User talk:Nick-D/Archive 17

Naval involvement in the Bougainville counterattack
G'day, Nick, happy New Year. Regarding PM's query about naval involvement in the Bougainville counterattack, I've added a single sentence, which I was able to source to Gailey. Unfortunately, I can only view parts of Gailey's book on Google Books, so I couldn't read some of the Bougainville chapter. I wonder if you have access to the full source? Failing that, do you have Morison's work? He might mention something else. Unfortunately, I only took a small photocopy of the work when I borrowed it (due to the 10 percent rule), and my facsimile doesn't include the pages related to the counterattack. (I will try to get the book again when I go back to work so I can work on the Landings at Cape Torokina article some more, but unfortunately it takes about three weeks for the library to post it to me in Darwin). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing I've noticed is that if you know the data you need is juuuuuust below the snippet, if you do a gbooks search using "text from the snippet", the preview in the search result often shows additional text from the book than the snippet itself actually does. Not sure if that's helpful in this case, but if you "just need a few more words-", it can save your bacon! - The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike! I was halfway into writing a para on the US Navy's operations during this campaign when I saw this message, drawing on Morison. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, both of you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An alternative strategy is the second-hand book market. For me to visit a decent-sized library has a cost in terms of travel and parking - and photocopying in libraries is expensive. Then you might need to make a second visit to check on something. Alternatively, the book that you really need might cost the same as (for me) one or two trips to the public library. (I've checked prices on both Amazon and Abebooks, and for History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Breaking the Bismarcks Barrier 22 July 1942-1 May 1944 v. 6 it's a no-brainer on costs.) Of course, you might live within walking distance of the library, so my strategy would not apply.
 * (Sadly, many authoritative second-hand books that I have bought turn out to be ex-library copies that have been sold when libraries close.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In a burst of excitement to celebrate graduating from university and gaining a full-time secure job, I actually purchased the full set of the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II (something of a while ago now...). I'd be happy to provide material and/or references to anyone who's interested, especially as the unusual way the series was commissioned means that unlike most other official histories of this era it won't be out of copyright for a while and is unlikely to be made available online. Regards, 10:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick, I might take you up on that if I have trouble getting the book from the library for the Landings at Cape Torokina article (sorry, I forgot to respond to this earlier). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like your input in a discussion
Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

problems adding a significant line to holocaust denial section
Hi Nick-D, I am trying to add a line around line 278 of the holocaust denial section that deals with the provenance of the Diary of Anne Frank. In late 2015, the Anne Frank Fund amended the claim of authorship to include Otto Frank as a co-author. He was previously listed as an editor. This appears to vindicate some of the criticisms of the heritage of the book and changes the valence of the article. There are many excellent sources, such as http://time.com/4113855/anne-frank-diary-co-author/. There is another article in the New York Times, but I did not cite that as it is behind a paywall.

Merely saying that the addition, "misses the point" makes it seem like the contributors to the Holocaust Denial article are agenda driven and are not concerned with facts. Is this the case? Why 3 reversions in a row despite complying with all of your complaints along the way (when any reasons for revision were given).

Thanks for looking into this.
 * You are trying to add material to the article which implies that reputable sources such as Time support claims that Anne Frank's Diary was faked and hence the claims of Holocaust deniers regarding it have legitimacy. The source does not state this at all: it says that Otto Frank was added to the authorship of the book as a copyright tactic only. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The concept that this is a copyright tactic only is delegitimized by the fact that it has been successful in extending the copyright on the diary. I cite section 101 of the US copyright law: A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.
 * I don't give a hoot about your interpretation of US copyright law. The source says that Otto Frank was added as an author in order to extend the book's copyright period. And nothing else. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Anne Frank Fund is lying and intentionally misleading the world just to get a few dollars? Are they really so unconcerned with their reputation? It seems like there is but the one ideological story line and facts are naught but a nuisance to you. How about if we change it to a less editorialized citation that does not suggest an elaborate ruse, but rather warns at the consequences of assigning authorship to Otto Frank: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/15/newser-anne-frank-copyright/75825098/
 * Arguing that the Anne Frank diary is faked and now personal abuse! Classy. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WWII
Nick, see here for an editor changing "World War II" to "WWII". Am I correct in assuming that "World War I" and "World War II" should always be spelled out in the text? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, Yes, that's right. WWII is confusing and unprofessional-looking IMO. Regards (and happy new year!), Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's what I figured, but I wasn't certain. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Program(me)
Got another question: In Collins-class submarine replacement project, "program" is used throughout. Is this normal Australian English usage, or should it be the Commonwealth norm of "programme"? Or is it both? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Either is fine in Australia. 'Program' is much more common, and is the current norm used by government entities (though, bizarrely, this does change with different heads of government!). Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry to page stalk, but the word was originally "program" in all English usages. In the late 19th Century, some presumed the word to be an import from French, so the "-amme" spelling was introduced. This is a fine example of people wishing to show that they had a higher level of education than they really did. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class Medal with Swords

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign
Hello Nick. Some months ago Dweller made a list of featured articles to appear on the main page. Among them was Guadalcanal Campaign, and next month marks the 75th anniversary of the successful conclusion of that battle. I am going through it to fix cites and do any other cleanup needed. Any suggestions by you for improvement of the article would be welcome. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I'll look in on the article. I'd suggest also posting a notification at WT:MILHIST as this isn't a campaign I know a huge amount about and given that the primary editor of it is now banned, it may need a bit of a group effort to tidy up and keep an eye on. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

FAC
Hey, would you be interested in reviewing my FAC Margaret (singer). Regards. ArturSik (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, This isn't a topic I know anything about, but I'll try to look in if I have time. Regards, `Nick-D (talk)

Your block might need to be expanded
You blocked just a bit ago but you may wish to expand the block to the whole subnet 2001:8003:54da:e600::/64. They've been changing ips a lot. (Just saw you semi protected the page so that might be enough)  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know how to do a range block and the disruption from this range appears to be focused on one article (though please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll ask another admin to look into a range block). Hopefully the page protection will do the trick, and I've watchlisted the article in case this re-occurs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Mintaro
Hi, are you able to help with the next stage of the following please? See: Template:Did you know nominations/Mintaro, South Australia

I haven't submitted a DYK for over 5 years and a little confused with the process.

Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given up on DYKs as I find the process to be convoluted and confusing I'm afraid! I think that the hook needs an internal link to the Mintaro article, and possibly one to slate, and it would be helpful to also list the source, and review a nomination yourself. can you please advise on whether anything else should be done here? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. The first thing you forgot to do was transclude the template onto the nominations page.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User OJOM
Hi Nick, Happy New Year!! User OJOM has tried the patience of many people with his distinct reluctance to collaborate, and wish to replicate the French Wikipedia's military articles exactly, including a mass of Frenchwiki in-text links, sometimes ignoring existing English wiki article, and idiosyncratic translations (formation=formation, not training; interarm=interarm, not combined arms; chasse = hunter, not fighter, in the case of Air Force fighter units). These make his articles very difficult to read at times, but his unwillingness to cooperation has been marked as far back as 2015. I am considering administrator action, but would like to see whether another admin finds the problems as severe as I do. Can you take a look please at User talk:OJOM, at the bottom, and give me your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy new year as well! From skim reading OJOM's talk page, their high-handed an non-collaborative attitude there is concerning. I've noticed some of these articles being created, and I presume that they can be fixed up in some way - is the editor amenable to others doing this? The most recent thread on the talk page is concerning: this is the English language Wikipedia, and French terminology and unit names should obviously be avoided except where they happen to be the common terms in English language works as our readers won't have a clue what the article is referring to. I can read a bit of French and am mildly familiar with the key French military terms, and I've struggled with these articles. It may be the case that OJOM doesn't fully appreciate the limits of their English language skills or the fact that few of our readers will find the French Wikipedia articles of much use, and so should take other editors' feedback on board. I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Random reverts
Re:  seems to be reverting stuff at random. Posted a warning. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll watchlist their talk page as well, and respond if this continues. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

John arneVN
He's requested an unblock on his user talk page - I don't see any previous warnings for vandalism? Am I missing something? I'm confused - let me know.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just lifted the block. Their edit was part of long running vandalism of this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done!

 * Thanks a lot Ian. And thanks Dank for prompting me about this over the last 18 months or so - the article is much the better for it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad this article got its well-deserved day in the sun. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

FAC Mentoring request
Hello Nick-D,

In October 2017, I nominated German destroyer Z39 for FA, but it was not promoted because lacked context in a lot of places. After the close of the nomination, I added a lot of context to it, going from 11 kb and 1800 words to 18kb and 3000 words. I believe I have added all the context needed. Would you be willing to check if you feel it would be able to pass an FAC, and mentor me if so, or advise me on how to improve it if not? Thanks. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  04:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Iazyges, I'd be happy to do so. I'll post some comments on the article's talk page over the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Gloucester
G'day, Nick, just letting you know I've nominated Battle of Cape Gloucester for a peer review. It can be found here: Peer review/Battle of Cape Gloucester/archive1. I'm hoping to take it to GA a bit later (maybe March or April depending on whether I have to go away in late Februrary for work). If you were able to take a look sometime and give me some feedback, or add something to the article, that would be fantastic. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll look in and post some comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Re:Bugle
I’m gonna work on this tomorrow, along with the timeline for the bugle. It’s been a very long two weeks, and though I’m not proud of it I really needed a day or two down time to get back on my feet. 2600:1011:B052:12E2:FD9C:B4B7:FBDC:405D (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I hope that all's going well for you. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Too well actually, between my day job and my night job I don't hardly have any time to myself anymore. I could use some time off (I haven't had time off since I was 24-29), but now that I'm finally earning a paycheck I want to start saving for some stuff I've long wanted, so I'm pressing full speed ahead with both jobs until I get what I want :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

3SQN Hornets
Hi Nick, just following up on your recent update -- maybe I missed something but have any RSs said where 3SQN's Hornets have gone, e.g. to swell the other squadrons' complements, or earmarked for Canada...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * From memory (and from leafing through a copy in a newsagent) the current edition of Australian Aviation says that they've been transferred to the other squadrons. I might have to shell out for a copy... Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

typo?
Australian Defence Force: "A total of 995 Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles were in service with most order." Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * oops, I meant that to be 'with more on order'! Thanks for spotting this. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I know I pissed you off this one time, so in return I'd like your opinion (and judgement) on this "controversial" suggestion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dzungar_genocide

Abattoir666 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm afraid that I don't know anything at all about that topic, so I can't offer you a useful opinion here. I'd suggest seeking input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mongols. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Nick, special thanks for the edits to the Harmonie German Club. JennyOz (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving the article! The various ethnic clubs of Canberra have quite interesting histories. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Lusitania for FA review
Hello! I wanted to submit the article Sinking of the RMS Lusitania for FA review, but since it is my first time, I saw your name listed on the FA mentoring page and I thought you might be interested. I just read the Feature Article guidelines and it seems good to me.  L293D  ( ✉ ) 17:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, From a quick look at the article it contains significant amounts of unreferenced text, and has citation needed tags which need to be addressed. Referencing is a fundamental FA criterion, so the article at present would speedy fail a FA nomination. I'd suggest that you address these issues, and start a discussion on the talk page among the editors who've worked on the article to discuss a path forward to FA. The good article and Military History project's A-class processes would be good milestones on the way to FA. Regards. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia
Convention is debatable. I refer you to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page as well as Talk: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you has shown that you have no knowledge of this role, the House of Rep and the Senate has equal power as stated in the Australian Constitution including the power to block supply, how can the government and the PM survive without supply from Parliament is beyond me here is your source:Powers practice reference. Do whatever you want but I'll fix your nonsense. Minhle (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a specific reliable source to support your contention that the outcome of senate processes influences who is appointed PM. I have provided multiple authoritative sources which state that the House of Representatives determines this. Vaguely waving at the constitution, which does not even mention the existence of the PM, is not a reliable source. In fact, the source you provided actually states (in the covering foreword of the PDF document) that "when appointing a Prime Minister under section 64 of the Constitution, the Governor-General must, by convention, appoint the parliamentary leader of the party or coalition of parties which has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives". As to me having "no knowledge" of this topic, I actually have a degree in Australian political science. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Grounds under which PM will stop continuing his job
The issue surrounding the ground for which the PM is appointed has been settled, by convention, the GG must appoint the the one who is likely to command confidence in the House of Rep. However, the issue I tried to edit is something different, they are grounds that PM will not continue to be PM, according to the Governor-General official website, updated on 2017, far more recent than the source that Nick-D is referred to which is

1/From the Solicitor-General and not the Governor-General and recently from the Parliamentarian crisis, view of the Solicitor General has been proven wrong so many time

2/It's in 2010

My source from Governor-General website which said little about ground that PM is appointed but stated this as part of the Governor-General reserved power according to convention Governor General Role:

There are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include:

The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;

The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;

The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and

The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister."

Hence, it's reasonable to say that the ground for which the PM is no longer PM is that he no longer enjoy the confidence in the Australian Parliament, given that there's other ground for example when his party removed him as leader but as we already stated that "almost always and according to convention, the PM is the leader of majority in Parliament... There's no need to repeat this part. Minhle (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI recommendation
Greetings Nick, since you were the one that dealt with it in the past, I think that User:thewolfchild is actually the blocked user TheFearGod that created a bunch of socks. My reasonings: Anyway, I just thought I would let you know in case you might have an interest and someone suggested I file an SPI but I don't really know how and I suspect that any CU results would be stale after this long. Cheers! 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Both have the same mannerisms and speech
 * 2) Both focus strongly on Military history
 * 3) The Signature is nearly identical
 * 4) The User:thewolfchild account was built in August 2010, the same month you blocked some of TheFearGods socks.
 * 5) User:thewolfchild claims to have more than 10 years editing experience but their first edit was August 2010, indicating a previous account
 * 6) The both appear to be editing from the same region.


 * This IP user has also posted this same accusation on two user talk pages, (including mine, but another editor reverted it off my page as NPA before I logged in and saw it). His comments on this user's talk page, (railing about his time here, dealing with "unfriendly people" and "admins and WMF staff that are problematic") indicate he may be evading a ban to grind an axe with me and apparently, as well as trying to recruit editors for another wikia-type website. I cautioned him about posting personal attacks, but was told to "piss off". I won't be dealing with user any further. But since he seems intent on trying to involve you in his harassment schemes, I though you should know the full picture. - the WOLF  child  16:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, If you feel that there is evidence that someone is misusing multiple accounts, I'd suggest filing a SPI case. I can't consider this without diffs, etc, illustrating what you see as similarities. For what it's worth, while I had concerns over Thewolfchild's conduct when they were new to Wikipedia many years ago, this didn't extend to believing that they were an experienced editor - quite the opposite in fact. Regards. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you for basically dismissing that accusation, I appreciate that. You know, Nick, I gotta say, I also had concerns back then as well, especially with your ability to be an admin, but that's old news, and I'd say you've definitely improved since then and you're now one of the better admins here. I guess each of us grows and learns as we go along... Cheers! - the WOLF  child  08:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From looking at some of your old edits as part of this, I reckon I was 100% correct to have extended your block. An editor who did the same stuff now would be blocked quite quickly. I'm pleased that you've moved on from this long-ago era of editing, and it's certainly true that we're all older and wiser. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Including German Losses for the entirety of 1945
I’m waiting for you to respond on the Western Allied Invasion of Germany talkpage. -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

German losses @ Western Allied invasion of Germany
I took a quick peek, I need to will check and get back to you. The Zaloga book is available in the NYPL, I will check out today. I did notice that Overmans was cited incorrectly, I will fix this. Stay tuned--Woogie10w (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)--Woogie10w (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

very impressive
well done with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_emergency_of_March_1944 - a very good comparison against the 1942 scare article now - JarrahTree 08:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hoaxer
Nick, could you take look at Special:Contributions/AlifARMM4A? All the contributions appear to hoaxes or juvenile made-up additions. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, I've just blocked that account. Thanks for following up on this idiot. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Australian Equipment
Thanks For your help to complete Picture and Sources of Australian Army Equipment. This page need more Updated Tables, Cheears.124.82.24.147 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Before The LAND 400 For Boxer AFV, The Requiment is 225 and I Was Confused that The Amount of outcome winner is 211. so can you explain please. Reconnaissance & Counter Reconnaissance (129), Command & Control (26), Joint Fire (Artillery Spotting) (8), Surveillance (17), Ambulance (15), Repair (20) and Recovery (10) are all in 225. Same happen to DefTech AV8. The Real Ammount for Combat Variats is 240 and Non-Combat is 71, By the time the Amount of AV8 Is 311. If You can explain it.124.82.24.147 (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The minister's press release says 211 have been ordered. This article says that the reduction from the initially planned number was likely due to the cost of the Boxer. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok Got It !, Thanks and chears.124.82.24.147 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you and cheears!

 * No worries at all, and welcome to Wikipedia as a registered editor! Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Battle of the Bismark Sea Reversion
Hi Nick! I noticed you reverted my "Decisive" label on the article. I thought "Decisive" means a highly significant victory, that devastates the opponent, and the victor either wins by a huge margin, or succeeds on dramatically changing the course of the war. The Battle of Midway qualifies as the latter, but I felt that, since only 13 were killed among the Americans and Austrailians, and over 2,000 Japanese were killed, it prevented a major landing action, and that the Japanese abandoned Lae after that attack, that it would qualify. Let me know. :) The Legacy (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I haven't seen any books or similar which described this as a 'decisive' victory. It was certainly an important victory, but didn't have dramatic effects. The Japanese didn't abandon Lae BTW - it took much campaigning and the Landing at Lae to achieve this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Tridgell
FYI, I don't think he should appear on the ANU page, but it seems that removing him just causes some other editor to put him back. Maybe give it a few weeks? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. I see you've removed him. Good. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like someone wants to spam him in. There was a whole paragraph added! Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Equipment of the Pakistan Army
Nick, If You have a Time. Please Help me To Arrange Table for The Equipment of the Pakistan Army as One of Pakistani User is Trying to Revent saying Im Vandalism. What he Didn't Understand is Im trying to Clear the Picture, Sources, Arrangement Tables and More. Cause AFAIK, Some Tables are not Quiet Understand. BTW, Can you help me to find LMT MARS-L's Picture.AirWave 800S1 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, That's not a topic I know much about to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, It's Fine but First. If you have a Clear Picture of LMT MARS-L Picture cause i have to put one of it at Weaponry of the New Zealand Army. Second, One of Pakistani Editor is Trying to Revent My Previous Edits Using German Army's Table and Arrange. Some of The Sources are not blogs and Because he Thinks it was a Vandalism. I Wil Not Trying Arguing Until I Had no Choice to call something they can't Forget. Please Just Add Watchlist to Equipment of the Pakistan Army.AirWave 800S1 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I Was Not to say that Finding some sources since you Trying Focus on Australian Article.AirWave 800S1 (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the MARS-L, I'd suggest looking through what's available on Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Zealand_Army The gun has only recently been issued, so there may not be any PD photos of it. It would be better when you start these tables to use photos from the relevant country where available, rather than generic photos. Regarding the Pakistani Army, I doubt I'd be able to tell a good source from a bad one in that topic area - they almost always look bad. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah and Thanks, But Juts add to the Watch list for Pakistan army. I Just Want to Update as i can do but This Fellow Maxx76 Blame me for nothing just as he Revent my previous Edit.AirWave 800S1 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Nick, this user has been blocked as a sock per Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz. I'm sorry I wasn't paying much attention to the user, or I might have caught him earlier. Thankfully, others did. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bill, I did have suspicions that this was a duplicate account of some kind - though the topic areas seem to be inherently problematic for some reason. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick, this looks like another Fonte sock, as it's editing some of the same pages as the previous sock. Can you block without an SPI, and/or do think we should do an SPI for sleepers? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's clearly the same person and I've blocked them. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Operation Cajun Fury in Wikipedia:List of Hoaxes
Hello Nick! I see that you have removed Operation Cajun Fury from the Wikipedia:List of Hoaxes page because you said it was not a hoax. The article was recently deleted for likely being a hoax (and if true, lacking notability), so if you know any sources that reference it, you might want to bring back that page. swissarmysalad
 * Hi, While this isn't a hoax, I couldn't find anything which indicates that it's notable - please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for the help, and kudos to you for all of the stuff you've worked on in general.swissarmysalad(talk)
 * No worries, and thanks for the kind words. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Finding quotes
I have repeatedly said "I'll look for it" about many quotes. Sometimes they are easy to find, but sometimes not. But you have my word I will look. I do hope you'll be patient with me. I am seriously hoping this FAC takes its time and results in many positive changes. For example, your comments have already spurred me to add facts about Wavell that need to be added. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, but please tone down your responses in the FAC. I'm on the brink of abandoning this review due to your defensive and rude responses. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What? No really, please believe me, I am very seriously not joking, and am not arguing, and am not just pretending to be innocent to egg you on or POKE you or anything similar..  am genuinely and truly innocently confused... What rude responses? I... are you talking about "And the heroic WAVELL stood up to London, and relief was offered, and it went well, but the real solution was the harvest. The End"? I was telling the truth, tho in a slightly facetious manner. Sources  really do kinda gloss over it, simply because they are typically focused on 1) causes, and 2) suffering.... No really, rude is when I say something like Fuck the adverts. Twice, and with a glass of milk afterward. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of your responses are to dismiss my comments or are your personal views on the events covered by the article. Neither is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here we're talking about shipping? The shipping issue is.. mmm... I'd say it's #2 on the "most controversial" list, after "How big was the shortfall?". I mean, "Churchill's Secret War" is just plain bitter about it (tho it's an amateur/journalist book), as are other sources. "Hungry Bengal" falls anti-UK but is much much more measured... mmm.. but... my point is.... if we say "it was shipping" in the lede, then the screaming furies of nationalist editors will descend upon the article. And they would be able to support their screams with some meaningful academic sources.. Or are you talking about the UK forces using most of the cotton, and the "Cotton Famine"? Those are just historical facts... I am still not sure. I will re-read everything. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Something like "access to international sources was constrained by British Government decisions which were influenced by a worldwide shortage of shipping and the views of Winston Churchill towards India" would do the trick, and reflect what sources say. Any source which says there was enough shipping to go round at this time is totally wrong: managing the shortages was a key constraint on the entire Allied war effort. Shipping could have certainly been made available for Bengal, and clearly should have been, but there really were major shortfalls. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Churchill is hard to read, because he went off on colorful and vehement tirades that regrettably sound extremely like unmitigated and unalloyed racist fury to modern ears. And perhaps they were; I don't know. I do remember, however, one source said that Churchill declined international relief aid because he was afraid that the US, Canada etc. would deduct ships used for relief from the total used to support the war effort, rather than adding new ships for relief purposes... but I hope you'll understand.. you are just now entering this forum. I've been here for 2 years and I've been wall-of-texted and/or insulted by furies from all 3 sides of the spectrum (British nationalists, Indian nationalists, and tinfoil hat parade marshals). I am very sensitive to the fact that whatever we say can and will be screamed at (on the bright side, it's not as bad as Arab-Israeli stuff). I.... will consider this. I will think about how to say something... in my experience, nutjobs and wild-eyed nationalists berserkers often read only the WP:LEDE rather than the full article; the lede is a landmine. But I will think. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been here for 2 years and I've been wall-of-texted and/or insulted by furies from all 3 sides of the spectrum (British nationalists, Indian nationalists, and tinfoil hat parade marshals). No,, you're the one who has been attacking people who challenge you. SarahSV (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Soup at Midday
Thanks for being bold here - I think you have done the right thing. A follow up was on my to-do list but you beat me too it; the SPI backlog seems to be ever-increasing at present. In the unlikely event of any fall-out please ping me. Ben  Mac  Dui  09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. A consensus among two admins in a SPI case before I arrived was already a strong conclusion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

English royals
Nick, I know the answer to this, but you'd probably be able to explain it better than I could, assuming it deserves a response. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, I've explained things there. It amuses me to see Queen Elizabeth II regularly pop up in the 'commanders' field of battle infoboxes! Regards. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And she was in the infoboxes here and in the RAAF article! - fixed. One of the problems with the Australian constitution is that you need some pretty high-end knowledge of political science to understand what it actually means. Nick-D (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested (update)
I'm sorta working on the Wavell thing in User:Lingzhi/sandbox. Meanwhile, there's good info about "Army to the rescue" in India Need Not Starve! pp. 125ff. If you're interested, you could point out what seems important to you, but be careful because 1) the article is already long. Brevity is the soul of... shorter articles, and 2) that book looks like it's WP:PRIMARY and looks very informal and anecdotal, so we'd have to be careful if we used it. I will look for more. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I just finished making some nontrivial changes as per your comments and pinged you on the FAC page, but came here to say I'll be out of town for maybe even as long as six days starting.. actually day after tomorrow but will be busy starting now. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WestJet Encore FAC comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/WestJet_Encore/archive1

Thank you very much for your comments about WestJet Encore. The mainline WestJet Airlines is the second largest airline in Canada but still small, nothing like Qantas. In fact, Qantas' rubbish is treasure at WestJet. WestJet bought 4 old Boeing 767's from Qantas. WestJet Encore is even scrappier. New planes but all small.

I have seen some airline articles that are shameless promotion. I am trying to make WestJet Encore as FA then tackle a much larger and complex project, that of a major airline. That project might take more than a year or two to become FA. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * One result of your comments is that I studied and added to the article a little about WestJet Rewards. Rather than have to earn a zillion points for an award, one earns 1% of their airfare in WestJet Dollars. When one reaches $15, they can redeem that amount, such as $15, off a future flight. Elite level earn more than 1%. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have the FA nomination watch listed, and will follow your responses. The rewards deal sounds good - I reached silver status with a major Australia airline last year, and was bemused to find that it entitled me to almost nothing! Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I've searched quite a lot of routes and have found a few odd WestJet Encore routes that don't involve a hub or focus city. Most WestJet Encore routes are just boring small cities to hubs, like Calgary. Any suggestions on how or if it should be included?


 * Victoria, BC - Kelowna, BC (provincial capital to wine region)
 * Winnipeg, MB - Saskatoon, SK; Regina, SK, and Thunder Bay, ON. (I suppose that Winnipeg is a somewhat large city)

So the airline obviously is trying to find 2 cites where there are a few people who regularly travel between the cities. Point-to-point, they say. Some airlines only fly hub routes. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure to be honest. I presume that these are 'tag' routes where the plane makes an intermediate stop? Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you know where that map went? You commented at FAC and when I clicked, it produced a map of Canada. Today when I clicked on the link, it just shows a Q400 airplane. That previous map had WestJet Encore airports and not WestJet Airlines airports. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Joke Warning
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  13:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bobherry, I actually usually use that template deliberately, to ensure that the editor receives the appropriate information. I have no way of knowing whether any given editor is familiar with the rules around edit warring, and given the consequences attached to this it actually seems to me to be a courtesy to ensure that they are aware. As it turns out, the editor in question here does not seem to have been familiar with these rules given their posts on their talk page, and other editors' comments to them. Edit warring in a high profile featured article when there's a talk page discussion going on is the kind of thing which gets people quickly blocked, so the template seemed like a good option. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

optional help
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnsh666&type=revision&diff=836606425&oldid=836604655

I see that you made a comment on the Requested Move of Talk:2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs. As you can see in the link, Administrator Ansh666 even refused a barnstar that I awarded with the edit summary of "I do not wish to be involved in this matter any more".

I have made sufficient comments that I do not believe any further comments from me are needed there. If you want to eventually close the matter with a decision, please do so. If not, I hope someone in Wikipedia with a good reputation will do so. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Given that I've commented on the discussion, I'm not able to close it. If you need a neutral closer, I'd suggest asking the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Another option would be to ask an admin to do the honours, via WP:AN. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, your approach of proposing multiple titles and saying that you support all of them is confusing. I'd suggest picking only one. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate username
Nick, I thought you must ght be best to handle the warnings for Special:Contributions/AustralianNationalFlagAssociation. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, I see that they've been blocked by another admin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found another case, User:RAN Web Manager. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

bengal
Nick: Thank you for your outstanding and closely-reasoned comments. I believe almost all of them have been addressed, certainly all of the major ones. Perhaps all that's left are your suggestions to move the military buildup section, and remove all the footnotes. I don't think either of those is possible. The military buildup continued through '45 or so, but its crucial effects were felt years earlier. And as for footnotes, well, there are many FAs with footnotes. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, while trying to answer Brian's question I accidentally stumbled across the reference to soldiers disobeying orders to feed the starving, just as you mentioned, in "Churchill's Secret War" p. 194 I think. I am dead sure I saw a quote somewhere that the average Indian thought very highly of the rank-and-file soldiers who were very capably distributing aid, but for the life of me I cannot find it. I will keep trying for a while longer. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant FAC
I nominated the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article for FA status here: Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. I saw on the Mentoring for FAC page that you have an interest in history, so I believe the subject of this article may interest you. This building played a huge yet mostly unknown role in the early years of the automotive industry in the United States. Any input that you would be willing to provide on its review page would be helpful, but what will help the most is confirming whether it meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance. Jackdude 101 talk cont 02:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll look in on this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I addressed all of your items on the review page. Let me know on that page whether the nomination is now worthy of your support when you have a moment. Jackdude 101  talk cont 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I addressed your remaining comments a few days ago. Please indicate on the review page whether you are ready to support it. Jackdude 101  talk cont 11:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have the nomination watchlisted. I've been busy all week, and will look in over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

basement libraries
oh migosh - UWA lost thngs in a similar situation some years ago, and all those years when I was doing things in Java - one whole archive was in a basement - all lost in floods :( JarrahTree 07:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's heart breaking. A lot of my 'go-to' books for developing articles were wiped out. Pretty much every FA I've developed owes something to the ANU Library. The good news is that we're somewhat spoiled for choice for libraries here, but this is a big loss. The ANU has committed to rebuilding the collection. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a lot of books to lose - I have had things to do with trying to rescue (even though when I was doing library studies training in the deep deep past never got to the units to do with disaster management) after fires, and mould from crazy storage locations - when university librarians allow basement locations - they should be required to have industrial strength drainage systems on assumption that uwa and anu arent the only culprits - there are nerve wracking stories about the brisbane river and the library storage next to it JarrahTree 07:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Library of Australia is apparently also at some risk! It seems that the ANU got taken by surprise, as the floodwaters were channelled into the library from the massive building site next door (not sure if you're familiar with the ANU campus, but they've demolished the entire Union Court area and are rebuilding it on a grand scale). The library is well away from the creek usually. All the ANU libraries look run down these days though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they've been scrimping on maintenance. Goodness knows why people keep building major libraries near bodies of water. The Woroni article is a real eye opener into just how much damage can be done in a short time, especially in Australia's climate: even the books which were above the flood line had to be thrown out due to mold damage. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * from lengthy time at State Records in Perth - the story is black mould - can deal with - the second you encounter coloured - specially orange or yellow - run for cover - it can be fatal apparently JarrahTree 08:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian Flag Society page third opinion
Is it your intention at this stage to abide by the third opinion and state your case? I must say for someone with moderator privileges on wikipedia you didn't seem to pay this process much respect and some of your edits seem less than constructive to me.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What, by nominating the article for deletion? As noted there, I have no intention of wasting my time interacting with you, as you appear to have an undisclosed conflict of interest with this organisation (please see WP:COI) and have been abusively using multiple accounts. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Vespasian's Camp
Hi. A while ago you kindly assessed Vespasian's Camp giving it a B class. [Here.] You then upgraded to B everything except MilHist, [here]. I assume that this was an oversight? (In which case I am pleased that it is not just me...) Any chance that you could upgrade it for the contest? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops! - yes that was an oversight (and one which I thought completing the checklist would override?). Thanks for letting me know - I've fixed this now. The article is a good read. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are quite right to expect the checklist to override any manually set start, C or B. So, as B3 is set to No the article is still showing as Start class. Hopefully the grammar is ok? If not, please don't tell my fellow editors at GOCE.
 * I'm glad that you like it. I have it on my list to try to improve to GAN when I have some time to dig into the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I don't think that there's any harm done in you jumping in and fixing obvious errors like this (given that I was saying that the article was B class at various points!), but I appreciate your approach here. Please keep up the good work with these articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thank you. And thank you; after my inglorious approach to the contest I am trying hard to stay well within those rules that I have a grasp of. This rule seems a good one. I feel a little bad for messing you around, tempered by amusement that even a grognard can have an off day. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that my most common edit summary is 'fix' (referring to fixing stuff I just added!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Libya–Turkey relations
What was this article a copyvio of? I just need to know so that I can request revision deletion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure to be honest. The editor who created it was rapidly creating similar articles which were full of copyright violations and is likely a sockpuppet of an editor who had been blocked for doing the same, so I removed all of their contributions as both a precautionary measure and per WP:DENY. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not convenient, but I guess it will do. I'll tag the other articles accordingly. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Hopefully someday I'll be able to take care of things like that myself, but for now we can just give another admin an hour's work. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties-Persia 2 Million war dead!
There is a discussion at the talk page of WW1 Casualties, Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 2. An anny IP is claiming that Persia lost 2 million in WW1 based on Iranian sources. You may want to contribute to the discussion.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll look in on that discussion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the "anny IP." Didn't mean to cause a fuss, just thought I had credible info. Can you just check the discussion once more, I have a source concerning the course of the campaign, and three sources on stats. (not Iran propaganda). Thanks in advance.

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018
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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BITE ,WP:AGF in block of London Hall
London Hall was blocked by you without warning through the edits were sourced with WP:RS at least partially like Washington Post .All his edits were sourced if they you felt they were not WP:RS you should have notified him once.There is no BLP violation the issue is only about quality of sources.Please unblock for now.Further Iranian lobbying in USA is not a hoax Parsi lost a court case on this issue.Thanks.2402:3A80:45C:E320:ED63:3836:2276:4419 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those references did not support the claims made at all. As this was systematic across multiple articles and included violating WP:BLP, this editor can't be trusted to edit here. If someone else wants to create an article on Iranian government lobbying in the US they're welcome to do so. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I humbly request you give him the Give 'em enough rope  he has at least partially sourced his edits with WP:RS and the dispute was only over sources do feel deserves a second chance or least the block reduced from indef to less.He has been editing for over 2 years or so. Anyway the user will under strict vigil and  now he has been told clearly he can be indef. Actually he asked me not to get involved but doing as I feel it is at least partially unfair to him .Thanks.2402:3A80:46B:AACD:C9E1:4543:9330:E75C (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I must concur with Nick-D. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor was falsifying sources to post defamatory material concerning living people and add hoaxes to Wikipedia articles, all to push an agenda. That's about as bad as editor conduct gets. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Clementine Ford
Thanks for keeping an eye out at that article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or 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/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fac mentoring
Nivk-D, I hope you're well. Re. the above—I kind of missed out on this when it would have been useful (recent first-FACtimer!—but, I wondered if you'd mind having a look at a couple of articles and seeing what you think might be best to run with next?If you're interested, I was thinking perhaps a baron, a parliament, a spy, or—? None of the, except the parliament, have been PR'd yet (and that isn't particularly active, respecting those that have taken part, of course). Any suggestions which if any to take forward, if not, why not, any advice much appreciated, if not, no problem. Take care!  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll have a look at these articles over the next few days. From an initial glance, they all look good to me. Congratulations on your first FA! - it's a great achievement. Regards Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still recovering ;)  thanks very much Nick-D, appreciate your looking in! 🍔  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had a skim read of the articles, and have the following comments regarding their suitability for FAC at present:
 * First, and most importantly, these articles are in great shape - congratulations again.
 * Percy Glading - I think this would benefit from a copy edit first. I found the lead to be heavy going - too much detail, I suspect. Later sections are also a bit wordy, and there are some complex sentences which should be split (as one example, "In 1925 Glading was the first member of the CPGB to travel to India[3]—under the pseudonym Robert Cochrane[3][note 5]—as part of the traditional CPGB policy of promoting revolution in Britain's colonies.[41][note 6]" - is a bit daunting). As I understand it, Glading's involvement in strikes, etc, wasn't particularly unusual for union members at this time, as they were much more common than they are today (not least as working conditions were much worse!), and this material would benefit from context - being involved in lots of strikes didn't necessarily make him a future radical. The article might be a bit on the long side - will readers really want this much detail about this fairly little-known person? I'd also suggest significantly reducing the number of notes.
 * William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros - This is a good, tight, biography with strong FAC prospects. I particularly like the way the article notes the constraints of the sources - this is very elegant wording and a good model for similar articles, and it's good to ensure readers are aware of the issue. I'd suggest streamlining the lead (3 paras would be better than 4), and ensuring that the first para summarises the entire article rather than jumps readers straight into the biography (please see MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH). I'd also suggest including the authors of the various quotes in the quote boxes and the dates when this was first written, especially as some are contemporary quotes while others are from relatively recent histories.
 * Parliament of 1327 - The subject matter is a bit over my head I'm afraid (I'm better on obscure Australian parliamentary-stuff), but this also looks to be a solid and pretty tight article. I'd suggest trimming the number of quotes to get the length down a bit - some aren't particularly necessary, as the commentary in the article speaks for itself. A copy edit to split or replace complex sentences would also be helpful (eg, it would be best to not start a para with "Whether Edward II resigned his throne, was forced from it, or a combination of both[78] (if under extreme pressure),[55] it was on 13 January that the crown legally changed hands[78] before an assembly described as "all the baronage of the land".[11]").
 * John/Eleanor Rykener - Fascinating subject! This would also benefit from a lead para summarising the full article. As with the de Ros article, this does a good job of reflecting on the sources and the historical context. I've made a few edits to fix typos, etc, and the article would benefit from a light copy edit to pick up others. I'd also suggest trimming the number of notes a bit. Note 9 also needs a reference. Other than that, I think that this is good to go, and is probably currently the best placed of the four articles for FAC.
 * I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, great news, many many thanks for your time and effort. Your remarks (and indeed your edits!) are greatly appreciated—that's just the kind of assessment I was looking for. So, to summarise, do you think Rykener, Ros, 1327 in that kind of odrer, with Glading needing by far the most work? I wonder—"just one more thing!"—how does one get an article to receive a good copy edit though? I don't like to keep bothering the same people (v selfish, I think): but is therea an official process? Thanks for all your help! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd suggest that order (and it's great to have a queue of articles to nominate). Regarding Rykener, I'd suggest that you could quickly handle the copy edit yourself here as all that's needed is tidying. With 1327 and Glading, I'd suggest that you have an initial go at trimming the article (after all, you probably have a better feel for what's important than anyone else) and then put them through GA reviews. If there's a credible military-related aspect to any of the the articles (as there seems to be for 1327 and Ros), I'd really recommend the Military History Wikiproject's A-class review process as a way to get an in-depth pre-FAC assessment of the article from knowledgeable editors. You could also directly approach other editors with knowledge of the topic for a fresh set of eyes. The folks at WP:GOCE can be very helpful as well, but are permanently over-booked. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for all your help and advice, Nick-D: Actioned. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 14:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Australian National Flag Day article
In relation to my most recent edits you have reverted at the above mentioned article instead of going ahead and asking for a third opinion couldn't we just agree to let them stand? Like what's your problem with that content anyway? I've supplied verifiable references. It's NPOV. So if we could resolve this dispute by means of negotiation I was going to say that's about all I can see to do to help in relation to wikipedia's vexillology related articles at the moment anyway. Surely there's no conflict in that I've actually sighted all these sources. I'm just the man wikipedia is looking for. Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to read, and abide by, WP:COI. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Parliament House Centenary Flag article
How about we just merge what can be merged to the Centenary flags section of the Flag of Australia article? And what can I say. If the plan is to continue the tour around Australia and it consistently gets headlines like the ones it has been receiving. Maybe we can hive all this off to a dedicated article on the subject another day? I'd have to say though more folks already know about this flag than have seen those rival Australian flags designs that are featured on wikipedia. Actually in relation to basically all of them to have been proposed to date 24 million Australians have never seen them and probably never will... Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in your views on flags, and I doubt anyone else does. You are mistaking Wikipedia for some kind of forum to express your views when it is actually an encyclopedia. Regarding the content of Wikipedia articles, read WP:COI. You should not be editing this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bismark
Nick, I don't think this my edit was necessarily an improvement, but I disagree with your edit summary: I do not compare Bismark with Essex class battleships, I write that Bismark was the best German battleship, which made its sinking a serious German loss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, I was speaking in general - the article doesn't describe the features of various weapons systems. Regards Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I think it makes sense to explain that it was not just an ordinary sheep, and that that victory was a very serious success.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was an important Allied success mainly because Bismark was 1/3rd of Germany's tiny battleship fleet, but even then the Allies had to maintain substantial forces of heavy warships in the North Atlantic until September 1944 when Tirpitz was crippled (though this became less important over time as the US Navy expanded massively - the end result was to slow the not terribly important British operations in the Indian Ocean). The ship itself was unremarkable - the design was average at best for a battleship of this era. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Vultee Vengeance in Australian service scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Vultee Vengeance in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 3, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 3, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Jim. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock
Hey Nick can you take a look at User:SOKO Super Galeb - I see two possible issues of concern one obviously the name too close the SOKO Super Galeb aircraft. Secondly I suspect this may be a sock of User:HMAS onslow running under as an Australian who is creating Military & Air Force articles which were similar attempts by HMAS onslow  - I'd start an investigation just not sure where to begin - Best regards FOX 52 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems like his sock to me. - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Disregard problem solved - FOX 52 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

we dont bite
It would have been so good to catch up with local editors - your edits on commons show you were(?) in Perth - please if you go through again - please let us know - we have a few things we would have liked to show you!!! JarrahTree 11:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

FA for Fawad Khan
Hi, I've recently listed Fawad Khan in FA candidates. I'll an honor for me if you consider reviewing it.Amirk94391 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Low priority FAC ping: reviews of II AIF in UK and Bougainville counterattack
Hi, just letting you know I raised some easily comments and concerns about these at FAC. They mostly require commentary to address, unless the commentary brings up a research completeness issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

April to June 2018 Milhist article reviewing

 * Thank you Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Evading
Middayexpress socks are editing on the IP 84.81.77.172, some evidence, usage of MOS policy on this article  The Ip is also making edits as advised by Middayexpress about redirects the talk page   151.254.8.165 (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd suggest starting a new SPI case. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

comms snafu

 * Hi Nick. Not been able to mail you back but yeah i'm fine with that. Please put a link on my T/P to the appropriate site when you have sorted it out. Ta. Irondome (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'll probably handle this over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * another editor has started this case at Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

NSWSHR
Same with much of white Australian history really. The NSWSHR varies as much as anything else - some are excellent (and they generally acknowledge indigenous history more than most) while some are terrible - I've heavily edited some that were much worse than the Braidwood article. I've been trying to catch language like that but must have missed that one - thanks heaps for catching and fixing it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks again for your work here. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just stopping by
Hey Nick! Just stopping by to say hi. It’s been roughly 6 years but I’m back at editing (though mostly ships ATM). I wanted to reach out to you because I’ve been combing over many of the articles I edited back between 2009-2011 and got to GA-status and I noticed that there had been attempts to get WWII to FA-status while I was away. Those efforts failed, but I recall you saying in the last FAC it went through that you were interested in trying to promote the article in the future if you had a group of editors who were behind such a monumental effort. If you’re still interested, I would definitely be willing to work with you to clear up whatever remaining issues exist to get WWII to A-class, and then FAC in due time.

— White Shadows Let’s Talk 04:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, That sounds good. There's been a lot of discussions of the article recently, but I think that there's scope for a more coordinated push. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve been watching a bit of that. I think the potential is there for an ACR, but I know it’s such a massive topic that I need someone who would be willing to shoulder the burden of that alongside me. If you know anyone else who would be interested in a “coordinated push”, perhaps we can discuss what needs to be done to improve the article on the talk page?— White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Review Request
Nick

Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet

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


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

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Thanks
For blocking the sock. Can you keep an eye on my talk page, in case the harassment continues? A several-hour semi would be appreciated if she returns. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries at all Bill - I'd be happy to do that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks like the sock is back on another Northern Virginia IP. - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just semi-protected the article for 24 hours. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

FAC mentor?
Hello Nick-D,

I had a Facebook conversation the other day with a retired editor with lots of experience with Featured articles. This editor had helped me with the Good article review of Harry Yount, and the article reached that goal in 2013. This editor expressed the opinion that this could be a Featured article, so I am asking if you would be willing to assist me with that process. Thanks for your consideration. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Cullen, I'd be happy to provide some advice on this article. I'll leave comments on its talk page over the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted an informal review at Talk:Harry Yount. I think that the article is well on the path to FA, but needs some improvements first. As well as adding some references, I'd suggest fleshing out the coverage of how Yount was seen at the time and is regarded now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Troll
See Ahunt's talk page, where an IP hopping troll is causing havoc. This is the IP that Sarek blocked earlier. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of why we shouldn't permit people to edit without first registering an account. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup. Would solve a lot of problems. But I'm sure this one has at least one registered account already, indefinitely blocked of course. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You'd never catch me editing with a open IP. Don't these trolls realize how much we know about them from a bare IP? It's one reason I'm against open editing in general, as it leaves kids open to predators. Someday some kid will get killed, and the Foundation will get a lot of the blame, and rightly so. But it will be too late then. - BilCat (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's bizarre that IP editing is still permitted (presumably as part of some kind of Silicon Valley libertarianism which prioritises 'freedom' over common sense and responsibility to the site's users, including those who missuse it). Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The cynic in me figured they found a way to monetize it, though I haven't a clue how. It's just never made any real sense to me otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia
Howdy. Not sure whatcha did, but the result was Gillard, Abbott & Turnbull being knocked out of the living former PMs section. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to have been anything I did - my only recent edit was to revert an IP who was fiddling with the photos for no stated reason. It appears to be fixed now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Found the problem. The IPs fiddling put the images into two rows. With one row (as it now is) the last four are past the screen shot, requiring page movement to the right to see them. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

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

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

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

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

Operation Linebacker II
Nick, when you get back, could you look at Talk:Operation Linebacker II? The issues should be self-explanatory. I'm trying to find a source, but it may take me awhile as I'm not that familiar with quality sources on the subject. If you aren't either, do you know of some other editors who might be? Thanks. (Yeah, I know I didn't handle my initial response well at all.) - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi while I don't have any sources at hand, I think that text is largely right, but exaggerates things a bit. Linebacker II seems to have been effective as it was a short sharp shock in which the scope of the US bombing campaign was expanded for a limited period in response to a breakdown in negotiations. My understanding is that it worked as the North Vietnamese were motivated to cut a deal at this time, unlike during the massive US bombing campaign over previous years. The USAF still didn't "fully unleash its power" though, as rule of engagement remained in place and (obviously) nuclear weapons weren't used. The use of naval mines, which the article barely mentions, to close North Vietnamese ports was apparently particularly effective. I'd suggest asking for other editors' input at WT:MILHIST. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

FAC help

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

Lion-class battleship ACR
I responded to your comments a while ago, but I expect that you've been distracted of late. I know that I have been!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry: I completely missed that. I'll check in today. Thanks very much for the prompt. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

1944 versus 1942
2 versions of the message deleted as they could have been misconstrued, about the 44 scare monolith. Have left a general introduction to the issues as I see them at the WA noticeboard. Hope it goes well. I gotta get something more specific to the photo than the 43 anti aircraft emplacement. JarrahTree 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The coverage of the Fremantle-Perth defences in the AWM's photo database is largely focused on 1943, unfortunately. There also aren't many photos of the submarine base. If the WA State Library or Archives has better coverage, it would be great. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia JarrahTree 14:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

July to September 2018 Milhist article reviewing

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

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Justlettersandnumbers • L235
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Guerillero • NativeForeigner •  Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
 * There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

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

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

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, October 2018
Letting you know that a sockpuppet by the name of Ah_Ger_K that you added a sockpuppet block message to in September removed your block message today, which appears to be against WP policy. I've reverted that edit. If I am in error and did not understand the situation correctly, feel free to correct my edit. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, My understanding is that blocked editors can remove block messages if they want. The reason for the block is permanently recorded in their block log. If the editor asks to have this account unblocked, the reviewing admin will also check the talk page history and contact the blocking admin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

maybe
needs attention - not exactly the most civil editor that I have seen JarrahTree 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Is this a one-off? I've blocked the account, but did this happen out of the blue? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparent link-spamming
Nick, User:Cowanb has been adding links to a website he apparently has connections with to a bunch of aircraft articles. See here for an example. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Have you discussed this with them? While ADF-serials doesn't meet our criteria for a RS (I think), it's a high quality amateur website which is often the best source on the use of various aircraft by the Australian military. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't discussed this with the user yet, as I wanted to get your opinion first, as being from Australia, you might greater knowledge of the site, which you did. My main issue is that the link isn't being used as a source regarding sevice in the Australian military, but is being added indiscriminately to the EL section of many aircraft articles, including some which may not have served in Australia. User:MilborneOne has begun removing the links as COI spam, and I agree with him that it is. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds sensible. I like the site, but it needs to be linked with care. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

History wars
You reverted an edit that I made to History wars. Anyone seriously studying the history wars will be interested in seeing some primary source documents. Moreover, some historians (e.g. Keith Windschuttle) have claimed that other historians have willfully misrepresented primary sources. The wikilink that my edit provided, to Historical Records of Australia, comprises tens of thousands of pages of primary source documents (a large majority of which are online). Thus, anyone who wants to check the claims of misrepresentation, or who is seriously studying the history wars, will find the wikilink helpful. Hence, I ask you to undo the revert. FlagrantUsername (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Links included in see also sections should generally have a clear link to the topic of the article. The histories wars article discusses a dispute in Australian historiography, and I don't see how it helps readers to list various collections of primary sources - not least as this implies that there might be something controversial about the collection in this context. Can you work the link into the body of the article to explain the link? (for instance, do some historians argue that (over) reliance on these sources leads to a biased perspective? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to MOS:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Moreover, your claim that "there might be something controversial about the collection" makes no sense to me. The wikilink is clearly useful to someone studying the topic. As for editing the body of the text, you are welcome to do so. FlagrantUsername (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But how are these topics related? You're coming across as spamming links to this article you created to be frank, and I don't see how it's helpful to readers. Can you please work the link into articles? If you're unable to explain the link in the article, I'd suggest that it's probably not going to be very useful for readers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have previously violated WP:BRD. You are now violating WP:GF. Your comment also does not seem to consider the arguments that my comments have raised.
 * I kindly ask you to read the article History wars and the article Keith Windschuttle (which is cited by History wars), then consider the position of someone studying this topic, and then reconsider my comments above. Afterward, if we still have no agreement, we could go to WP:DR; if we do that, my preference would be for WP:DRR/3. FlagrantUsername (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm familiar with the topic of the article (I also wrote much of the article on the Australian Frontier Wars). I genuinely don't see how people who are studying the history wars will understand the purpose of linking to these documents without any context. As noted above, can you please work this into the article? I have no idea how I've violated BRD, of AGF given that I'm discussing this with you following your bold addition of the link, and am actually keen to see this added to the article in a way in which readers can understand and use. Surely you can come up with a referenced sentence which could be added to the History Wars article explaining how this is relevant if there's a reason for a see also link? I'd suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page if you'd like broader input on this matter before escalating to central dispute resolution boards (as recommended at WP:DR, etc). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You earlier said that I was “coming across as spamming links to this article [I] created”. Despite that, you now claim that you “have no idea how [you’ve] violated” WP:AGF. Your claim is amazing.


 * You are right that I should have opened this discussion on the article Talk page. My excuse is that I had initially assumed your revert was due to a simple oversight on your part; so it was not worth cluttering up that Talk page. I have now opened a relevant discussion there.


 * As for Australian Frontier Wars, the article is so biased that it could harm the reputation of Wikipedia, at least for anyone interested in Australia. I have now added an NPOV notice to the article and opened a relevant discussion on the article’s Talk page.
 * FlagrantUsername (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I think we're in agreement on the Frontier Wars article - can you please add material to the article on the topic? I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with fairly confrontational tactics - I'm keen to see these articles improved, and throwing accusations of bias and personal attacks around really isn't helping anyone. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
G'day Nick, thanks for your tweak on Rescue and Communication Squadron RAAF. I wonder if you wouldn't also mind taking a look at RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, That article looks great. I've made a few minor wording tweaks. It's a fascinating story - in 2011 I visited the memorial to the Berlin airlift at the Platz der Luftbrücke and was pleased to see a small acknowledgement that Australia had been involved, though I can't remember what it was exactly! (and, from checking my photos, I didn't photograph whatever it was). Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's book on it, only 66AUD :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's available for free online! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick. My wife and I are hoping to visit Germany in the next couple of years (she is German on her mother's side), so I might see what I can find and maybe take some pics. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect it was something pretty dull like a mention on a noticeboard explaining the memorial! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sir Sputnik
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keilana

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
 * A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

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

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

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

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

Socking by User:Kuru666.
Hi the articles that were edited by Kuru666 are regularly being targeted by what I am sure are socks. I wonder if there is anything that can be done? Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to protect those article - can you please tell me which ones are being affected? Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much here they are, some have already been protected but for relatively short periods and each time the protection comes off they get socked.
 * Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've already protected this one Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Already protected Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be subject to ongoing editing Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They have been editing others but the edits do not seem tendentious but I'll keep an eye out for more but as they are IP hopping it's not an easy task. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've only protected one of those articles as there wasn't recent block evasion at the others - please see my comments above. I've watchlisted some of this person's main targets and will respond if this resumes, but please drop me a line (or report it at WP:RFPP) if this returns. As a reminder, edits made as part of block evasion can and should be reverted on sight. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm watching them too and will continue to revert. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be subject to ongoing editing Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They have been editing others but the edits do not seem tendentious but I'll keep an eye out for more but as they are IP hopping it's not an easy task. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've only protected one of those articles as there wasn't recent block evasion at the others - please see my comments above. I've watchlisted some of this person's main targets and will respond if this resumes, but please drop me a line (or report it at WP:RFPP) if this returns. As a reminder, edits made as part of block evasion can and should be reverted on sight. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm watching them too and will continue to revert. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They have been editing others but the edits do not seem tendentious but I'll keep an eye out for more but as they are IP hopping it's not an easy task. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've only protected one of those articles as there wasn't recent block evasion at the others - please see my comments above. I've watchlisted some of this person's main targets and will respond if this resumes, but please drop me a line (or report it at WP:RFPP) if this returns. As a reminder, edits made as part of block evasion can and should be reverted on sight. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm watching them too and will continue to revert. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm watching them too and will continue to revert. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC comments addressed
I've responded to your comments over at Featured article candidates/HMS Erin/archive1. See if they're satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Source check
Nick, would the source used in this diff be considered reliable? It reads more like an armchair editorial. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, the tone of that article is a bit odd, but it's presented as a news source, and news.com.au is a reliable source. It's the central website for the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloids and the somewhat more substantial newspaper The Australian, and has decent editorial standards. The source is suitable for the material it's being used to cite, and could also be drawn on more extensively (BTW, it seems only yesterday that various over-excited commentators and thinly-disguised Russian propaganda was presenting the Su-57 as being the greatest warplane of all time, and vastly superior to anything the West could produce...). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Landing at Jacquinot Bay
G'day, Nick, I was wondering if you would be keen to take the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article to ACR? From mid-next week, I have a bit of time off from work before the December posting period, so was thinking it might be a good diversion. I have access to some of the sources, but not all (for instance not Charlton, or Bradley), so was hoping that you might have them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yes, I'd be very happy to do that. I still have copies of those books, and am also planning a trip to the National Library of Australia next week in case there's any other works which need to be consulted (the only one which springs to mind is Alan Powell's War by Stealth: Australians and the Allied Intelligence Bureau, 1942–1945 which may have some extra material on pre-landing AIB/guerrilla operations, but as Long summarises this topic there's no reason to wait to check before starting the nomination). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick, the nomination page is here: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landing at Jacquinot Bay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for starting this. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, just letting you know I have to travel interstate tomorrow and will be without reliable internet until around 8 December. If I get a chance to check in on the review while I'm gone, I will, but in the meantime can I ask that you keep an eye on it? Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Best wishes for your trip. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, just letting you know I am back, for at least a week. The trip went OK. I will be tied up with moving house (NT to Victoria) next week, and will be with limited access over the period 17 to 31 Dec, but should hopefully be able to contribute in some manner. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I hope your trip went OK. Your job certainly keeps you mobile! Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is my 8th posting in 14 years, and my sixth move since being married. I/we haven't been posted to WA or Tasmania, unfortunately, though, which I hope to one day achieve. Tasmania is difficult in my role, but WA might happen one day. Anyway, the trip went okay. I was helping my mother who hasn't been well...I've been a terrible son, as work has kept me away for several years, so it was important to go back and spend a week with her. I also got to catch up with some old friends in Brisbane, which was fantastic, but also a little heartbreaking to see how some have not fared so well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, just letting you know I will be offline for a bit. Possibly back on 20 Dec, but it depends on the hotel wifi situation. Worst case, I might not have internet until the New Year, unfortunately. I'd been hoping we might get the review done before I left, but there is still some work to be done. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries - I'll keep an eye on the review, and follow up on comments. I hope your travel goes well. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II
Hi, I've selected the above as TFA on 26 December 2018. Any questions, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know (was this a way to mark the end of the season of peace and goodwill to all men?). Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Incubator/World War II anniversary
Hello, do you think this should be archived as the 70th anniversary of the end of the war has long passed? Kges1901 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so - I had no memory of it even existing! It seems that it was started in 2011 and unfortunately didn't lead to much coordinated activity. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF
It's my understanding that the arrival of the Spitfire VIIIs to this wing was long-delayed and long-planned, but there's no mention of what marks of Spitfire the Second World War wing was originally equipped with, which is probably important. Could this be added? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, The article says that the No. 1 Wing was initially equipped with the Spitfire Vc, though perhaps not clearly enough! (please see the second last para in the 'Reestablishment' section). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Help needed
Nick, Can you please see User_talk:Llammakey and advise whether you can mediate as the matter, removing "the" from ship name pages is currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)? If you cannot can you advise who might be able to assist. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure what the issue is here? (which pages have been moved?, what steps have been taken to resolve this?, etc). As there's a centralised talk page discussion of the matter, I'd suggest that it's the best way of resolving it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks will raise it there. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

 * Thank you again for your huge contribution to The Bugle Tom. I've enjoyed reading these articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svgk Chan

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
 * A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
 * A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news
 * Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
 * To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
 * Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
 * Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries
 * (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

FA mentor
Hi Nick, I wonder if you would be interested in mentoring me with a possible FA nomination. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just was approved as GA several years ago and it's been stable ever since. I have always been too timid to seek FA reviews, but my personal situation has changed and here I am. Might you be able to have a look and give me some advice? SteveStrummer (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, Sure, I'll look in on that article and leave suggestions on the talk page, most likely on the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! SteveStrummer (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted an informal review on the article's talk page. The article is well on track for FA status, but I think it would benefit from a copy edit and some tweaks to provide somewhat more comprehensive coverage of its subject. I hope that this is helpful, and I'd be happy to discuss the comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Like Moxy said I will wait and see what others have to see before I do anything else
I am going to wait and see like I was told Jack90s15 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
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) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Operation Pamphlet scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Operation Pamphlet article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 24, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 24, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Jim. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice Sought
Hi Nick,

Please see Talk:Gibraltar. It seems an editor has decided to return and is raising again disputes from 8 years ago. To be honest it comes across to me as trolling. The main problem I saw with this editor's previous editing history is that eventually we discovered that they did not have access to any of the sources they were quoting. Instead they were relying on sourcing via google snippets and in some cases the source they claimed supported their edit did not. Another problem is their revert warring, they've just rolled back 8 years citing WP:BRD as there was a "consensus" 8 years ago.

I am keeping my replies to a minimum but wondered if you had any advice on responding to this editor. WCM email 13:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, It looks like they're in a minority of one in the talk page discussion, though only a few editors have discussed the change. You may wish to advertise for wider input, which would probably be more productive than continuing to butt heads. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

WCM email 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

mail
mess JarrahTree 10:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've just replied. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sl00gnawg9pf
Is continuing to make disruptive edits even after you blocked them. Could you revoke their talk page access? Sak ura Cart elet Talk 00:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've just removed their ability to edit their talk page. Thanks for letting me know about this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

your assistance please...
If you have time, would you please look at Mathew Golsteyn?

After a tweet from the POTUS, I figured Golsteyn was a topic that merited a standalone article. My intention, as always, is to keep my contributions fair, and free of bias. Of course, the more controversial a topic is, the harder it is satisfy everyone an article is balanced.

If what I wrote contains hidden bias I figured the best thing to do was invite the input of an intelligent and informed person who I know has a different perspective than mine.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for asking for feedback. I don't know much about this incident, but Mr Golsteyn fails WP:ONEEVENT. The incident is notable though (especially given the president's intervention), and I'd suggest restructuring the article accordingly. The article contains multiple serious negative claims about this person not clearly supported by any reference, which is also not acceptable. I agree with the IP editor's decision to reduce this to almost nothing given the referencing issues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your input.
 * Interpretations for WP:ONEEVENT vary. My interpretation?
 * The POTUS tweet would be one event;
 * No it isn't. It's obviously a comment on the alleged killing. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the FOX interview of 2016 - I think that is another event;
 * It also obviously isn't given that he was being interviewed about the alleged killing and it lead to another investigation into it. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * his awarding of a Silver Star, for events of 2010-02-20, it is unrelated to the killing of 2010-02-18, so, I think that too is a separate event;
 * Multiple discussions at WT:MILHIST have reached the conclusion that being awarded a medal other than the highest available is not grounds for notability. The only reason that Mr Golsteyn's Silver Star has attracted attention is due to the alleged killing. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the 2011 CIA job interview polygraph, where he first confessed to the killing - it triggered an interagency memo, which the army couldn't ignore, that triggered the first inquiry. That inquiry lasted three years.  The Board of inquiry left what would have been a career killing letter of reprimand, in his personnel file.  The Board of Inquiry gave him a general discharge.  It seems to me that these are multiple events.
 * No, it's obviously all related to the alleged killing. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * merely mentioning that Will Swenson was his friend, in an Amazon book review, triggered an extensive investigation in Swenson's background, including interviewing his friends, family, neighbors; and put in question and delayed his receipt of his Medal of Honor. I started to document that, in Swenson's article, until I saw someone else had already added coverage of it.  So, I see that too as a separate event.
 * The news story is heavily focused on Mr Swenson. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Golsteyn's Silver Star, and several other events I mentioned, fall short of measuring up to our inclusion criteria, all by themselves. A Medal of Honor would have made him notable, all by itself.  But almost none of our millions of BLP had their notability established by a single notability factor.  Almost all of our millions of BLP have their notability established by adding up the cumulative notability of multiple factors that establish some notability.  The Silver Star, or even the Distinguished Service Cross, doesn't confer strong enough notability, all by itself, but even a Bronze Star, confers some notability, enough to be included in the notability calculation, in my opinion.
 * Nick-D, you responded to my request for input, in less than 24 hours. Thanks for that!
 * You are an administrator, so I am going to defer to your advice. I already reverted that IP contributor, before I came here.  It was an IP address from a range used by a wikistalker, who harrassed me for months, prior to their earning an indefinite block for something else, and I figured it was that wikistalker returning again.  But, out of deference to your opinion, above, I will restore it.
 * However, since I have some questions about your advice, I am going to ask for more feedback, elsewhere. Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your good faith advice. I started a section at WP:BLPN.  I didn't mention you by name, but I did provide a link to my reply, above.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your views on ONEEVENT above. I'm genuinely troubled about your lack of understanding of WP:ONEEVENT, desire to focus the article on this person and inclusion of unreferended negative BLP material given all the problems you've had on these topics in the past. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your talk page, your rules. You are allowed to use non-standard indentation on your own talk page.  But your non-standard indentation disrupted the numbering of my numbered points.  So, my apologies, I took the liberty of refactoring your non-standard indentation, so I could refer to the points, by number, in my reply.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am a big believer in human freedom. And, as how that relates to the wikipedia's readers, I want them to be free to traverse the wikipedia's content in the way that makes the most sense to them.  I think a reader who starts at Donald Trump on social media, should be able to click on the Mathew Golsteyn link, so they can read about Mathew Golsteyn, or Unlawful Command Influence.  Once they arrive at Mathew Golsteyn, they should be reading about Mathew Golsteyn, if they want to read about the Battle of Marjah, they should have a link to that article available -- which is the way I wrote it, prior to the big informationectomy you endorsed.  However, lots of contributors like to take related topics, and merge multiple related topics into omnibus articles.  Our reader's freedom to traverse the wikipedia's content is seriously impaired, following excessive merging.  When Donald Trump's tweets on Golsteyn, and the controversy over stripping Golsteyn of his Silver Star, and how Golsteyn's online footprint triggered an investigation in Swenson, and how Duncan Hunter supported Golsteyn, are all shoehorned into the article on the Battle of Marjah, readers don't get to traverse our content as freely.  When Golsteyn has his own article, on which links to the other topics he is related to, readers can click on the links they think might be interesting, and, if, after reading a sentence or two, or a paragraph or two, they decide they aren't interested, they can hit the back button, and read something else.  But all the Golsteyn content is merged into another article, they can't go to a related article, because they are all mashed together.  If they get to other topics within the article that covers multiple topics, by scrolling, or searching, they can't return to where they were, in the other, related, article, with the back button, because everything has been all mashed together.
 * You referred to the killing, as an "alleged killing". Since he openly acknowledged killing the Afghan, on National TV, I suggest the doubt that would trigger using the modifier "alleged" is unnecessary, and misleading.  You said Trump's tweet was "obviously a comment on the alleged killing."  Someone could just as easily say it was an obvious instance of Unlawful Command Influence.  I suggest that the meaning of Trump's tweet is not clear.  The BBC reporting on it explicitly said the meaning wasn't clear.
 * As DGG said, at BLPN, the intent of BLP1E is to protect previously unknown private people who, briefly, make the news. To the extent an event triggers on-going coverage, where RS return to add new material, over the course of months, or years, it is no longer meaningful to think of that as a BLP1E.  And, once someone chooses to be interviewed on National TV, they are no longer an unknown private person, and we should stop extending to them the protection we extend to previously unknown private people, who made the news coincidentally.
 * Hmmm. Is this in MILHIST FAQ?  I don't want to seem disrespectful to the MILHIST, but hasn't this issue also come up at AFD, where some AFD closures seemed to favour the interpretation that a lesser award conveys a lesser but still meaningful measure of notability?  There are prizes, like the Nobel, and Pullitzer, which, like a Victoria Cross, or Medal of Honor, convey enough notability for an individual to merit a stand-alone article, all by themselves.  But BLP articles about literary or scientific types do mention less prestigious awards.  While no one suggests those less prestigious awards are as prestigious as the Nobel or Pullitzer, no one questions whether they convey a lesser but still meaningful measure of notability.  Can you explain why military awards should be so exceptional?  WRT to his Silver Star, you ignore a key point.  Silver Star's may be relatively common, compared with a Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor, but the Army stripping someone of a medal, that is exceptional.  Please don't ignore this point.
 * Interagency memos like this are rare, exceptional, and thus convey notability.
 * People reading about Swenson, and the controversy over his Medal of Honor, who want to read about the guy whose online comment triggered the Swenson's controversial inquiry, will want to read about Golsteyn, not the Battle of Marjah.
 * You provided a very brief defense of the anonymous IP's informationectomy. I draw your attention to my reply.  I suggested your assertion that the article needed to be stubified, because "of negative statements ... not ending with any references." seemed to be based on a non-standard interpretation of how often references should be used.
 * I closed that reply with "...I would still appreciate you being specific as to which aspects you think were poorly referenced. If you are too busy to read any of the article's references, how about picking the first passage that you think was not properly supported, naming it here, and asking for someone to explain how it was supported."  Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are a long-established editor. You have a long history of problems with WP:BLP, including having dozens of articles deleted due to violations of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:COATRACK. You understand how referencing works. You know that you need to take responsibility for crafting high quality and well referenced articles that are compliant with BLP. Yet you keep getting into the same problems. Your response to this case suggests that you simply do not get it, and posting walls of text arguing that the multiple editors who believe that this is a WP:ONEEVENT violation are wrong is also unhelpful and indicates that you are unwilling to pay attention to the views of others, even when you start discussions seeking this (in this thread and that at WP:BLPN you sought the views of myself and other editors, and have then not only dismissed them but sought to argue with them point by point, which is obviously not in line with Wikipedia's ethos of collaborative editing and makes me wonder why you even sought others' views). I'd strongly suggest that you cease editing articles concerning living people. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy "whatever floats your boat"!
G'day Nick, I'm not usually into this Xmas wishes stuff, but I really wanted to say thanks for all your work on The Bugle this year. It is an critical thread in the tapestry of the project. Thanks very much, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot - I really appreciate it. Best wishes for the season to you as well! Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Apollo 11 reviews
Would you be willing to do me a favour and have a look at Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/archive1 or WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Buzz Aldrin? I'm trying to get the Apollo 11 articles ready for the July 2019 anniversary, and time is short. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll look in today or over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Much appreciated.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military Historian of the Year

 * Thank you very much - I really appreciated the nomination, and especially the rationale for it. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I think the work Ian and yourself do in making The Bugle happen while also doing other stuff like creating awesome content, is significantly underappreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if third place is something to congratulate for but that's way beside the point; thank you for consistently being the calm voice of reason. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alex, and all the best for the new year. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection page
Hello Nick-D,can you make both page Royal Malaysian Air Force and Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force as a semi-protection page since it was always edit by unknown users with no source and they also change the information as they wish.I've already watch that page constantly and it seem hard to stop this matter.Hope you can make consideration about this.Thank you. Kistara (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, The amount of vandalism on those pages doesn't seem too bad at the moment - there hasn't even been much IP editing recently. Can you please provide diffs illustrating the recent vandalism you're concerned about? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)