User talk:Nick-D/Archive 2

HMS Winger
Hi Nick. I just did a bit of wikifying on HMS Shearwater (L39), and it say this fictional vessel represents the HMS winger of the Flower class. However, Winger is not listed on the class template. Just so you know why the categories are that way if I have it wrong--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've sorted this one out, she was a Kingfisher class sloop rather than a Flower class. Montsarrat appears simply to have based the fictional ship on the career of one of a different class.  I've overhauled the article and fixed the categories. Benea (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography of fly fishing
G'day Nick. At the risk of being accused of "canvassing", I am interested in why you take the position you take on this article's AfD. The article is almost entirely based on simple facts - this book was published within such and such a timeline, focused on this topic, and containing this and that which might be of interest. The only argument, I would have thought, might be with whether a particular book should have been selected rather than another book. And I don't understand why you liken it to a personal blog or website. Anyone, anywhere around the world, would be apt to come up with a similiar list. Where is the personal input in that? I am seriously surprised and don't understand why you take this position - and it seems to me Wikipedia will be diminished by the rejection of articles like this. Please sort me out. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that I explained myself on the AfD: this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to or fly fishing website so the material is totally out of place here. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I accept that I may be too stupid to edit articles in Wikipedia, and perhaps should pull out. Still, I do not understand you. Compare: This is an encyclopaedia, not a naval history website, so the material on HMS Hood is totally out of place here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you're stupid - you are welcome to your opinion. I think that there's a lot of difference between an article on a thing (a battleship, election, CD, notable fisher, whatever) whose notability is established by multiple reliable sources and an article which is basically commentary on books. I'd have voted to delete 'Annotated bibliography of battlecruisers' as well, and have done so on other articles of this type in the past - which are consistently deleted as OR. It's actually an OK article for what it is, it just doesn't belong here. If it's deleted I'd be happy to use my admin powers to move a copy into your user space so that it can be moved onto a more suitable website (wikiHow perhaps?). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Xfd
Have reverted self here in relation to the Darwin Sayonara - due to my obtsue side comments not directly related - and taken good note of the notability issue for books - thanks for your trouble in pointing it out at Xfd and on my talk - will be much more careful with my comments re the matters of N and books. cheers SatuSuro 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fort Hommet 10.5 cm Coastal Defence Gun Casement Bunker
Hello Nick Dowling

In answer to your question as to why this article is notable, if you bothered to read the introduction you will see the words fully restored. As far as I’m aware this is rather unique to the UK. I don’t know of any other fully restored Nazi gun emplacement on UK sites. A lot of time and effort has been put into restoring this unique part of our recent history and it fully deserves its place on Wikipedia. I have removed your tag as it is really not justified. I would also point out to you that the whole point of putting the under construction tag on the page is for it to have a chance to stand on its merits as it progresses. A concept that appears to have gone over your Head!. I do not wish to appear to be rude to you, but it would have been a little more courteous of you to contact me with your concern rather than just tagging the page.  stavros1  ♣


 * At the time I tagged the article it consisted of a single line of text reading "Fort Hommet 10.5 cm Coastal Defence Gun Casement Bunker is a fully restored Gun Casement that was part of Fortress Guernsey constructed by the forces of Nazi Germany between 1940 and 1945" and no references which attested to notability at all. As such, it provided no indication of notability such as it being unique. Please don't get cranky when people tag articles, but assume good faith and take the comment on board. It's also not adisable to start one line articles which make no claim to notability and provide no references as


 * Its not a case of getting kranky!. I just wish to point out that the page was given a under construction tag at the time of its creation. The tag you placed on the page rather makes the construction tag pointless if going by your explanation of your contribution.  stavros1  ♣
 * Nick Dowling, could you explain the reasoning behind putting the deletion tag on the page that has a construction tag which reads Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days. This would help remove any confusion. Regards --palmiped |  Talk 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't tag the page for deletion and, according to my reading of the article's edit history, no-one else has. The notability tag is basically a request that editors provide sources to prove the notability of something and plays no role at all in any deletion process. I've had some of the articles I've created on obscure Royal Australian Air Force units tagged for notability and addressed those editors concerns by adding sources and then removing the tag - it's not a big deal. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Oberiko blocked
Oberiko's just been blocked after consensus he's taken months to achieve on World War II has been put in jeopardy with less involved and committed editors undoing his good work, though he breached 3RR in the process. This block removes the main person who's basically singlehandedly carrying the WP:MHSP effort. Would you mind looking into the situation and the WW2 edit history and then commenting on his talk page? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Aviation Regiments of the Russian Air Force
Just created this. Would you mind taking a quick look and leaving any suggestions for improvement on the talk page? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...all here  realy--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I can't read Russian, so I can't understand any part of that page! Nick Dowling (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New Australian military history articles
Thanks Nick. ("You learn something new every day!"). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer
Three minutes to undo an edit, that is fast protection. Is it not useful to mention similar weight British and Korean vessels to get the idea across that not all flat tops are aircraft carriers? Even the Invincible class ships got the Harrier as an afterthought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.188 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from weight alone not being an indicator of ships' ability to operate aircraft, the comparison to similar British and Italian ships was already in the second para of the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest
we should renominate it for deletion and propose a transwiki and come up with a detailed rationale for deletion this time.Myheartinchile (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest
An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I share your concerns. The editor in question has a long story of creating synthesis-like articles where selected quotes are used in cherry-picked way, obscure resources and information taken out of context are combined to portay Allies in the worst way possible. His stance on Allies was made public by him when he named countries fighting against Nazi Germany "a gang"([thing, there were other more or less temporary changes in the Western frontiers, not just the Bakker Schutz land-grab by the Dutch but also grabbings by the rest of the gang.) Other contributions include claims that WW2 was started by mass murder of Germans by Poles which prompted Hitler to intervene, or comparing Polish nation to war criminal Maybe the Poles and Milosevic are in the same class... Frankly as you likely understand I am very concerned with those edits and the overall impression they make. Especially since warning given to him didn't work

Best regards. --Molobo (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As if I needed more evidence that I was still being stalked, here you are Molobo; fresh out of your block and the first thing you do is to go to articles I've edited. I invite anyone in danger of being taken in by the above text to compare mine and Molobos block logs.




 * Molobo is a very persistent editor of Eastern Europe topics and has a, shall we say, very strong opinion. I sadly first encountered him several years ago when editing German history topics, and our relationship has not improved. In fact, the editor in question set my blood boiling by a very deliberate act. I had read the Hnet review of an autobiography by Martha Kent. There she told the story of how she, as a 5year old ethnic German child, for several years after World War II had to spend time in Polish slave labor camps. ""for us the camp was the normal place where we children experienced our youth" (p. 10). She describes in a very open, child-like fashion, and without even a hint of bitterness, the lice, diseases, living conditions, interactions with other prisoners and guards, and the fact that death was such a common experience in the camp that when her mother was sent away for several months to perform hard labor at a prison, Kent was certain she had died and would never be seen again." Very sad part of history, but what piqued my intrest was this: She moved to the U.S. and eventually suffered a mental breakdown, but.....""Even mentioning Potulitz would cause friends, friends whom I valued and who wanted only the best for me, to react negatively. They assumed that the people who instigated the war and made National Socialism possible--the Germans--did not have the right, due to collective guilt, to speak of their own suffering" (p. 296)." So I became interested in collective guilt. I eventually decided to write an article on the topic, and started drafting a rough structure in my sandbox. What happens next? Molobo stalks me there, and lets one of his friends know about it.. A few days later this article appears: German collective guilt. Guess who the author was, and what the topic was. You guessed it, basically that all Germans are guilty monsters.


 * Now as you can imagine I was not happy, it put me off the topic, and I haven't really used the sandbox since, for concern of similar attacks. Nevertheless, Molobo finally managed to provoke me properly through some additional stalking, and he got his prise, i.e. my censure. I had seen somewhere that even before the war began there was bloodshed against ethnic Germans in Poland. The casualty figures were apparently a few thousand but were inflated to 50,000. See this text snippet I had no more information than a vague recollection of that, which was why I asked about it here, to which Molobo has already pointed, but rather underhandedly. He managed to provoke me rather severely there, but it had started and continued already the day before in the Denazification article. There I had added info on the PsyOps of the first few months, and on the camps in Poland.. Naturally I was stalked there by Molobo, who went to work. Note for example the title change, and the removal of the Time magazine segment under false pretenses. And then the circus was on, and here I went over the top which got me the censure. Although I still wonder who it was that a day later pointed Loeth there. I have my suspicions, but we will have to await Loeths return to Wikipedia.


 * Next topic brought forth by Molobo; "the gang". It's rather cute that thats amongst the "worst" brought forth by Molobo. I did indeed used the word "gang" . I was discussing a map of the postwar German borders with 52_Pickup, now an admin on a break. I was refering to the landgrab made by the neighbors, and I stand by considering those people a gang, just read the quote I was citing. "There was no denying them. It was just like misers with a pot of gold in front of them, they couldn't keep their hands out of it (I'm sorry to put it that way, but it was a rather unedifying spectacle to me)." As to the Milocevik comparison, please use the link Molobo so kindly provided. But please first scroll your way through what is accessible in these 2 google books. ,


 * Molobo is apparently concerned about me, as indeed he should be, I'm one of the few with the stamina to stand up to him. I on the other hand am gravely concerned about Molobo, and his actions, and their effect on Wikipedia and on its editors. an example at hand is the wearisome discussion at Talk:Karkonosze. And just look at what he has done after stopping by here....
 * Atlantic Charter. Molobo has just edited it. He has no history of editing it, and it seems far from his topic area. Perhaps not surprising, the article is high up on my contributions list, since I edited it 2 days ago and have not had much time to edit lately. And look, It was my contribution that was severely cropped. At least it is a "neutral version" now, at least according to Molobo...
 * Strategic bombing during World War II. Another article I added heavily to just 2 days ago and very visible on the first page of my contributions list. What happened here? Take a guess. But I have to admire him, he sets an example for all Wikipedians. Just look how cleverly he hides the deletion of a full sourced paragraph. Although this one is even better, the lost material is not visible when moving text around like this. Can you spot the difference? A hint, it is the paragraphs and citation requests that I had inserted that suddenly are missing. Another minor edit, no-one need check it since it has an m in the watch list, but ooops, what went missing?


 * And it just goes on, and on, and on, until we all learn from the good examples set...


 * Best regards indeed--Stor stark7 Speak 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never run into Molobo very much, but he strikes me as a really nasty editor, for what it's worth. Buckshot06(prof) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06's reply
Commented on the article's talk page. Feel free to disagree with me there or at my talk. What do you believe should happen to the article? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aussie Military Portal receives many hits a month
Check out this link. This should tell you how many people have look at the portal for each month, thats if you haven't seen this web page before. Cheers . Adam (talk) (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Military history of Australia during World War I
Hi Nick. Any idea why this was deleted last year?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the deletion log it was because it was an empty category at the time. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

United States military in Iraq
As far as I can tell, this new article is mostly a duplicate of Iraq War order of battle, USAFCENT, and United States Central Command, and I'm thinking of listing it for deletion. What do you think? Buckshot06(prof) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can go ahead and redirect it. How abrupt should I be? I can just do it, announce on the talk page, or whatever. Buckshot06(prof) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorisation
Mrg is now adding Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars to every major branch article - artillery, cavalry, jagers etc, far too high level categorisation (apart from it's appalling grammar). I've reverted a couple but he's reinstated the cat; what do you advise me to do? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You could just ask me. What is so appalling about Armies of Napoleonic Wars? its a category, not a fully fledged English sentence, so get over it. There is no absolute need for a "the". The troop types were all a part of the period. There are no articles that deal with the artillery and cavalry of the period, so if a reader wants to know something about either, they have to go to the general article until someone writes them.
 * Personally I'm wondering if its actually worth participating in Wikipedia with people like you around. EVERYTHING I do, you manage to find something wrong with it, and not just in matters of editing, but conceptually. You want to correct grammar, fine. You want to be gnomish about articles I work on, fine. However, you seem not to have the concept of an reference work firmly understood. Its about adding articles and structuring their subject areas. If I can't write articles, at least I am going to string them together (structure) so users can follow from one to another.
 * What is your problem with Jägers? They were a name used for light infantry in German-speaking states and Russia during the period. I said so. The article said so before I added Russia to it. I can reference the fact if you want me to, just use.
 * If you have lots of spare time, and looking for something to do, you can take over on new article patrol in tagging an inserting supporting sections to reorganise articles per WP:LAYOUT, and reference them as you go off Google-books rather than letting stubs pile up. I don't know why others don't do it. Doesn't take much. Just insert
 * ==See also==
 * ==References and notes==
 * ==Sources==
 * ==Further reading==
 * ==External links==
 * then go to the find template and find three sources to reference the article and bingo, no stub--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem with Jager - and artillery, cavalry, engineers, etc, is that the individual troop types, according to your idea, could have every war they've ever participated in added in the same way you're doing now: you're starting off a slippery slope to ridiculous overcategorisation when you should only be adding these categories to the individual branch-articles-during-wars. Can you imagine the article Infantry with every war that's ever happened added as a category 'Armies of the X War?' It doesn't bear thinking about. Your idea of categorisation is about 90 degrees off from the majority of wikipedia. Buckshot06(prof) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I really feel for you Buckshot06, what with the overcategorised Infantry article. I actually did not add that one, but just added Line infantry, which should be Infantry of the Line from which it is redirected (with your love of grammar). Its not my problem that there is no planning and coordination in how articles are created. Ideally each category should have main articles, and major subcategory articles, but they are not there. The reason my idea of categorisation is 90 degrees off from the majority of Wikipedia is because majority of Wikipedia has no idea where its heading...a part of its design. By the way, I has asked for suggestions on what that idea should be, and was offered only ridicule and negativity, but nothing much constructive, purposeful or visionary--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem with Jager - and artillery, cavalry, engineers, etc, is that the individual troop types, according to your idea, could have every war they've ever participated in added in the same way you're doing now: you're starting off a slippery slope to ridiculous overcategorisation when you should only be adding these categories to the individual branch-articles-during-wars. Can you imagine the article Infantry with every war that's ever happened added as a category 'Armies of the X War?' It doesn't bear thinking about. Your idea of categorisation is about 90 degrees off from the majority of wikipedia. Buckshot06(prof) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I really feel for you Buckshot06, what with the overcategorised Infantry article. I actually did not add that one, but just added Line infantry, which should be Infantry of the Line from which it is redirected (with your love of grammar). Its not my problem that there is no planning and coordination in how articles are created. Ideally each category should have main articles, and major subcategory articles, but they are not there. The reason my idea of categorisation is 90 degrees off from the majority of Wikipedia is because majority of Wikipedia has no idea where its heading...a part of its design. By the way, I has asked for suggestions on what that idea should be, and was offered only ridicule and negativity, but nothing much constructive, purposeful or visionary--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep reverting and/or raise it on the appropriate conflict resolution boards. I agree that Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars is bad grammar - it should be Category:Armies of the Napoleonic Wars, and a cat of this name should only contain information on national armies of this era (a few good articles on these topics have been created recently). Mrg: it's really important that you note the widespread opposition to your categorisations. These are not helpful and, to be frank, you are probably heading towards some form of block if you don't stop breaching consensus. I'd suggest that you take a few days off from Wikipedia and focus on article creation and improvement when you get back as this works for me when I find myself going down bad paths on articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If Buckshot06, or yourself think that the category absolutely must have a "the" in it, there is a process for requesting a renaming.
 * I have created a new category for troop types and moved the troop types there.
 * "widespread opposition"? So far, five or six people in World War II. Its not even 1% of the signed up members of that task force. Most of my "vocal" opposition is Buckshot06
 * Ahm, "some kind of block"? You mean you have to figure out how to block me? Usually that's fairly apparent. Please Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status. Either you participate in a discussion, which is how a consensus is reached, or, if you don't have the time or inclination, just leave it to others to express themselves on the subject, Buckshot06 excepted. So far I have not actually done anything wrong. Even category restructuring is a fairly routine matter in other Projects. You ought to get out more. Two of the very few people that participated in the discussion said its not necessarily a bad thing.
 * I'll focus on whatever I like thank you very much. You could give Buckshot06 same advice since he is firmly focused on my edits. I am actually destressing from my Eastern Front encounters because it seems every time I get to articles there I end up being uncivilly. Funny that.
 * However, after I do a bit of maintenance on some (really bad) Napoleonic related articles, I'm going back, so I guess you better practice your blocking if that is the only recourse you have to working things out.
 * Interestingly you are the only coordinator I didn't recently sent an essay on mainspace behaviour to because you don't have email, but Roger got one, so maybe if the two of you share emails he can share that with you. BTW, I didn't write it. Was written by a guy who has been editing since 2004.
 * Truly mate, if all you are going to do is threaten me and tell me what to do, you need not reply--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins are only allowed to arbitarily block blatant vandals and all other blocks can only be made after typically lengthy processes involving multiple editors (which typically includes multiple admins). I am not showing off my admin powers, but am trying to provide you with some advice. For your information, I have a policy of not providing my email address to people I know only through Wikipedia. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting I'm a vandal now?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * By the way, you wouldn't happen to have a reference for MacArthur not liking airborne units and wanting to use the division as a light infantry division with airborne capabilities? Skinny87 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank links
Hi Nick, I'm a bit new to the upgraded WP standards since 2005 or so. What made you decide to remove the Tank links as 'un-needed'? Dhatfield (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, got it. Dhatfield (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WW2
I don't really have the time to participate in that long winded discussion. Sorry. I took the advice here to "BE BOLD" and make the changes as an outside party without prior participation. If you liked the wording, I suggest you bring it up to the folks who are editwarring over it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuban Intervention in Angola AfD
Thanks for the suggestion - I was not aware of that board. However it does appear to be a sounding board for stressed people rather than somewhere to escalate and have action taken over an issue of non-consensus. Or have I missed something? FYI, the guidline I followed on content forks indicates that the approach should be AfD.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Allied submarines in the Pacific War
The Blair refs aren't EZ to track down; it'd take reading it again... The info is in there, here & there; for now, I'll tag the fns "passim", k? Trekphiler (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian Volunteer Marine Corps
May require second opinion to mine--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a clear case of CSD A7 (non-notable organisation) so I just speedied it. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User vandalism/removal of content
Please take a look at this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.249.89.156, as he is consistently removing content from military pages. You may wish to keep an eye on him preparatory to a possible block. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. He/she is now on their last warning. Meanwhile my 'favourite' vandal user:118.92.229.177 is back and posting nonsense, including on NZ articles now (the IP traces to Auckland). It's long past time to ban IP editing in my opinion. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, you are not alone there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you may, or may not, wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Block_of_Mrg3105. Buckshot06(prof) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth pics
Nick, just wondering what you'd recommend re. a pic copyright issue. The one in question is of Richard Williams in the intro of the Chief of the Air Staff (Australia) article (which also appears in his article). The only source I'm aware of is the RAAF's official site and unfortunately the pic is undated and I think, judging by his appearance, it's after 1955 so not a natural for PD-Australia, unless I've missed something. I was going to leave requesting permission from the Commomwealth as a last resort - thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian military history task force
Hi Nick, I would like to enquire if I would be able to join the Australian military history task force? If so, do I just add my name to the list? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just added my name. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Military History Wiki
Dear Nick-D, you are a member of Wikiproject Military History, and I would like to notify you that a new Wiki has been made for Military History. If you are interested in participating in this project, please follow the following link.http://www.militaryhistorywiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page. Cheers,  Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a lineReview Me!

Re: Can I apply for a hunting license?
Well, if you're dealing with a known individual and his sockpuppets, there's no need to go through the entire warning routine with each new account; it's perfectly acceptable to just block them on sight.

Does that help? Or did I totally misunderstand your question? Kirill (prof) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice
1. I hadn't consciously taken in the museum's chnage of address. If we can find a consistent pattern in the way they have changed, it would be a good job for a bot.

2. Thanks, I had been thinking about DYK, although I'm not sure which factoid to use: the well-decorated Wellington crew, the lucky Halifax pilot or...?

3. I will have a look at it.

Cheers, Grant  |  Talk  04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

August Storm
Great! You've just made the re-edit I was trying to craft in my head, the term certainly should be mentioned. Buckshot06(prof) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

law schools
thanks for the note. also Talk:Griffith_Law_School Michellecrisp (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Milhist reviews March-May 2008

 * Thanks Roger! Nick Dowling (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pleasure! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM
Appreciate your comments either way at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narodnoe_Opolcheniye#Requested_move. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:World War II
Since you are one of the coordinators at the World War II task force, I think you should know that the World War II Portal is now featured. Beware ofdog  21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dance-pop
Greetings Nick. I would like to register a complaint against a user. He/she is registered to IP address: 68.89.176.172. I see that you had blocked him/her previously. Anyhow, he/she keeps making unwarranted (or unreferenced) changes to the Wiki entry on Dance-pop. I realize that any and all Wiki articles are open to additions, subtractions etc., but this person keeps adding Soulja Boy, who ISN'T technically dance-pop. I wouldn't have a problem if he'd come into the talk page and discuss it; I added a talk subject to the Dance-pop page for duscussion, but he/she never responds, they just keep adding it. What should I do about this person? They seem to have vandalized a LOT of articles! Again -- this is the user 68.89.176.172

Thanks. Mirror Ball(Mirror Ball 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Dance-pop: 68.89.176.172 is apparently someone named Mumble45
Hey again Nick. Thanks for your rapid reply to my other query. I see that someone that goes by Mumble45 person has again added Soulja Boy to Dance-pop. Also -- he has apparently had some conflicts with other Wiki users for making unsourced additions to the entry on Soulja Boy. This may or may not be the same person, as when I went to this "profile", this person had not apparent information and Wiki can't confirm his existence. Thanks again. (Mirror Ball 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)) Mirror Ball

Oh, and apparently
Mumble45 has been going around making a LOT of unsourced changes, lol. See Mumble45. (Mirror Ball 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Request
Hi Nick, it recently came to my attention that the article on Air Commodore Sir Hughie Edwards had failed to obtain B class status due to a lack of references. I have since added the much needed references, as well as additional information to the article, and I was wondering if you could please indulge me and assess the article as a third party, and ascertain whether it has yet acquired a B class rating. Please do not feel obligated to assess the article, you may, of course, say no if you wish. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF ACR
Quality review there, Nick! Well done, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Outsider needed
I need some advice re some what i consider really atrocious indonesian military articles - please let me know when i can provide you some links - I would be interested in your opinion - if you are at all interested - please let me know and ill fish them out over the weekend - cheers SatuSuro 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you that is a generous response - could i do further comments off wiki by gmail - is that ok with you? SatuSuro 07:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sent if you want to close it again SatuSuro 09:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: H-Net review
Hi Nick, in reply to your message on my talk page:


 * Hi Stor, Please note that I have been going through articles which reference the H-net review of the GI War Against Japan and removing statements which are not supported by the book. In particular, Schrijvers did not say that rape was a "general practice" - this seems to be the reviewers' POV and he shouldn't have attributed to Schrijvers - and neither the review nor the book support the claim that the rapes were motivated by the dehumanisation of Japanese people as was being claimed in the Occupation of Japan article (Schrijvers argues that they were motivated by a desire to "sharpen the agressiveness of soldiers" and "establish total dominance" and makes no reference at all to dehumanisation in this context). Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your intentions, Nick. Please, just to make sure there are again no misunderstandings, I did not insert that paragraph into the Japan article, not that I would expect you to have preconceptions or act rashly before investigating the full history of events... however it might be good if you also chose to inform User:IrishHaremOtaku, since he would seem to be the one directly affected in that article.

As to what Schrijvers wrote, yes I see now that you are right in that it was not made by Schrijvers, but you were wrong to remove it. That quote on rape which states it "was a general practice against Japanese women" should instead be attributed to Dr. Xavier Guillaume, Department of Political Science, University of Geneva.

As to dehumanization, the context they are mentioned in clearly shows that the rapes were affected by dehumanization. (bold by me)
 * "--to us they are dogs and rats--we love to kill them--to me and all of us killing Nips is the greatest sport known--it causes no sensation of killing a human being but we really get a kick out of hearing the bastards scream" (p. 207). This hatred heightened the dehumanization of the Japanese soldiers whether alive or already dead. Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated. "American soldiers on Okinawa were seen urinating into the gaping mouth of the slain. They were 'rebutchered.' 'As the bodies jerked and quivered,' a marine on Guadalcanal wrote of the repeated shooting of corpses, 'we would laugh gleefully and hysterically'" (p. 209). As the GIs closed in on the Japanese archipelago, the more the difference between combatants and noncombatants became fuzzy and almost pointless to them.


 * ''For instance, rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women. "The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000. A figure that does not seem unlikely when one realizes that during the first 10 days of the occupation of Japan there were 1,336 reported cases of rape of Japanese women by American soldiers in Kanagawa prefecture alone" (p. 212)."

From the page numbers used above you'd see that the rapes are mentioned in connection to the rest of the dehumanization atrocities. Further, according to the review Schrijvers also mentions the following on dehumanization in earlier pages:
 * Not surprisingly, this led to a dehumanization of the Japanese troops by the American soldiers. Such dehumanization is a natural phenomenon in war, yet it reached overwhelming proportions as compared to its parallel articulation in the European front in the case of the Italians or Germans.[7] The humanization of the Japanese soldiers came as a shock to some, as a "horrified" marine realized when he discovered naive and brightly-colored paintings in a blown-out cave on Iwo Jima: "The Japanese soldiers had children ... who loved them and sent their art work to them" (p. 165).

--Stor stark7 Speak 11:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need to quote page numbers to me or tell me what the book says: I've borrowed the book from a library, and am not relying on the bits of it quoted in that review. Simply put, Schrijvers does not attribute rapes by US troops against Japanese women to dehumanisation. The paragraph which explains the motivations for rape reads "Wartime rape serves to sharpen the agressiveness of soldiers. It also helps to steel the male bonds between warriors, hence the frequency of gang rapes in war. But rape just as much reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other. That is why enemy women are quite commonly sexually abused in front of fathers, husbands or brothers with the express purpose of increasing also the humilation of the male foe. [note the use of "quite commonly" is refering to how men who commit rape carry out this crime, and there is no claim at all that rape was "common" on Okinawa or elsewhere in the Pacific War for that matter] That drive for indisputable control, to be accomplished in part through demeaning, was undoubtedly [emphasis added] what moved US Marines, for example, to rape almost all the women in one of the villages on Motobu Peninsula". As discussed a while ago, Schrijvers does not claim that "Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated" as is also attributed to him in that review, and actually says that US troops typically wouldn't go near Japanese corpses and makes no claims on the inncidenceof mutilations (pg 209). Nick Dowling (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another request
Hi Nick, I'm back again with another request. Like before, feel free to say no if you want, I won't hold it against you, lol. I was wondering if you would please assess the article on Albert Jacka for me; I have gone through and added additional information and references. If you do decide to assess the article, and do approve it for B-class status, could you please also remove the "No references or sources" tag on the article. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, en passant :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Roger! Nick Dowling (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Novorossiysk
Could you start a stub for the Kiev class aircraft carrier Novorossiysk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.173.158 (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't know anything about the ship and don't have any references. Why don't you register with an account and create it yourself? Nick Dowling (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick, I have some references that I can use, but I'm not the best typer/rewriter, so that would be a tedious process for me. I can set up the page and fill in the infobox using my refs, but we'd need to find someone else to do the bulk of the writing. I remember a few months ago that I noticed we did not have an article on the ship as yet, but it slipped my mind to do anything about it. - BillCJ (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've created the page at Soviet aircraft carrier Novorossiysk. The specs are still from the Minsk, while there is no History text yet. There is enough material there that it should be AfD-proof (ie, it should survive an AFD, as notability is no problem - I can't guarantee some anal-retentive AFD stormtrooper won't nominate it anyway!) Nick, is there a new article list page for WPSHIPS? - BillCJ (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingston quote in "Allied war crimes during World War II‎"
Hi Nick; have you seen my comment at Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II‎? Regards, Grant  |  Talk  14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with IP editors
I have some IP editors constantly reverting my edits on List of battles by casualties. Can an admin do something about it? I would prefer to discuss matters on the talk page and agree to a solution, but it is very hard with an IP. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Need consensus on battle categorisation
Hi Nick,

I don't seem to have a decision on my proposal for categorisation of battles by conflict and country as briefly discussed here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I am only new to this whole WikiProject concept. Where to from here?

ThanksGlenn Sisson (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Japan old proposed occupation zones map
Hello Nick, I see that you removed a map pertaining to proposed occupation zones and looking through the history, this was done twice. The first time you said it was misleading - which it would only be if people are unable to read the caption of the map which clearly stated it was a map of proposed zones that were abandoned upon the surrender of Japan; now if people can't read the caption they probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place and if they choose not to read the caption or the relevant article information then that's their problem and they're just lazy. The second time you removed it you said it was "uncited in the article" and that "there's no explanation of whether it was ever accepted". However in the very section you removed it from, the second paragraph clearly states:


 * "On V-J Day, United States President Harry Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), to supervise the occupation of Japan. During the war, the Allied Powers had planned to divide Japan amongst themselves for the purposes of occupation, as was done for the occupation of Germany. Under the final plan, however, SCAP was given direct control over the main islands of Japan (Honshū, Hokkaidō, Shikoku and Kyūshū) and the immediately surrounding islands, while outlying possessions were divided between the Allied Powers as follows:


 * Soviet Union: North Korea (not a full occupation), Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands
 * United States: South Korea (not a full occupation), Okinawa, the Amami Islands, the Ogasawara Islands and Japanese possessions in Micronesia
 * Republic of China: Taiwan and the Pescadores
 * It is unclear why the occupation plan was changed."

So how is it that the map is uncited in the article when the article clearly refers to wartime plans to divide Japan for occupation purposes like Germany? And if the plan was abandoned then it couldn't have been accepted in the end could it? Most articles don't even directly cite maps anyway (I can't remember the last article I saw that had anything like "see Fig. 1" or "see map"). And if it is citations for the map itself, why not ask the author of the map him/herself? Surely they should know where they got it from and if you look at the other similar map that the first one was linked to (Image:Divide-and-rule_plan_of_Japan.png) there is mention by the Japanese author of that map of a reference based on a "plan in the American National Archives", so surely that must constitute a reference. The author and yourself seem interested in military history, so I'm sure you would find things to discuss pertaining to the map(s).72.27.75.66 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please take this up on the article's talk page, where I started a discussion when I removed it? The article doesn't claim that the USSR was going to take over half of Honshu as the map shows, and what text there is is currently uncited. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with discussing it on this page? And when does the article itself have to outline all the borders of a map? Isn't the purpose of a figure to summarize information so it doesn't all have to be written out? And even the "Allied Administration of Austria" page doesn't mention anything about which Allied powers were to supposed to occupy which areas and has absolutely no citations at all about Austria being divided into four zones, so why isn't the map with Austria removed because it has no citations, either in the image itself or in the text of the article in which it is placed? The author of the Austria map cites no source whatsoever even though they must exist, but he hasn't proved it, whereas it is quite obvious that the English text Japan map is exactly the same as the Japanese text map linked above, wherein the author of the Japanese text map cited plans in the American National Archives. What more is needed? How about being proactive and having a discussion with the authors of the maps? 72.27.83.179 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion on the article's talk page so that other interested editors could comment. I don't like discussing article content on relatively closed forums like editors talk pages, and don't intend to enter into a conversation about it here. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Image Tags
Hi Nick,

I'm going to assume you didn't mean to imply that I was trying to do the wrong thing but I just want to make it clear that I wasn't. Truth is, the whole adding an image process confused me (it's been a while), and I had no idea what to select. I didn't try to hide anything - I had comments about the US one being wrong, and I provided the source for the other images. I made sure it was OK here but I don't know how they are supposed to be tagged (as may be evident from previous comments on my talk page but I logged in less frequently then and they were deleted before I could do anything).

--Carbonrodney (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to your image, that will be really helpful. --Carbonrodney (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've updated the tags. Are they good now? --Carbonrodney (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Department of Defence (Australia)
Yes, you're right. But you're just as guilty as I am - we both had plenty of opportunity to fix it, and both didn't. Hang on, what am I on about? You did fix it. OK, you're less guilty than I am. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It had been there since last August! (I just checked the article's history to make sure that I hadn't added it ;-) ) Nick Dowling (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol! I did exactly the same before I posted the above comment! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to intervene
Would you mind checking the last few edits at Talk: Manchurian SOO? Mrg3105 has both insulted me, by calling me a yesman, and then removed the whole straw poll section without consultation with anyone. I know you're involved, but I would very much appreciate it if you would at least warn him. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation
You should know better than to suggest renaming a historical event with a made-up title, and that Buckshot06 will vote for anything that is opposite to what I say. In any case, I'm sure you are familiar with the outcome of that consensus. polling is not a substitute for discussion, and discussion is no substitute for sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

IP editor possess problems again
User talk:66.4.209.194 has again the pleasure of reverting my edits on List of battles by casualties after the semi-protection expired. My one-sided ceasefire of edits during the protection and offer to talk were to no avail. Is there any other posibility to get through to this editor? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Ontario
I see you deleted the Taranto link here. Some editors here would obviously disagree with you. Perhaps a comment there? TREKphiler  hit me ♠ 🇨🇦 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Government is new ACOTF
Hi. You voted for Howard Government as an Australian collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks Matilda talk 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin requested
Hi Nick,

You are an admin, with an interest area in military history... If you have time, I was hoping you could provide a third opinion on HK MP5 - specifically whether one of the images I uploaded should be included in the article. At the moment it is a bit of a revert war, and I have made the last edit I will make (an attempt to compromise) before the issue is resolved. Cheers,
 * --Carbonrodney (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing a third view on the issue. I'm happy it's resolved. --Carbonrodney (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Government is new ACOTF
Hi. You voted for Howard Government for Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It was selected on Sunday, so please help to improve it if you can. Thanks for your support. --Scott Davis Talk 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User Molobo
Just curious, is this what you agreed with ? --Stor stark7 Speak 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - that's in line with my post on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Request re: HMS Ark Royal
Recently you commented on the state of the article HMS Ark Royal (91), during its A-class review. Among those comments was an assertation that the early part of the article could do with a copyedit. Would you be able to take a look at User:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking, where I'm working on this chunk of article, and offer your opinion on its improvement (or lack thereof?) -- saberwyn 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We were ALL wrong! Hyūga is an LPH!
Nick, could you take a look at this diff, and my comments on the talk page? We have a new user who has been heavily editing carrier-related articles in the past day or so, and he seems to have a "broad" view of what constitutes an LPH to include any helicopter carrier ever built, or any carrier which carried mostly helicopters at some point in its career. Would you mind double-checking me? Feel free to slap me with your new fish if I need it! Thanks. Btw, some USN supercarriers have been used recently as primarily helicopter platforms, off Afghanistan and Lousiana, IIRC. I certainly hope we don't have to add those to the list! - BillCJ (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right Bill: a LPH is a specialised ship which is designed to embark a large number of combat troops and their equipment and land them via helicopter. Any ship with a flight deck can serve in this role with varying degrees of effectiveness, but that's not really the point of ship classifications as it's the speciality which counts. Ocean is unquestionably a LPH as she was designed for this role. Hyūga could probably make a useful amphibious transport, but everything I've seen states that she was designed as an ASW/mine sweeping helicopter carrier with the potential of being upgraded to a small aircraft carrier. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I think he is misreading LPH as a "take-of and landing platform" for helicopters, rather than as a "Landing" as in amphibious operations. - BillCJ (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

102 IW
Thanks for the criticism. While others were editing it for GA-Class, I never noticed that some did those two sentence paragraphs as I had a hands-off approach since I wrote most of it. In response to what you said, the real only thing that could be considered criticism for the unit were the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I couldn't find anything out there that could be considered a negative. Should I create a page for the "federally recognized" thing? I tried to address the issues that you put down, these being numbers 1, 3-7, and 9-13. Well I look forward to any help and advice that you can bring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Please stop editing other editor's talk page posts
Tenmei, I have noticed that you frequently change other editors' posts on talk pages by bolding or changing the colour of some or all of their message. The talk page guidelines states that making these kind of changes is unacceptable behaviour. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint, make it specific. I don't know what you're complaining about.  It is your burden to make yourself plain, clear, understood. Vague isn't helpful in this or any other context. --Tenmei (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got no problems with you removing my warning from your talk page (it's perfectly OK to do so, though the act of removing them is considered to be acknowledgement that the warning was read) but will re-post my response here.
 * I'm talking about stuff like this: and fiddling with my almost two-week old posts today for no good reason:,  and  (it's perfectly normal to link to article titles in notifications, and even if it wasn't there's no reason to edit such old posts). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is another example of changing the formatting of someone's post: Nick Dowling (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems constructive to replicate this exchange at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Tenmei (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars
First thanks very much for your actions in regard to Mrg´s block. I have felt a bit alone sometimes in reacting to his bizarre edits, so I felt very appreciative of your action in response to his incivility, insults, etc.

However, there are still some remaining issues with the things he`s done. One can put a tag on an article that it´s disputed etc, but here Mrg3105´s categorisations, carried to their logical conclusion, would have a category saying type of military forces in War X for every war in history added to the bottom of the infantry, cavalry, and artillery articles. How do I register that I do not agree with the categorisation without the slow revert war that has been occurring (he 's now readding them a fifth time.) How may I get this considered in a fair way? (This also applies to the WW2 category issue of course).

Roger D. seems to be quite busy, and has not responded to the note I left on his talk page. Would appreciate guidance on how I should proceed. Buckshot06(prof) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

AWM Images
Hi Nick, I'm sorry to be a pain in the butt and pester you again, but in regard to images in the Australian War Memorial online database, does it basically mean that any image in the collection that was published, taken, printed, etcetera, before 1 January 1955 is now free of copyright and eligible to be used on Wikipedia? I ask primarily due to the fact that I would like to place the image of Leon Goldsworthy (ID 081383) on his page, in an attempt to enhance the article's quality. This image was published during World War II, so is at least 62 years old. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's been the consensus of past discussions on the topic. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just one thing . . . I've never put an image to Wikipedia before, and I have no idea how to do so. Would you be able to point me in the right direction on how to go about this, or how to find some instructions on how to do so? Sorry for being such a pain. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The instructions are at Upload, though it would be better to upload the article at Wikicommons given that it's out of copyright. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate, your a great help; again, sorry for being such a pain. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not a pain at all: I'm happy to help. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm back once again asking for some help and guidence. I've tried to upload the image of Goldsworthy several times now, and when I click on the upload button it comes up on a new page stating "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again." I have no idea when I'm doing wrong, and I was hopeing you could help me? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's beyond my (very limited) knowledge of the technology which underlies these sites. To upload AWM images I save them onto my computer's hard drive (as .GIFs) and then upload the file from there. I had problems uploading a file to Wikicommons the other day, so it may be experiancing problems... Nick Dowling (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that might be my problem; I didn't save the image to my hard drive. I'll look into that. Thanks for all your help Nick. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I am glad to say that I have worked out the problem, and have now added three images (Image:Leon Goldsworthy 081383.JPG, Image:Ralph Honner 005638.JPG & Image:Albert Chowne 134484.JPG) to commons, and their articles on wikipedia. Thanks again for the assistance Nick. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! Keep up the great work. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OTVA
Nick, I'm sorry but I'm completely lost with this whole Wikipedia thing - and I apologise in advance if I'm talking on the wrong page (I've tried clicking your name line but it doesn't seem to take me back to your comments about my OTVA post). I'm a retired corporate affairs executive who simply responded to a request from a veterans organisation (OTVA), with which I'm familiar, to explain their role in life for the benefit of researchers, historians and other interested individuals and/or groups worldwide. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, nor even much more than a complete novice - but I hope that won't be held against me to detract from the validity of the OTVA post. Your comment back in March 2008 (sorry, I've had other priorities since then), that the three references quoted for OTVA don't appear to be independent, is well wide of the mark. The three references quoted were   . OTC (an antecedent of Telstra) was a commercial organisation charged with carriage of Australia's international telecommunications (ie into, out of and through Australia) from 1946 to 1992. OTVA, on the other hand, is a non-commercial organisation comprised of veterans from OTC, C&W, AWA and other telecommunications organisations worldwide. There is no official and certainly no commercial link between OTC and OTVA - indeed, OTVA once sought sponsorship from OTC and was rebuffed (ditto with Telstra after OTC ceased to exist). Notwithstanding, OTC still recognised the existence and value of OTVA and hence mentioned them in their official staff magazine from time to time, as well as in their annual reports (always in a non-official sense) - hence my quoting them as independent references. I'm not sure how things work on Wikipedia, nor do I have the time to find out, I'm afraid, (the end is closer than the beginning for me now, and I have many other things to do which rank much higher in my personal priorities than continuing to argue the case for OTVA on Wikipedia, despite the value that is seen in this entry by archivists and historians). So can I suggest that unless you can provide evidence to support your claim that OTC is not independent of OTVA (which I, and I daresay every member of OTC and OTVA would hotly dispute), then you please remove your comments at the top of the OTVA page (as Cuyler did before you, after also questioning many things about the post but then having the good grace to acknowledge that it was all "style" stuff and fixing it himself). Cheers Linhmartin (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Nick. I note your comment about staff magazines but would point out that Transit (one of the references I quoted for OTVA) was awarded the Gold Serif in 1995 by the Public Relations Institute of Australia for "excellence in communication". In other words, it was adjudged the most professionally written, edited and produced corporate magazine in Australia that year. How do I know? I was the managing editor then and had been for 11 years previously (we'd gained many awards of merit, but 1995 was the first time we made it to the very top of the tree). There is no question that the references I quoted are independent of OTVA, and I'm surprised you question the independence of something like an annual report from the then government's most successful business enterprise (the annual reports were required to be tabled in Parliament each year and thus were required to meet more stringent publication and content criteria than most books published on the open market); however, I will ask the members to find other references, which I know are contained in independently published works such as Invisible Bridges (Rod Masterton), Taming the Tyrant (Edgar Harcourt), and others. Had I been prepared for the amount of scrutiny from Wikipedia administrators that the OTVA post has been subjected to, I daresay I would have gone the extra mile to incorporate these references in the original post. But I honestly thought everyone was familiar with the completely separate roles of OTC and OTVA (given the well publicised merger of OTC and Telecom 16 years ago) and was just trying to help out the OTVA guys without making a major project out of it. And now the big question, of course: how do I remove the tag?Linhmartin (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga notification
"Disagree" -- that single word from BillCJ's doomed my request for mediation, but it need not be the last word.

I have re-submitted the request as the somewhat modified Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2 -- seeWikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.

Changes include expressly incorporating Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer along with Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Also, the number of named parties is smaller. Another potentially helpful improvement -- first on the list of issues to be mediated is:
 * 1. As per WP:LEAD, the article's introduction needs to be brought in line with the article's text and reflect the paragraph which was included after being endorsed by a unanimous consensus on the article's talk page which describes the fact that different reliable sources call these ships aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, helicopter destroyers and destroyers (Tenmai has stated that he chose to sit out this discussion, and instead restarted it after consensus was reached).
 * 1A. Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?

I'm much more concerned about getting this process started than I care about what or who comes first. I hope you join me in this concern.

I hope you will again assent to this request for mediation.

By sharing a copy of this notification with those who had not decided what to do about the first request for mediation, I am fulfilling my responsibilities as the filing party; and at the same time, I open a door to the possibility that one or more may yet decide to do more than watchlist this page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, you yourself doomed your RFM by naming as a party a person who chose to leave the entire sordid discussion over two week ago. I want nothing to do with this whole mess - it's not worth the mental stress! I would have simply abstained, but that's not one of the options given. - BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

TF proposals
How do I propose a new Task Force? Out (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The best option would be to raise the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Nick Dowling (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AWM copyright
Hey Nick, I just though I'd let you know that I was looking at the copyright section on the Australian War Memorial website, and it states that any photograph in their collection taken before 1 May 1969 is now free of copyright and in the public domain; there may be, of course, a few exceptions though. See. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fantastic development - well spotted! I read it to mean that photos takem before 1959 and not 1969 are now PD though, given that it is 1958 which is 50 years ago, and hence 50 years since making. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The National Library of Australia says that the same condition applies to all photos in its collection made before 1969: Nick Dowling (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I read those the same way as Nick, meaning that at this moment pics from 1958 or older are out of copyright - unless otherwise noted, e.g. those on AWM marked as 'clear', which includes a number of pics of the Vietnam era as well as before '59. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was a little puzzled at why it states 50 years and then 1 May 1969. It may well be an error on both sites, or, for some reason, it has been changed for both the AWM and the NLA (considering that they both hold public records) for some things, such as photographs, to be released earlier. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help please
I am working on a Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom requiring references to the conscription of young people, and am in need of some source documents re changes in practices in the periods before and after the war. Could you possibly point me in the right direction, please ?SJB (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm afraid that I don't know much about that topic. Your best bet would probably to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force. I hope that helps, Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do. SJB (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Nick, thanks for keeping my informed about the DDH mess and our loquacious adversary. I am going on Wikibreak for the time being. Could you please look at Talk:Mistral class amphibious assault ship, and see if my opinion is off base? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not essentially an adversary

 * Nick Dowling -- This Request for Mediation should have been focused exclusively on one sentence in a two-sentence paragraph. The entire edifice of what I take to be your righteous indignation is naught but a house of cards raised above this single edit.


 * Your withdrawal only exacerbates a problem which could have been, should have been averted. Your tactics obscure rather than illuminate. As I construe what you have written above,


 * 1. You are withdrawing from a mediation process which was expressly focused narrowly on content-related issues using your own words as a place to begin.
 * WHAT YOU DON'T MENTION is that your demurral
 * A. Arises from an objection to one specific sentence which was accompanied by cited reference sources; and also this demurral
 * B. Impedes access -- again -- to the threshold of discussion about how to construe WP:V and WP:NPOV in the context that single sentence creates.


 * 2. Your withdrawal is based primarily -- or entirely -- on your adverse assessment of my words and conduct, e.g., "an editor who behaves with such bad faith or who reacts in such a way to disagreements."
 * WHAT YOU DON'T MENTION is that your demurral
 * A. Concerns an evolving subject -- not a static one; and your demurral
 * B. Arguably affects the editing posture in other not-obviously-related articles.


 * As you know, the JDS Hyūga is not scheduled for commissioning until March 2009, and debate on amending Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan is anticipated to continue beyond that date. The substance of this article, this dispute -- this tragic misunderstanding -- remains dynamic, on-going regardless of your words and actions here today or my words and actions elsewhere. An examination of the significant and enduring content-related issues which you effectively block today cannot remain unresolved indefinitely.


 * Your reasons for withdrawal ignore content-related issues entirely; and instead, your demurral rests solely on a rejection of words and actions of mine.


 * If these crisp sentences are too wordy or are unclear in any way, you have an immediate remedy. You need only underline what you don't understand ... or parse your dissatisfaction in any way which leaves open the possibility of response. Absent that, I'm at a loss for what to do because your  withdrawal undermines opportunities for identifying a range of problems and moving beyond them, e.g.,
 * A. Issues of Framing?
 * B. Re-affirming fundamental WP premises as strategic foundation for collaboration?
 * C. What to do about barriers of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias?
 * D. Re-distributing dynamic burdens of proof and persuasion collaboratively?
 * E. Re-assessing Taxonomy and Nomenclature?
 * F. Issues of Informal fallacy and Critical thinking?
 * G. Issues of Systematic bias and Consensus?
 * In my view, when you frame issues consistent with your systematic bias, your confirmation bias causes you to overlook a critical Informal fallacy in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer; and then cognitive dissonance and mis-applied taxonomy and nomenclature paradigms cause you to perceive bad faith where none exists. It appears to me that this modest deficiency in critical thinking is affecting the way in which you construe fundamental Wikipedia policies which can be a useful strategic foundation for collaborative writing.


 * Request for Arbitration
 * In facile compliance with WP:CIVIL, I can eschew any consideration of your intentions. This forces me to ascribe cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias as explanations for how and why you have skillfully perverted my every attempt to initiate the kind of informed discussion this nuanced subject demands.


 * Why don't you give some thought to a blunt proposal: I will lodge a Request for Arbitration, and I urge you to join in whole-heartedly. Let's work through whatever it is that troubles you.  Let's try to make the arbitration process into a win-win proposition.  You identify "disruptive behaviours" which are not obvious to me. Why not use this forum to help me ascertain how I can re-direct my participation in more constructive ways.  You construe "bad faith" in words and actions which are, from my perspective, seemly, thoughtful and proper. Why not make use of the arbitrators' neutral perspective and venue to help me learn how to avoid any appearance of bad faith?  Or, perhaps, it may happen that you'll discover that some of your perceptions were somehow slightly off-the-mark ...?


 * Then -- with your primary reasons for withdrawal having been addressed to your satisfaction, maybe we can return to this mediation forum where we can work together to resolve whatever content-related differences may still exist.


 * Please let me reiterate what I've already tried to explain ad nauseam:

We have not yet reached a threshold of disagreement .
 * What about focusing attention on one word ..: THRESHOLD -- just one word? Threshold is not a fighting word. What metamorphosis converted this metaphorical concept into anything indicative of of bad faith or consistent with disruptive editing ...? How many times did you reject the word threshold as irrelevant?


 * In my view, today's diversion is consistent with a demonstrable pattern; but regardless of anything else, surely we can agree that we should all try harder not to let otherwise avoidable distractions get in the way of work which remains to be done at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. --Tenmei (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
As I told you I would do, I have lodged a request for arbitration so that we can re-commence the process of requesting mediation.

Once your concerns about my words and actions are addressed, then I would assume that the perceived barrier which blocks mediation will no longer trouble us.

Specifically, I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of your complaints at Requests for arbitration. --Tenmei (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Most Phallic Building again
This has been nominated again despite a clear keep only a very short time ago. As such I am informing those who last voted for it to get this AfD kicked off. The reasons all seem to consist of invalid arguments like "silly smut" and "don't like it".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Phallic_Building_contest_(2nd_nomination)#Most_Phallic_Building_contestJJJ999 (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiUpdate
Hey, we did a little overview of the WP:MILHIST project in our last episode, and I was wondering; would you like to do a sort of mini-interview over skype or similar for the friday episode? It wouldn't be very long, maybe 5 minutes maximum. Ironho<b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; thanks anyway! <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 08:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Soberania
Hi Nick,

thank you for reading Operation Soberania and adding the criteria checklist:
 * 1) Referencing and citation: criterion not met
 * 2) Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
 * 3) Structure: criterion met
 * 4) Grammar: criterion not met
 * 5) Supporting materials: criterion met

I dont request a Peer review. Not now.

I need your help with the Referencing/citation and Coverage/accuracy issues. Which (disputed) statements are not referenced?.

I dont think that a table with Ch/Ar Military-Data would improve the accuracy of the article because the operation was called off and there are a table with the defense budget. That is enough. What do you think about?

Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'Aftermath' section has no citations, and there are paragraphs in the other sections which aren't cited either - everything needs to be supported by a citation, not just controversial material. The supporting materials seem fine - I don't think that additional tables would be necessesary. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

4 RAR
I've got my sources from peole who have seved in the unit who transfered into 4 RAR from a number of UK units including the Royal Marines and the Parchute Regiment. The informed me that the units make up and roles where very much the same as these units rather then SASR and your classical SF-type units like the SASR or SAS. You have provided sound references so I concur with its addition but if you look at the Special Operations section on Wiki you'll see there is cause for it inclussion onto the Spec Ops page (Archangel1 (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

Deletion
I suggest you spend the time constucting a Wiki page for this item as articles without a Wiki page are of no use on this site. You ref may be solid but without an article, you are not contibuting. So as to warn of any possible edit-war, let me remind you of: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (Archangel1 (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

Which comment is that? (Archangel1 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

I'm sorry you feel like that as it was NOT a personal attack. I was mealy pointing out that rather then continually pointing out a certain issue, sometimes it's better (and quicker) to rectify the issue (Archangel1 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

2/5 Independent Company
I see you've moved that page to the correct name as per the Talk page. I was thinking about doing the same thing myself. I've spent the day working on the article and (I think) improved it enormously. However, I'm just wondering what thoughts you have with regards to getting this assessed as a GA/A. I've only been doing the Wikipedia thing for a short time, so I'm not really sure what level this article's at. Lawrencema (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Economist as economics
Hey, thanks for the rv at The Economist, I now think you are right to have done so. If you are interested in this, you might want to mark other popular publications that have substantial business coverage such as The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Pdbailey (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline for aircraft carrier service

 * I've moved the article to abide by the MOS, so I've changed the link here.  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  06:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the references for this article, all the data has been compiled from within the Wiki itself, the first time I refer to each ship I Wiki-link it. How do you think I should explain this in the article? Obviously it is a work in progress at the moment, I plan to do the non-US carriers next and then finish with the US ones. I have not worried about linking to it anywhere else just yet because it is incomplete, I thought I would wait until I have done the first run through before worrying about that, ditto for categorisation. Also I am not sure about the format of the page, if you have any suggestion I would be interested. Nick Thorne <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  00:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds like a good strategy. I like the page's format - this is already a very interesting article. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've finished the first run through, including all the US carriers, but not the escort carriers (except one). I am in two minds about whether to include these.  For those which served as carriers in other navies it's a no brainer, but that's less than a handful. There are a lot of the others.  If I include them does it make the list unusable for those (I assume the majority) who are really only interested in "real" carriers, or do I include them for completeness.  I tend to lean towards the latter, but I would value another opinion, especially now since the main body of the list is done.  I must say, this was a much bigger task than I originally thought - there have been a great deal more carriers that I ever imagined.  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  04:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the number of CVEs (and the short careers most of them had), you it might be best to create a seperate Timeline for escort carrier service article. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may interject here, I concur with Nick D on the separate article. Nick T, great job on the Timeline so far. As to how to handle sources, I honestly don't know the carrier articles themselves will suffice as sources or not (assuming they are properly sourced. You might want to pick 4 or 5 major sources that cover many of the carriers, such as DANFS or Jane's, and list them in References. As far as the entires tehmselves, I would think that only claims of the ships having done something very unique or extraordinarily notable need to be sourced outright (ie. "the first carrier to . . . "). THat would at least cover the major items. - BillCJ (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys, I had forgotten that this discussion was being held here. I have thought long and hard about this issue and I have come to the conclusion that if the article is to attain FL status, which I wish to do, there is no option but to take the hard way and reference every entry at least once.  Thus I have made a start and will keep at it as time allows until I am done.  I am evolving exactly how the references should appear, especially for web references, I think I have got the form reasonably OK now, but I would appreciate any suggestions for improvement if they occur to anyone checking the timeline over.  Obviously the sooner any such suggestion is made the sooner I can incorporate it, if it seems appropriate, and the less re-work will be involved.  I guess the only other question I have is do you guys think that this timeline will be a reasonable candidate for FL once I have finished referencing it.  In other words are there any obvious errors of style or structure or whatever that would need to change?  Thanks.  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  11:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I don't know much about what makes a featured list, but the topic and the current content should be very suitable. You may want to consider putting the data into a sortable table (eg, so people can sort by the name of the carrier and find out all its key details or sort by date). Nick Dowling (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sio to Madang/Alexishafen
Nick,

What campaign to you believe the Sio to Madang/Alexishafen drive during World War II in 1944 belongs to? I believe it belongs in the Huon Peninsula campaign. Same for Landing at Saidor. All other drives north of Alexishafen to Wewak obviously belong in the Aitape-Wewak campaign. Your thoughts??? --Newm30 (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Submarine Corporation
Why the article says Australian Submarine Corporation is former name? If the name is changed, then what is the new name?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The company changed its name to just 'ASC' a few years ago, and this is used throughout its website: http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/home.aspx Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the title of the article should be moved to ASC.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. The only problem is that ASC is a disambiguation page, so the article would have to be called something like ASC (defence company) Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello, Nick Dowling, I come here to seek your input on 's behaviors. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr's inappropriate comment.
Hello, Nick, could you redact Taemyr's highly inappropriate comment and links at the ANI? I've heard and learned that publicizing block logs of other people and linking the page to make WP:POINT is a "personal attack" from ill-faith. If I were reported for disruption instead of Tenmei, that block log is necessarily addressed by admins but this is not the case and I strongly feel offense at his contradictory attack. I requested him to retract it because even though I'm deeply hurt by Taemyr behavior, I don't know I could be allowed to remove it myself. He also made some comments to you, and the report is also going nowhere with Tenmei's lengthy and unreable rambling. The AfD has nothing to do with my contributions and I did not expect to have this hard time to deal wit the users. Taemyr seems to be off right now, so could you do this? Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by my links in the case of Caspian blue. Considering this reaction I feel the need to state that my comments to you is a request for clarification, I have no wish to read trough all of Tenmei's posts on any subject.  So when as far as I can see the diffs posted fails to match the statement made I do have a wish for a more precise guidance.  Taemyr (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're standing by your personal attacks against me, huh? Taemire, it is your big problem for you to refuse to acknowledge your own incivility and "deliberate attacks".--Caspian blue (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've commented on this ANI case and requested a block, it would be inappropriate for me to touch the posts of other editors. Tenmei seems to be proving your complaint with his grossly over-long and very rude posts. I can provide background on the dispute I was involved in when I get home later today - if I posted a diff twice it was an accident and I would suggest that you review the examples of Tenmei being warned as these seem particularly relavant to an ANI case as they demonstrate that this is a pattern of behavior which he's continuing with despite repeatedly being told that it's unacceptable. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the diffs can be read in context at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer - Tenmei's rude and disruptive behaviour there is similar to that which Caspian blue has experianced. Please note that I have not reviewed Caspian blue's behaviour at all, but nothing excuses Tenmei's behavior. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded at . Tenmei seems to have shut down the ANI discussion with his vast and unreadable posts - a clear case of WP:TLDR. If you genuinely believe that Tenmei's only problem is his inability to communcate I would suggest that you actually read the stuff he's writing and observe his behaviour. He's an experianced editor (he's been active since April 2007) and, again, there's no excuse for his behavior. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Help needed
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Hoser&action=history - please, it seems to be a dont care for the rules reverter - please accept my apologies if you are in the middle of something else - but noticed you are on SatuSuro 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as I looked at that article they made their fourth revert within 24 hours, and I have blocked them for a week (for edit warring + BLP violations). Please let me know if this reoccurs and I'll be happy to step in. Cheers, Nick Dowling (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want do something about the not funny little chap who just vndlsed Downers page as well - possibly over the mark on that one :( SatuSuro 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just gave them a first and last warning for vandalism. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: 2ndCanInfDiv ACR
Hey, Nick, I've responded to some of the comments you made on the ACR for 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. Cheers. Cam (Chat) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

REF picture Aust Army Platoon 2007.jpg
In this picture it mentions that the soldiers depicted are from "Air Force A platoon". Just a slight correction to that. I know at least 4 of the guys in the picture and they are in 2RAR. Now to collect a 6 pack from each of them... :D User:Pretender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.52.79 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nick
What preparatory steps would you advise me to do, in order to practice for a run at being an administrator at some point? Can you point me to others' hint pages etc? Buckshot06(prof) 10:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be prepared to nominate me at some future point? (Not right now, need to think through my answers to the standard questions etc). Buckshot06(prof) 20:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at this draft and give me your thoughts? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * HAving made some changes, would you take another look at the draft? If you think it's ready, please just go ahead and nominate me and I'll fill in the rest of the application. Buckshot06(prof) 11:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done: Requests for adminship/Buckshot06 Nick Dowling (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Making a decision following a discussion
Hi Nick,

I have raised this question previosly on discussion pages, forgive me for repeating it here but I didn't seem to get any answer. Below is an example as this issue obviously applies to all discussions: I have been reading the discussion about the name of the article (and subsequent category) Battle of Gallipoli and they seem to have come to a decision that it should be called the Gallipoli Campaign or similar. At what point and who should action the decision and make the necessary changes?

I have proposed to change the way operations are categorised here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide and got some support but no real clear decision, so I just started working on it. Hope this is OK. Glenn Sisson (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Glen, I agree that there's a general consensus to move Battle of Gallipoli to Gallipoli Campaign. You can make this move yourself, though I'd be happy to do it if you'd rather a neutral party make it. As no-one has objected to your proposed category structure I'd say that you should go for it. Cheers, Nick Dowling (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:additions to Melbourne
I can't believe I missed the content in Up Top when I was researching the article... I remember skimming through the book but not finding much material that hadn't been found elsewhere. Good to see that even after FA, an article can still be improved.

Regarding the edits, I'd like to make a couple of nit-picks

First, on the paragraph regarding the possible deployment of Skyhawk crew with a USMC squadron while Melbourne was being refitted. I personally think that the info is a little too detailed for something that only tangentially involves the carrier, and would be better served in an associated squadron article (I assume 805 Squadron RAN), with a summarised version in Melbourne's article. I'll leave it as-is for now, but would like to hear your thoughts.

Second, regarding the Navy stonewalling of the use of Melbourne to help clear Australian forces from Vietnam... could you check the source and see if there are any particular reasons given for the Navy's stance on the matter?

Thanks muchly in advance. -- saberwyn 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cut the para on the Skyhawks back a bit (I think) and corrected it, but I think that it belongs in this article as it gives a flavour of what the carrier's airwing did during her many refits, and covering limitations of the RAN's Skyhawks helps answer the question of why she never saw action off Vietnam. Grey doesn't say that the pilots were going to come from 805 Sqn by the way, so I've removed that - I guess that they could have also have been drawn from the training squadron. I wouldn't object if you'd like to chop this back further though.


 * I've expanded the coverage on the proposal to use Melbourne as a transport in 1971 - the discussion is brief, but basically the RAN didn't think that this was an appropriate use for the ship and sucessfully argued its case. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've given the additions a "shave and a haircut"... hope I haven't distored the content too much. I assumed 805 because it makes more sense to send fully-trained pilots and mechs into a warzone than the not-fully-trained equivalent (although considering how new the aircraft were at the time, almost every RAN pilot would fall into the second category). I'd like a little further clarification on the additions (Gods, aren't I demanding :P). First, the Skyhawk proposal: was it six personnel total, or enough personnel to operate six Skyhawks? Second, the withdrawl: did the lack of Melbourne mean that the Task Force were not withdrawn before the Government's deadline? Thanks again in advance. -- saberwyn 07:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Those changes look good to me. I also imagine that the pilots would have come from 805 Sqn, but have no sources to confirm this, and it's possible that some of the trainers from the conversion squadron may have been sent. The Skyhawk proposal was for six pilots in total, and a number of maintainence personnel which Grey doesn't specify. Grey also doesn't say that Melbourne's unavailability had any impact on the process of withdrawing the Task Force, and I'm not sure when it finished leaving the country. Hope that helps! Nick Dowling (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the vote, Nick. I should have realized last night, what with no-one else having voted, but I was suffering from jet-lag and just thought I'd beaten everyone else to it. I'll read more carefully next time... Skinny87 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

edit war again
Can you take an eye on List of battles by casualties and do whatever is needed. The edit war is about to start again. However, now it is some wikipedians who think unsourced material has a right to stay and even gave me a warning. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that Roger beat me to it, and I fully support his decision to protect the page for 24 hours. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I --Dt23 am the one who sent a warning against Wandalstouring because of his horrendous actions on that page. list of battles by death toll Is a high traffic page and (User talk:Wandalstouring) has deleted months possibly even years worth of work on false acusations that the "entire" article is not sourced correctly. Thats why I call upon you to protect the page at least another 24 hours. (User:Wandalstouring) has carried out acts of vandalism and others upon that fatefull page. We the people of Wikipedia do not deserve such acts upon us. Thats why I believe not only should the page be protected longer but (Wandalstouring) severly punished for his months of unchecked vandalism.--Dt23 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Tobruk
Somebody's been busy! I've given it a once over, made a few slight organisational changes, upgraded it to B-class, and tried to begin a lead section. Hope you approve. Are you planning to run with this in the general A/FA direction? -- saberwyn 09:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good. I've got no real plans to take this further - I've fully used the one comprehensive source on this topic (which, anoyingly, isn't a comprehensive history of the ship - it has nothing about its refits and most of the domestic deployments are missing) and don't have anything which can fill in the gaps. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

with thanks

 * Thanks Roger! Nick Dowling (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AWM 'clear' images
Nick, just FYI, did you see ? It arose when a sharp-eyed editor found that a couple of AWM images no longer include the 'clear' legend, but are rather labelled 'status to be assessed'. I was checking further on all the ones used in the Morotai Mutiny article, as a prelude to nominating it for FA, and all of them are 'to be assessed'. Doesn't matter in most cases we've been using AWM images because they're pre-1955 and can just take PD-Australia, but something to be aware of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that notification Ian. The great majority of AWM images which have been uploaded are photos taken over 50 years ago, so it shouldn't be too big a deal, but it will be something to watch out for. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just edited the AWM image template to include a link to the copyright section on the AWM website. Hopefully that will stop editors from uploading non-PD images and prevent legit images from being deleted. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RGF templates
That would be fine - at least it would be one consistent format. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

F35
It's newsworth, has evoked a response from both sides of the house in Australia and also matches some critism from the USA - all in the references. I've specifically made reference to the peoples positions as per you suggestion on the talk page. Please discuss any further changes on the talk page 121.79.19.4 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

highly uncivil edits
That's your opinion--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 10:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, do you consider his really polite response to me, on his talkpage, worthy of a block? It's certainly b***** uncivil. Buckshot06(prof) 07:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Modesty
I think you are too modest. The organisation of the project is quite impressive. It is my experience that the people who need convincing are those most immediately involved.

In the long term this storm in a teacup will resolve itself: with more notice I expect the project would have created a drive to concentrate on improving requested articles. I don't object to referencing, in an ideal future every article will be complete in all ways. I do object to an over-emphasis which exists at present in so far as it impacts others efforts. I don't agree with the assesment system, but I have always taken the view that someone loves it and created it for a purpose, so best to let them run a grade system as they want. But that is not what is happening here. Arguably, the history project should follow the set rules and campaign for them to be changed rather than arbitrarily following different ones. Sandpiper (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Morotai Mutiny
Well, we got the star, Nick - many thanks for your constant support of and helpful additions to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Congratulations on your fantastic work on this article - the relative ease with which this passed the FAC provides a good measure of the article's quality. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

M3 Amphibious Rig
Dear Nick Dowling, you are a member of WikiProject Military history. I'm working on M3 Amphibious Rig, a new article. M3 Amphibious Rig should be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Can you please create the talkpage of M3 Amphibious Rig? I don't know which tag to use. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - that article is off to a good start. The tag we use is: WPMILHIST Nick Dowling (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Trent from Punchy
Hi Nick and thanks for deleting the above article. One point I will raise however: I am not certain I would have used G4 to delete the article. There hasn't actually been a discussion as such about the article previously, it had previously been speedy deleted. The current incarnation had been speedy tagged, the tag removed by the author and the tagging editor, after reconsideration decided not to apply the tag again. Because of this, I thought an AfD would be more appropriate than speedy deletion.

Given the contributing editors sorry history and the potential BLP issues in the article (although I suspect a hoax), a quick deletion is by no means a bad thing. I thought it worthwhile however to let you know my reasoning behind my decision to list at AfD. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt, there have been two previous AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Trent from punchy (which I closed early as WP:SNOW and WP:BLP seemed to apply) and another one under a slightly different name which I can't find at the moment, but also deleted through CSD G4. The article has also been speedy deleted under various names several times. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right of course and I should do more research before opening my trap :-) Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 07:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries - it took me about 10 minutes worth of searching through article histories to find that link. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you

 * Congratulations, and thanks a lot for nominating. You deserve the position and I'm looking forward to working with you. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you ;) Congrats to you as well on your reelection.  Cam (Chat) 04:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!


Congratulations on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth/RAAF copyright
Hi mate, you might recall a while back I left a message re. obtaining permission to use photos appearing on Defence websites that were not clearly covered by PD-Australia. I decided to formally seek permission to use some of the pics of former RAAF Chiefs of Staff that appeared to be post-1955, and have received a reply in the affirmative. However now that I've again checked the requirements for uploading a file from someone else who's given permission to use their images, Defence's conditions don't seem to comply with the 'free licence' clause and, to be fair, I didn't specify a free licence when I requested permission from them. I've put the e-mail I received (which includes my templated request) plus a pic of the fax giving an undertaking to comply with their conditions, on my user page. Be interested in your thoughts on whether this would cut the mustard here as it is, or whether we'd need to go back and try to get them to release the pics under a free licence unencumbered by special conditions such as permission being required for reuse, no derivative works, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian, There's a tag for non-free images where the owner has explicitly given permission for the image to be uploaded to Wikipedia which seems to be appropriate here - you can see it in action at Image:Cyclone tracy aerial view darwin.jpg. It means that you can't upload the photos to Wikicommons, but loading them to Wikipedia is fine as long as you provide evidence that Defence released the photos. By the way, could you please remove the person at Defence's email, phone and contact details? Nick Dowling (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, on looking at that fax I'm not sure if you're able to sign on behalf of Wikipedia. From my understanding, those conditions are in accordance with Wikipedia's own guidelines for how non-free images should be used though (eg, they have to illustrate a specific article/s and can't be modified) so there wouldn't be any problems if they were uploaded. Defence's policy on image use is pretty bone-headed in my view - you'd think that they'd want their PR photos to be widely used! Nick Dowling (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that fax is the thing - aside from not being any more of an 'authorised rep' of Wikepdia than any other editor, signing this won't guarantee these images are used as Defence requires, except by the normal WP image policing process. However, the permission being granted seems conditional on the signed fax being returned, doesn't it?


 * BTW, with the Cyclone Tracy example, the second of the templates does seem to fit with this situation, but apparently you have to include a fair use rationale/template like the one above it above as well. I guess that could work for a number of these portraits but I don't know about the "no free alternative exists or can be created" clause WRT the particular image of Richard Williams I was hoping to use since I do have a PD portrait of him already - WDYT?Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't know. I imagine that there'd be someone in the Wikimedia foundation who'd be willing and able to sign and return that fax, so you could look into that - don't ask me how to find and contact them though! The fair use conditions are fairly strict for portraits of people, so I wouldn't worry about the image of Williams. Realistically, the only source of free photos of the old CAFs is the online AWM and NLA databases, so if you can't find something there then its perfectly OK to claim that a free alternative doesn't exist. Hope that helps, and please note that I'm going to be on holiday for the next three weeks. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tks Nick. I've sent a return e-mail to DoD pointing them to WP policies to see if that satisfies them w/o the fax. Interesting that by the look of the Cyclone Tracy permission correspondence, NLA doesn't require a signed agreement from the org being granted permission. We'll see... Have a great time away, and congrats on continuing as MILHIST Coordinator. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Nick - managed to convince DoD to drop the need for faxed agreement, see what you think when you get a chance Image:Richard Williams.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That all looks good Ian - it's nice to see common sense from Defence ;) Nick Dowling (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
I trust it was a good one :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was very good thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Operation Overlord
Hello. As you are an administrator, im reaching out to you to try to stop an possible edit war on the Operation Overlord article. User Wokelly are removing sourced and reliable numbers from the info box, which is vandalism in my opinion. We need a third perspective at this, you can read our inputs in the discussion section in the Operation Overlord article. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Barnstar of Peace
Thank you very much for the barnstar, Nick. To be honest, it had just got to a point where Something Needed To Be Done.

If you have a moment, by the way, could you take a look at WP:MHCOORD and see whether you can add your 2/100s on some of the stagnating matters? Thanks, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strike that. I see you are :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Only because you reminded me ;) I looked in at it yesterday, but figured that posting anything after not sleeping for 36 hours (I love long haul red-eye flights) would be a bad idea. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [Chuckle] :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 02:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Kingsbury
Hello! Firstly, thanks for the peer review comments, they helped in pushing the article up a notch. I was wondering if you could proofread the Kokoda Trail section again. You may have already read it, but I'm just trying to make sure the explanation of the events leading up to the Battle of Isurava was satisfactory. \ / (⁂) 00:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just made some fairly minor changes. It looks pretty good now - nice work! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to a recent edit-summary, the source I have says Kingsbury was a member of Seven Section of Nine Platoon, in the 2/14th Battalion. (Why do the military use so many numbers?) :) \ / (⁂) 10:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually wondering what brigade he was in. The article still uses different units interchangeably, and it's pretty confusing. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I'm not to verse on military speak, and none of the sources mention his brigade. I'll keep looking however. \ / (⁂) 07:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I am interjecting here on the request of Backslash Forwardslash, and according to the 2/14 Battalion's page at the Australian War Memorial located here, the 2/14th was part of the 21st Brigade. Hope this helps clarify some things! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome! So Kingsbury was a part of Seven Section, Nine Platoon, 2/14th Battalion, 21st Brigade. \ / (⁂) 12:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging that up. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles -- thanks
Thanks for your input on C-class articles on WP:INDIA. Much appreciated. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a problem
thought you might b einterested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weller/First_Into_Nagasaki - cheers SatuSuro 11:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that needs a good clean-up. I imagine that the book is notable, but the article seems to be mainly OR. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Divisions of the United States Army
Would you mind taking a look at the edits that user:JK Golden and I have made to this page and Unorganized World War II Divisions (United States) and giving us a third opinion? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 08:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that its a viable topic for a stand-alone article, and the content seems fairly good, though it needs more inline citations. I'm sure that I've seen whole books about the US Army divisions which weren't raised during the war, and it's better to discuss these in a separate article than cluttering up the Divisions of the United States Army article with an explanation of these non-existent divisions. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll pipe down a bit. The other issue though I was concerned about was the name of the article - it's really clumsy. Can you think of any better ones? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 19:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unorganized United States Army divisions perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability question
I came across Fredric H. Leigh and was wondering if there was notability there I'm not seeing? I looked up his different awards and nothing is coming off as something unique. I came to you as I saw you're one of the top dogs of the MILHIST project. Thanks for your time. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a convention that generals and officers of equivalent rank are typically notable. I agree that this particular general doesn't seem very notable on the basis of the information in the article. However, it seems likely that an African American who joined the Army as an officer in the early 1960s and rose to the rank of major general will have received enough coverage to meet the guidelines and expand the article so he's probably notable enough. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes enough sense, and I wasn't looking for deletion (in case my question came off like one), just curious if there was some reading material. Thanks for the prompt and helpful answer!  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Tobruk
I added the second category to Tobruk because it appears that the vast majority of RAN ships are in both Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy and the relevant subcategories. As a counter-example, HMAS Anzac (FFH 150) is in the main cat, the subcat for Australian frigates, the sub-subcat for Australian frigates in active service, and the sub-subcat for Anzac class frigates.

To be totally honest, I don't know what to think of the RAN ship categories. There is an incredible amount of overlap between the main cat and the subcats, and in many cases the subcats are small, overlapping each other, and containing even smaller sub-subcats that either repeat their 'one-level-higher' brethren, or contain too few articles to (in my mind) be worth bothering with a category. For much larger navies, (as an example, the RN and the USN) the subcategory system is an effective way to categorise the articles on the hundreds of ships active at any given time and/or the thousands of ships that have seved in that navy. The RAN, however, is annoyingly not large enough to benefit from the current category tree, but is borderline not small enough for just the main cat.

Long story short, do what you think is necessary for Tobruk, but do you have any thoughts on the overall matter? -- saberwyn 09:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is me being a sucker for punishment, but I'm trying to hammer something sensible out at the moment. If I make any progress, I'll let you know, because we'll probably need a lot of hired muscle to make it work. -- saberwyn 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I'm just going through and listing how many ship types the RAN operated, and getting an idea of how many ships served in each type. From there, I'll work out how we can condense it down into a small number of relevant cats (i.e. put all the minesweepers, minehunters, minelayers into a single "Mine Warfare ships" cat). I'd be looking to eliminate or sideline the timeframe categories (if its that important, it can go in the "timeframe units of Australia" cat), the "foo of Australia" subcategories (because they will be identical to the "foo of the RAN" cats, and anything with a ridiculously small number of articles in the cat (Category:Battleships of Australia springs to mind). I'm not going to say anything regarding bots at the moment, because I have a bad feeling that the current mess is such that the human touch is going to be needed in the majority of cases. -- saberwyn 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RAN recategorisation
Ive knocked together a quick category structure at User:Saberwyn/The_Grand_RAN, and would like your opinion. Basically, Category:Naval ships of Australia will be our "top" category. Below this will be three categories:
 * Category:Active naval ships of Australia - in which all active RAN ships will be categorised. No subcats
 * Category:Colonial naval ships of Australia - or a more appropriate title, for all ships that served pre-RAN. If subcats are necessary, this should be sorted by colony
 * Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy - Our major category. Individual ship articles will be moved into subcats based on type/role

There is also a table listing all the type/role subcats I feel we need. It contains the two basic formulations: "Category:Foo of the Royal Australian Navy" and "Category:Foo of Australia", the main subcat for each of these, and any inclusion notes. There is also a list of "odd categories out" for type/role, and brief notes on what I think should be done with their contents.

Do you have any comments or suggestions at this stage? I'm probably going to give it a week or so before I raise the issue at WP:Milhist/Aus, WP:Ships, and possibly elsewhere (where exactly yet I do not know).

Do you have any suggestions or comments at this stage


 * Before we propose it to WP:Ships and elsewhere, I just want to run a test. Could you (randomly or not-so-randomly) select some ships for me, so I can categorise them "in my mind" (for lack of a better term) to use as examples when it is proposed?
 * Also, do you prefer "Foo of Australia" or "Foo of the Royal Australian Navy"? -- saberwyn 07:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. What do you think? -- saberwyn 09:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I put it? *looks*. Oops. I didn't, but that's where I would have put it too. -- saberwyn 09:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its up now at WP:SHIPS, with notes at Australian military history task forceand WikiProject Australian maritime history. -- saberwyn 11:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator discussions
It would be helpful to have some input on the following discussions, some of which you may have missed:


 * WT:MHCOORD - Proposal for filling the last three TF coordinator slots


 * WT:MHCOORD - Job description re task forces. Some input already but much more welcomed so we can get a summary/checklist in place.


 * WT:MHCOORD - Views welcomed on whether in principle Milhist should adopt C-Class.


 * WT:MHCOORD - Finishing touches on getting the reappraisal review in place.

Very many thanks :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note Roger. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pleasure :) With the way watchlists work, it's so easy to miss stuff. I do so all the time. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: World War II article
O.K. thanks, I will. --Jacurek (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1944 Warsaw Rising picture - WW2 article
Hi Nick, I was just wondering if it would be o.k. to upload this picture from 1944 Warsaw Uprising into WW2 article. The reason I think it would be nice to have the picture there is that the Uprising was one of the biggest battles of the war but it is the least known. If you have no objection perhaps you could do it the way (size etc.) you think is appropriate. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please discuss this on the article's talk page - I'm only one of several editors who takes an interest in the article. Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. thanks I will.--Jacurek (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force
Thank you for pointing that out, I have added a selection of requested pages to that page. --Zaher1988 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Armed Forces
Ping! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AP-3C Orion
Nick, an IP user just created the AP-3C Orion page. it's short, but what is thee is actually decent. I know that the Canadian CP-140 uses an ASW suite based on the S-3, so it is a fundamentally different aircraft asside from the airframe. However, no other national variants have separate pages. Do you think there is enough potential content to warrant keeping the AP-3C separate from the main P-3 page? I'm just seeking input at this point. - BillCJ (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, I think that's OK. The AP-3C has a very different sensor fit-out to the P-3C, and I've seen it seriously claimed that they have equivalent ESM capabilities to an EP-3. Lots has been written about the AP-3C so there's enough to meet WP:N in isolation. That said, I generally don't have an issue with creating articles for notable sub-variants and would like to see articles about bits of military hardware as used by an individual country (eg, P-3 Orion in Australian service, so my views may not reflect the consensus in the relevant Wikiprojects ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I understand your point. I'll probably be bringing it up at WT:AIR in a day or so. If you want to participate in any discussion there, you are of course welcome. - BillCJ (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill - I'll weigh in when you raise it. I don't have any major problem with the material being merged into the main P-3 article, which is hardly over-long, but think that unique national variants like this are viable articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you as long as there's the content to support it, and I am inclined to keep it. I just want to get some input from other editors too. That way if some over-eager AFD wonk decides their opinon is best, we have some project consensus on it already, both specific and general. And more editors to work on teh article! - BillCJ (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive me butting in... I just saw this new page tonight, and I'm not sure that there is enough difference to justify a separate article. After all - the P-3A has many more differences compared to a P-3C, than a P-3C does to an AP-3C. In all cases, the "Specifications" section is pretty much the same... ie, same performance, same general characteristics, roughly the same armament - the only significant difference between the AP-3C and the 'standard' P-3C (and I would suggest, the CP-140 Aurora), is in the internal sensor fit. In many ways, the use of the "A" in AP-3C is non-doctrinal, as far as the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system is concerned. It does not stand for 'attack', rather it is for 'Australia'. A purist would argue that a better descriptor for the aircraft would be P-3CA (or whatever the next post-nominal letter in the list is). A separate article for the Aussie bird would imply a need for a separate article for the P-3A, the P-3B, etc. I'm pretty sure the article went down this path a long time ago, and the consolidated approach was preferred. PalawanOz (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with you commenting! From what I've read, the AP-3C modification was very substantial and resulted in these aircraft being quite different to the standard P-3C family. There are lots of references on this variant, so I think that a separate article is justified (much in the same way that theres an article on the ASLAV, which is the significantly modified Australian variant of the US LAV-25). However, I agree that there should be a wider discussion of this, and it would be better placed on the P-3 talk page or at WT:AIR Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rlandmann, a WPAIR regular, admin, and Aussie resident, has merged the AP-3C page content back into the main P-3 page. I'll try to bring this up on the P-3 talk page later today, just to centralize any discussion. I may also post a note about it at WT:AIR to check the P-3 talk page. We'll see where it goes. - BillCJ (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I just restored the AP-3C article - this should be discussed before content is merged. I suspect a bone of contention will be that the AP-3C has similar flight performance to the base P-3C, even though its electronics are very different. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I still don't think that the different sensor fit alone is enough to warrant a separate article, but am happy to go with the eventual consensus. Put pragmatically, to support a separate article, the amount of detail on the AP-3C's sensor fit would need to unbalance the existing P-3 article. However, long before we reached that point, I think the level of detail would have become completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at a general readership.
 * But more immediately, there's absolutely nothing in the article as it stands now that isn't already in the P-3 article. I'll be arguing strongly to redirect it until and unless something more substantial becomes available. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. This is a discussion for the P-3 talk page, but the AP-3C's status seems comparable to the CP-140 Aurora - it's a P-3 airframe with a uniquely Australian electronics fit-out, and tons has been written about the variant which will enable the article to be expanded. As I said though, I'm happy for the discussion to conclude with a merge. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

need admin
Hi Nick

There's an ongoing edit war on Battle of Yarmouk that needs a cold shower to be stopped. Can you do something about it? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be the same IP vandal who keeps editing Philippine-related articles?
Spotted an edit by leading me to believe he could be the same IP vandal who keeps adding nonsense to the Philippine military articles. Somewhat OT: I know that it doesn't take much time to revert all the nonsense that's added, but what would it take to get Philippine Army, Philippine Navy, Philippine Marine Corps, Philippine Air Force and Armed Forces of the Philippines permanently semi-protected? I read the rules and I think at least some of these articles would qualify. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That does look likely, but I don't think that there's quite enough to ban the user yet. If they repeat this vandalism I'll indef block them. As the IP vandal is targeting lots of articles and keeps IP-hopping there's not much point in permanently semi-protecting articles, and I don't think that the volume of vandalism is sufficient to justify this. I've filed a request for the vandal's ISP to be contacted at Abuse reports/202.37.68.x and 118.92.x but unfortunetly it hasn't been responded to yet. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

November 2008 Mumbai attacks
Thank you for your comment.

As you can side in talk and in the talk archive, and in the edit history of the associated pages, there is a group of active editors in this page, that includes myself. The current intro is largely a result of a consensus I initiated, and these are cosmetic changes, not of narrative content, but overwhelming concerns of article size and organization that are seriously reducing how useful this article is to our readers. And article we know is high traffic at this moment. I think delivering quality product is very important, and we need to be bold.

The user space suggestion is good and I will take it into account next time - now I am already deep into this process and I would hate to just revert in the midst of it.

I am snowball confident that while there might be some reverts, the bulk of active editors are in agreement with the re-structuring, and after one day with just one response, and a positive one at that, I feel being bold beats waiting. Plus, I have some time. Of course, if you feel strongly about this, lets discuss it further. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour defences photos
Do you think it would be okay to add this photo into the Sydney Harbour Defences article. I think it ok -Adam (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No; due to the obvious photoshopping (or equivalent) that photo has no encyclopedic value. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Nevada (BB-36)

 * No worries. Thanks for the award! Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OEF - Phillipines
I am summing up the numbers based on AP reports that come every day on the fighting in the islands, I don't think I can put references because in that case I would have to put over 50 references. But, maybe we can put in the bottom of the infobox something like Source: (and then put a link to AFP, AP and other news sources.). Editors have done the same thing over at the 2006 Somali war timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Greater Brisbane Baseball
I agree with the deletion of the regional articles as they do fail WP:GROUP and it was probably a few needless stubs I created. However, the amateur baseball teams speedy deleted for the Greater Brisbane League I created a while ago was probably not warranted. As with reliable sources (which in fairness, was probably not provided) passes notability in WP:GROUP and WP:ATHLETE There is no professional league as of the collapse of the ABL and the International Baseball League of Australia, this is the top tier of baseball in Australia. However, I apologise in wasting your time getting these articles speedy deleted - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your straightforward answer, it's a lot better than getting a response similar to You have been here long enough that you don't need a lesson from me about WP:N, WP:RS and the other panoply of initialisms we use here. Anyway. I have a Alamanac book on Australian Major League baseball that if I properly reference along with Quest Community Newspapers weekly articles the teams should pass primary notability criteria, much like amateur college teams such as the New England Collegiate Baseball League. If you could somewhere dump all that info I might merge it into a larger article somewhere down the track. Much appreciated - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers, wasn't aware of Biographies_of_living_persons. Anyway, thanks for that =] - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

News item
Nick, I have never had the pleasure of inter-acting with you before and as our first inter-action I would like to present to you the following news which you may want to recommend be mentioned in the next edition of "The Bugle" newsletter:

My DYK hook for the article Captain Ivan Castro drew 71,300 page views while it was featured on the Main Page on December 8, 2008. That's an all-time DYK record for most page views! The list of all-time top DYK page views can be seen here, and the Castro article is now #1: DYKBEST. Not bad, right? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

CES amendments POV
Hi Nick

I would like to draw your attention my POV and the many facts that you deleted. Whilst I conceed there were/are POV's there are large portions of facts deleted. I was in the CES during that time hence your POV deletions, I accept that much. The facts you deleted am questioning here? Some restoration of the information and facts is warranted. There is a distinction between my POV and the other information, I grant you that. I welcome your input Nick regards Zippomk2 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to restore the facts then. You should add citations to published sources though, rather than just rely on your personal experiances - if you haven't previously read No original research it might be useful in providing guidance on what should be cited. Computer databases like factiva (available online through many public libraries) could be useful in finding sources. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Kelly (politician)
(upforced image size. That's a great new photo) - Yes, it is a good photo, isn't it. Sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "upforced image size". Which image are you referring to that you "upforced"? What does "upforce" mean? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant 'unforced', but hit the wrong key ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Very simple, and quite obvious once pointed out! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kokoda Track campaign
Hi Nick-D, If the edit comments are to limited for you, I will get some Talk page data up for you to follow the logic, I am still setting that up for you. I will get back to you when I have that up. Best Regards Vufors (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - please discuss this on the article's talk page, and note that WP:NAME calls for the most common name to normally be used in articles, which is not always the 'official' name. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick-D I have the first items up for you. I can add many more if you wish. Vufors (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of AWM pictures
Hi Nick Do you know if pictures stored at the Australian War Memorial or its website are automatically owned by the AWM and PD under criterion E of PD-Australia. I didn't think that this was the case, but User:Abraham, B.S. thinks that I should be able to use them on Military career of Keith Miller - discussion User_talk:YellowMonkey. These photos include photos taken in the UK, in the 1940s, where a 70 years after death rule applies, but he is suggesting that an AWM stored photo falls under PD-Aus even though all of these photos were taken in the UK.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The photos are PD, though I'm not sure if the PD-Aus template should be used. The AWM website has advice on the copyright status of items in its online database at (in short, all pre-1 May 1969 photos are PD 50 years after they were taken) and the AWM has been uploading photos taken in Japan and Korea in the late 1940s and early 50s to Flickr as having 'no known copyright restrictions' at . Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

IOCT Notablity
Hi Nick, I've tried to add more data and external references to establish notability to the article Indoor Obstacle Course Test. If you still feel it is deficient, could you give me more specific guidance on what it is missing? I'm still fairly new at contributing, and I want to make this one right. Thanks. --Ahodges7 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Illowra Battery
I have just added a few pic to this article I thought you may have a slight interest.        Adam (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Recurring incivility and personal attacks from Juzhong
I see on the talk page of User:Juzhong that you have blocked him for personal attacks recently, but why is it that I cannot find a record of this in the logs? In any case, he's making personal attacks yet again and maybe he really should be blocked this time. Calling someone "scum" in a deletion discussion is totally unacceptable. JBsupreme (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've just blocked them for a week. I see the previous 24 hour block in their block log. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The reorganizing of the massive WWI Article
Hey Nick, we've come to a general consensus for a rough article layout for World War I. The discussion update is located here. Since you were the one who started this subect, I figured you'd want to possible comment on the possible organization. Cam (Chat) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tenmei, not me, started this discussion - I haven't had much to do with the World War I article, but will now watchlist it. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)