User talk:Nick-D/Archive 12

GA Review
Hi. I have nominated Majura Parkway for GA. I tried to address all the feedback in the failed review at Talk:Majura Parkway/GA1, and double checked to make sure it complied with GA criteria. As I'm a still learning contributor as far as GAs go, and I know you have a lot of experience with GAs/FACs. I was wondering if you could review Majura Parkway. (I have also asked User:TonyTheTiger, User:Wizardman and User:Hawkeye7 if they could review.) I would like to improve my ability to get through GA faster, increase my understanding of the GA criteria, and would appreciate a comprehensive review. -- Nbound (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story
Hi Nick,

Thank you for contributing to the FAC for the 2012 tour of She Has a Name article; it was good to see the article go up on the main page last week. I have submitted another article for featured status: When God Writes Your Love Story. If you would be willing to contribute to the corresponding FAC, I would appreciate your input.

Neelix (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix - I was also pleased to see that article on the main page, and congratulations on its successful FAC. I'll look into this review. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick,


 * Thank you for your kind words regarding the aftermath of the featuring of this article. Hopefully, all of this will be settled soon.


 * Neelix (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick,


 * Because you have been involved in discussions surrounding the When God Writes Your Love Story article, I thought that you should be notified of the article's current featured article review. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.


 * Neelix (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled
Nick-D,

I have applied for "auto patrol" privileges. I was wondering if you could look into it on how I could get the privileges because I don't know if anyone is aware there is a few people asking for it. Adamdaley (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, I've just granted you this permission. Would you also like the rollback permission to be enabled? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick-D – thanks for the autopatrol feature. It would be great if I could have the rollback feature as well. If you would be willing to give it to me, it would be appreciated very much! Anything in return that you've done on Wikipedia, I'll be glad to help. Adamdaley (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, I've just enabled that permission for you - given your long history of good edits and good standing among the community I'm sure you'll use the rollback feature responsibly. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Offender9000 talk
Nick-D - I see Offender9000 has been on and blanked his talk page this morning. Moriori has restored the sockpuppet ban notice (and prevented him from making future edits) but it might be useful for material from that page to be restored to allow future editors who come along to be able to easily see why Offender9000 was banned in the first place (e.g. there is no violation of BLP notice on the use page) and the long-standing issues the community had with him? Clarke43 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Clarke, Thanks for letting me know. The relevant guideline is WP:BLANKING which allows editors to remove pretty much everything from their talk pages except notifications of still-active sanctions. I've just restored the thread concerning the BLP block. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that is most useful. Regardless of the policy I don't think having any further material would be required as that section shows the issues quite clearly for anyone who looks into his edits at a later stage. Do copies of general block notices also get put on a user page? Or do only sockpuppet ones get listed on both talk and user pages? Clarke43 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the only sanctions which are placed on user pages are sockpuppet confirmations, community bans and blocks/bans imposed by the arbitration committee. In practice, these tags are not always used - replacing the entire content of the user page for an editor who had a productive editing history before turning to the bad and being sanctioned is controversial. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My mistake
Based on the infobox on your user page I concluded 1) that you were amenable to receiving feedback in a non-confrontational trout-slap and 2) that you had a sense of humor. "Get fucked" as your edit summary suggests neither is the case.--Godot13 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to have mistaken my comments on your rather WP:OWN-like edit notice which contributed to its blanking as being something other than a routine response handled (politely, I think - though I am biased) through routine channels. Your decision to whack that template here a full day after the event stinks of trolling and recieved the response it deserved. I'm entirely open to good natured feedback (such as "hey, I think that you were wrong about that notice" or words to that effect), but that sure wasn't it. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it came across that way, it was not my intention. I modeled my editnotice after this one and ensuring standardized referencing (not ownership) was the goal. I honestly thought that the trout-slap was meant to be humorous (I laughed when I saw the infobox on your page), and a non-obnoxious way to comment. Virtually everyone involved in commenting on this list seems to have a shoot first, ask questions later approach. So "get fucked" is just icing on the cake. --Godot13 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you'll find that posting a message always gets you a happier response than hitting editors who have different views to you with a template which is used only as a mock punishment when they goof up. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Godot13 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NZSAS Article
Nick-D, could I trouble you to cast a quick eye over the New Zealand Special Air Service article? This is the first time I've built a comprehensive page myself, rather than just fire fighting other edits. I'm not after a formal review just some tips if you have a chance. I'm trying to decide what to do about the NY/QB Hons section at the bottom. A number of those awards were given for operational service (e.g. a BEM for Vietnam with a cracking citation, which really should have been an MM but seemingly wasn't supported by 1ATF, so NZ Army HQ awarded him the BEM instead) but I don't have citations for all the awards, therefore I can't 100% accurately divide them all up into correct deployments. Maybe I should just do the ones I can confirm and leave the others where they are? Thanks. Clarke43 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll read through the article later this week. It looks really good from what I've seen so far. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder (World War II)
I just remind you about my question at the Talk:World War II page. I don't know if you have forgot the discussion, or your just busy, but anyways I wanted to remind you.

Regards,Ransewiki (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Hello Nick. Would you possibly be able to have a look at Talk:Gallipoli Campaign/GA1 and delete if it meets the speedy deletion criteria? The review page was created by one of the co-noms due to a misunderstanding. All the details are here User_talk:Keith-264. Any assistance you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - that's the very definition of an uncontroversial housekeeping task. A nice thing about having the admin tools is that I can self-delete the instances where I create a page accidentally without anyone ever being the wiser ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka
Hello Nick-D, the editing history of this article is something that may bear occasionally looking at. Users EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver have had editing conflicts concerning the Battle of Kursk and another difference of views may be brewing. EyeTruth has asked me to neutrally observe the talk page interactions, and I am willing to do so -- but I think it wise if another pair of eyes also looks over the exchanges from time to time. My own take (on at least some of the differences of opinion) is that various sources contradict each other (typical for WW2 Eastern Front sources) when it comes to losses of vehicles and personnel. In the case of some of the differing editor viewpoints, it may be necessary (to achieve concurrence among the editors) for information notes in the article to point out in detail the varying outlook of professional authors/historians. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've just watchlisted the article and will weigh in as needed. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Plans to create my first articles. Any advice to construct gratefully recieved.

 * Hi Nick. I thought I would approach you as you are one of our most celebrated Eds in military-related article creation and policy. After over a year I am starting to think of actually becoming an article creator. Man cannot Wikignome alone :).
 * I was thinking that there is a big gap in WW2 field rations by major combatants. The rather good U.S C ration, K ration etc, series are getting increasingly lonely. I was thinking of creating a 14-in-1 Composite ration, 24 Hour ration and Emergency ration for a comparable UK article series, and the Canadian 24 Hour mess-tin ration. Further down the line it would be good to develop German and Japanese equivalents as articles. I also was thinking on getting the Jack Nissenthal article sketched out. I redlinked him in Dieppe raid. I have lots of sources from a diverse range of origins, field trials re; palatability and complete menus. I am researching Mr Nissenthal. Any tips welcome. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am using the John Ellis classic "The Sharp End" and the fairly recent and groundbreaking "To The Victor The Spoils" by Sean Longden for Brit secondary ration sources at the moment. There's loads more to tap. Thanks for the encouraging words. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Irondome, Those look like really good topics for articles - there are quite a few sources on soldiers' rations, including specialist and generalist works. I haven't written anything on the topic myself, but I'd suggest that you cover both the 'official' view of the rations (eg, why they were developed, and the decisions and trade offs the food scientists and logistians had to make), as well as how the 'customers' viewed the rations - including how often they actually had to eat them (most armies generally attempted to minimize the use of pre-prepared rations, and supplied freshly cooked meals to the troops whenever possible). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's well appreciated Nick, esp the purpose and development consideration, and actual references to percieved quality and use by the "consumer". The Americans were decades ahead of anyone in that respect. They really treated their ORs as consumer products. Ive several fascinating quality feedback reports on US rations from their contemporary surveys that they undertook in field testing. They also have in the public domain online great contemporary reports on the development and methodology of usage. There are no comparable British primary sources in the public domain that I can find, and I dont want to risk Original Research by going to the archives. We just do not seem to publish our contemporary WW2 ration development reports online as the U.S do. Still googling every combination of relevant search phrases I can think of though :)
 * From memory, Lizzy Collingham's excellent book The Taste of War has some material on the rations provided to combat troops which places the topic in a broad context. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is a big chunk of it available in a Google books preveiw facility. Cheers mate. BTW, there are at least 3 Australian rations configured for group and individual use developed for WW2 Pacific ops that I have come across. One appears to be SF. Its a great subject in terms of the sheer breadth of notable articles to be created. Irondome (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it's a really important topic given that the rations formed a significant part of the experiances of military personnel during the war, and required substantial agricultural, industrial and transport infrastructure to sustain. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, and apart from the U.S stuff (good on the original creators) we havent even touched the subject. Food supply and distribution by nation in WW2 would be an offshoot, as a developing subject for articles. Its vaguely covered in WW2 economics by nation articles, and the Rationing in the United Kingdom is excellent, and a one-off at the mo. But we have no equivalent dedicated US, Aus, German, Japanese etc.. Not to mention operational military rations by country. Its a gaping hole in WP coverage at the mo. Its every bit as notable as any AFV or or even campaign article. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviewer efforts!

 * Thanks a lot :) Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

==List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities== Hi Nick- I'm going to make some revisions and wondered if you could take a look at my response to your comment (re: Port Moresby crash) and let me know what you think so I can tackle everything in one go. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick- I know you initially opposed the list for Featured status. There have been a lot of changes with the input of several members of the Aviation Project. I was wondering if you would be willing to have another look, possibly re-review and/or let me know if there are areas I can work on to either gain your support or have you withdraw your objection. Thanks in advance.--Godot13 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd give this one more shot: I've reviewed six books (all added to the list) and found two additional incidents (both in ASN database). I think I've made a solid good faith effort to meet your objection(s) to the list, do you? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi mate, if you have a sec, could you check your copies of Eather and Bomber Units and let me know what aircraft 1SQN was operating between August 1939 and January 1940 (or thereabouts)? I suspect Demons then Ansons but all the sources I've seen are a bit vague on what and when... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, Both Eather (p. 19) and Bomber Units (p. 3) state that the squadron was operating Ansons in September 1939. Neither state when they started to operate these aircraft. Eather (p. 19 again) states that the squadron continued to operate Ansons in the convoy escort and patrol roles until May 1941 when these aircraft were replaced with Hudsons. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick, much appreciated ('case you're wondering, it's to round out an article on AVM Frank Headlam, who was a flight commander with 1SQN between -- you guessed it -- August 1939 and January 1940... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was good to see the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service article pass its FAC today. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian
Hello Nick-D,

Can we continue with the A1 for George Juskalian? If you're busy it's fine. I could maybe get another reviewer. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll respond in the review, but note that A-class nominations typically require three supportive reviews to pass. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Prokhorovka, again
Nick-D, 71.191.213.248 (talk) has suddenly appeared to edit the article. No other article contributions other than Battle of Prokhorovka -- situation smells to me like someone has decided to edit without logging in, in order to provide cover for actions that might be seen as tendentious. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and have just blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: FAC
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw or if it changed anything regarding your position, but just in case, I'm writing to let you know that I responded to your last comment at Featured article candidates/Confusion (album)/archive1. Dan56 (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. I saw that as I was about to walk out the door for a couple of days out of town, and will follow up later today. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

UDI
Hi Nick, just a quick one to let you know that I've just nominated the UDI article at FAC. If you're interested in taking a look, the review is here. Thanks, keep well and have a great week. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note: I'll look into the article (though I may not take a support/oppose position as I'm pretty clueless on Rhodesian political history). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've included quite a bit of background stuff to help with this as I think most people don't know much about the context, which is more complicated than many would presume, so I hope this helps. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Four Award
Just a heads up, do you realise both you and Ian have turned down the award because the other wasn't recognized? Just sayin,  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the case I'm afraid: Tony withdrew the credit from Ian on the grounds that it was "mistaken". Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently you're [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Four_Award/Records&diff=565426338&oldid=565425185 not allowed] to reject a FOUR award. Related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Four Award. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes, I rejected the award he made on my talk page before he withdrew it at the Four page... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think Ed should be allowed to refuse his awards or return them. If it works for the Nobels... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Co-leads
I'd like to propose at WT:MIL that the top 3 vote-getters become the 3 co-leads again in the September elections; I think that's worked out well. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank, that sounds sensible to me. I think that we need lead co-ords, and having more than one is preferable given the need to cover variations in editing activity. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 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) 16:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions in your inbox
MikeDS (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, I can't stress strongly enough that I did not suggest that CarringtonB was an employee of that firm as you've attributed to me in your email. I suspected that there was a conflict of interest of some sort with the firm at the time, but have no way at all of knowing what the situation actually turned out to be: I may have been completely mistaken. For privacy-related reasons, the small number of highly trusted editors who have access to the checkuser tool do not share the results of their investigations, and it's not sensible to read too much into this kind of thing. There's some background information on how the Checkuser tool is used at WP:CHECKUSER if you're interested. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, kinda tired of typing, can you add it, im going to sleep in a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolo68 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Favour
Hi mate, could you delete Goings-on/Sunday, July 28, 2013 and Goings-on/Sunday, July 21, 2013 for me? I rarely have to archive Goings-On so tend to forget how to do it properly... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/AVE Class 103
Hi friend! I have uploaded an ALT version. Can you please have a look and give your valuable comment. Thanks in advance!--Nikhil(talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 00:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC
FYI, I will agree to a WP:CONSENSUS determined at an RFC after User:Rjanag gets back to me with some statistics on the project. I understand that it will take at least a week after he creates the new category to have the data. I am drafting the RFC here. You can follow along.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

 * Thank you very much! Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP Issue
Nick please see this posting to my talk page  --Woogie10w (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked that latest IP. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiroshima Nagasaki
I hope that you don't mind my removal of this book you added from the Hiroshima Nagasaki article. The only review I've seen of this book (in the Australian War Memorial's magazine Wartime) was highly critical, and Ham is not an expert on the topic - his main focus is on Australian military history, where he's something of a journeyman author. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. What did Wartime say was wrong with it ? I did indeed note that he fell for the old 100,000 dead at Dresden furphy but I'm more interested in his reasoning that the bomb was used as the first act of the Cold War, i.e. aimed at the USSR, using Japanese cities and civilians as convenient test material, which sounds like the truth to me. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The review was written by the American historian Richard B. Frank, and he notes Ham's use of David Irving's discredited book as the source for the figure of 100,000 people being killed at Dresden, as well as a couple of instances where Ham attributed claims to Frank's book Downfall which aren't supported by that book. He's also critical of Ham's understanding of the details of the war, pointing out some other mistaken statements. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the same vein - do you have an opinion on the value of Paul Kennedy's recent book "Engineers of victory : the problem solvers who turned the tide in the second world war". He's usually associated with economic history rather than military, but I haven't noticed any errors. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read a sample on my Kindle, and it looks pretty good (I'm waiting for the price to come down). It's received mixed reviews, but I quite like his style of analytic history. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian ACR
G'day, Nick, I have done a bit of copy editing on George Juskalian as part of my review. In doing so, I think I may have addressed some of your review comments. If you get a chance, would you mind returning to WikiProject Military history/Assessment/George Juskalian and letting the nominator know which of your comments remain outstanding? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I'll look into the review later today or tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Another walk down the footpaths of Gibraltar
Please check out Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. I, as the lone delete advocate now, am a bit peeved that there seems to be a group effort (I'm not saying sockpuppets) to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like a viable article to me, and accusing other people of engaging in a "group effort ... to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly" is pretty poor form. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll say. Occasionally Gibraltar material can be deemed notable by the community, Kit. That being said, editors have consistently rebuked the claim that this is an unwarranted fork of Fortifications of Gibraltar and Upper Rock Nature Reserve, as in the deletion nomination, so "without really addressing the issues fairly" is a bit much methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Dutch in 1913
Hey Nick, seeing as this article is on the main page, I feel like it's high time to thank you once again for the large amount of effort you put into it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed - 'tis quite awesome. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thirded. I spent quite some time reading this today, with great interest. It provoked all sorts of "what if?" questions, but I have to resist those! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. From memory, Ed wrote most of the article, but I enjoyed adding material from obscure sources in to flesh it out and put the proposal in context. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I started the article, and you expanded it far beyond anything I could have done with the sources you had available. Don't try to give the credit to me. Not when the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_1913_battleship_proposal&offset=&limit=500&action=history article history] is there for anyone to see. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten that you started the article under a (legit) sockpuppet account - I wonder how that fits in with the WP:FOUR rules ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ill-fated WP:NEWT. As for FOUR ... no, I'm not going there. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten
Hi Nick. I'd just like to thank you wholeheartedly for your excellent overhaul of the article on Operation Tungsten. Really stellar work. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm actually planning to put a fair bit more work into this article, as I think that it's got the potential to reach at least A-class. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds even better. Best of luck. Manxruler (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Operation Tungsten, I have recently photographed the graves at the Commonwealth War Graves section of the main cemetery in Tromsø. Several of the servicemen buried there lost their lives during Operation Tungsten. Do you think one or more of those photos would be a useful contribution to the article? Manxruler (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be really valuable. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. I shall upload to Commons and add to the article, as soon as I find the time. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Tosa-class FAC
I think that I've addresses all of your concerns about this article. Please take a look and see if there's anything left to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
Hi, this is a note to inform you that a page in which you have previously shown interest, WP:FOUR, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please can you moderate?
Please can you moderate the current process for resolving the blitzkrieg dispute? I do not wish to get you involved in this but if it is possible for you to moderate this process with your non-involved administrator hat on, please kindly do so. I wouldn't have called you back if not because I'm seeing signs that show nothing has changed in Gunbirddriver's mindset. He again completely removed blitzkrieg from main content and instead moved it citation and notes section. You were right earlier, I should have taken the initiative to write the opposing view (although it would have been subpar since I have no sources for the opposing view). Well, I restored the content but with a major change: "The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...".

In the note [j], I first pointed out that some commentators/historians may not agree with this. That assertion still lack citations, except for Guderian's works (which would still require original synthesis in order to incorporate it as a source), and has been a major barrier to resolving this dispute for months. After that, I listed 9 historians (with supporting citations) that characterize it as an intended blitzkrieg. Essentially, the pattern I used is: Introduce, Oppose, Support. But Nick, if it is possible, can you please moderate this process. Please. EyeTruth (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I've mostly stayed out of this lately, I would like to point out to Nick, in case he hasn't gone back through the original talk page posts about this issue, that many, if not most, historians and participants do not characterize the plan in any way so providing cites is rather difficult, which is why my preferred solution is to drop all use of the term and let readers make up their own mind. I also don't place any weight on any use of the term blitzkrieg without a definition since it's a word often used loosely, which appears to be just about everybody except Clark, but EyeTruth seems to have fixated on his use of the term as all the support needed for his position. That said, I'd be relatively content for a note explaining the differences of opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to Clark, Glantz and Barbier have also used the term with a definition (I bet there are a lot others). And as I've said before, I agree that providing cites for the opposition will be difficult. That is why I suggest that the wording for the differing view be revised. In fact you worded it perfectly: "participants do not characterize the plan in any way." BTW, how will excluding any mention of the term give wiki-readers more freedom to make up their mind as they see fit? A note explaining the differences of opinion, instead, is what will give readers more freedom to make up their mind. EyeTruth (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Blitzkrieg term is hugely overused and appears to often be just shorthand for any German offensive. Glantz and House The Battle Of Kursk {Modern war studies) 1999 pg xiii, 472 states "For the German side, it spelled the death of the "blitzkrieg" (sic) and the beginning of defensive operations". I find the quote marks quite eloquent. I would suggest the note approach as mentioned above. Hitlers own operational outline appears to be harking back to a classic blitz approach, but I have not looked at it for ages. I do not know if any wording there would have any bearing, and in any case the northern and southern attacks appear to have been different in their offensive tactics. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if only someone could help me tell Gunbirddriver that other editors think that the "note approach" is a more viable solution than completely removing the term as he has done again, just very recently, with this edit. In the edit, he even deleted sources, and I don't know why or to what end. EyeTruth (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly in our own Bitzkrieg article, is this (and no I am not falling into the trap of using WP as a source) attributed to Glantz and House, 1995, pg 167 which has been paraphrased as "Of course the Kursk operation did not comprise a true "blitzkrieg" operation..as there was no element of suprise, no breakthrough to outflank or strike at rear areas, and no psycological pressure being exerted upon the minds of the Soviet high command". The original Glantz & House wording there may be instructive if anyone has a copy to hand. There is some interesting sections in the "Blitzkrieg" article, which appear to be paraphrasing a debate as to whether it even existed as a unique or conscious tactic. Maybe the sources cited there would repay revisting, although I doubt you are unfamiliar with any of them. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That was Gunbirddriver's original research inserted with this edit. He has done this type of stuff in the Kursk article (and not for contents regarding blitzkrieg) so many times, it should have driven me nuts. Debate over original research is one of things that soured our relations. I couldn't help but raise my tone sometimes. It also made me realize that he doesn't understand the three core content policies of Wikipedia, else this simple dispute wouldn't have become one big drama. EyeTruth (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I'm happy to help with this, but the above discussion really belongs on the article's talk page to maximise its visibility to interested editors. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well GBD should not be taking out a whole small paragraph from a related WP article, and not even bothering to rework wording. That is naughty. Nick, can you transfer this thread to the Kursk talk? Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done: I've copied and pasted it on the talk page. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, Gunbirddriver has reverted it. His edit summary is the most striking thing about this action. The way he bends words is very scary (and has been effective). By stating that I've been "asked by the administrator not to change the article until the weekend had passed," he is making it out as if I disobeyed an admin's explicit order. And then he states "EyeTruth, you need to participate in the talk page and await a consensus" as if I stayed away from the discussion. I'm fed up of his methods. By reverting the edit, he deleted several sources and historians that support inclusion and reintroduced red "cite-error" into the article. I already pointed out these issues earlier and he has made many edits since then but failed to rectify those issues. Eventually I fixed them and then modified the content. But the best he could input is to revert it all. EyeTruth (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging articles
Nick-D,

I come to you to ask a simple request for merging several articles into a new name. Why? I'm in the process of getting the state of Indiana in order of the American Civil War. There are several articles that have multiple pages such as the following:


 * 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 months)
 * 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 years)

The two above can be merged into the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment, for continuity of other renamed articles on that page by myself. For example No. xx Indiana Infantry Regiment.


 * 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment (1 year)
 * 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 years)

The two above can be merged into the 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment, with the same reason as above.

It would be appreciated if this could be done as I'll eventually do the article of the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment and 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment and it would be nice to include the shorter term in with the longer term as they were both in the American Civil War. Adamdaley (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam, I think that you can just merge them yourself (converting the existing articles into redirects) - I don't think that the admin tools are needed here given that the article history will be pretty clear. I'm also pretty clueless about history merges, so you might want to ask another admin for help with this if you think that this is necessary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried my best with the merging last night. I made a complete mess of it. Hope you and anyone else can work out what I'm trying to do with the articles. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest structuring the articles so that the history section has a sub-section for each iteration of the unit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I already have: your version is not helpful I'm afraid. Canvassing around the first RfC is pretty awful conduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

August Bugle
Hi mate, I think it's ready to go out but will leave till tomorrow morning to despatch (aiming for a bit before midnight GMT) so pls feel free to edit anything beforehand; left a similar note for Storm re. his op-ed now that I've moved it into the issue and given it a (provisional) image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finishing this off Ian. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 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) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

HMAS..... Again
//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems. Bidgee (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the notification - and I agree that Commons is pretty fucked up these days. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail
— Maile (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding RAAF
Hello Nick,

I just finished translating Military history of Australia during World War II (what a monster of an article, I fear it is too big to get it awarded in de:Wiki as not enough people would attend the review and nomination phase) and came over something I wonder about the names of RAAF units. Mostly they are in the style of No. xx (yy) Squadron RAAF but if I read the article, the RAAF isnt part of the given name in the text. So my question is, is the RAAF for the squadrons and wings etc. an official part of the name or just used for differentiation from other nations units? I would like to know this because I want to translate some wings (squadrons are not seen as notable in de:Wiki) and want to give them the right names. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bomzibar, The usual practice is to refer to the squadrons as simply No. xx (yy - where relevant) Squadron when referring to it in text. I think that the 'RAAF' at the end forms part of the official name, but it's normally only used in titles and lists or where units from different Commonwealth air forces are present in the same area and there's a need to differentiate them. I'm going to ping though in case I'm mistaken. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, my understanding -- certainly my practice and what seems to be fairly common usage in sources -- is the same as Nick's. Just as a side point,FWIW, the main change I've noted through the years is in abbreviations. The evidence seems to be that for a long time you always abbreviated a squadron name to "No. 3 Sqn" or an operational conversion unit to "No. 2 OCU", whereas since the '90s at least the service (and some sources) omit "No." and spaces, and capitalise unit type, e.g. "3SQN" or "2OCU". I never abbreviate "squadron" in WP articles, and I don't think anyone else does who writes quality articles. For more long-winded unit types like operational conversion units, I always use the older-style abbreviation (e.g. "No. 2 OCU"), which is consistent with the sort of abbreviations in use when most units were raised, but I wouldn't go out of my way to make trouble for some using "2OCU", which seems to be the current service preference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Pleased to have been of help - and thank you for spotting this nonsense and nominating it for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

TFAR for Australian Defence Force
Hi Nick, I don't think anyone has told you that the ADF article has been suggested in the "any date" section of TFAR. As it's a 2007 FA (even though it's one of yours ;-) ) I thought it would be useful to get opinions from you and others as to whether all it needed was a quick bit of polishing of cap badges before appearing on a parade or whether it ought to be reduced to the ranks for insubordination... There's no need to rush to reply. Yours, BencherliteTalk 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Tungsten
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Tungsten you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Tungsten
The article Operation Tungsten you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Tungsten for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- 10:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Vote on blitzkrieg controversy at Kursk

 * Hi Nick. I have created a new voting section on Talk:Battle of Kursk. I have laid out the summaries and voting procedure to the best of my ability. I think it captures the flavour, is timebound and establishes groundrules so it does not develop into another lengthy exchange. Please have a look. Irondome (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I already mentioned in the article's talk page, the vote is resetting all progress made. It is targeting the same options that took us to DRN, in which several editors, citing WP policies, suggested a solution. And a good number of them think it is unnecessary to continue with the drama and have moved on. I personally think a vote will help. But voting on issues that have already been discussed extensively and dealt with, will only lead to a restart of the debate all over again, especially if #2 is selected. Anyways, I elaborated the problem with the target of this vote on the talk page. EyeTruth (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just commented there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Following your suggestion, I made a poll to establish consensus for the wordings. How is THIS? EyeTruth (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

HI Nick, EyeTruth and Irondome. I wanted to make you all aware of my concern with the presentation of the voting options in the Kursk poll. I'm very seriously concerned with the neutrality of the presentation of the poll choices. I think the second choice (which I contributed in no small part to authorship of) is presented it in such a manner (w/ positive comment that equates to advocacy, whilst the first option is presented with a "blank" comment that makes it appear as if there's nothing to recommend it as a choice) as to introduce unintentional bias. Option #1 needs a comment/summary similar to the treatment Option #2 received, a comment that summarizes the proposed edit and highlights its attributes, or there should be no comment(s) appended to the second voting choice in the interest of fairness.  Azx<b style="color:#000">2</b>  21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Azx2, I intentionally left it blank since I didn't want Gunbirddriver to eat me raw for making an assessment in his place. If it were an intended bias, then there would be no conspicuously blank space left for the comment. Frankly, anyone can go ahead and provide a comment there. But for the meantime, "pending" or anything else anyone prefers can go there. EyeTruth (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Azx2. Please see my latest post in the voting space. My arguments for V2 are condensed there. I am grateful to you for helping codify V2. That was the kind of compromise I mentioned and envisaged before you joined us, upthread. V1 is weaker. By ignoring the Blitzkrieg-no-blitzkrieg debate it invites future edit wars and us having to go through this all again. We are at last making progress, so this can only be a positive. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking that the above issue has been resolved? The current voting option looks like a good way of managing this issue - nice work to all involved in setting it up and tweaking it. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, resolved. EyeTruth (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> thoughts and images

Thank you for quality articles such as McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, for thoughts, for images used over the world, and for getting to the core of a situation, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (9 March 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 227th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Gerda - I really appreciate those kind comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ghouta attacks
I saw your contribution on the page and was wondering if you cold tend to an edit request I made on the article's talk page. Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - and I knocked over another request while I was there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up
Hey, Nick. I have been attempting to figure out what has been going on with the editing on the Battle of Kursk page, and I believe the pieces of the puzzle have fallen together. I have mentioned you at the Administrators Noticeboard, and though you are mentioned first the complaint is not really directed at you. It's a little long, but read through it if you get a chance. Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the most hilarious thing I've see on Wikipedia. So now you are also reporting Nick-D? And now EyeTruth is same as Blablaaa. XD. What happened man? you felt that consensus was massively against you and time is running out. So, you decided to go apeshit? Gunbirddriver, you just screwed up. And dude, your skill at bending words and twisting scenarios are unbelievable. It still scares. EyeTruth (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Nick-D. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Arctic naval operations of World War II
Please take care not to separate statements from reference citations while editing. I have repaired two detached paragraphs in subject article; but request you provide a reference citation for the Operation Mascot addition.Thewellman (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but the content was totally wrong. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you clarify the erroneous content and the nature of the error, please?Thewellman (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The statements that the Operation Tungsten and Operation Goodwood attacks were made by the escorts of convoys wasn't accurate - these strikes were conducted by separate forces as part of pre-planned operations (the British used part of the Tungsten attack force to screen a convoy for a few days, but the main role of these ships was to attack Tirpitz). I'm not sure if you've seen, but I've redeveloped the Tungsten article over the last few months, and it's currently up for A-class review at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Tungsten, and I'd appreciate any comments you might have :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation to comment. As you can see from my comments at the suggested location, I disagree with the opinion these strike forces were independent of the convoys. The term "escort" had various meanings in the tactical disposition of warships protecting merchant shipping. Independently routed trade shipping was considered vulnerable to submarine and aircraft attack, but convoys were considered an attractive target for larger surface warships. Small warships providing convoy anti-aircraft and anti-submarine protection were identified as the "screen" by USN, although the term "escort" appears widely used in laymen's accounts. USN used the term "escort" to identify capital ships available to defend the convoy from surface attack while maneuvering separately to minimize detection and attack by submarines shadowing the convoy. These heavy covering forces routinely operated defensively where attack by surface forces was a reasonable possibility. Early trans-Atlantic convoys were often "escorted" by armed merchant cruisers in mid-ocean where attack by surface raiders was expected. The specific operations you identified were performed by heavy naval units either posing or acting as defensive covering forces for specific convoys. These covering forces usually had two missions. The defensive mission of convoy safety had to be satisfied before opportunities for an offensive strike could be undertaken. Most histories of convoy PQ 17 provide descriptions of Arctic covering force tactics during the second world war.Thewellman (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. One of the Operation Tungsten strike forces ("Force Two") was entirely independent of the convoy, and the smaller Force One only briefly played a covering force role as a precurser to striking the battleship. The fleet was originally intended to sail entirely independently from any convoys, but the operation was combined somewhat with the convoy due mainly to delays to it being launched which were caused by delays to upgrading one of the carriers. I do agree with your comments about the need to put this operation in the context of the Arctic convoy system though, as this is ultimately why it was conducted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this information. I had conceptually been aware the late war situation with respect to preponderance of forces and effective reduction of German reconnaissance allowed the Allies greater latitude in deployment of assets; but I would value reference citations for specific events documenting these changes. Could you suggest documentation for the orders directing these strikes to act independently?Thewellman (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure - see the references for this material in the Operation Tungsten article ;) They're quite explicit about this and the subsequent carrier raids being separate operations. Patrick Bishop's book is the most accessible work (and is also a good read if you're interested in the topic), but Roskill and Hinsley et al.'s official history volumes provide the most authoritative account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten
Nick, do you have any objection if I replace some occurences of "which" by "that"? I'm bringing this up here because I don't want to sidetrack a review with a copyediting issue. It's a bit involved ... I can go into it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank, Please do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave me alone
Hi. Could you please leave me alone over the whole Blablaaa episode? You've given me a very hard time and not once were you ever fair to me in the last three years. Okay I get it you hate my guts. Fine dude. Now please leave me alone. Thanks.  Caden  cool  11:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Caden, I've never picked on you, and have never had very much to do with you except in discussions you've instigated. From memory, virtually all of our interactions have been the occasions when you've turned up in various discussions or here to complain about my admin actions. In these discussions you often make incorrect claims about me having a long history of bad blocks, biased admin actions and the like, to which I feel a need to correct (from memory, the block of Blablaaa you often allude to as part of your criticisms is the only block I've made which was subsequently judged to be bad since becoming an administrator in December 2007 - this is out of the hundreds of blocks I have imposed). If you stop doing this we won't have anything to do with each other as we seem to have quite different editing interests. I certainly don't hate you. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

50th edition
Here is the 50th edition. I can only apologise this is so late as a lot of work came up but it is still no excuse so again I will apologise. Inside includes everything since the last edition as usual. Enjoy. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Substing templates
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates (such as welcome templates and user warnings) on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use instead of. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can a bot not automatically do that? Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a bot could, but I don't know of any bot that currently does it. (I think there might have been one at one point, though; I have a fuzzy recollection of there being one.) Even so, it's generally a good idea to subst the template when you make the edit, just like it's always good to sign a comment even though we have SineBot. Cheers, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, it looks like you were right! It took me a while to find it, but I just happened upon Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, which appears to "belong" to User:AnomieBOT. So, there does appear to be a bot who does this kind of thing. I'll head on over to AnomieBOT and ask her owner how I should go about having the welcome templates added to her task list. (I'm not entirely sure if there has to be additional discussion or not; I'm assuming the owner will know.) Thank you for making me think of that! Happy editing :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I must have been thinking of that one. You'll be pleased to see that I added a subst to a welcome template on your prompting yesterday ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator
Thankyou Nick for your message and your national election vote, which I saw on FB. That's the way I would have voted too. I do not intend to stand for coordinator election, but I'm quite happy for you to ask me to do so. Hope you're having a good weekend. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all - I appreciate that you're a bit busy. My weekend went downhill as the results came in last night, but it could have been worse ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a MILHIST incubator group
Hi there Nick-D. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind providing some feedback on an incubator group that I started a few months ago for articles relating to special operations and special operations forces. Being that it truly involves articles from around the world I was wondering if you had any ideas for generating interest/membership from knowledgeable contributors. For example I don't know anything about the Israeli special forces so I wouldn't even know where to begin to potentially solicit knowledgeable individuals on the topic to see if they would be interested in joining. Additionally I was wondering if after looking at some of the links you thought that maybe I made the group too broad in scope, because that's crossed my mind before but I didn't want to revise the entire group to make it more exclusive based on a whim of mine. I compiled a short (and incomplete) list of articles within the scope of the incubator group if it helps. Thanks for your help good sir, —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dainomite, I'd suggest advertising this group through a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. You could also identify editors with an interest in this topic by looking through the histories of articles on special forces-related topics and then contact them. I know that has an interest in British commando units of World War II. I hope that's helpful, Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice Nick, I appreciate it. Looks like I will have to do some article history diving. Cheers, —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   23:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Mascot
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Idea for the Bugle
Ulster Defence Regiment has been almost totally rewritten by me. It failed A Class but is still up for GA status review with all the A Class comments resolved. Also, with regards to that article it has crossed my mind that it's far too long and I was mulling over the idea of creating Greenfinches - The Womens' UDR both to cut it down and to create what could be a very interesting article on its own. Unfortunately I can't be of assistance further than making suggestions because I picked up a topic ban due to an incident related to The Troubles elsewhere and the articles on the UDR are troubles related. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure what topic the article you're proposing here would cover - could you please elaborate? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. If you examine what's already there at Ulster_Defence_Regiment you'll hopefully see, as I do, that there are many unique features about Greenfinches in the UDR, not least amongst them the fact that they were the first women in the British Army to be fully incorporated into combat units.  The model was later adopted by the rest of the army and led to the disbandment of the Women's Royal Army Corps.  I would say there is enough material on them already in the UDR article to provide for a separate article but there is a lot more which could be included from other sources.  Really the problem now is that the host article is already too long and it may well be time to create sub articles like this to prepare it for GA status. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing a new article or an idea for a Bugle opinion piece? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see both possibilities. The UDR article doesn't receive much attention from MILHIST but it's full of interesting facts with as many more left out because of the length of it.   Working on it since may though I've seen no members of the project involving themselves. Given that my stamp is all over it now I think outside opinion and editing would be very valuable.  The same goes for the creation of the sub-article.  I can certainly do it when my topic ban finishes but wouldn't it be better if someone other than me were to create the article?  I don't want to be the only person identified with these articles on the UDR - there are 18 at the moment. All of which could do with more time spent on them.  You asked for ideas so I gave them to you.  SonofSetanta (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that suggestion. However, I don't think that the Bugle is the best forum to post a request for the article to be created. If the terms of your topic ban permit it, you may wish to list the article at Requested articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was simply responding to your request here for contribution ideas and new articles. Perhaps I've misunderstood in which case I do apologise. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible Horhey420 Sock.
Hello Nick-D, I am highly certain, that editor Boba Fett TBH, currently editing on Contras, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Vietnam war pages and others, is a Sock-puppet of Horhey420. What do think? Regards, Stumink (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Stumink, I've been through that editor's contributions and compared them to Horhey's, and I agree that it's clearly him. I have blocked the account, and thank you for raising this. Per the usual procedures all of their edits can and should be reverted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look at his previous edits. Stumink (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for No. 38 Squadron RAAF

 * Thanks very much Tony. This must have been among the first articles I created (way back in January 2006), so I've certainly taken my time ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

re:Operation Tungsten
Hi Nick. I'll try to get it done later today. Sorry I haven't uploaded those photos earlier, but I've been travelling the last three weeks or so, and I'm also not doing very well health-wise these days. Now, I've got a lot of photos, which would be more preferable? The most senior people lost in the operation, all the fatalities of the operation buried in Tromsø, or just one as an example? Manxruler (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and I'm sorry to hear about your health - I hope that you're on the mend. If you have a photos showing multiple graves they would be particularly useful, but if not any examples would be great. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern. I seem to be getting a bit better, and I intend to upload photos today.
 * Now, I have photos showing the entire Commonwealth War Graves section of the cemetery (it's not very large), so I can upload one of those, as well as photos of the individual graves belonging to airmen lost during Operation Tungsten. I can leave it to you to decide how many photos should be used, and where they should be placed. Manxruler (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds great. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pics have now been uploaded. Check this and these. Manxruler (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There were quite a few interesting gravestones in that cemetery, other than the ones relating to Operation Tungsten. I'll probably upload a few more in the coming days, and add them to various articles. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship
Nick,

Please note at WP:AN, I've just posted stating I would accept your mentorship suggestion.

Would you perhaps agree that other editors should also seek a mentor if the topic ban is removed altogether. BTW User:Gaba p has just opposed the lifting of his own topic ban. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

First question. User:Andrés Djordjalian is making the very serious allegation that I am committing citation fraud. I cannot of course respond due to the topic ban. However, if you take as an example the first topic where he alleges this to be the case, you will see I have provided URL to online sources that show this claim is untrue. How would you suggest I respond? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I wouldn't worry too much about Andrés' comments - it's been pointed out to him that that AN isn't an appropriate forum to make such statements, and no-one appears to be paying much attention to them (no-one really wants to get into the details of obscure British-Argentine disagreements at AN). I have pretty good access to academic sources, and should be able to check the content of most journal articles and some books. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I'll ignore them. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has commented, is it worth noting there is a history there and he is WP:INVOLVED? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW just found this,, Lightbulb! Wee Curry Monster talk 17:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Future Perfect at Sunrise's editing history, but if they have had a significant level of involvement in the dispute, you could note that, but please also include some supporting evidence (eg, a link or two to relevant talk page discussions, etc). Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To cut a long story short, he has nursed a greivance ever since that RFC came close to recommending he be referred to arbcom for a possibly desyopping. Ever since, if my name comes up at WP:ANI or WP:AN he will propose a sanction against me; you can make a case for this simply being retaliation.  Its one of several examples of retaliation by editors with grudges but its perhaps less obvious than the others.  Some are obvious and I've taken the message on board that responding is not helping me but wondered about that one. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 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) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Brisbane soccer leagues
Hi Nick, sorry if I am writing in the wrong spot, I have no idea what I'm doing. My name is Schmaig, and have recieved a notification from you regarding information I have posted. You have deleted some of my contributions because I haven't met curtain requirements. This is understandable, but I do not know how to meet these reqirements. The information I provided was correct and up to date, and now that it has been removed, wikipedia is now exhibiting old, out of date information. This out of date info is what prompted me to make the corrections in the first place. Is there no way that wikipedia could confirm or deny the reliability of incoming info, rather than just deleting it? Thank you Schmaig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmaig (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Schmaig, WP:ORG sets out the requirements for organisations such as these soccer leagues to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria - in short, for something to be notable it needs to have been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources. Which articles are out of date? It's generally best to jump in and update them rather than create spin offs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for your reply. The articles that are out of date involve name changes to league divisions. I wasn't able to change the name. I looked for info regarding name changes and found info saying to redirect to new article with correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmaig (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

467 Squadron
G'day, Nick, I've done a little bit of work on No. 467 Squadron RAAF today, mainly just to focus on something different. I don't have any paper sources at the moment, unfortunately, so I can't take it much further. Not sure if it is on your list to expand, but if it is please don't hold back on my account. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work with this - it's a good approach to summarising the complicated histories of the RAAF heavy bomber squadrons in Europe. I've been meaning to tackle them, but their history is hard to summarise: the official history (available on the AWM website) provides a blow by blow account of every operation they undertook, which makes the topic rather daunting to approach! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can, add some numbers for squadron strengths on various dates. I know some of the RAF Bomber Command squadrons fluctuated widely in authorized strengths, adding a third flight, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Sturm, I managed to find something on that, so I've added a short paragraph. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My interaction with Russavia
Hello there. First, I'd like to thank you for your support at my RfA. I'm very grateful, and am trying hard to live up to expectations. Sorry about the long post:

Now, the Russavia thing: As you were the last to block Russavia, I thought I'd drop you a line.

I know very, very little about the whole Russavia block matter, but am guessing there are those who are not too happy with him.

He helped me out at IRC commons a couple of weeks ago. Then, about a week ago, I visited his enwp talk page just out of curiosity. There, I found some redlinked images and started a few stubs. Yesterday, he thanked me at IRC and asked if I'd copy paste two Simple Wikipedia articles over to enwp. I did. Then, he asked if I'd be a liaison and do more. Now, I like Russavia, and am very grateful for his help, but because I'm a new admin, I don't want to do anything inappropriate. So, I figured that as he's blocked, my acting as some sort of proxy would likely not be a good thing. So, I said, those three were it, and I wouldn't do any more.

I just wanted to tell you this. Maybe you could pass this link on to others who might think ill of me for doing that. To them I'd like to say that I'm very sorry, that I was acting in good faith, and that I realized two minutes after copying those stubs that the whole thing was probably not a good idea, and that it could upset people. So, I'm sorry and I won't do it again. Please don't be furious. I was sort of on the spot and I just said, okay, and then only right after said, oh dear, that's probably not such a good idea.

Best wishes and I hope all is okay. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna, You made the right call. Russavia is de-facto banned as a result of the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive801 and really shouldn't be soliciting people on IRC to edit on their behalf. I see that he's been creating a string of obviously non-simple English articles on the simple English Wikipedia and is asking people to copy them across here, which seems a rather cynical use of that Wikipedia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nick-D. I should have used my noggin and refused in the first place. I'm a bit naive sometimes, and my first reaction is often "Okay. Sure, I'll help." I'll do my utmost to be more thoughtful in the future.


 * Anyway, I didn't post here to tell on him, but for transparency and to seek forgiveness from those who sought the block in the first place. I read some of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive801 just now, and started to see double. I'm not very good at the whole ANI thing, and find the threads awfully long and hard to figure out.


 * I hope all is well now. A thousand pardons to everyone. Thank you for being so understanding, and my very best wishes to you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bombing of Darwin casualty figure
Dear Nick, Casualty figures for the Bombing of Darwin given in the Lowe Commission are incorrect. There is now documentary evidence available online, at the National Archives of Australia web site, which prove the correct figures. The Research Staff at the Northern Territory Library have compiled the list of dead from the Raid http://www.ntlexhibit.nt.gov.au/exhibits/show/bod/roh/location This is accepted by historians Alan Powell, Tom Lewis and Bob Alford as being the best possible reckoning. I have tried changing this on Wikipedia on several occasions in the past, but people keep undoing the changes. I am about to edit the casualties section again, and I hope no one will remove the changes yet again. Interestingly the correct casualty figures are shown for the Preston, Peary, Zealandia, Mauna Loa and Neptuna in the individual Wikipedia entries Regards John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Alexis Richards (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi John, Can you provide references which assert that those historians accept that figure? It would add a lot to the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed.
noted, and ignored - I'm not into playing games - You appear to be continuing to accuse me of rudeness, aggression and insults without any basis for such accusations. To me, this looks very much like you are playing some sort of game. Please stop harassing me - I'm sure you have much better, more interesting and more useful things to do with your time. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're making a habbit of stomping around the place threatening editors with being blocked for disagreeing with you:, , . This is unhelpful, and especially when directed at new editors such as AAndreas (we were all new here once, and he's clearly well-intentioned). Please stop doing this. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense!
 * It is Wikipedia policy that says "discuss it or get blocked". I am simply quoting Wikipedia policy. If this is "making a habbit of stomping around the place threatening editors with being blocked", it has NOTHING to do with me -  I  didn't make the Wikipedia policy!
 * To quote an experienced admin with whom I have had a lot of experience and have had a lot of respect (i.e. you): "This is unhelpful, and especially when directed at" experienced editors. Yes, "we were all new here once", but he doesn't seem to be taking much notice of the guidance he's being given, so no matter how "clearly well-intentioned" you may wish to classify him as, how else do you suggest he be informed with emphasis?
 * And then there's the Englishman who doesn't understand the word consensus. What's your reaction? To repeat what I said, and in the same breath accuse me of being the devil incarnate for saying exactly the same thing.
 * To be honest, I've yet to see anything from you on these matters in the last couple of weeks that's useful to improving the encyclopaedia. As I said, I've always respected your opinion, but some of your recent statements do not impress me, and are putting a strain on my opinion.
 * I'd much prefer that we return to the relationship we've had for the last 6 years. Is there any reason why we can not do this? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI?
FYI? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Solved/resolved by] User:Rangasyd‎. Sorry to bother you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/View of Jaffa
Hi Nick-D, I've added an ALT version of the image cropping out the sea wall. If you have a chance, could you take another look. It may (or may not) be an improvement. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Long Tân
Okay, thanks for the message. How should we proceed. Since it was done with reference to the RFC we have just had about Vietnamese geo names - and since the problem of lack of full fonts in military history sources (Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War and a few other hardback sources excepted) was raised on that Talk page, how do you want to proceed. Should the RFC be reopened to see whether it applies to Long Tân? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you have also reverted addition of Vietnamese font and the Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War reference to the article lead as well. Is there some sort of WikiProject Military history guideline in regards to only use basic ABCabc character set in article body? I'm a bit surprised. If so does it apply to WWI and WWII articles also, or just Vietnam? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Scratch the second question; First Battle of Târgu Frumos 1944, same â; then why just Vietnam? Can you link to discussion please. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, A routine discussion on the article's talk page seems the sensible approach per the usual way of handling contested moves. My concern with your change is that almost all English-language sources refer to this as the "Battle of Long Tan", so moving it to something else isn't in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As regards title, I don't think that's going to work, because WP:COMMONNAME has no bearing on whether a topic is mentioned in sources with ABCabc fonts or full fonts. The whole point of the RFC and previous RMs is exactly this issue, the lack of reliablity of ABCabc font sources for non ABCabc names. I think if you are challenging the basis of the RFC, then this needs to go back to the RFC participants.
 * As regards article body, lead, WP:COMMONNAME has no bearing on article body, this is a MOS question. It would help to understand the scope/scale of your objection. Is it just this the text body of this one article? Is it all WikiProject Military History articles? Is it all articles where WikiProject Vietnam and WikiProject Military History intersect? Is it Vietnam War or all Wars going back to Vietnam vs Champa or vs Tang Dynasty China? Some clarity on the extent of your objection would help in determining the appropriate forum in which to discuss and hopefully resolve the matter. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please start a discussion about your proposed move on the article's talk page per the usual procedure with contested moves. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also note that WP:DIACRITICS specifies that "...when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language", which is the point I'm trying to make here. But as I said, this is best discussed on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am more concerned with the removal of Vietnamese name and the Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (Oxford) reference from the lead and infobox. Could you please per Bold - Revert - Discuss discuss on the Talk page why you have removed the text from the lead. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I made the revert you're now discussing to remove the insertion of the non-standard English name for the battle as well as your unexplained change to the lead. I didn't notice that I was removing a reference as part of this, but am not sure what the importance of this reference is (especially as the article has over 300 other references). It's also not correct to state that the battle was fought in the "former Phước Tuy Province" given that this was (as I understand it) a province at the time. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, just please leave a note to that effect on the article Talk page re revert of edit to the lead per WP:BRD, and I will come back and look and see if there is any other comment in 7 days or so. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. If you'd like to make these changes, please make your case on the talk pages for other editors to discuss. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your help please
A mate of mine from a very long time ago has possibly passed away but one of his NLA mates has posted it without a WP:RS - I for the like of me have failed to find anything online - just in case you might know of any other means of ascertaining the issue - please could you help with a source? Rupert Gerritsen is the guy. Thanks. satusuro 05:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just checked the hard copy death notices in the Canberra Times since 26 September and there's nothing on Mr Gerritsen. I'd suggest approaching User:Wittylama to see if he has any knowledge of this through his position at the NLA. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Suspect there is something odd going on - a diff ip has reverted the edit... probably worth a watch... thank you for your help - as for the NLA staffers and the Petherick room staff, nah they are on different planets most times, I might make a discreet enquiry of another old friend from the 60's who knows him... satusuro 15:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll keep an eye on the Canberra Times, but I hope that your friend is OK. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank Headlam ACR cmt
Hi mate, don't know how I missed this, just picked it up now when I had another squiz at the ACR while debating whether to nominate him or No. 36 Squadron RAAF as my next FAC. That's quite right about the chopper squadron being considered underprepared when deployed to Vietnam, it's just that Headlam's only published connection with the deployment seems to be this planning trip, and commentators always seem to bring up Chief of the Air Staff Alister Murdoch's name when discussing shortcomings with RAAF helicopter operations and Army cooperation. So I did mention the issue in Murdoch's article but I'm not sure if it's quite so appropriate in the Headlam one without more information on his part (if any) in the problem. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, Hawkeye7 seems to have been closing the nomination at the exact time I made that comment, so the diff would have been easily missed. If this is developed for a FAC I'd suggest briefly noting No. 9 Squadron's readiness in this context (and Murdoch's role) given that it's always raised in any discussion of the unit's deployment to South Vietnam, if only to indirectly make the point that it wasn't Headlam's fault. I don't think that I've seen a detailed analysis of who was responsible, and given that it ultimately boiled down to the rushed deployment of the unit such an analysis probably wouldn't be fair on anyone. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I decided to let this one bounce around in the back of my head for a while before I came up with what I think is appropriate wording to provide context without prejudice, but let me know what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, just a note that the article is at FAC now if you have time to check out the aforementioned addition (and the nom in general)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, and congratulations on your well-deserved election as the lead coordinator. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Kintrix
Hey Nick-D, I'm not sure of the protocol here and I'm also not sure if your post on my talk page was a canned response to a new member, but whatever the circumstance thanks for the sentiment. I've lurked around on Wikipedia for years but finally figured I'd try to actually contribute something other than drive-by copy editing. If I have any questions, I'll let you know. V/R, Kintrix (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do - I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Greetings Nick-D. Thank you for your note. Pending a review of the relevant diffs, I have struck out the warning I left. I agree that there doesn't seem much point "warning someone about something which happened a week ago", but I hadn't noticed the date, as I was more concerned about the content. That said, I'm sure you'll agree that it's not the same to warn someone for "common or garden" disruptive behaviour in an article (as in inserting "hello") as to warn them for insulting behaviour towards another editor. And behaviour such as personal attacks against other users are surely to be censored, whenever they happen. On the other hand, two wrongs clearly don't make a right. I have been insulted by vandals on several occasions and it would never occur to me to respond in kind, let alone to another registered user here at Wikipedia.

Which brings me to the second part of your note. When I visited the user's talk page to see what was going on, I saw a note you'd left there ("rather than continue your rude posts"), followed by another one in the same terms left by Pdfpdf. So I saw two users' comment referring to rude posts, which together with that "Piss off!" the user had left at Pdfpdf's talk page, seemed to warrant a warning. The original – and clearly provocative – comment left by Pdfpdf had been removed (one of the obvious inconveniences of allowing users to selectively blank their user talk pages, rather than simply archiving the whole thing in logical chronological order). As I'm sure you're aware, the warning I left is the standard Twinkle template for such cases, and if you, as an admin, consider it does not correspond, either in its wording or its intent, to the action an admin would take, maybe it should be modified accordingly.

I shall now leave an apology at the user's talk page, together with a version of the long-winded rationale I have left you here. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries - I do agree that hitting back in kind is generally not a good idea, but allowances should be made for new editors given that they're unfamiliar with how to report problems. My comment on Andreas' talk page was actually directed at Pdfpdf's rude remarks there BTW. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding SASR section on the SMU stub
Salutations Nick. After expanding the Special Mission Unit article tonight (before and after) I went to look at the Special Air Service Regiment article to make an attempt to expand that section on the SMU article and noticed you were the main contributor to the SASR article (at least in number of edits with User:Anotherclown as second). Anywho, I was wondering if you could/would be up for expanding the SASR section on the SMU stub since I assume your knowledge on them far outweighs mine (which is zilch I might add). Regards, —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   04:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can add. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Little Boy arming plugs
Just querying the Little Boy arming plugs. Last I heard of them, they were in the possession of Clay Perkins. Where did it say this about the plugs? Was there an inscription in the Museum? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's from the label at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. I actually took a photo of it, and it says that it is not known if the green plug (one of three which would have been used to "safe" the bomb) was from the Hiroshima bomb or was used on a practice mission - the plug was found in the navigator's compartment while Enola Gay was being restored. I agree with your change to the caption I used given this uncertainty. I'd upload the photo of the label, but I suspect that doing so would get me into copyright trouble! - please ping me an email if you'd like a copy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

After some advise
Hi Nick,

Its been quite a while since we worked together on Project Operation Normandy! I am after some advise from a long time editor and admin. Over the last few months I have been working on a draft for the Treaty of Versailles article. Having removed the errors, sourcing what was left, expanding it, and copyediting it I posted it today. Granted it is long (around 221,000 bytes, of which ~156,000 is new information (actual text, photos, references, and sources)), but then it is not a simple subject and as can be seen by the world war articles (and doubtless others) the size is not exactly without equal.

I have came upon a situation with which I am completely unfamiliar, and hence the request for advise: I have just had my update reverted twice (diff and diff) by User:AfadsBad - who from the hitcounter tool has made only two edits to the article, which were the revisions - to the clearly inferior and largely un sourced version and told to upload in small chunks so he and others can verify it piecemeal: diff and diff The same suggestion (diff) was pretty much made by user: Rjensen although he did not revert the update and did start to make edits to work out what he believed was fluff and irrelevant to the subject.

I didn't expect my update to be without criticism, but I have never been in this situation before: well sourced updates being reverted and being told to update one section at a time so users, who have done little to improve (remove errors, add material etc) the article over the past year, can personally check every sentence when they have let numerous errors remain and reverted errors back in. It is boggling my mind that an update is being blocked like this (I acknowledge it is a major update, although it contains as much as the previous editors work that was verifiable and as seen from the page's edit history, the article has barely been worked on to improve it overall). I did start to look into getting the sandbox peer reviewed, although the peer review template does not work outside of an article's talkpage it would seem and there was nothing on the peer review page about doing reviews like this. Let alone how a peer review of the sandbox would resolve the issue at hand. With that said, what appears to be numerous personal insults from ‎AfadsBad has left me somewhat aggravated and I think I should cool off before replying there further.

So any advise would be much appreciated. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you made sure to alert me, I assume you want my input. First, glass houses. Second, you reverted my undo of your addition after two editors had clearly stated disagreement on the talk page, unmistakeable disagreement with your adding a huge article to the article. Third, really, you expect everyone to accept it without questioning any of your additions? Wikipedia doesn't work like that either. Fourth, it takes a lot of time to check sources, particularly when you added so much opinion, dense paragraph after paragraph of opinion. Fifth, when you cool down, you can probably think of a way to do it working within the community. Sixth, I give you permission to talk about me anywhere in the future without alerting me, editors will be able to find me. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC))
 * So now I am being stalked.
 * Since I was not filing a report etc, there did not seem any point in inviting someone who is being sarcastic, condescending, and insulting. As to your third point, I did not say anything like that and I have never seen updates been blocked by non-involved editors who have done nothing to improve an article. In regards to your fourth point, I have yet to see you vet the article as it stands (various sources are completely unverifiable for your information or present only one side of an very complicated story) and none of what has been inserted is MY opinion: it is the various discussion of academics on the subject providing the two faces on the treaty i.e. a balanced point of view on the subject. You talk of community, yet you have not worked on the article. You will also find a string of comments from me, across various pages, asking for help working on the draft and asking for help verifying the content of what was in the article. As for your sixth point, I never needed your permission and I never will.
 * Now if you do not mind, I was asking for advise from an experienced admin and editor on how to proceed on a situation I have not come across: sourced material being blocked.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Stalked? No, you wikilinked my user name, and that sends me an alert. You may not need permission, but I have just provided you with how-to instructions, don't wikilink my user name if you don't want to alert me. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

I will unwatch now. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC))
 * EnigmaMcmxc wrote a 30,000+ word new article--a small book. Then he used it to replace the major "Treaty of Versailles" article (of 9000 words) that hundreds of historians have worked on since 2001. He says this is necessary because of unspecified "errors" in the old text. His new additions are of mixed quality--a lot is poor work that has little or nothing to do with the Treaty; he relies on some poor sources (eg Powell). His actions upset me, and I tried to emphasize that Wikipedia editing works best by handling one section at a time so multiple editors can look at specific changes and discuss each. I'm here because when he mentioned my name on this page I was automatically notified.  Rjensen (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi all, This looks like a case where WP:BRD applies. EnigmaMcmxc's revision of the article strikes me as being admirably WP:BOLD, but it's also not unreasonable that there are concerns about a rapid redevelopment of what's among Wikipedia's highest profile articles. The strategy I've followed on the occasions where I've completely redeveloped an article in user space has been to flag this well in advance on the article's talk page and invite collaboration (which worked well in what became the current Air raids on Japan article, though I started from a very under-developed existing article in that case). I'm not sure whether that happened here. Anyway, I'd encourage editors to review EnigmaMcmxc's proposed version of the article and provide comments and feedback. I'd normally offer to help with this, but I'm in the final month of my masters degree and am rather busy - I'll try to have a look over this weekend though. I hope that this is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To the accusation that hundreds of editors work has been washed away by a completely new article, I would like to note the following: 1) the hit counter tool shows that out of the hundreds of editors, there has only been around 30 who have made more than a handful of edits 2) As I have said repeatedly, I started off by attempting to provide references for everything that was already in the article. As can be seen by this diff. I would show more, although I did most of this initial work offline and not on my sandbox. 3) The two latest examples of recent edits being incorporated into the new draft, and not just washed away: main article diff and draft diff, main article diff and draft diff. There are numerous other examples, although again I was working offline for the most part so they are not all present as diffs. 4) diffs showing that talkpage conversations were used to modify the draft; diff, and diff.
 * In regards to the comment about weak sources, I would like to point out that Powell was used only a minute number of times including highlighting why the peace treaty was signed in Paris – something other sources, during my time editing, have not mentioned. The core of the article comes from Bell, Marks, Lentin, the contributors to Boemeke’s and Martel’s various collection of essays and are largely all professional academics with a sprinkling of other sources to provide additional details etc. I would also argue that Barnett, incorporated into the draft from the current article, has been heavily criticized by the likes of FM Carver for writing books full of myths although that was in a different field of study and not to with Versailles. So I find the ‘poor sources’ comment to be a somewhat weak argument.
 * As for the scare quotes around errors, the current article has numerous fact tags left in it. Some on legitimate information that requires sourcing, but others are clearly errors or one side of the argument and not consensus. I highlight the Sudetenland line of the article, and the various comments I have removed over the last few months.
 * I agree the article is long, although it is a complicated subject. There may be too much background information that needs to be edited out although it comes from it being drummed into me to provide enough background information on a subject. I think the claim that most has little or nothing to do with the treaty is too harsh: background is required, aftermath is required, this treaty impacted numerous countries and sparked numerous other conferences and treaties etc. For example, reparations, a key part of the treaty, went on for 12 years and went through various evolutions and resulted in Ruhr occupation. The story of the treaty is much more than what was signed in 1919, and at any rate the current article at the moment also covers information completely irrelevant to the treaty.
 * I ask the question, if a new draft aiming at improving the article has upset Rjensen so much due to use of “poor sources” and not being vetted line for line, I ask why has the current article been left in the state it is for so long without the same level of emotion applied?
 * I am not claiming infallibility, I just do not understand the emotion. I should note, while not fully advertising the fact, I have mentioned several times on numerous talkpages that I was working on a draft although not as well as I could have. I also agree with Keith’s comments, on the talkpage, a good copyedit is in order. It has never been my strongsuit, and it did not seem fair to drag my offline r/l copyeditor into what amounts to a hobby aimed at improving an article. Thanks for the comments Nick, if you have time I look forward to your feedback and good luck with your work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly agree that the name calling in relation to this is entirely unproductive (not least as it's clearly a very serious attempt to improve the article), and the claim that "hundreds of historians" have worked on the article is unlikely to be accurate. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have made an open invite, on the article's talk page, for comments, reviews and editing of the draft.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the counter and saw that over 450 editors made 3 or more edits; that demonstrates a huge amount of interest. As for sources, there is too much reliance by EnigmaMcmxc on WW2 books that devote a bit to the Treaty, and not enough reliance on the major monographs that focus on it, so I added some much better sources to EnigmaMcmxc's sandbox.  As for background, we already have that covered at Wikipedia--- try World War I-- and the text that EnigmaMcmxc called background is not especially helpful in understanding the Treaty. Rjensen (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is shifting goalposts.
 * In regards to the quip about less than useful sources, out of the original 352 citations in the draft, several used more than once i.e. (212 ^[a][b][c][d] Weinberg, p. 15), a mere 39 (assuming I have not miscounted, just over 10 per cent) came from these "poor sources" (some were also used more than once). Personally, that does not seem to be "too much reliance ... on WW2 books". At least two of the sources marked as "poor" are already in the current article and were incorporated into the draft. Two others sourced information already in the article that was unsourced. One gives a concise rundown on Fritz Fischer's views in regards to war guilt, one of the major issues surrounding the treaty and was only used since I no longer have access to Fischer's work and could not access it online. Another source was brought up on the talkpage to show a contrary opinion to Sally Marks. I feel confident that quite a few of the others were also used to source information that was already in the article. With respect, it appears you have merely looked at the authors titles and not at how they have been used in the draft or how they are already been used in the article (all of which is further evidence I did not just delete everyone's past work and replace it with my own).
 * Finally, you mention the poor quality of the background that has little to do with the treaty. The 14 Points and The Polish uprising are very much related to the whole story of the treaty. Considering so many historians like to compare the ToV with the ToB-L, it seems worth a mention of how Germany imposed their own Versailles on another country around a year earlier. You also suggested the following text (diffthat includes mention of the blockade. Your wording, contradicted according to several historians from sources you have deemed to be reliable, has been declared to be a myth/misinterpretation of what happened.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow Force and related pages
Hi Nick, I noticed that you are involved with the Wikipedia East Timor group.

I've been alerted to all sorts of problems with pages that were created some years ago by the author of a recently published book. Most of these pages relate to Sparrow Force. It's been a nasty affair with hacked accounts, accounts set up to look like the author, and deleting of material referencing to the book. I suspect some sort of sabotage is involved. I seek your help to bring some sanity to this mess.

Firstly, we wish to see the Sparrow Force and related pages improved, rather than butchered. We wish to see the Wikipedia page as a first point of reference that encourages viewers to find out more on the subject by visiting associated links. At the moment, the page needs a lot of referencing, due mostly to removal of citations.

Secondly, the book in question is the authoritative reference for Sparrow Force. It amalgamates and provides a lot of original material. I also note that many of the references provided by the author linking to other books have been removed.

The author has kindly added photographs from his book free of copyright. What is the harm of referencing the source of these photographs by providing links to the website for his book? That isn't promotion - it is linking to a resource not in his book.

The book in question is endorsed by many academics and veterans. Is it possible if we could work together to improve this page by utilizing the selfless work of the author in question? If so, we need to find the correct way to reference the following:


 * 1) The witness accounts on Youtube;
 * 2) The images included in the book;
 * 3) Original images created for the pages;
 * 4) Page references to the book; and
 * 5) Lock the page somehow to prevent a repeat of vandalism.

The author no longer has access to his hacked account and is concerned about setting up a new account. What do you suggest he does? I am not that computer minded so I was wondering whether he could work alongside you to improve the pages?

I look forward to your response. --DoubleReds (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was involved in blocking and (from memory) one or two of their sockpuppet/spam accounts. If he wants to be unblocked he can request this as he's done previously: I see no evidence that his account was hacked, or any sensible reason why other people would impersonate him for the purposes of spamming his book. Given that there has been a campaign to use Wikipedia to advertise this book, the chances of it being used as you suggest are close to nil. Please take the time to read Conflict of interest. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick-D. I've worked with a group of historians to complete a major rewrite of the Sparrow Force pages. Those who contributed to the recent Western Australian Museum exhibition have been great. Let me know whether anything can be improved. --DoubleReds (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick-D, how could I raise a dispute around the conduct of User:SuperMarioMan? The McLachlan book is not self-published and it is a credible and reliable source. What is the best course to take? --DoubleReds (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that you stop spamming references to this book. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oct Metro
I will also happily accept requests for the gallery (if not, images will be selected from archives elsewhere). Again I will also remind people that if they ever want to try doing a future month's issue, feel free to with your own style etc or even just stick to the current format. Don't hesitate to contact me for the resources of things to include in this newsletter. Otherwise, enjoy! Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

apologies
The user name is a dead giveaway as is the edit- I reverted but havent lodged a report. Could you do so please, probably a cu time to cleanout it and some similars that have no doubt slipped pass the radar... satusuro 07:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

On Canada
Hi - I'm wondering what your advice is on whether to respond to C'wood 26's endless fiddling with Canadian flags on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)‎. Maybe there are better things to occupy my time than this... Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest taking this to WP:ANI and asking an uninvolved admin to look into it. It appears to be part of Collingwood's Australian nationalist POV pushing and trolling (see also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive769 and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - was thinking about WP:ANI. May do this when I return from OS. Nickm57 (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just warned him for edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

??? I'm sorry?? Did I miss something? I thought we had just moved on from our little squabbles we used to have, and now you post something like this?? You have also ignored my comment on the talk page where I apologised to you. Well I take it back, if you are going to resort to name calling talking behind peoples backs then screw you, and NickM I expected more from you.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I only wish we could get along I dont know why you have to keep this going Nick.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have taken this to ANI. Nickm57 (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis
Greetings! On the Jefferson Davis FAC, you had mentioned adding something about his choices in foreign diplomats. If you don't have time to work on this, I can request the book you mentioned through interlibrary loan; it will just take a few days. Just let me know. Thanks. Also -- any further thoughts on the article? Omnedon (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up on this now. I'm very sorry about the delays - as noted above, I'm in the last few weeks of a masters degree and keep over-estimating how much spare time I'll have :0 Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, no need to apologize -- I hadn't caught the note above, but in any case don't worry about it. I can get the book and add something on that subject. I just appreciate the helpful and detailed input you've given. Omnedon (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

please review move to delete iron iron_projects
{{Talkback|sketcher man}

i have made considerable updates and attempted to comprehensively reference all claims and remain completely neutral in tone. i have linked many youtube videos that establish the bands legitimacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketcher man (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Youtube is not a reliable source unless it's the band's official channel, in which case it's a primary source that cannot establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces
Hello Nick-D,

I trust all is well in your corner of the world.

Polish Armed Forces has been subjected to repeated vandalism by an editor whose login names are variable but appear to mimic MAC addresses used by networked devices.

Some short term protection has been placed on the page but the vandal continues to return.

Would you consider placing longer-term protection on the page? I know this is disruptive in its own right, especially since the vandal appears to use established accounts (or somehow manipulates the Wiki login ID system to produce established accounts). Thanks for taking a look at this.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Plibersek
What was wrong with Plibersek edits? Didn't you like them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryHighner (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Mary, Adding minor "controversies" to articles on living people is frowned upon as this can bias the articles. Please see WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and I'd suggest that you start a discussion on the article's talk page if you think that this matter warrants inclusion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So why not just remove that rather than everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryHighner (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other material was a blatant attempt to bias the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to know what she actually stands for. Why won't you let people know that Emily's List is an abortion group and she supports abortion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryHighner (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relevant are WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV (also WP:RS). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to "get out The Truth". - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship Question
See WP:ANI, I probably should have asked your advice before posting there. Basically the guy has been pointing fingers in my direction, I guess hoping I'd bite but I've been following your advice to avoid needling comments. The guy just kept at it, so when he started the RFC, naming me yet again alleging a non-existent dispute when I really don't care I went to WP:ANI, notifying others who'd been involved in the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. I don't think I missed anyone from the discussion but he is continuing to accuse me of selecting people on the basis of their opinion. Should I respond or simply let the discussion run its course? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend letting the discussion run its course, and not respond directly to attacks and criticism from this editor (BTW, I'm going to be travelling for virtually all of November and won't be looking at Wikipedia). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher
Nick-D,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

There is a discussion concerning the recent changes of Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher, by Speednat. AustralianRupert has been asked to participate, you as well. Adamdaley (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at AN. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

National Motto
Australia has a national motto, look this page :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_mottos

Australia: Advance Australia (As shown on the 1908 coat of arms of Australia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azertopius (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Australia has never officially adopted a national motto: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/coat_of_arms.html and the informal use of "advance Australia" is defunct. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 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) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Article suggestions?
Could you suggest some other WWII article which would be appropriate for this information? Cogiati (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure to be honest - Hitler lying to a prominent historian is hard to categorise. If this didn't have any effects, I'd suggest only the Toynbee article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was important because it showed something like a predetermined plan and that he was afraid of British involvement. It's in Toynbee and I also added it to the timeline of WWII article. Thank you Cogiati (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no shortage of more substantive events which demonstrated that. Hitler lied to the western European governments about his plans for years, and tried - with a fair deal of success - to persuade influential conservatives that he intended to operate within international norms and was someone they could "do business" with. Nick-D (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a home for this on WP. I was suprised there is not a Attempts to forge an Anglo-German alliance 1933-3? article, or something similar. I think there is rich territory here. The documented feelers, and the sheer wealth of material out there on this generally would make a good piece I think. Irondome (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you see a missing topic, I'd suggest going ahead and creating the article on it :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Further Mentorship Question
WP:AN I'm guessing I should just ignore this, right?

Did the guy really just threaten me with a libel suit in Florida? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, do ignore it: it's likely to be closed shortly. I don't think that's a legal threat per-se, but it's certainly not a helpful comment. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: John Treloar (museum administrator)
This is a note to let the main editors of John Treloar (museum administrator) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 11, 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. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 11, 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:

John Treloar (1894–1952) was an Australian archivist who was the director for almost 30 years of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), the country's national memorial to the members of its armed forces and supporting organisations who have participated in war. Prior to World War I he worked as a clerk in the Department of Defence and, after volunteering for the First Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in 1914, served in staff roles for most of the war's first years. Treloar was selected to command the Australian War Records Section in 1917. In this position, he improved the AIF's records and collected a large number of artefacts for later display in Australia. Treloar was appointed the director of what eventually became the AWM in 1920, and was a key figure in establishing the Memorial and raising funds for its permanent building in Canberra. He headed the Department of Information during the first years of World War II, and spent the remainder of the war in charge of the Australian military's history section. Treloar returned to the AWM in 1946, and continued as its director until his death. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive3
I have responded to some of your questions over here, when you have a moment perhaps you can take a look. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Shinano FAC
As one of the article's A-class reviewers, I'd appreciate if you could take some time and decide if the article meets the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure: I'll try to have a look in today or later in the week. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments. I'm in the WikiCup so if you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could evaluate them before the end of the month so the article can be promoted in time to count for the Cup. If not, I'm not in a position to win, so it really doesn't matter, but it would still be nice to close it soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding to your comments yesterday - I had to prioritise finishing off an essay last night. This is now done (hooray!), and I'll reply there today. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wanted to make sure that you'd noticed my responses because of the impending deadline. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on the Operation Tungsten FA
Congratulations on getting Operation Tungsten to FA status. Brilliant work. I hope you plan on doing similar work on such operations as Source, Paravane, Catechism etc.. Manxruler (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm planning on taking Operation Mascot to A-class, and will start an article on Operation Goodwood as well (which should have the legs for GA class, but sources on this major offensive are surprisingly thin on the ground). I may also work on the Bomber Command attacks, but probably not Operation Source. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. It's really good that these articles are being improved, and you're certainly the right editor to do it. If you'd like, I could have a look at what Norwegian-language sources on these operations might be out there too. Manxruler (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd really appreciate that: the sources I have available cover the English and German views of the operations, but have very little on Norwegian perspectives and experiences. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I own a quite sizeable personal library, and of course have access to the Norwegian public library system, so there shouldn't be too much trouble finding the Norwegian side of things. From memory, what is often dealt with in Norwegian sources, is the civilian side of things, as well as that of Norwegian agents spying on Tirpitz and sending intel to the British. Those things should fit in somewhere, I guess. Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, of course. Something for TFA on 3 April next year? Just thinking ahead ;-) BencherliteTalk 11:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a run of potential TFAs lined up for late this year and next year - I've developed several articles on the final 24 or so months of the war to FA status, and the 70th anniversaries of these events would be a fitting time for main page appearances. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Further issues with SNCF article
Hello, Nick-D. Thanks again for your help with the SNCF article previously. While the section was previously improved greatly, it still has issues, and I would like to see if you can help me again. I have taken the slightly bolder step of adding a template to note this dispute. However, I would like to avoid further edits, provided I can get assistance from other editors. To this end, I have explained the situation on the article's discussion page, and would appreciate your involvement again. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

 * Thanks. I'm a bit too old, and a bit too Australian, to be going out trick or treating ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination
As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 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) 06:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Queensland University Regiment
G'day, Nick, sorry to bother you on a Saturday, but I wonder if Queensland University Regiment should be semi protected. Would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - done. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me add my thanks, too. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Flow testing
Hey Nick :). As mentioned on the Milhist coordinators talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Military History, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December edition
Please feel free to suggest any changes or add any requests such as images for the gallery. If you also want to have a try for the new year's edition or any future editions, please do not hesitate to ask. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Battle of Arawe
This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Arawe know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 15, 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. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 15, 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 Battle of Arawe was fought between Allied and Japanese forces during the New Britain Campaign of World War II. The battle was initiated by the Allies to divert Japanese attention away from the Cape Gloucester area of New Britain ahead of a major offensive there in late December 1943. A force built around the U.S. Army's 112th Cavalry Regimental Combat Team landed at Arawe on 15 December 1943 and rapidly overcame the area's small garrison. Japanese air units made large-scale raids against the Arawe area in the following days, and in late December elements of two Imperial Japanese Army battalions unsuccessfully counter-attacked the larger American force. In mid-January 1944 the 112th Cavalry Regimental Combat Team was reinforced with additional infantry and U.S. Marine Corps tanks and launched a brief offensive that pushed the Japanese back. The Japanese units withdrew from the area towards the end of February as part of a general retreat from western New Britain. There is no consensus among historians on whether the Allied landing at Arawe was needed, with some arguing that it provided a useful diversion while others judge that it formed part of an unnecessary campaign. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this DYN nom?
I got your name from here. Could you take a look at |this nomination for Did You Know? that I created? It's been days and no one has either approved it or found problems with it, and I'm getting worried it might get stale. Thanks in advance! VR <font color="Black">talk 13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. This is an interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! VR <font color="Black">talk 04:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MilHist book review
Hi Nick. I've dropped off that book review on the review page for the next issue of The Bugle. Hope that is all OK. Let me know if you need me to discuss any of that with you or Ian. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute
Hi there. You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have been mentioned somewhere on the case talk pages, or you have submitted evidence in this case. Please be aware that the evidence phase for this case closes at 00:01, 09 December 2013 (UTC), which is just over one day from now. If you have not submitted evidence and would like to do so, please do so before the deadline. If you have submitted evidence and would like to amend or expand it, please also do so before the deadline. Thank you! AGK [•] 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My previous Edition
If I give the reference and change the grammar, can I edit it again? Actually, I use a Hyperlink to the main article of this battle as the reference.This is one of the major battles in the China in 1939. I tried to use a short sentence to describe this 3-month battle because it is a profile article.I tried to find an applicable position to do this edition but the only section about the war from 1939 to 1940 is the one I edited before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please start a thread on this on the article's talk page per the usual practice for adding or subtracting material from this high profile article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have post to talk page. Is this what you means? Then I hope you can reply to my talk page because I did not know your previous reply when you put it in your talk page. Another problem is when I can get the feedback and how can I get it? Thank you. —Miracle dream (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Donaldson vandalism
Gday Nick. Bit of vandalism at Mark Donaldson recently (among others). As it is a BLP and the edit summary is offensive I think consideration needs to be given to hiding the edit altogether. If you agree are you able to arrange to do this pls? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see that another admin has beaten me to this. As this idiot appears to be persistent I've also semi-protected the page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. Anotherclown (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 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) 00:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * No worries at all: I'm happy to have helped. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Decision proposed in Ottoman naming dispute
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have commented or been mentioned on the case pages. I am the drafting arbitrator for this case. I have written the draft decision and proposed it for adoption at the proposed decision case page. The committee will now vote on the final decision for this dispute. If you wish to bring any information or comments to the committee's attention, the proposed decision talk page is monitored by the arbitrators active on this case. Thank you, AGK  [•] 20:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Operation Brothers at War
Nick-D,

I was wondering would there be any chance of a "B class or higher" progress bar for "Operation Brothers at War"? It would be good to have one of "B class" progress bar for that part our WikiProject. Adamdaley (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, That sounds like a good idea. What target were you thinking of? (100% of articles at B-class or higher is probably unobtainable). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it could be like have a target number (for example) set at 1000 for the following: featured articles, featured content, good articles and B class and higher. It would be interesting if you could show me how to do the progress bar so I could learn another thing on Wikipedia! Adamdaley (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't set up a progress bar either to be honest - the bars at WP:MILHIST look pretty easy to adapt if you'd like to have a go. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

6th Division (Australia) GA review
Gday Nick - thanks for that cmt. All my points have been addressed but before I close the review I just wanted to check if your point has been sufficiently addressed. Also do you have any other cmts? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hope that you have a great Christmas as well. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish you a Merry Christmas too, Frohe Weihnachten! As the Notifications now are activated in de:Wiki too, could you maybe do me a favor and post de:Benutzer:Bomzibar without the nowiki here? I want to see if the notifications are working on a interwiki-basis and found nobody who can tell me so this would be a test. ;) Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've just tried that, but I'm not sure if I've got the code right. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, seems the notifications do not work interwiki. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:white; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, same to you Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas St Nick! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

if you are on
last 2 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billzilla socks needing blocks imho satusuro 08:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, and merry Christmas. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - the last thing is for the Tassie election coming up to have users like that - the real ones are bad enough :(, as for the season, may your christmas and new year be safe and enjoyable, and thank you for tolerance of my various messages on and off over the last year or so... your gentlemanly coping with some of more strident bits and pieces is very much appreciated... satusuro 08:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The template page says only admins can put the block notices up - I was trying to place something of the stuff at bowel page - ... satusuro 08:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't tag that page as it was an obvious "throw away" account, and the operator will get an automated block notice when they try to edit. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

42 scare
As there are already good milhist articles about the borader military aspects of the early 42 scare - what is your opinion on the domestic and local responses around the country in the February to June 42 on the southern part of the country - a valid separate article? satusuro 07:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That would make a great topic. I'm planning to redevelop the Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II article, but I think that it should remain focused on Japanese policy making (though it seems sensible to also note what the Allies knew about this - Curtin and MacArthur knew that there would be no invasion by April 1942 due to codebreaking). An article on the widespread public fears would be very useful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

sent an email about this satusuro 07:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A new article German prisoners of war in northwest Europe
User:Jtbrown43 has completed a new article German prisoners of war in northwest Europe I found it to be informative, he has done an excellant piece of work. I merely put it up on Wikipedia for him since he is a new user. Check it out.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a great article: thanks for letting me know about it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentaly, I note that the Prisoner of war article is still blatantly biased against the Western Allies (it briefly notes that they generally treated POWs well, and then describes the incidents of poor treatment in detail: compare with the section on the German treatment of Western Allied POWs!). Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.32.90 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)