to ask. Clarke43 (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do - I'm pretty certain that I will need help from editors with longer experience in this matter. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Walters FAC
Nick, okay if we move your resolved comments to the FAC talk page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No worries - thanks for posting the remembrance. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Attack on international brigades on WWII article
Great spot. I saw the edits come in, but didn't bother to check them.

I rolled my eyes when I saw the root of the problem: Rjensen's uncritical use (I lack the evidence to impute anything more serious, though he would hardly be the first to let personal views get the better of him) of Stanley Payne. In the intro to the book Rjensen was relying on, Franco and Hitler, Payne offers praise for... you bet, Gabriel Jackson. Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship. Interesting how people like Antony Beevor can mention and take account of criticism of Jackson (from his The Battle for Spain: "[T]he struggle within the Repulican alliance has provoked major arguments, of which the most famous was Noam Chomsky's critique in American Power and the New Mandarins of Gabriel Jackson's history of the war. Chomsky attacked the book for its assumption of the 'official' standpoint and its reliance on testimony of Republican ministers and army officers, who have felt a need to justify their support of communist power."), yet Payne felt unable to do so. In this regard, he is below Jackson himself (from the lead into Chomsky's criticism in APNM):

"It is no criticism of Jackson's study that his point of view and sympathies are expressed with such clarity. On the contrary, the value of this work as an interpretation of events is enhanced by the fact that the author's commitments are made so clear and explicit. But I think it can be shown that Jackson's account of the popular revolution that took place in Spain is misleading and in part quite unfair, and that the failure of objectivity it reveals is highly significant in that it is characteristic of the attitude taken by liberal (and Communist) intellectuals towards revolutionary movements."

Overall, no surprise to see Payne crop up in an attack on the internationals. LudicrousTripe (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Op-ed
I have a preliminary draft here, but I could use some feedback. I'm working at Western Playland every day this week, so I will be slowly to get back to you but any feedback you can offer on what's there would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I expanded the material a little and did some linking, though as before I could use some feedback if you get a minute. If you like it lemme know and I'll be happy to move it where its suppose to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks really good Tom. As a suggestion, the statement that "While active work is only occurring on Phase I" isn't completely accurate - there is some work on other stages, though this is dwarfed by the continuing effort on the ships (for instance, I've been slowly working on Operation Tungsten and some articles on battleship guns have been appearing at GAN recently). Thanks for developing this so quickly! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not so sure about the picture caption, it gives the impression that most of the FAs are American, but that certainly isn't the case&mdash;the US actually needs to catch up! Even four years ago, when the majority of the FAs were US (Nevada, the Iowa-class battleships, and Montana-class battleship, they weren't that far ahead&mdash;Parsecboy had some of the German battleships/cruisers going already (e.g. SMS Von der Tann). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good article, Tom, although I'd like to make a few suggestions. I don't really expect that people will be working on things in the sequence that you envision as we finish up with the ships. I suspect that I'm one of the few that actually find the guns and weapons articles interesting enough to work on, so I think that people will work on whatever tweaks their interest, regardless of the phase. The biggest news, IMO, is that we're only one article and a list from finishing up Battlecruisers of the world, a 63-article topic. The next two closest topics to being finished are Russian and French BBs, so the US is sadly lacking in that respect although it's gotten some needed attention in the last couple of months. Topic boxes for all three are visible on my sandbox page if anyone is interested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had no more suggestions for how to improve the Op-ed piece, so all that's left is moving the page to its destination. Can you give me the link where the Op-ed should go? Once I have that I can move the page and it'll be all yours for polishing my sp&g errors and publication in The Bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Question RE A/GA class ratings
Gidday Nick, a quick question RE A/GA class ratings for you (having a number of A-class articles under your belt). An editor, an admin no less, has changed the class ratings for Talk:Alexander Godley from A-class back down to GA (although the Milhist rating still shows as being A-class due to the A-class pass tag). When this particular article passed ACR I bumped up the WP NZ rating to A-class to match the Milhist rating and from a quick review of other Milhist A-class articles, it seems most are also A-class for other projects without having gone through a specific ACR for those projects. If an article passes a Milhist ACR, is it appropriate to upgrade the ratings for other projects or not? Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, That's a good question. The A-class ratings are specific to projects, but many projects recognise one-another's ratings as a matter of course (especially when these are the result of a formal review process). I don't think that WP:NZ has an A-class rating process, and only three articles are listed as being of this quality on its main page. I'd suggest raising this with the other editor or (possibly better still) at WT:NZ to see if there's agreement for this project to recognise the military history project's ratings. I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Ships and WP:Aviation made formal agreements with MilHist long ago to recognise each other's A-Class ratings. WP:Australia and WP:Biography seem to recognise MilHist's A-Class ratings as well, but I've never seen any formal consensus for those. The point is, there's reasonable precedent for WP:NZ formally accepting MilHist's A-Class assessment, but you may need to generate consensus among the members. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, I have left a query on the WP:NZ talkpage regarding this. There doesn't seem to be any formal ACR process over there and I would think that the rigorous Milhist ACR process would be quite satisfactory for the project. Zawed (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to a discussion you had
Please see Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki Boundarylayer (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

C-130 ACR/FAC
Hi mate, FYI, since I've 78 and 84 Wings at ACR and you have C-17, I was going to wait for 78 to pass before nominating C-130 -- but it looks too damn good to leave sitting around so I'll probably do it this w/e anyway! Just expanding 36 Sqn now (great minds, I see you've taken care of 38 already) so I'll see if anything else apropos C-130s comes up there and then I might kick it off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, that sounds good - there isn't much purpose in waiting to nominate the C-130 article. I'm thinking of taking the No. 38 Squadron article to GA, so please let me know if you spot anything I've missed there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect I'll do the same with 36 Sqn, so ditto... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. The new infobox image just reminded me, I think it'd be good to use crests where possible but the only 38 Sqn one I've seen lately is tiny and probably not worth the trouble. If one of us finds a better version, think it'd be worth using (36 Sqn's on the RAAF site is excellent, same quality as the 33 Sqn one I added to that article not long ago). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should be aiming for consistency here. By the way, I have a memory of reading recently that the Government had decided to retain No. 38 Squadron's King Airs, but I can't find this anywhere. Can you remember seeing it? Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez, you got me there. I'd been looking in vain for something suggesting the RAAF would get more than 10 C-27s (the implication being that they'd replace 38 Sqn's King Airs as well as re-equip 35 Sqn) but hadn't -- are you saying there was such a plan but not any more? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I remember seeing is that the government had decided to retain the King Airs as light transports once the 10 C-27s enter service on the grounds that they'd proven to be a useful and cost-effective capability. I suspect that I've miss-remembered, or saw this on a dubious source as I can't see anything on it on the Defence websites. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, just finished (for now at least) expanding 36SQN. I'll put it up for GAN but not ACR as yet (will add detail on maintenance history at the very least before considering that). I suppose it'd be logical for us to each review the other's at GAN but perhaps we should avoid even the semblance of QPQ. At the very least we should check each other's for consistency since the two squadrons had such an intertwined history for a while, even becoming effectively the same unit once or twice...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I've just calculated that if I add another 400 characters or so it'll qualify for fivefold-expansion DYK -- so maybe I'll add some maint history sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Success -- fivefold expansion, and it all came down to a bit of routine maintenance... ;-) Now, thinking about DYK hook, it looks to me like the Linda Corbould article was never at DYK (at least according to its talk page). Is that correct to your recollection? If so, I think it'd be a great opportunity to get that article and 36SQN on the front page -- just let me know so I can write up the DYK nom one way or t'other... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work! The Corbould article was never on the front page, and her leadership of the unit would make a great hook. I'm planning to work on the 38 Sqn article over the weekend, and will nominate it for GA status. I need to add something on it being merged with 36 Sqn. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(od) Hi mate, the ACR could be closing shortly, are you happy for it to be nominated at FAC straight afterwards, and with a similar nom statement? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, I've figured out what happened to the C-130Es, and will add that later today. Once that's in I'd be pleased for this to go straight to FAC when the ACR concludes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added (I stumbled across the key reference a few weeks ago while browsing a recent magazine! - talk about good timing). Do you think that it's worth separating out the material on the retirement of each type now that the topic is fully covered? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, Nick! Re. reorg, heh, the idealist says yep, the pragmatist says no way after what looks like a successful ACR -- gimme a chance to read it again and I'll see which of those wins out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, had another look (and tweaked a couple of things) -- pragmatism aside, I think only the C-130A disposal sticks out a bit, the others are relatively short and fit in pretty seamlessly, so not sure we need to break 'em out after all (the next question is just where we'd put the section or subsection anyway). So happy to leave the structure as is unless you feel strongly about it or until a reviewer suggests we change it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was puzzling over how to turn this into a separate section this morning, and didn't come up with a genuinely satisfactory solution. The best option would probably be a 'disposal' section at the end of the article, but that might look a bit clunky. As such, I agree to leave things as they are unless there's a few complaints (or someone comes up with a better idea!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That title and position in the article was in fact the best I could come up with as well, and given the type is still a going concern it didn't thrill me either... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's FACed -- don't forget that if you want to keep the momentum going with the C-17 article, it's okay to take it to FAC as well since you'd have only one solo and one co-nom there (I may well solo-nom Hely as soon as it completes ACR). We'll just owe FAC a lot of reviews (on which I'm sure we'll make good)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian (thanks also for the suggestion on nominating the C-17 article; I've been sitting on the fence with that one). Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well obviously it's shorter than the C-130 or F-18 service articles but the type's been around a much shorter time. Seven years is long enough though, I think, for this to go to FAC, especially since it was deemed enough for ACR. Regardless of future details, the structure should stay the same. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(od) Well congrats, we did it, C-130s now FA -- might have to start thinking about another one (there's always Caldwell I guess!)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, thought it might be worth trying this even though joint awards are pretty much unheard of... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

War dead desecration
I'm undoing you're removing of the context paragraph I added. There were references included. Nothing I wrote is surprising or new or hardly in need of a reference. Context is pretty important, especially in such a subject. It is like yelling, "Fire!" without mentioning it's outside in a fireplace. Desecration of war dead is a real phenomenon; I have no objection to including reports of it in WP. On the other hand, anybody can use WP for a soapbox. Eventually, however, this dilute its value and hurts those who contribute, including you and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasCreek (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no references whatsoever in the material you've just restored, so that's not true. Please provide some citations to support your claim that the subject of the article is merely "gallows humour". I tend to agree with you that this article is overblown (it was created by a POV pusher and used to be much worse: at one stage the article was arguing that most American troops went around chopping the heads off Japanese troops), but you need to provide citations. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

All the references were to WP pages, appearing as normal WP links, including the definition of gallows humor, which is obviously one end of the spectrum of the motivations. The original writers include a long litany of motivations, mostly as pejorative as possible. Neither they nor I were there during the incidents. Was it due to racism or due to the fact that many of the kids were about to die or had just seen their bosom buddy shot through the head by an enemy far more tenacious than expected? The writers cannot compare the European war (Army, large-unit action) to the Pacific island campaign (mostly Marines, in vicious small-unit assaults). As to your deletion of my remarks, which are truly mild, well-referenced, and obvious to most historians of the war, are you trying to suppress dissent? As I said, I am putting the article in context, which is essential in reporting on stories from the past. Sorry, but I'm undoing you're unjustified deletion. Spend your time deleting some of the rest of the article, which hides behind cherry-picked references. SilasCreek (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Please don't do that. Wikipedia articles can't be used to reference one another, and you need to provide citations to external references (eg, books, reliable websites, etc). I'm not going to defend the content of the article, and I agree with you that it's cherry picked (it does largely reflect the sources on this, though they're not what I'd consider particularly good quality academic works - all seem to have been written by people with axes to grind). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings
Hello Nick, Could I ask you to have another look at the Normandy landings article? Editor Syngmung is getting close to a edit war and is reverting the deletion of rape allegations with strange comments. The base of these allegations is only one recently published book on the Normandy Campaign (not landings) and a review of same. I have to say that this "editor" seems to have an unhealthy obsession with rape, looking at his editing history. Would be glad of your imput/action. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, This guy seems to be on a crusade to prove that American soldiers are frequent rapists, and is edit warring all over the place. He's been warned for this previously, and I'd strongly recomend that you lodge a report at WP:AN3 given that the edit warring is persisting. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings
Hello Nick, Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I have added my comments to your complaint. I must say that this "editor" does seem to have an unhealthy interest in rape and is pushing POV. As you will see from the Normandy landings Talk page, I did get another admin involved - it may be an idea to request his views on the latest developments. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

procedural question on Rape during the liberation of France
I hope I haven't created a mess by starting a deletion discussion without going through proper procedures. What happens if the result of the discussion is to delete an incubate? Can the deletion be done without a formal nomination at Articles for deletion? Should it be formally nominated now or after the discussion has run it's course or does it need to be formally nominated at all? Thank you for any advice you can give.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, If the consensus is to incubate (as seems likely at present), an uninvolved admin should be able to do this - I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators asking for an admin who is also a coordinator to volunteer for this. If the conclusion is 'delete' then this will probably need to go to an AfD discussion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Then I'll refrain from complicating things further with a formal AfD.  Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar
Hi Nick, you'll recall that you contributed to the FA review of History of Gibraltar few months ago. I've nominated it at TFAR for July 13, the tercentenary of Gibraltar becoming a British territory. If you have any thoughts on this you're very welcome to comment at Today's featured article/requests. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for No. 38 Squadron RAAF
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverts
Well there seems to have been a nasty quasi edit war created on the Australian Greens page ever since you reverted me. ( As a side note, normal users are people too like administrators)

I only edit wikipedia on a very part time basis and had completely forgotten about the three revert rule. User Bidgee is also engaged in this edit war.

Since Bidgee is using your wanting the pictures in as a reason to repeatedly revert me, could you explain your position and how it is backed by policy?

The pictures would seem to go against recentism, undue weight and the precedents set on other Australian political party pages, such as the ALP or the Liberals.

Please explain.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm not the one who's edit warring (and I have commented in the talk page discussion). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well could you comment again and offer some policy based reasons for your viewpoint. I wasn't aware we were allowed to so blatantly violate established policies as soon as we got two people to agree to it, even if one of them calls themselves an 'administrator'.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  10:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to have discussions about article content, but not with people who throw accusations of bad faith around. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for dealing with the latest stalker. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries Bob. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You (Vietnamese: Cảm ơn) Nguyen QuocTrung (talk)18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC+7)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Microconsole DYK
I spent a good amount of time sprucing up microconsole per your suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/Microconsole. Could you please take a second look at the DYK nom when you have a chance? czar  &middot;   &middot;  19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working with me—I appreciate your patience czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - it's an interesting article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

re edit summary
regarding diff, "the 'Currently' section is certain to be years out of date". Sadly, it isn't out of date, is that bad? :3 Although since the assessment I have gone through and added, changed, tweaked a lot of content (before and after). Thank you, —  - dain   omite    20:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Victor Lundula
I've just spun this short stub on the first armed forces chief of staff of the Democratic Republic of the Congo out from the main armed forces (FARDC) article, and a new editor has listed it as CSD G7. Would you please mind taking a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Crime in New Zealand Article
Nick - I had a look over this article after noticing that 'JaggerAgain' had reverted some of your edit. I have re-performed that edit as I agree with you, and also took out more material that seems highly editorialised from that section. After reading the rest of the article I've put NPOV and bias tags on it as it seems to be pushing a particular agenda and needs a good re-write. After viewing the previous contributions that 'JaggerAgain' has made it will be interesting to see what and how they contribute to other NZ Political/Justice/Crime related articles.... Clarke43 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I agree that that article has major problems. Given the significance of these topics and the rampant bias in the wording, it seems best to remove large chunks rather than to attempt to rework such slanted material. Of late there's been concern about Wikipedia's "voice" being used to push various POVs, and the material submitted by Offender is often a good example of these problems. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

DYK for No. 41 Squadron RNZAF
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...
You wrote: "I note that Geo Swan, who is the article's creator and primary editor, has a long history of violating WP:BLP1E by creating articles on people held at Guantanamo Bay, and came close to being banned for creating a list of living 'alleged terrorists'."

I strongly disagree with this characterization of my activities.

I did start articles on Guantanamo captives -- mainly in 2006 -- long before there was a WP:BLP policy. Some of those articles no longer measure up to the more demanding policies and standards current now.

But, since they measured up to the standards current at the time I started them I am not now, nor have I ever been a serial violator of BLP or any other policy. I believe practically everyone who has examined my contribution history with a truly open mind recognizes this. Geo Swan (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not at all true: as a single example, you created David Conn (judge) last year as a WP:COATRACK based around a living person. You also did very little to clean up the other articles until they started to be mass deleted last year (despite earlier requests that you do so, including as the result of Requests for comment/Geo Swan) and have typically argued in favour of their retention during AfD discussions, even when it was clear that this was a lost cause. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you check some recent edits?
On Lai Đại Hàn. I'm not familiar with the topic, but you seem more likely to be. By tone alone, that article strikes me as another nationalist battleground. There are no English sources in the article, which usually spells trouble for this kind of bilateral disputes, as well as impeding verification by editors more likely to be neutral. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, That's not actually a topic I know anything about, and as I can't read Korean I'm unable to check the sources. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination of No. 38 Squadron RAAF
The article which was nominated by you is successfully promoted to GA. Suri 100 (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mutsu GA review
Don't forget about this. I think that I've responded to all of the issues that you identified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk

 * Thanks Tony Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

June backlog drive
Hi. I have been adding photos to bio articles - thinking that this was part of the drive. But I notice today that the drive is only looking for Military History articles - am I correct? g Gbawden (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the drive's criteria are articles which fall into the scope of the Military History Wikiproject. The project's scope is very wide though, if it helps. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock?

 * Nick, could you head over to User talk:The Bushranger/Archive20, Me and Bill we are having strong suspicion that the said newbie isn't one and could well be someone who has been blocked/banned and is now lurking all over PH related article pages you and I know but using new usernames to evade his block and avoid attracting attention, though not trying hard enough. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

More sock at PhAF

 * Hi Nick, please see, call it my gut instinct but my klaxon is going off on this guy now. This happens especially when a newly registered editor starts off his first edit with an input to his own user page, and his subsequent edits are that on a level that is way too advanced for a novice editor. Only a returning sock fits that profile perfectly, but which one? Do you think its the one we talked about recently? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

OMT Op-ed
We're creeping up on 16 June, and since I keep long hours at work on the weekend and subsequently crash on Monday to recover I wanted to get the Op-ed in its place before I get saddled with weekend work. I haven't seen a reply in the above section about where the piece should be moved, so I am hoping that a fresh topic heading will help us finish the piece by getting it moved where it needs to be in time for publication. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, Asking you if this was ready was on my to-do list for the weekend :) I'll move it across now - you can continue to edit it until The Bugle is published if you see anything which needs to be changed. Thanks again for writing it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies Tom, I saw the earlier thread here, had a quick look and enjoyed the piece, and was going to move it shortly afterwards but obviously got distracted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been posted at WikiProject Military history/News/June 2013/Op-ed Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, then, we are ready to read and roll! Thanks for the help and for the move, and I hope that the membership will enjoy the piece (its my first op-ed, or at least the first built from scratch op-ed I've done for milhist, so I'm a little nervous :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Pig Bristle
The DYK project (nominate) 09:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

RNZAF Squadrons
Thanks, its arisen mostly out of work I've been doing on WWII bases in the South Pacific Mztourist (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Too big a stick?
Hi Nick. I'm currently looking at the unblock request at User talk:76.166.144.21. It looks to me as though this IP was blocked for a single edit - whilst I don't dispute that it was a BLP violation (and reverting and revdeling it was an appropriate course of action) a week's block for what, as far as I can tell, was a first offence seems a bit heavy-handed to me - I'd have expected a warning, rather than a block, for something like that. We're all fans of the mantra that blocks are supposed to be preventative, but I can't see any evidence that there's anything being prevented here; the IP didn't attempt to replace their comment, and hadn't made any other edits on the subject. Have I perhaps overlooked something? If not, would you be amenable to lifting or reducing the block? Yunshui 雲 ‍ 水  08:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the editor says in their unblock statement that "no policies were violated" and then expresses a desire to continue this post ("what kind of creep freaks out over a legitimate discussion on the talk page for the article? Perhaps someone had sourceable information on the matter"). I don't think that it would be a good idea to unblock. The subject of this article is a fairly obscure person who attracts heated and obsessive abuse for his views in various internet forums, so hence jumping straight to a one week block. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll grant that it wasn't the best unblock request ever made ("I did nothing wrong! Admin abuse!" always works so well as an appeal), but I'm afraid I'm still not sure I'd agree with the reasoning behind the original block. The last edit of any kind to Talk:Carlo Kopp prior to the IP's was in September last year, and the last disruptive edit to the article itself was nearly two years ago. I'm not sure that the heated discussions elsewhere on the web have any bearing on the Wikipedia page; certainly it doesn't seem to be subject to any sort of systematic abuse, at least not in the last couple of years. Just as we don't apply page protection to pre-empt a potential problem, so we shouldn't be blocking people without at least some tangible evidence that they pose some sort of threat to Wikipedia. If the same comment - or a defense of it - reappeared after a warning, then fair enough, but blocking as a first move seems excessive.
 * I don't want to bust your balls over this. Generally I see nothing but good actions from your quarter (your recent actions regarding User:WorldTraveller101 had my utmost support, for example), but much as I hate to say it, this looks to me like a bad block . Maybe I'm just too trusting, who knows... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, after a bit of thinking, I've declined the unblock request. Whether the original block was correct or not, you're right that the unblock request could be construed as a suggestion of future intent to disrupt (and it's totally non-compliant with WP:GAB). It's therefore in Wikipedia's best interest to keep the block in place. Sorry to have taken up your time. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback - I will take it on board (as the note at the top of the page says, I have no delusions of perfection). I'd have no problem at all with that account being unblocked if they made a commitment to abide by WP:BLP - blocks should only remain in place for the minimum time necessary to avoid disruption. I think that you have me mixed up with in relation to the WorldTraveller101 block BTW. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops; yes, I do. You really should differentiate yourself from him somehow: why not put a -D on the end of your name or something so that we can tell the two of you apart? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * *Unlurked* Nick Dowling... I'm feeling rather awkward now and shall remove myself from your page until such time it is again required of me to resurface for some fresh air (D: Yup, we're all suffering here in Singapore from this →dreadful hazy air← that's caused by Indonesian's burning and clearing of rainforest area in Sumatra now.) . Toodles~! ... *poof!* -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, cheers Dave. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attacks?
Would you like to back up your personal attack at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know with some actual evidence? This isn't the first personal attack I've asked you to back up, but which you have ignored. I would sincerely suggest that you step back, and stop making such attacks against myself, because I am now collating diffs against yourself for future possible use -- i.e. I am not going to be the subject of continual personal attacks without a shred of evidence on this project any longer. Russavia (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Thanks for threatening me! Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying there. I still believe it's a personal attack, in that the links you show are unashamed personal attacks by parties involved. I don't like collecting diffs on others, just as I don't like personal attacks and other incivility being directed against me by people who don't know me, don't interact with me, don't assume good faith with me, etc, etc. You have certainly made use of my uploads in the past on aviation topics, so perhaps there's some common ground -- just like Commons:COM:MELLOW suggests. If you are unable to interact with me in a civil manner, I can only encourage you to back off and perhaps forget about me. I am taking your talk page off my watchlist, so if there is any reply I will not see it, but my talk page is open if you wish to discuss things in an AGF civil manner. Russavia (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... yeah, that wasn't anywhere near a personal attack. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen here and at Commons, Russavia often responds to justified criticism of his actions by making accusations and threats such as the above. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation
G'day Nick, while working on the GOCE Milhist blitz, I came across this article: Beeline March to Cambridge. During a search for sources on Google Books, I found that it is a copyright violation of A History of Jefferson County, West Virginia (1719-1940)'', pp. 27-29, by Millard Kessler Bushong. I have tagged it for deletion as it appears to have been created initially as a copyright violation, so I don't think there is any chance of salvaging it. Would you mind taking a look and, if you agree with my tagging, delete the article? If I haven't tagged it correctly, please let me know what I should do about it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree completely with your assessment - it was lifted from a book which should still be copyright protected in the US, and there's no good version to revert to. As such, I've deleted it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. Have a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Smith A-class
Sorry for the presumptiveness, I hope you will excuse it. Thank you for the cheerful note on reversion! :) Have a nice Sunday. —Cliftonian (talk)</b> 08:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all - the system is a bit confusing, and the coordinators (including myself from time to time) often place these stories in the wrong months' editions. If this is promoted to both FA and A-class status in June it will save Ian and I some work ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Book review
As there are currently three book reviews for the upcoming issue of The Bugle I just wanted to tell you to feel free to move my review to the following issue so that there is already one. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bomzibar, We've managed to attract at least one review from someone other than me over the last few months, so I'm optimistic that there will be at least two reviews next month as well. As such, I'll leave your review in this month's edition. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. BTW, Nick, I'm ready to despatch the issue unless you want to add/tweak anything further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, I just made a few minor changes, and this is now ready to go. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

MILHIST scope
Hi! After looking at MILHIST scope description, I assumed that a civilian protest march against army demanding an end to a siege would not qualify for MILHIST coverage. I'm having second thoughts because the siege was indeed lifted days after the protest (not necessarily because of the protest, but it looks that way). The article in question is 1991 protest in Split. Could you please let me know what do you think? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, The project has traditionally taken a broad view of its scope to include anything with a solid link to military history (which in turn includes the social aspects of warfare and the military). I think that protests against military forces such as this are clearly in-scope. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Earl of Oxford
Nick, I just noticed that you are listening in, in fact I'd placed a request for help on my talk page. I'd welcome your advice. I certainly don't want any more blocks or bans. It's not worth it over this point, I'd just leave the article alone. You have just seen my latest edit. I certainly don't think Tom Reedy's behaviour is acceptable. Paul seems rather more reasonable. I think there is a significant minority viewpoint which ought to be acknowledged in the interests of fairness. Tom seems to wish to censor any reference to the fact that their are now University courses in Britain and America which promote questioning of Stratfordian authorship. The reference to the Holocaust is from [] As you see the one thing I am passionate about is 'fairness' - I'm not especially an Oxfordian. Thanks Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Nick, I'm not sure it was you listening in here after all (the mild expletive in the SAQ section) [] but I'd welcome your advice nonetheless. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not actually sure what you're referring to - I don't have your talk page or any articles on this topic watchlisted. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List of official languages by GDP per capita
No clear relation between these variables? I need a sense of which languages to translate my client's website to first. My client would prefer the most "affluent" languages. Bugloaf (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That probably rules out Somali then. Try the IMF, UN or the CIA World Factbook (and earn your money rather than relying on a crap and long-deleted article written by some random guy on the internet...). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

2OCU
Hi mate, couple of things... It looks to me from ADF-Serials that one or two of our fatal Hornet accidents were to OCU aircraft -- still a bit dubious about it as a source though, do you happen to have any info on OCU Hornet accidents elsewhere that'd save me scouring RAAF News in the Mitchell?! Also ready to take suggestions re. a DYK hook as nothing's really leaping out at me -- maybe something about the preponderance of North African aces in its WWII leaders and instructors... If you come up with a good 'um, happy to share credit! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, Phantom, Hornet, and Skyhawk in Australian Service has this. The only 2OCU F/A-18 loss was A21-104 in November 1987 (page 124). Two other 2OCU Hornets (A21-102 and 107) collided during an air-to-air combat training exercise in February 1986, but both managed to return to base (page 124). I somehow managed to get ADF serials through as an OK source in the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service FAC... I'll replace this with references to Wilson tonight (though I saw it referenced in a professionally published book recently for what it's worth). As some of suggestions for hooks, how about:
 * ...that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 2 Operational Training Unit was equipped with more than 100 aircraft throughout the last two years of World War II?
 * ...that No. 2 Operational Training Unit was reestablished in 1952 due to concerns over the quality of some Australian fighter pilots in the Korean War? (might be overly negative)
 * ...that No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit trains all of the Royal Australian Air Force's F/A-18 Hornet fighter pilots?
 * I prefer the last of these (in my experience, hooks which are straightforward and include an aircraft do well!). Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, tough with this one for some reason -- I also quite like #2 but agree it's not so positive, so #3 might be the one. I was even considering the tidbit about staff translating Mirage manuals from French to English as part of their job, just for something light... ;-) Tks very much for the Wilson ref about the F-18 incidents, will add. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, I'll probably take this to FAC once the ACR is closed (and my Hely FAC likewise) so if there was anything else you think should be added, let me know (I'll probably take a glance myself at Wilson this week, and coincidentally the latest Air Force News has a report on Aces North, the FCI graduation exercise, so I'll be mining that for some info as well). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

OrBat Graphic Request
I'm not sure if you saw my reply but I am taking requests for OrBats. Just tell me what you're looking for.Dmanrock29 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll put together a short list and get back to you :) Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good, can't wait. Dmanrock29 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)