User talk:Nick-D/Archive 20

Need help
Please check Talk:Air raids on Japan/Archives/2021/January, thanks.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Paint It Black PR for future FAC
Hello Nick-D! I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at "Paint It Black" and comment at its peer review? I would appreciate your input and am reaching out per your comments at Featured article candidates/Shake It Off/archive1, of which I am a co-nominator. I am curious your views on areas for the article's improvement and if you think that it is ready for FAC as I am fairly new to FAC and this is my first one where I am "leading" the charge. Thank you for your time and I understand if you are unable (or do not wish) to or if this is too far outside of your interests. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to do so. It's going to be stupidly hot here over the weekend, so it will give me something extra to do while I sit in air conditioning! Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I greatly appreciate it . That's funny that it is going to be stupidly hot where you are as here it is supposed to dip below seasonal in a couple days and may actually get snow...just goes to show that this project truly is world wide haha. -- The SandDoctor Talk 15:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

American logistics in the Northern France campaign
Nick-D if you are able glance in here, it would be nice to get this moving. If you think the issues are cleared up, I could support now. My take is that the Brittany ports issue could be crisper, but good enough now ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II
Sorry for the typo. It should has be an Explain template. Fixed now. Reason is stated in the "reason" parameter. --Meridiana solare (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My actual concern is that your tag is difficult to understand. I think that the issue is that the location linked isn't the right town of that name, and I've removed the link. The source uses this name for the down, which presumably has had a different name since it became part of the USSR. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it difficult? (I'm not an expert about en.Wikpedia's cleanup templates, but "Explain" name looks easy to me) Is a request to explain (as the template name says). Is this name right? (And so two Kaiyō places exist?) Or is this name wrong?
 * An expert of that topic could explain. --Meridiana solare (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the name of the town the source uses. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Project Waler
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Saint-Malo
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Saint-Malo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Rochor MRT station
Hello there. Probably need to address you directly (I have already pinged you on the review page). Can you take another look for Rochor MRT station? I have already reworded the article and checked the licenses for the images. Thank you.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this - I'll follow up on the review tomorrow or over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service
Thank you for the article, now already on the Main page! "This article covers the most numerous type of tracked armoured vehicle to have been operated by the Australian Army, with more than 800 being delivered. The Army first acquired M113 armoured personnel carriers in 1964, and 200 of the type served successfully in the Vietnam War. They were deployed on several peacekeeping operations during the 1990s and 2000s, but a bungled recent upgrade program has meant that the Army's current fleet of 431 M113s are too obsolete to be used for anything other than training. The article discusses the large number of M113 variants to have been operated by Australia, how they have been used and the process currently underway to replace them."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Empire Test Pilots' School
RE: Robyn Clay-Williams

Hello. Is it Empire Test Pilots' School in the UK because the International Test Pilots School is in Canada? Ear-phone (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, the sources say she was trained there in the UK and our article on the International Test Pilots School states that it moved from the UK to Canada in 2001. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that explanation. Ear-phone (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Rethymno
Hi Nick. You generously reviewed this at ACR. It is now at FAC and I wonder if you would care to look at it again to see to what extent it meets this higher standard? Featured article candidates/Battle of Rethymno/archive1 Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have replied here. I generally try to not review articles at both A-class and FA to help ensure that the article is reviewed by a diverse set of editors. There are exceptions to this vague policy though, especially when FACs get bogged down for one reason or another (though I'll generally post a partial review at FAC in those circumstances to help resolve this) - please ping me if this turns out to be the case here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem Nick. I can see the logic of that. It seems to be doing fine at FAC, thanks. And thank you again for your input at ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

SOKOMD is back
Hi, Nick-D! You did a great job cleaning up SOKOMD’s disruptive additions to Airborne Special Service Company so I thought you were probably the best one to help with this. An IP, 2001:FB1:11:32B3:9176:6AC8:201C:328D, is restoring SOKOMD’s edits but I cant find a sockpuppet investigation talk page for the sockmaster. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked, thanks for letting me know. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Lilliane Brady
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ANU
Stop the editing war on ANU, the reference is listed clearly beside the number.
 * Yup, I got that one wrong - thanks for this update. However, your edit summary here was also unhelpful as it read as a demand that I verify your edit from some unspecified source. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

My misread
the southern line was under the bridge (not over) - but has been in disuse for years Brighton hub is where the line finishes - all the recent and current annual reports show the hub to Hobart with broken lines... JarrahTree 10:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Bridgewater Bridge (Tasmania) carries/carried the rail line, not the Tasman Bridge. The rail line is nowhere near the Tasman Bridge. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I had misread the way it was written - it had said the bridge went over the river and railway - but the railway which went under the bridge between Hobart and hub has been in disuse for a long time - a misread but nevertheless a good correction... JarrahTree 10:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sock
You blocked this user for block evasion, and now this user has popped up making the same edits. FYI - wolf  19:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked, thanks. I think that block evaders like this are my least favourite type of block evaders: what they do is so purposeless, and I can't see any fun in it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Saint-Malo
The article Battle of Saint-Malo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Saint-Malo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

P-8
Hi. No problem with that revert. I still think it’s a bit redundant but I get that you want to note that it’s still a ‘live case’. Mark83 (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, thanks for this. Saudi defence purchases often seem to follow an unusual path, where the Saudi Government makes a formal expressions of interest that looks a lot like an order (often involving a major press event and breathless coverage in the local media) but actual orders never eventuate. As a result, it's useful to note whether oldish Saudi defence procurement announcements are still active or not if an order still hasn't eventuated. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Trekking during the Blitz
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A beautiful article, thank you. I read this recently, which had some great anecdotes. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that kind comment. It's been interesting to read about this little-remembered aspect of The Blitz and I hope that the article helps readers understand the experiences of civilians better. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Concrete bus shelters in Canberra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Concrete bus shelters in Canberra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ballpointbiro -- Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Concrete bus shelters in Canberra
The article Concrete bus shelters in Canberra you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Concrete bus shelters in Canberra for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ballpointbiro -- Ballpointbiro (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion?
Hi. You blocked the IP 2001:FB1:12:BA6A:8870:557:5AF1:9987 on 27 February, and the IP 2001:FB1:10:1046:75BB:5B39:29D9:666E on 1 March, both for block evasion. Those IPs made substantial edits to List of intelligence agencies. Today, another IP, 109.93.20.87, is making numerous edits to the same article. Could you take a look and see if you think they are related? They don't geo-located to the same place, but I'm wondering if an open proxy is being used. The 109 IP's edits are only from today, so they assuredly edited from other IPs before this. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been told that 109.93.20.87 is not an open proxy, and that the editor has used other IPs in the /19 range, so it's most probably just an ordinary non-static IP. So, I guess scratch the notion that the 109 IP is related to the 2001 IPs. Sorry to bother you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of RfC discussion at the Flag of Albania page
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Flag of Albania regarding an issue with which you may be interested in and since I've known you to be fair even where we were on opposing sides --Havsjö (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but this isn't a subject I have any knowledge of at all I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations
Your DYK hook about Trekking during the Blitz drew 7,799 page views (650 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Did you know/Statistics. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Concrete bus shelters in Canberra
The article Concrete bus shelters in Canberra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Concrete bus shelters in Canberra for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ballpointbiro -- Ballpointbiro (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding FA
Hello Nick-D, I saw your name on the list of FA mentors, and thus have a question for you. I recently got Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel to GA status, and I want to get it to FA status. Is it anywhere near being able to pass? This isn't a mentoring request—a quick yes or no would be fine. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 20:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response here. I'm actually one of the main contributors to that article (from memory, I think that I started it) so I can't provide an unvarnished assessment here to be honest. I was pleased to see the article listed as a GA recently, but the patchiness of coverage in the sources is obviously a complicating factor. I'd suggest raising this topic on the article's talk page. I'd also strongly suggest aiming to usher the article through a Military History Wikiproject A-class review: I'd be very interested in collaborating with you on this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for replying! For now, I think I'll wait some time to do an A-class review; when I do, I'll be sure to ping you and you can add yourself as a co-nom. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 01:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we please discuss beforehand? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

CCI editor's gratitude

 * No worries at all Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Concrete bus shelters in Canberra
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RAAF Question
Hi Nick, early yesterday my time, I reverted this edit as it was not mentioned in the linked article, Aircraftman, much less sourced. I also checked Ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force, and saw no mention. Today, I did a G-search, and found this article, but there was no mention of when this goes/went into effect. Knowing that Australians have odd senses of humor to Americans like me, I did note that the date referenced in the article would have been around April 1. However, I doubt this is an April Fools' joke, as everthing I've seen of current Australian politics indicates that political correctness and gender neutrality are taken very seriously there, even more so than in the US mainstream. So, assuming this is real, the relevant articles need to be updated, but more complete sources would be needed than I've found so far. (As an aside, it would be interesting to see if the USAF follows the RCAF and RAAF in adopting "aviator as an enlisted/other rank, especially since "aviator" is a term for USN and MC officers who are pilots and naval flight officers. They aren't likely to be happy about that term being used for enlisted USAF personnel!) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yes the RAAF has moved to 'aviator' as part of the celebrations to mark its centenary . I'm not sure if this has actually come into effect though, as the various tables of ranks and personnel guidelines on the Defence website haven't yet adopted it. The ADF seems pretty serious about hitting its targets to increase the proportion of women in the military, so changes like this are sensible. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Page 6 of the latest edition of the RAAF's newspaper includes quotes from the Chief of the RAAF explaining this change - apparently it's part of a 're-vector'(!) of the RAAF's culture and, more comprehensibility perhaps, aims to help address unconscious biases. The RAAF copped some richly-justified criticism a few years ago for its failure have ever had any female fighter pilots, and only now has a handful, so changes which encourage and support women to enter new roles seem helpful. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, apparently working on (now) outdated info. IronBattalion (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Well does this lead make sense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Repulse_(1916)

"Repulse and its consort Prince of Wales were sunk by Japanese aircraft "

User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sturmvogel_66 seems to use that term in the lead and keeps reverting. So why don't you talk to him? I was just following suit since his is insistent on that term.

Don't talk on my talk page.

Since you reverted
Stop user User:Sturmvogel 66 from keep adding consort in the HMS Repulse lead. It does not appear in any other major ship history lead.

BlueD954 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop this disruptive editing. You are spamming this term all over the place, including with a request that a citation be provided for its usage. Please take responsibility for your own edits rather than try to blame them on someone else and refuse to discuss them. You will be blocked if this disruptive editing continues. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not spamming. He is constantly reverting me. Consort does not appear in other leads and he keeps reverting me. So I am simply following him. You lecture him. Don't lecture me.BlueD954 (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to make myself clear
How dare you accuse me of spamming!

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Repulse_(1916)&action=history

Why is this user insisting on consort and you dare accuse me of adding that word on other articles. Why don't you tackle him instead!

BlueD954 (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take responsibility for your own actions. I will block you if you continuing spamming this term into articles, especially given that you're saying that you're doing it to make some kind of point in a disagreement with another editor. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like threats. I don't see you addressing that user who insists on consort on that article. So I am at fault for what? In real life this woul, never mind. Threatening not welcoming. I don't see a 'thank you'. HMS Repulse article has the consort phrase back, I fail to see why it is a a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueD954 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Consort
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53)&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Repulse_(1916)&action=history

I suppose you will support this user and not me.

BlueD954 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (not you lol)
Hey Nick! Thought this may interest you: Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28. Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a sock. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * and under a lock, all thanks to a hawk. (Sorry... sudden rush of Dr. Seuss-ism) - wolf  01:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All thanks to you :) ― SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the intervention and notification of this all. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Question
Don't know if you caught this thread at wt:milhist or not, I pinged you with the last post. Just following up to check. (not urgent) Thanks - wolf  03:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Shuttle-Centaur
I have Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Centaur/archive1 at FAC. It took six months to get through A class and I fear that it may get closed for lack of reviews like my last nomination. Since you reviewed Space-Shuttle, could you consider dropping in with a few words? It would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll look in over the weekend - today if possible. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Spaceflight
Hello out there! I ran into you while editing Hawkeye's Shuttle-Centaur article. :)

Would you be up for giving my Timeline of Spaceflight articles FAC reviews? They've been languishing for months.

Spaceflight_before_1951 is the closest to having enough support, but I've also done the subsequent four years.

Thanks in advance, and feel free to ping me if you'd like a review, B, GA, A, or FA! --Neopeius (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to. I've read quite a bit about the V2 over recent years, so the before 1951 article should be particularly interesting. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Much obliged! I'm not great about checking up on the To Be Reviewed pages, but I'm very responsive to pings, so anything you need reviewed, just let me know. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi I keep trying to show The academic consensus On Viktor Suvorov but another user keeps undoing my edits
Hello Nick-D I tried to show the academic consensus On Viktor Suvorov but another user keeps undoing my edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Suvorov&action=history. I saw you helped on this page a few years back https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=921528370&oldid=921527165 Was looking for input on this by a administrator and some who knows a lot about WW2 I don't want to edit war that is why I am asking for input on this.Thelostone41 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

They just did a a retaliatory SPI on me it came up negative I didn't now there was such push. In defending Fringe authors on Wikipedia this really changes my view on Wikipedia and now they are saying I may be another Sock master.Thelostone41 (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 15, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/June 15, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article about "the first bombing raid to be conducted by land-based bombers against Japan during World War II"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Military base name changes
Hi Nick, is there a consensus in MILHIST on when to change the name of an article when a military base is renamed? Vandenberg Air Force Base was renamed as Vandenberg Space Force Base on Friday, but there is a dispute at Talk:Vandenberg Air Force Base on whether or not the art can be renamed immediately. Patrick Space Force Base and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station were renamed in December, and moved on the same day with no disputes since. The US Space Force is likely to be renaming more bases in the future, so this needs to be settled so it's not argued every time a base is renamed. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that there is. Discussions often come down to balancing WP:COMMONNAME with the new current name. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wilhelm Canaris
Hi Nick -- if you get a chance, can you rollback the edits from today's date made by user ID "2605:8d80:5a0:50f:aa8d:98b:41f5:abed" on the Canaris page. A couple of them were OK, but in general it was very sophomoric copy-editing, some of which disrupts the page's continuity and use of sourcing. Thanks --Obenritter (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, For what it's worth, I agree that those edits aren't really improvements, though they seem well-intentioned. I don't think that I need to be involved here though given that the article isn't under any form of protection, etc? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I thought given that a few of the later ones included errors, atop the fact that ending sentences when semi-colons were employed specifically so that the citation matched the content, they were worth reverting. Nonetheless, that's your call. I'm not going to go through them one by one given how many there were. If I had rollback privileges, I would have thought it worth doing. Thanks anyway, I shan't be disturbing you with such things in the future. --Obenritter (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No. 651 Squadron AAC - requested move
As you may know, Gavbadger has been irritatingly creating a string of redirects that redirect to pages that sometimes have vanishingly no information about the subject of the redirect. We have a number of Army Air Corps squadrons that either duplicate their early RAF AOP existence, or in this case, the redirect was set to point to 1 Group RAF when there already existed a No. 651 Squadron RAF pre 1957. I cannot (now) move 651 Sqn RAF over to the top of and replace 651 Sqn AAC. The information is updated to current status in the 651 Sqn RAF article. Would you mind doing the move? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done - the article is now at No. 651 Squadron AAC. It looks like it needs some updates though. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why there is a combined 651 Sqn RAF and 651 Sqn AAC article. Convention seems to be to have separate articles, for example No. 658 Squadron RAF No. 658 Squadron AAC, No. 679 Squadron RAF No. 679 (The Duke of Connaught's) Squadron AAC, No. 660 Squadron RAF No. 660 Squadron AAC, 670, 664, 656, 662 and so on. I don't think 651 Sqn RAF should have been moved. Was there an existing 651 Sqn AAC article or only a redirect? A re-direct to 1 Group RAF would have been because 651 Sqn AAC aircraft were moved to 1 Group RAF but not allocated to a squadron.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a 651 Sqn AAC article. I wrote about it in 5 Regiment Army Air Corps. Looking at Wayback Machine the re-direct was changed from 5 Regt AAC to 1 Group RAF.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I do think many of these articles could be combined, in line with my reasoning above ("Gavbadger has been irritatingly creating a string of redirects that redirect to pages that sometimes have vanishingly no information about the subject of the redirect. We have a number of Army Air Corps squadrons that either duplicate their early RAF AOP existence..") I requested the redirect change, and it was moved. We should not have two very small articles about practically the same subject(s); in many cases they should be merged. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Carolyn Huntoon
Nick, could you undelete Carolyn Huntoon for me and move it into my user space? It was ostensibly deleted for copyvio. I will address that and restore the article. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  05:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think that I can post it to user space if it's affected by copyright violations, but I will email you a copy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I re-created the article with all new text. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you have a look at these, please?
Hi. You were recently involved in blocking an editor for copvio and related issues. The same editor posted some images to another article, using the same (I think) rationale for use, ie that they were sourced from web sites where they invoked CCL, or some such. (Much of that stuff is 'all greek to me', so I stay well clear.)

(I've just checked his response the block, and the wording he used was: "As can be seen from all the source pages for these uploaded images, they all come published under the required creative commons licence."

So I'm wondering if you could have a quick look at the pics on John_Anderson_(Australian_politician), or let me know if I should direct this somewhere else. Thanks. Wayne 11:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: just to clarify, the pics I'm referring to were posted prior to the block, so I'm not suggesting block evasion. (is that a thing?) Wayne 11:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Wayne, The source of those images is https://johnanderson.net.au/photo-gallery/, which states that they are released under a Wikipedia-compliant Creative Commons licence. As such, they're OK to upload and use. There may be issues using PR images released by this politician regarding article balance, but I'll leave that up to editors involved with the article to consider. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oooh ... immediate service! As one of many editors recently involved in that article I do indeed have reservations about its balance, but that's being addressed incrementally. Many thanks for your quick advice that the pics are at least copyright compliant. Wayne 11:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Mentor
Hi there @Nick-D, I was wondering if you are possibly available for mentorship? I personally specialist in Military History, and was looking for mentors and noticed you were in the same field. Cheers. J-Man11 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with your editing, though I have occasionally seen you around military history articles. I note that you were blocked for about 2 years, until March this year. Could you please let me know what kind of mentoring assistance you are seeking here? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also note Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history where several editors have recently expressed concerns over your editing. You note that you are interested in mentoring as part of that thread, but it is not clear in what capacity. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I've stepped out of editing articles, and keeping to sandboxes because apparently I'm making edits that are considered "shoddy" and "frustrating", when I'm trying not to do this and fix this. So I'm looking for a mentor because I want to improve this and show I actually have a lot of great stuff to add, but need help fixing a lot of stuff.  So I'm kind of just looking for a general mentor, especially because according to @Buckshot06, I'm driving him crazy, and I'm not getting mad at myself as I feel I had improve considerably.  And I feel like I should and am taking the blame because I haven't been able to find a mentor, no matter how hard I look.  The main issue seems to resolve around Primary referencing, and creating lists regarding OOBs for 2021.  It is worth noting in this first area, I thought I had fixed the referencing issue, and even took a break from doing it but nothing showed.  Then, for the second part I have and even before this planned on no doing 2021 edits, instead focusing on 2020, where many references are now available.  So, pretty much overall I need assistance in the referencing field and in fixing wording, etc.  I certainly hope this doesn't turn around because I really want to add more, but I've stopped myself because I'm driving Buckshot insane now, and I feel terrible about it too.  Every time I try to get help it's just him screaming at me, or not being able to find a mentor.  J-Man11 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd be happy to provide informal feedback on draft articles, etc, if that would be helpful. From the above, it seems that's the main thing you're looking for from a mentor. I would encourage you to take on board the comments from other editors, especially around using secondary sources rather than primary sources. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of primary sources is the main issue because they are easy to find and provide quick references, though aren't good to keep and fully use. The other problem, which I'm currently trying to fix is making modern lists which I have an issue with keeping up to day, so I'm going to rollback these. J-Man11 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Nick, I apologize for disturbing you but I noticed something called "GeGaLo Index". One user pretty much almost spammed many articles with that speculative ranking  of countries "after" possible future event eventually happen (even stated in source "It could occur in 50 years, or 150 years, or never". I noticed to you already removed some other user  addition of the same content in Cambodia article last year, 11 April and made convo with that user at his talk page about. So I have 2 questions. 1. With removing that, I haven't done something bad, right? 2. Is that possible spam accidental or..? Nubia86 (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of it was that this was something people had developed for a journal article, and there were no indications it had any kind of notability or importance. Unless the situation has since changed, I agree that it would continue to not be suitable for Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will keep my eye on in case someone keeps adding that obscure index ranking. Thank you so much for your time to answer about my concerns!🌹 Nubia86 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

PD?
Hi Nick, do you know if Blumenson's Breakout and Pursuit is public domain? Specifically the maps. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely is. It, and the rest of the US Army official history series, are PD as US Government works. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. I am collaborating with on Battle of La Haye-du-Puits and Blumenson's map of this will be useful. I have opened a (very) draft for it here and you should feel free to chip in if you want.
 * I am hoping, medium term, to get all of the US battles in the Cotentin up to at least GA - Montebourg, Cherbourg, cutting the peninsula, Lessay, Carentan, St-Lo, Caumont, maybe Saint Sauveur, and an over-arching article. If you fancy collaborating on any, or just ear marking one for yourself, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please let me know when you get up to Cherbourg, and I'd be happy to help out. I'm planning to work on the currently-misnamed Battle for Brest article after the Saint-Malo one passes FAC (placeholder draft is at User:Nick-D/Drafts12), and if you're interested in contributing to it as well that would be most welcome. This period of the war is very interesting. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was planning on doing Cherbourg next, although I was thinking of splitting it into Montebourg and Cherbourg as two separate articles. I don't know what you think of this, or whether you would be interested in collaborating on Montebourg.
 * Having now got three WWII articles promoted to FA I am feeling moderately confident. Certainly I am very surprised at the huge lacunae in the coverage of the US Army post-D-Day. As you say, an interesting period. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stephen Zaloga's books on the fighting during this period in Osprey's 'Campaign' series are pretty good, and include up to date scholarship. I'm not familiar with the Battle of Montebourg I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have his St Lo one and see his Cherbourg one, which I have ordered on the strength of your recommendation. Thanks. Any others worth getting?


 * The Germans conducted a forward defence of Cherbourg at Montebourg, which wasn't taken until 19 June. It is often considered part of the Battle of Cherbourg, but not by the Wikipedia article, so I plan on writing it up as a separate conflict. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Useful map?
This PD, February 1944 map may be of use to your current FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Enormous bloat on ACW
You may not be able to answer this question, but how in the heck did you nice folks over at WWII pare the page down to a manageable size and get it to GA? I'm looking at American Civil War today and the page is huge, but that conflict was far more limited in scope and size compared to World War II. The index of WWII related articles is pretty impressive. Did you start with a plan or did you gather around a bunch of motivated folks? Were you part of that success? IMHO we owe the average reader a much better article on this 160 year-old conflict which seems central to U.S. political thought. BusterD (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, there was a push about 10 years ago to revamp the entire World War II article led by another editor. Each section of the article was workshoped in depth on the talk page, with collaborative drafting, before it was re-added to the article. As the material had consensus when it was posted, this meant that it was able to resist unhelpful edits at that time. The article has since benefited from the active involvement of a good range of editors, who have sought to keep the length down and the quality high. The tradition of discussing significant changes on the talk page first has survived, and has been quite successful. The length has crept back up, however, and the quality may have dropped a bit. If you'd like to model this for the ACW article, I'd suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page proposing an approach (you may want to advertise this at WT:MILHIST and other relevant boards) and then work through the content with the other interested editors. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi Nick, if you're still around, could you look at Special:Contributions/FixUpPlay, and particularly edits like this one? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked. You might get a quicker response at WP:AIV for clear-cut cases like this though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. AIV is usually not quicker in my experience, but I do use it occasionally. RPP usually gets the quickest response of the noticeboards, for me anyway, but it wasn't applicable in this case. BilCat (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

FixUpPlay
Many thanks for the block on User:FixUpPlay. I strongly suspect User:FixUpPlay2 is a sockpuppet, and I've opened an investigation request at Sockpuppet investigations/FixUpPlay. Might be worth looking at their contributions as well. All the best, and thank you for your swift action. Laplorfill (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked as well Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 13, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 13, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point. I've trimmed your blurb slightly to get the character count right, please check.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "The latest in my occasional series on aircraft operated by the Australian military covers a large helicopter type which has been operated in various forms since 1974. A total of 30 Chinooks have been acquired by the military, and have provided useful service in Australia and overseas. This has included combat operations in Afghanistan, an embarrassing deployment during the 2003 Iraq War and an amazingly varied set of duties domestically (my favourite being transporting bulldozers onto a grounded iron ore ship!). No single detailed sources on the history of the helicopter in Australian service exist, and I've developed the article from a large number of sources to fill the gap."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Implementing Harvp on Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)
Hi! There's currently a discussion going on at talk:Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) about whether or not to implement the Harvp template to make the article easier to navigate for readers. Being a major page contributor, and this being a change to the "style" of the article, I would love it if you would visit to give us your 2 cents on the issue. Thanks! Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A request
Hi Nick-D, apologies for the random message. I am approaching you because you'd raised some concerns at my last FAC. The FAC was opened at a bad time as I realised later that it wasn't possible for me to resolve all issues as I'd become busy off-wiki. I have since worked on the article and tried to improve it. I wanted to ask if you would be willing to provide further comments here to help with the article. Thank you. -- Ashley yoursmile!  07:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll leave some comments in the PR. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Red (Taylor Swift album) PR
Hello Nick-D, I have opened a peer review for Red prior to taking it to FAC. I am reaching out as you commented on Shake It Off's FAC. If you have the time and are willing, I would greatly appreciate any comment or advice that you could give at the review. If you are unable, that is totally fine as well. Thank you! -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to do so. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- The SandDoctor  Talk 02:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Undo Undo on Operation Tungsten
Hey Nick-D, you reverted my editing on Operation Tungsten. I added some arguments in Talk and would appreciate it, if you could take a closer look on the primary source of the German site. Thx.--BlaeX (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

University of Canterbury issues
A long time ago you blocked User:Daffodealio for POV-pushing on University of Canterbury. Issues have continued to arise, alas. I started a thread at New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board which we then moved to Talk:University of Canterbury where it became clear that there was little progress to be made. I would appreciate your input, advice (even if it's to tell me to pull my head in) or action. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this the same set of issues? My memory is that the POV pushing here was rants about how terrible the university is, while this seems to be in the opposite direction? Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's SPAs (about ten) rewriting the article incrementally with the occasional minor edit from the many other wikipedians who have the thing on their watchlist. I have a COI, but I think they're mainly pro the institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did intend to follow up on this, but stress from the lockdown in Sydney (where much of my family lives) means I'm trying to minimise my exposure to internet drama at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Administration help
Hello I have Messaged you before and also   it seems like I'm having the same problem with the same user. Everything I do they say is wrong or they delete the sources, that I put and it seems like they try to promote fringe views of certain authors. They have accused me of being a sock puppet of two different people it seemed like it was a retaliation for edits that I made.

If you could be a mediator to this it would be appreciative. The page That the problem is on Soviet offensive plans controversy now before it was the Viktor Suvorov page.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Sportpalast
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Sportpalast you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Peruvian Navy
Hello Nick. Could you please check article Peruvian Navy and content recently added there by (He added more of 100000 bytes) and. Seems as essay type of content, mostly if not totally unsourced maybe copied from somewhere or so. I alone did not feel ok about removing all that stuff. Maybe it is some good faith edits but still. Nubia86 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, It looks like a lot of that might belong in separate articles, but it would need to be sourced. Googling bits of the text picked at random doesn't turn up any copyvios, but it might be translated from Spanish? (the text reads like a government website, so I'd suggest checking against the Navy's website) I'm afraid that I don't know anything about the Peruvian Navy, so can't really comment further. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just checked the Spanish page about the Peruvian Navy, the same users try to add the same content. And it is constantly removed there. Idk what to think, indeed many things are just unsourced. Nubia86 (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsourced content can be removed, so if you think that this material is problematic go for it. It certainly makes for turgid reading! Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I will try to check more detailed, maybe some stuff could work for that article. Thank you Nick! ⚘ Nubia86 (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Sportpalast
The article Operation Sportpalast you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Sportpalast for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"mobile brigades" review
Howdy!

I didn't want to clog the review page down with potential suggestions etc. The work consulted defined a formation as something that could be broken-up, whereas a unit couldn't. I consulted a few military dictionaries, which boil down a formation to a grouping of units and a unit being a battalion (or a really messy definition of something that someone with authority has deemed a unit). I am struggling to recall an example of a British battalion-group that wasn't more than an ad hoc force? With all that in mind, and regarding those first two points, would something such as this work:

During the Second World War, the British Army maintained and created several mechanised, motorised, and horse-based brigades. These mobile forces were the lowest formations within the military hierarchy, and consisted of units such as battalions and regiments.REF.NOTEA: Within military parlance, a formation is the grouping together of a collection of units. Brigades and divisions are generally considered to be formations. Units are generally defined as battalions, and on down the hierarchy. While the British Army's infantry were much more motorised and mobile than their contemporary counterparts, they were generally not completely motorised. For example, in the mid-1930s, the infantry platoons were issued with a single truck to transport the units weapons and equipment. By the outbreak of the war, a division generally only had the capacity to provide transportation for a single infantry brigade. As the war progressed, and despite the increased numbers of trucks available, the British Army still had to reallocate vehicles from one corps to another to transport infantry and supply them during an advance. For example, after the Second Battle of El Alamein, XIII Corps was forced to remind in Egypt while XXX Corps advanced to Tunisia. In 1944, after the end of the Battle of Normandy, XII Corps was left in Normandy to allow the remaining two corps of the British Second Army to complete their advance to Belgium.ENDNOTEEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The Australian Army often used battalion groups as independent forces in the Pacific, so it's likely that this was also part of British doctrine. I think that the British armoured divisions in north-west Europe often used battalion groups or similar from the Normandy breakout to the end of the war? I'd suggest deleting the first half of the second sentence above, as it's hard to follow and not really necessary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Berlin (Atlantic)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Berlin (Atlantic) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Bugle op-ed on US coastal forts
I'd like to do an op-ed piece for an upcoming Bugle on coastal forts of the United States. It will be a lot like the intro material in List of coastal fortifications of the United States, which I wrote. Let me know what the procedure for submitting is. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Rob, that would be fantastic. The easiest process is for you to draft the article in your user space, then let Ian Rose or I know when it's ready, and we'll move it across. Ian or I would also be happy to comment on drafts, etc, if helpful. This should be a very interesting topic. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ready for review at User:RobDuch/sandbox/list. It's somewhat expanded from the fort list intro. A fair amount of it is currently unreferenced; I can add refs for those parts if needed. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I'd suggest adding an introduction so that this is more of an op-ed - for instance, on your interests in US coastal fortifications or how you researched this material. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll do that, and I'll add photos. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would be great. I was thinking about my visit to Fort Sumter way back in 1999 a few days ago. It's interesting that coastal defence sites from particular eras are much the same the world over - Fort Sumter has quite a lot in common with the contemporary Suomenlinna fortress in Helsinki, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I visited the Helsinki fortress in September 2019; I also enjoyed the prototype U-boat. At the fort, I got some photos of the gun markings, plus muzzles with my hand in them for future determination of caliber. Some day I may make use of these. That was the prelude to my Russian river cruise. Anyway, I've added photos and an introduction. If you think the references portion of the intro is too much like advertising I can remove it. I also couldn't resist adding a fair amount of coast artillery organizational info in several places. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Rob, I've posted this at WikiProject Military history/News/August 2021/Op-ed Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you too! RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Kerry Chant vandalism
Suggest this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerry_Chant&diff=next&oldid=1039850376 should be rev-deleted.... Regards and Thanks, Ariconte (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, and the IP blocked for as long as I'm allowed to block them for. Some people are really challenged by professional women, aren't they. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A request (II)
Hello Nick-D. Would you please continue to keep an eye on David Hurley & particularly the discussion at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, concerning that article? I fear that Skyring is merely continuing his over 15 year (the monarch isn't head of state) campaign on Australian articles, like Hurley. PS - Sorry for going to the edge of 3RR, while attempting to keep the status quo, via WP:BRD. PPS - Thanks for not blocking us? though I wouldn't have blamed you, if you did. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yes I've watchlisted the article. As a political science degree holder, I'm not sure why the GG's website is being quoted on an issue that is the subject of a large and high quality literature. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He was behaving for awhile & then 'bout 3 weeks ago, he started it up again, at two Australian state governors articles. Arguing that the state governors were heads of state. I wonder if a topic ban, might be in order? At least a couple of editors have already complained about his misrepresentation of his sources. Advocating editors, are the most annoying. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may. That is misrepresentation. Nobody is claiming that Hurley is the head of state beyond Hurley and the NSW Governor. I'm not, just noting the claims. On investigation, the only State Governor who doesn't also claim that they are the local head of state is the Queensland Governor. The fact that six of the seven viceregal officers in the nation are now claiming to be a head of state is a significant event in Australia's progress to a republic. Perhaps we should start a new article on this notable occurrence? --Pete (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This would all be over with, if A) Australia would become a republic or B) Skyring was topic-banned for anything to do with the Australian head of state, broadly construed. Note Skyring has already mentioned his participation since the 1990's with an Australian republican movement, thus raising my WP:ADVOCATE concerns. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. As I've already mentioned several times, as a journalist. I've been covering this story over four decades. In the republic referendum period this topic was front page news as it will one day be again when the long reign of the Queen inevitably ends. Whether I talk about the issue or not, it's still going to evolve, and Wikipedia will cover it. Perhaps we could both take a break for a bit? I'm concerned about the hit your old heartrate must be taking. Mine hit 140 for a while, but then again I was biking up a hill. --Pete (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Australian states Anti-Monarchy Movement is the organisation I believe, you mentioned. PS - I'd agree to a voluntary topic-ban from the Australian head of state topic, if you would. But, we both know, you won't. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Let's take a week off. Here's the reference:"If five out of six State governments say that their head of state is the state governor, then this represents something significant. One rouge editor could say whatever they want on an official website until somebody notices, but when five diverse polities across a continent all make the same decision, that's not someone sick, that's not a couple of gays, that's not an organisation, that's a movement. And that's what it is, the Australian States Anti-Monarchy Movement." Look up Alice's Restaurant - you'll be glad you did! --Pete (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, stay away from the topic, until Australia becomes a republic. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Other editors have been giving valid objections to Skyring's proposals, even though he refuses or disputes their objections. PS: That's 12 'edit-conflicts' now, with the same editor, on multiple pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please have this discussion on the relevant article's talk page? (so other editors can pitch in, if they want). Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you can see 'here', it's best you keep a watch over those articles & discussions. But anyway, agreed. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have the David Hurley page watchlisted, but am seeking to be an uninvolved admin regarding the content here. As noted, I would strongly suggest not placing much emphasis on what a website says given the literature on this topic (government websites aren't always well vetted, especially where they are providing general background information, so should not be relied upon as an authoritative source of opinion - if Hurley has stated that he believes that he's Australia's chief of state, or vice-versa, this would be a much more authoritative source on his views than background material on the website). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Notice how calm it's been on those articles now, since a certain editor has 'temporarily' backed away. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

WWII
Hi Nick, I have a quick question: Should "WWII" be spelled out in most cases, especially in the main text of an article? Just curious if this is the type of thing you have to correct in article reviews. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, Yes definitely. That abbreviation should never be used, with World War II or Second World War being the common usage. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Berlin (Atlantic)
The article Operation Berlin (Atlantic) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Berlin (Atlantic) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

List of military disasters
Hi, you didn't really mean to fully protect the article indefinitely, did you? Can you change it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Having read your comment regarding the protection, I've reduced the duration to a (rather too rough) approximation of the intention. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I missed Nick's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * whoops! Yes, I only meant this to be for 24 hours. In my defence a) the protection interface is clunky and b) I messed up ;) many thanks for fixing this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Nordseetour
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Nordseetour you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Rhodesia Information Centre
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesia Information Centre

 * thanks a lot! I found that material in the Australia-Zimbabwe relations to be very useful. This is certainly an interesting topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhodesia Information Centre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rhodesia Information Centre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Nordseetour
The article Operation Nordseetour you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Nordseetour for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhodesia Information Centre
The article Rhodesia Information Centre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhodesia Information Centre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Posthumous rank promotions
Hi Nick, does MILHIST have any written guidance on how to handle posthumous promotions in military rank in bio articles? I know I've seen it discussed before, but my Swiss cheese memory doesn't recall what it concluded. LTC Richard E. Cole was posthumously promoted to Colonel, but I don't know how the lead or infobox should handle it. I've seen it handled in other articles, but I can't even remember which ones at the moment. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, I'm afraid I don't know - I don't do much work on bios. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Timothy J. Edens for deletion
I meant to notify participants in the two previous AFDs of this new one, but I missed you. Sorry about not notifying you earlier.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timothy J. Edens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

NASA Astronaut Group 2
I hate to ask, but NASA Astronaut Group 2 is up for review at FAC at Featured article candidates/NASA Astronaut Group 2/archive1. It hasn't received many reviews and will probably be archived if there aren't any soon. If you could drop by with a few comments, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll post a review tonight. If you're interested in reviewing - including very critically of course - either an article on a carrier vs battleship action off Norway or a carrier air strike on an Indonesian city, I have some I could suggest might be of interest ;) (especially the Norwegian one). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)
Hey Nick, I think I've dealt with your comments on Sturm's nom at Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)/GA1. The article should be ready to go now. Sorry if you did get the ping and its on the backburner, I've had issues with pings going through when I've held the page open for a while, not sure why. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  10:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements to the article, and this note. I'm getting a lot of pings at the moment and am missing some! Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Ali Ahwazi
Hi Nick-D, about, they removed this link I left on their talk page which shows a long-term pattern of using bad sources to promote questionable content: Evidence regarding user:Ali Ahwazi. I agree with your and 's assessment that this is not a one-off thing, and that this sort of editing will continue to occur. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I note that ArbCom didn't take any action on that evidence. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm only pointing out a long-term pattern between what I've found and what yourself and 331dot have found too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Rex Julius
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Rex Julius
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well deserved and hard earned ...

 * Big contrats Nick, thoroughly deserved! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A well-earned accolade for all your efforts over the years. Congrats. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you so much. This is a great honour, and I'm really very grateful. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well deserved indeed, Nick! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 11:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force in World War II
Dear Nick, greetings!! Congratulations on being named a Coordinator Emeritus!! I am trying to fill out / subcategorize the Category:Aircraft squadrons of World War II. Many RAAF flying squadrons are not even in the Mil Units & Fmns of the RAAF in WWII category. If you and/or the other eager members of the Australian military editing community want some simply wikignoming, adding this category would be helpful to help get all articles linked in the right parts of the category tree. Cheers !! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I suspect that category (or at least its use) post-dates the push a few years ago to improve the standard of the RAAF squadrons to B class. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Operation Transom
Congratulations! Moisejp (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Many thanks! Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Photo removal
Hi Nick, since you uploaded the photo, you might find this deletion interesting. The IP is registered to the Aussie DOD, but the photo is a USN PD work, and over 7 years old. For now, I'm assuming this is just vandalism. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting this Bill, it seems a bit odd. The image is still available on DVIDS, which suggests that there aren't any significant security issues (I've seen a very small number of images disappear from DVIDS over the years for whatever reason). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A request (III)
Howdy. A few months ago, I requested that you keep an eye on David Hurley. Well the same related dispute has begun at Monarchy of Australia, so was wondering, if you might keep an eye on that article, too. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not as this seems to be never-ending squabbling to be frank. Rather than duke out the same issues on article talk pages, I would suggest using the next step in WP:DR if there are content issues where a consensus has not been formed, or the appropriate notice boards/process if the issue is editor conduct. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice on closure
Hi! I was on the closure request noticeboard today and saw Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, which was started over 2 months ago. I wish to close it but worry my assessment of the discussion might be wrong. I was going to close it with "no consensus" but wanted to get some advice from a more experienced editor that was uninvolved. Is that an accurate close, in your opinion? Treading with caution (and hopefully competence), Santacruz  &#8258;  Please tag me!  09:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm afraid that this is an area of Wikipedia I'm not familiar with, and as an admin I haven't closed many (any?) RfCs. If you'd like an admin to provide feedback on this, I'd suggest posting to ask for help at WP:AN. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

David Irving artice
I think it's better to change
 * Though Irving's negationist claims and views of German war crimes in World War II (and Hitler's responsibility for them) were never taken seriously by mainstream historians, he was once recognised for his knowledge of Nazi Germany and his ability to unearth new historical documents.

to


 * Though Irving's negationist claims and views of German war crimes in World War II (and Hitler's responsibility for them) were never taken seriously by mainstream historians, he was once recognised in the 60s/70s/80s for his knowledge of Nazi Germany and his ability to unearth new historical documents.

I think that sounds better than just being vague. However I am not sure in what timeframe we are referring to, though I would guesstimate it at around mid 1960s when his [The Mare's Nest] was published. Do you concur?--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please discuss this on the article's talk page? Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi Nick; can you take a quick look at Draft Eisenhower movement, an Military History A-class article at its peer review page pre-FAC. Just wanted to make sure whether sources are reliable/article is comprehensive for FAC? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your Offer of Help to Shellac41
Dear Nick-D Wiki Administrator I hope you can positively accept this intrusion, particularly during the festive season.

If ok, as a nearly 79 year old computer illiterate not fully understanding Wiki’s online instructions and acronyms etc.I would like to pursue your offer of advice (even practical help if possible and ok) in order to hopefully contribute to/improve the historical info on Wiki’s internet encyclopedia about my old unit (ie No 25 Squadron RAAF) as follows:

1. Uploading 2 RAAF images (ie 2 thumbnail photos with requested captions) onto Wiki’s “No. 25 Squadron – RAAF” webpage in chronological order with the 2 existing photos on the webpage and without detracting from or messing up the webpage’s existing layout; the new images being:

(a) A c1972-73 image (ie RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) photo) now shown on Wiki at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:25SQNUnit_PhotoWilliamtownCampPhotoc1972-1973.jpg - this site says ''“…the work (ie image) is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page”; and that: “The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2021091310001418”.''

Requested caption: ''“RAAF photo c1972-73: No 25 SQN CO SQNLDR H.A. Collits (GDPLT) and members on an Annual Camp providing technical and non-technical support to Mirage 111 fighter and other Base units at RAAF Williamtown NSW. The uniforms worn are a mix of the RAAF's then new light blue "All-seasons" uniform (early 1970's-c2005) and its original dark blue WW11 era winter “Battle Dress" uniform.”'' (If required the following Reference or Note is as follows: []

(b) A c1975 image (ie RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) photo) now shown on Wiki at: - this site says the same as for the RAAF photo above.

Requested caption: ''“RAAF photo c1974-75: No 25 SQN CO SQNLDR K R Page (GDNAV)and members at the unit’s home Base, RAAF Pearce WA. The uniform worn is the RAAF’s then light blue "All-seasons" uniform with “cool weather” tunics.'' (If required the following Reference or Note is as follows”: []


 * Go for it. I'd suggest not using the military abbreviations other than RAAF though - it's best to spell things out (for instance, use 'Squadron Leader' rather than 'SQNLDR'). If you need it, advice on how to add images to articles is at Help:Pictures. Mirage 111 should be Mirage III? Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

'''2. Edit Wiki’s text on its “No. 25 Squadron – RAAF”''' webpage by inserting a new para of continuous text describing 3 of No. 25 Squadron’s notable post-WW11 awards as follows (or similar): “Since WW11, recognition of No. 25 Squadron's flying and its non-flying ground support roles has included; being presented with its "No. 25 Squadron Standard" bearing its WW11 Battle Honour “Eastern Waters 1941-1945” on 31 October 1975 (suggested Reference/Note #1. below); being granted "Freedom of Entry to the City of Perth" by the City of Perth’s Lord Mayor and Council on 2 March 1976 (suggested Reference/Note #2. below)''; and receiving the annual Air Force Association (AFA) Trophy for "the most proficient Air Force Reserve Squadron" on 9 occasions (1961, 63, 64, 69, 76, 99, 2005, 06 and 08) since the AFA introduced the Award in 1961. (Note: The Award was suspended from 2010 - 16 until being re-introduced as an Award for RAAF Wings and Groups in 2017.)'' (suggested Reference/Note #3. below).”

Suggested References/Notes for the above text edit are as follows:

- Suggested Reference/Note #1. Presentation of the Standard to No 25 SQUADRON on Friday, 31 October 1975. Publisher Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce, Western Australia (14 unnumbered pages incl. cover and back): Copy held by RAAF Museum, Point Cook, Australia. [Contact Emily Constantine, RAAF Museum Curator, RAAF Museum, History and Heritage Branch – Air Force (emily.constantine@defence.gov.au)]

AND/OR

Presentation of the Standard to No 25 SQUADRON on Friday, 31 October 1975. Publisher Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce, Western Australia (14 unnumbered pages incl. cover and back): Copy held by State Library of Western Australia (SLWA). [Contact Sue Hegney, Librarian State Library of Western Australia, Perth Cultural Centre, WA. (collections@slwa.wa.gov.au)]

- Suggested Reference/Note #2. 'Conferment of the Freedom of Entry on the Commanding Officer, Officers and Men of No 25 (City of Perth) (Auxiliary) Squadron; City of Perth.'Italic text Publisher Perth, W.A. (20 unnumbered pages incl. cover and back): The City |1976 (2 March). Copy held by Museum of Perth (https://www.museumofperth.com.au/conferment-of-the-freedom-of-entry) AND/OR

Conferment of the Freedom of Entry on the Commanding Officer, Officers and Men of No 25 (City of Perth) (Auxiliary) Squadron; City of Perth.Italic text Publisher Perth, W.A. (20 unnumbered pages incl. cover and back): The City |1976 (2 March) [Copy held by The City of Perth; contact Lauretta Davies, Cultural Heritage Collections Office, City of Perth History Centre (Lauretta.Davies@cityofperth.wa.gov.au)]

- Suggested Reference/Note #3. RAAF Units Awarded the Annual Air Force Association Trophy 1960 - 2020 Air Force Association (AFA) Australia, National Board of Management.Italic text [Unpublished Internal Excel List/Record as at November 2021 provided by Peter W Colliver OAM, National Secretary, 1 December 2001 (natsec@raafa.org.au).]


 * That looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Edit the list of the recipients of the Freedom of the City of Perth, Western Australia on Wiki’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freedom_of_the_City recipients (military) by inserting “No. 25 (City of Perth) Squadron”. Wiki’s webpage currently and incorrectly only shows Navy and Army units as having been granted Freedom of the City Perth. The suggested Reference/note could be either shown in Suggested Reference/Note #2 in 2.


 * OK, if you think this is a notable example. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing Personal Note: During the several months I was blocked on Wiki I made many searches, email and phone inquiries/requests to several authorities trying to locate copies held of publications or “news” about the SQN’s achievements listed in 2. And 3. above and possible references or notes about them that would be acceptable to Wiki. Unfortunately I have had only limited success but I sincerely hope the references I have offered will meet Wiki’s requirements. As I do not want to risk being blocked again and/or cause further inconvenience to Wiki administrators such as yourself because of my well-intentioned but possibly incorrect actions, I earnestly seek you advice re the above, especially the referencing, and not surprisingly would be more than happy if you or another well qualified administrator was prepared to put the above uploads and edits into effect for me – I am not seeking any personal credit for them and sadly I do not have the confidence in my own ability to do them properly. My apologies for this inconvenience and the length and detail of my acceptance of your kind offer to help. I hope I have not abused it - if my request is improper or unreasonable I will respect your advice of same. Yours sincerely, Wiki user Shellac41Shellac41 (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Those changes look good. Sources on RAAF reserve units are quite limited for some reason. This book is useful, but somewhat limited. There used to be a PDF version on the RAAF website, but it seems to no longer be available. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Follow-Up to Your Offer of Help to Shellac41
Thanks for your advice Nick-D

With fingers crossed and best intent I will now try to add the 2 RAAF images and text to Wiki's No 25 Squadron-RAAF page, hopefully without contravening any Wiki protocol's or detracting from the site's value to readers etc.

Regards, Shellac41Shellac41 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with 25 Squadron RAAF page
Hi Nick-D

I am very sorry to bother you again but after my text editing and inserting of 2 images onto the NO. 25 Squadron RAAF page 2 obvious issues have arisen.

1. I have no idea how/why my actions caused it to happen (obviously it was my fault) but now at the end of the previous existing Note #7 an error message appears in red text saying "line feed character in |access-date= at position 8 (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)"

I have tried to follow both "help" pages with no success or real understanding of how to correct or remove the error message. Can you or another administrator remove this error message because I believe none of Note #7's old text (or anything else) has been effected?

2. I have tried to position the 2nd RAAF mage I inserted (ie the c1974-1975 RAAF Pearce photo) and the previous 1991 photo in the blank area above them to improve the page's layout and the flow of the 4 sequential thumbnail images but I cannot get the last 2 to move up?

I would also appreciate any confirmation that my new text and images now meet Wiki's copyright and referencing protocols and your personal standards, and that I will not be blocked because of them? Sincere thanks for your help and advice. Regards. Shellac41 Shellac41 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first issue. The second is likely due to the article having too many images for its short length, which results in 'sandwiching'. Now that the images have been released for use per the process you followed, there are no copyright problems concerning them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Your Help to Shellac41
Thanks Nick
 * No worries. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick question/answer?
Hi Nick-D

If I wanted to insert a thumbnail image of the No 25 Squadron RAAF Crest/Badge onto Wiki's "No. 25 Squadron RAAF" webpage would you (ie Wiki) require me to get special copyright permission to do so OR could it just be referenced to the "RAAF Museum, Point Cook Australa"(eg by https://www.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/minisite/static/7522/RAAFmuseum/research/units/25sqn.htm)?

I have noticed that several images of the Crest/Badge are already feely available on Wiki (eg http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-badges/raaf-sqns.htm and there are many commercial ads to sell them or items with it on them etc). A cloth type crest/badge has also already been inserted onto another Wiki 'history' page by another user "(talk | contribs)"

Yet again (I hope for the last time) your advice is requested and would be appreciated. Thanks. Shellac41 Shellac41 (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC).
 * Evidence would be needed that the crest is in the public domain. Australian Government works more than 50 years old are in the public domain, so that might apply here (e.g. if the crest dates to when this unit was first formed), but you would need to be able to prove it. What diggerhistory.info does is not relevant to Wikipedia, as it has its own copyright policies. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D I am sorry to bother you again but as per my "A quick question/answer?" Talk of 15 December 2021 (see above) and your answering advice I still hope to insert a thumbnail of the 25 SQN RAAF official unit Crest onto the Wiki's "No. 25 Squadron RAAF" webpage.

Immediately after receiving your response to my December Talk Q to you I rang the RAAF's Brand Manager in Dept of Defence Canberra seeking RAAF permission to insert the Crest. The RAAF's Brand Manager advised that, yes the 50 year rule usually applies to such things but he also said he believed there is some 'overarching' ruling or legislation (?) that gives the ADF (eg the RAAF) unlimited time copyright over such things as unit Crests etc.

His reference to such an 'overarching' ruling or legislation (?) strongly suggests he would not be able to place the SQN's Crest onto the "public domain" as he kindly did at my request with the RAAF photos I inserted earlier onto Wiki's "No. 25 Squadron RAAF" webpage.

However, he did say that after looking into the matter he would send me email approval to insert the Crest onto Wiki's webpage.

Since then I have not heard from him, I think partly due to the Festive Season and to Covid's impact in the A.C.T.

I plan to speak to him again but before doing so I thought it best to request your advice/agreement that if he does send me his official email approval to insert the Crest onto Wiki's 25 SQN webpage that it would be ok to do so if the caption to the inserted thumbnail of the Crest includes a reference (by date and RAAF Brand Manager title) of his (ie the RAAF's) emailed permission?

Your advice is requested and would be respected appreciated. Thanks. Shellac41Shellac41 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

DELTA
Your information you have onthis page is 99% wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Force A delta operative is a force of ONE. They are need to know and even existence may nevsr be discussed. Minimum req. Is 5 years in service for enlisted and 10 for officers. There, i broke my clearance.... To give you one fact you had wrong.... 174.215.190.35 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources to support that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).