User talk:Nick-D/Archive 4

Re:Atlas Cavar
Repositioned myself as weak keep at afd. Article still needs help though. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Doltna block and authoblock
Nick, your autoblock when you blocked doltna probably had rather a lot of collateral, I've determined that the user is a rather over-enthusiatic colleague, and I htin I should be able to sort out the editting. It was well-intentioned, but could have been done better. David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the note David. I've just unblocked them - a 24 hour block was probably too long anyway given that the edits appeared to be overenthusiastic but essentially good faith. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RAN White Ensign
Hi Nick, thanks for your info on the AWNB. I take this to mean that on eg. Battle of the Coral Sea, I should replace the 🇦🇺 to be something like UK|naval. Is that right? Slac speak up! 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg is the right one to use, I think. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

World War II
I've just replaced the subheadings as they made zero substantive change to the article (no text change at all, in fact) and substantially added to the ease with which a large summary article can be navigated. Such as at the similar articleCold War. I examined the Talk sections and saw no such prior discussions of merely adding more subheadings.

I would like to think that such non-substantive changes could be made to the article without some sort of automatic revert. If there is an actual problem with merely adding subheadings (again, zero substantive change to the article), I would of course be more than willing to discuss it, but none has been raised so far, including in the above paragraph. I'm not sure what such a complaint would be as the article is substantially easier to navigate with subheadings on the various topics, but again, I would be more than willing to discuss it.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick, I just noticed that you also mass reverted a huge number of typo and source fixes and adds to unsourced sentences by me and others, which are in no way major changes and not under any kind of article policy. Please do no do this again citing article policy, as many of these are simple conventional Wikipedia source and typo fixes.  If you have a problem with any specific substantive change, that's one thing, but please don't mass revert simple fixes.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did no such thing - I manually removed the sub-headings and left the text unchanged. Please check the diffs of my edits. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

History wars
I understand your concerns about my unilateral rewriting of the Background and Black Armband Debate sections. I had the same concerns myself about a renewed bout of edit-warring. But we've been locked in a stalemate with Likebox for months over the Genocide debate section and nothing seemed to be happening to improve other parts of the article. So I took the chance that if I removed some of the excessive quoting and rewrote some of the badly disjointed sections in as balanced and neutral a tone as I could manage (and I've kept tweaking it to try and make it more NPOV), others might bypass the Genocide debate section for a while and do something constructive with the article. So far no-one seems to be protesting that I've 'ruined' the sections that I've rewritten. I'd be happier if others would join in and do some NPOV rewrites on other parts of the article, where it's needed, or at least make some suggestions on the talk page but, otherwise and so far, it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Perhaps my cunning plan is working?? Webley442 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Convoy GP55
Hi Nick. Following the closure of the ACR, I wanted to come here and post a few comments on the above, but got a little preoccupied with other things. ;-) That said, I have now completed a review of this excellent article and have come up with the following suggestions/pointers/comments: I hope these are of some help. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should probably be clarified in the lead that the convoy took place during World War II.
 * WP:Alt text is required for the images. Alt text is basically a newly enforced requirement in which you add "|alt=" in the image mark-up followed by a brief, but concise, description of what is actually in the image. This is in place for the aid of blind wiki uses, so they get an idea of what is in the image. As an example, for File:I-68.jpg, you might like to have something along the lines of "|alt=A black and white photograph of a submarine in a body of water with a land mass in the background".
 * MOS:NUM recommends the use of a slash ("/"), rather than an endash, to separate the dates describing a single night.
 * The year that Centaur was sank should probably be clarified.
 * What exactly was the purpose of the convoy? Why was it formed? What was its objective?
 * There is a large amount of repetition of the word "and". Would it be possible to replace some of these with alternate words?
 * Those are excellent comments - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

History Wars
You seem to be interested in history wars. There is a major problem with this page, that the fringe theories of Windschuttle and quadrant, which have next to no academic support, are being presented as if they were majority opinions (or even opinions worthy of respect). Fixing this is difficult, since another administrator (PBS) has taken the position that introducing mainstream sources is not allowed. This leads to severe editing problems. There is no "nice" way to fix this. What is absolutely required is another person (other than myself) willing to take a hostile position. Hopefully you are willing to be jerk number 2.Likebox (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm keeping an eye on that article in my role as an administrator only - I've got no intention to participate in the discussion there, and certainly not as a 'jerk'. If you feel that it isn't possible to constructively develop the article I'd suggest that you make use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I'd suggest making a formal request for comment to bring in the views of other editors. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did the formal request for other editors twice, with nobody willing to step in. I also asked a few people if they could help, but nobody really wants to touch it (that includes me--- this is really annoying). The reason, I think, is because the situation requires taking an antagonistic position, and nobody wants to antagonize. I will bring it up for formal dispute resolution if all else fails. But I am worried that the people there will not take time to read the literature.Likebox (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're concerned about editor misconduct and can demonstrate this then there's no real need for people who know about the literature. Evidence that editor(s) are relying on a narrow range of literature which covers only one side of the debate could, for example, be useful in seeking mediation of the issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Wise
Hey Nick, all athletes on the Australian WBC Roster or have been in a previous World Baseball Classic pass WP:ATHLETE due to them playing at the highest level of amateur sport. Also Brendan Wise competes in the Eastern League currently which is a fully professional tier of Major League Baseball. However, I have added a couple of secondary sources to prove notability and can provide more if Wise's notability is still under a cloud. All the best!  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for adding those refs. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlog resolution
I noticed here that you removed the 'resolved' tag that was added but then put it back. I am wondering, has it been? Perhaps they have been done (I don't know how to track which admins are doing work on the buildup) but I am not sure if it was resolved properly. Also, the person who backed it up in the first place has made promises to fill it up again by doing the same thing to my contributions, so I would expect this to be a potentially ongoing problem. I think solving the root of the problem (seal leak, as opposed to bail buckets) would be a more useful resolution. Since Bettia initiated the topic, it would be good to hear the reply as to the progress. It's somewhat concerning that the one causing the issue was also the one to state (prematurely IMO) that the issue was resolved, especially since, as long as this is allowed to continue, it would be an ongoing problem as these would just keep getting tagged for undeserved speedy deletions. Even so, I can agree with the idea of collecting the conversation into a single area. Tyciol (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tyciol, The backlog of speedy deletion nominations was the issue which had been raised at the Admins Noticeboard. As this backlog had been cleared, the matter there was resolved as no further admin action was required. The discussion of whether the redirects are worthwhile and speedy deletion nominations justified probably best belongs at the ANI thread. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin
Thanks for your help  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

World War II
Could you please explain why this was deleted? This is a highly recognized resource of primary government documents used by scholars all over the world. Also, is this the correct place to ask about these changes? Historic Government Publications from World War II, hosted by Southern Methodist University, contains 343 informational pamphlets, government reports, instructions, regulations, declarations, speeches, and propaganda materials distributed by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) during the Second World War. Thanks!--signed Digitaldomain (talk • contribs)


 * As the article is about all countries experiences in World War II, it seems inappropriate to have links to relatively small collections of material from only a single country, especially as you've been adding links to the Southern Methodist University's collections to a range of articles without any explanation of why the link adds value to the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally this has also been under discussion here; I've warned Digitaldomain about spamming these links. EyeSerene talk 10:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WWII
Dear Nick-D. Since you initiated a discussion about some recent changes in the WWII article could you please comment on my recent post there ? Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

vc WINNERS??
I wasn't aware that the VC was either a race or a competition. Hence, I wasn't aware that one "won" one. Please educate me. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's longstanding usage. British MoD is happy enough with it, obits in The Times frequently use it in obituaries and other articles related to the VC, the OED's first definition of winner is "One who gains something, esp. by effort or merit;" the definition of winning a competition etc is the secondary definition.  David Underdown (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there you go! To quote somebody else: "You learn something new every day. Sometimes, some of it is useful." Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Guy Royle
Hi mate, postscript to Convoy GP55 FAC, did you have any plans to turn that red link blue? If not, I might have a go sometime - does he have an entry in the Oxford Companion though? I notice he's missing from ADB... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on doing so, but I did look into it a while ago. There are some excellent portraits of Royle on the AWM's database and a reasonable amount on him in the official history. David Stevens A Critical Vulnerability: the impact of the submarine threat on Australia’s maritime defence contains a critical evaluation of his role in the fighting in Australian waters. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, funny you mention the AWM portraits, I happened across them by accident the other day and that contributed to my giving more serious consideration to an article. Well, we see who gets to him first then...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Emu war?
You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict. Are you Australian by any chance? This would make for a serious conflict of interest case against you if true. Koalorka (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you continue denying the Emus their history? This is prejudiced revisionism at its worst. Koalorka (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't threatened to block anyone. Please don't add any further nonsense to this article though. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Black War as in List of Massacres
Have to disagree with your grounds for reverting my change, was in the process of writing my reasons in more detail and some suggestions for the talk page when I noticed you had reverted me, so I thought I'd discuss it with you before posting it.

Firstly much of what is there about the Black War is uncited and has been for a long time but more importantly, the article does have a clear scope, ie its title specifies it quite clearly as a list of massacres and it is almost entirely about specific incidents. As such it can be very useful as a starting point for understanding the extent of mass killings, as a reference to specific incidents, and also for bringing in the debate over whether the evidence for particular incidents is credible. (I'm aware that there are a couple of exceptions in the article eg the Wiradjuri Wars which I would argue should be revised by listing specific incidents involved in the various 'wars' and in the description of those incidents linking to the article on the various 'wars' involved.)

I agree with specific battles being included especially as there is grounds for sometimes calling a battle a massacre. If we include the Black War there, however, it carries an automatic implication that the Black War, and every individual incident in it, was a massacre, ie the indiscriminate killing of helpless human beings, whereas most historians agree that the Tasmanian Aborigines were anything but helpless, they were effective fighters and initiated many attacks on settlers. If we restrict the 'List' article to what the title says it is about and leave the Black War to the standalone article, we make it a lot easier to clarify the issues peculiar to each of the individual articles. The Black War is simply too broad a topic for the 'List' article. Webley442 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)
I've done some work with the article based on your ACR suggestions. When you get a moment, can you check back and strike the addressed points? I could use an update on what still needs work and whats been addressed, as well as any new concerns you have. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I hope my comments are helpful. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected temple
Hi, since you're active admin, could you look at this request Template_talk:WikiProject_Korea and edit it? Since editing the template is only allowed for admins, so I need your help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was quick! Although the replaced images are not good, but well, the previous images gave a wrong impression. Have a nice weekend.--Caspian blue 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Let me know if you find better replacements and I'd be happy to swap them over. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kujin
Hi Nick, I have added references to the Background and Aftermath sections of Battle of Kujin. I am looking at expanding the Battle section as I came across some more information. Also loking to expand Australian battles and commanders in Korean War. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work, I've just reassessed the article as B class. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted P3 image
Hi Nick, you may be interested in my comments here -  Nick Thorne  talk  23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. I think that it's disappointing and frustrating that the photo was deleted. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, what really gets up my nose is that these people seem to think that simply re-stating their position and ignoring eveything that everyone else says is OK. It is not.  Frankly, I am a bit fired up about this and, as you would know, I have had nothing to do with the image before it was listed for deletion.  Unless we get a reasonable outcome I intend to escalate the issue.  This whole process smacks of people thinking they own Wikipedia. -  Nick Thorne  talk  09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking of asking for a deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made another post on D's talk page, if he does not respond appropriately to that then I agree, let's go for it. In fact having read WP:DRV I have been considering going to WP:AN/I, given the way this whole thing has evolved.  However, before doing that I would ask for your advice, given your no doubt greater experience on such things.  Also, I am not sure about the correct protocol - I know that anyone can make such submissions, but is it considered good form for third parties like me to nominate such actions?  Let's see what he comes up with for now. -  Nick Thorne  talk  10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, anyone can start a DRV. I've started one or two for articles I didn't create after I thought that the AfD was closed incorrectly. From looking at the logs of recent fair use photo deletions, it seems to be pretty rare for them to be kept, even when there is a consensus that they meet the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion re: HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156)
Hi, Nick. I've got a query about HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156), and am requesting the opinion of a wiser head.

At the end of June, added content to the article reflecting the frigate's deployment to the Gulf for anti-piracy operations. About a month later, I came across the article and removed some of this information, specifically relating to 'Ivan M. Ingham', the commanding officer of Toowoomba for this deployment, on the justification that "only COs who have a major impact on the history of the ship should be mentioned in articles". Over the course of the past few days, the IP user undid my edit, I re-did it and repeated my reason for doing so, and the IP user undid it again. He/she/it added a line to the article that Commander Ingham is the first CO of an Australian warship to "conduct UN sanctioned anti-piracy operations", which I do not think is sufficient justification for inclusion as Cmdr Ingham is doing exactly what any other officer put in his position would be doing.

However, instead of reverting back to 'my' version, I've come to you for a third opinion on the matter. What do you think? -- saberwyn 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't like articles which include lists of commanders (most of whom are non-notable) or identify the current commander (who will change every couple of years or so) so I'd prefer to take it out. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the paragraph and explained my reasoning on the talk page. The IP has reverted back. I'm not sure how far I want to escalate this.


 * I've reverted them and protected the page for three days to allow for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if this is the wrong way to "talk", While I am fully acquainted with Wikipedia as a browser, editing is not my forte. In regards to the 'edit dispute', I cannot understand why a Commanding Officer should not have his name included on the page. You are correct in stating that they change ever few years (18-24 months to be precise); however, during this time a ship in the RAN is commissioned because it has Commanding Officer. Being selected for command of a ship is an achievement in itself, and undoubtedly, when they have moved-on into the wider navy, for good or bad, they have left an indelible mark on the 'soul' of the ship. This is even reflected in the fact that all Commanding Officers have their names recorded on a Honours Board. In further regard to you quip on 'names' - why does the Chief of Navy have a web-page entirely devoted to him? I am not saying that he does not deserve one (on the contrary), merely I am trying to indicate that despite size the Chief of Navy is to the RAN as a Commanding Officer is to a Ship. In the end, it is unjust to removed his name on the basis that you do not think it is appropriate. Furthermore, I speak with authority in such matters - personally knowing CMDR Ingham, he is currently one of the highest regarded Commanding Officers in the RAN at present (Just type his name into the web). Furthermore, I am soon to finish my degree (BA in the UNSW@ADFA) in Naval and Military History, and I will hopefully be approved to study for my Honours. I have been reading this page and notice that you mention Dr Stevens &c. and specific reference to Canberra - are you in the Navy? I assume someone with your knowledge has either a serving relative or is in service them self.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.236.160.101 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please discuss this at Talk:HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156) so other editors can participate in the discussion? I think that the main issue is in relation to the Wikipedia policies Notability (people) and Biographies of living persons which basically state that people who haven't received much coverage in professionally published works (newspapers, books, high-quality websites, etc), generally shouldn't be included in articles. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way - I'd encourage you to register an account (though this is by no means compulsory) and/or participate in the WikiProject Military history. We could certainly use more editors with borrowing rights at ADFA's excellent library! I live in Canberra, but neither I nor anyone in my family is in the military. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1
Have you seen this? Is it feasible?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really - the article needs more work and the nominator hasn't made any significant contributions to the article in at least the last 6 months. The coverage of her time in the Med, for example, is very sketchy and there's only a few sentences on the events of her final battle. I'd suggest that this FA nomination be closed as it has no reasonable chance of passing. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd Support Group
I notice you moved this page to 2nd Support Group (Royal Navy) and I wondered why; theres nothing on the talk page about it and the move log just says ”common unit name”.

Is it? Are there any other units called 2 SG? ( though I’d be prepared to argue Walkers group was the most famous)

I’m not desperately bothered, I'm just wondering what to call the next one: We don’t differentiate as a rule, do we, unless there’s more than one? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems a generic type of name - various 'support groups' have been formed as part of military units, not to mention 'support groups' for people in various circumstances. As you point out, this is probably the most famous '2nd Support Group', and I wouldn't mind at all if you moved the article back. Great work in creating it by the way - it was long overdue. Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) also had a formation called '2nd Support Group.' Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your reply; on reflection, there's no harm in specifying RN for the unit, and it's probably good practice, so I'll be doing that (and Buckshot your comment confirms it). And thanks... Xyl 54 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Allies gain momentum" section
Nick-D I put a modified version of this section on the article's talk page. I am waiting for your ok to introduce it into the main article. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gov2Taskforce
Hi Nick-D, I understand the language used in the link to the talk page you removed may have been a little broad (e.g. calling for contributions) - however I think some reference to the work in progress talk page at this point could be relevant.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gov2Taskforce&oldid=309346451

All of the suggestions listed on the talk page are external links to the original suggestions. These are valid submissions to the Taskforce and are an important part of the overall information about the Taskforce.

I'm assuming you removed this content in line with point 4 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought ? Or perhaps is there some other wikipedia policy relevant here?

BTW: I'm not trying to argue this point with you...just trying to clearly understand why this was "not appropriate". I see these suggestions to the taskforce as documentary historical references that should soon be promoted to the main article. But obviously I'd like to do this in line with wikipedia policy and in an appropriate way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmanson (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not appropriate for articles to contain text encouraging people to make submissions to Government reviews or for talk pages to be used to track such submissions - please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please start your own wiki if you'd like to do this. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick-D - I do have quite a number of wikis of my own...however I thought wikipedia was the most open and un-biased place to put this "community" content. This content is valid documentation of historical records of submission/suggestions to the Taskforce.  The "content" of the submissions may relate to the WP:NOTSOAPBOX (or probably MORE accurately "Original Thought"), but the fact that they "are submissions/suggestions" themselves is a fact that is worth noting in a coherent record. And they were on the Talk page after all, to be discussed and refined before they were promoted to the main article.  I think you're treading a very fine line here between policy enforcement and subjective judgement calls.  Robmanson (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't meant to be used to create a historic record of submissions to inquiries - all content needs to be notable, meaning that it's been covered in secondary sources (see: Notability). There's no need to recreate the content of the Australian Government's website. What you posted at Talk:Gov2Taskforce appears to be an attempt to organise further submissions (eg, "Please add your suggestion here ... These entries should also be placed in http://www.Australia2.org.au for discussion and prioritisation by the Australian community"). If you'd like other editors to comment on this, I'd suggest posting at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Yongju
Hi Nick, I have added additonal references to Battle of Yongju and was wondering whether it is now a B Class article? Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, great work Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. Go the Wallabies! --Newm30 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rollback
Thnaks, but no thanks. I wouldn't use it enough to justify it. -- saberwyn 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Hello, Nick-D. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:History wars further information can be found at Wikiquette alerts. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile) GA review
Hi, Nick-D. During an A-Class review you stated that the Arrow (missile) is a "good article". May I ask your GAReview for this article? Flayer (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ? Flayer (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Flayer (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

An Award!

 * Thank you very much Tom Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
I wish to apologize. When I saw that you had posted on the page, and discovered the page locked so that I was unable to reply, I jumped to conclusions and made a wrong assumption, without checking the log (which I didn't even know I could access). I don't want any animosity between us or with any of the admins. I realize due to the actions of Dr. Steel's fanbase in previous years, there is no love lost between the parties involved; therefore I am trying to remain amiable and compliant with whatever the admins wish here, and try to put a "new face" on things. But in this case I assumed and made an ass of myself, as they say. Anyway, when you get to be my age, you know when to admit you were wrong. :) Again, my apologies. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

E.C. Wackett
Nick, following on from your ACR comment, I've added a tidbit on the progression of the Air Force technology-wise during the war - when you have a chance could you see if this is what you had in mind? I'm planning to submit for FAC after Joe Hewitt completes so any thoughts would of course be useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, that's exactly what I was thinking of. As a suggestion though, I think that the second paras in the World War II and Post-war career sections are a bit long - they look huge on my 24" monitor. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tks mate. I've split the second WWII one at a logical point, the second Post-War one is a tougher proposition without IMO damaging the flow but will consider.  On my monitor the third Post-War seems just as big, although a greater proportion of that appearance is due to the image on its right-hand side... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe that second post-war one wasn't so tough after all... Can you let me know if you think the last post-war para would benefit from a split beginning at say In 1953, Wackett established advanced diploma training...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The para's length isn't too bad, but it wouldn't hurt. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * No worries Tom ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Freedman
Hi Nick, could you do me a favour please. I don't actually own a copy of Freedman's Vol II, could you cite the fact that I added here please. I'm gonna be taking the article to GA soon! cheers Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, and I've taken the liberty of updating the other Freedman reference so they're from the same (and most recent) edition. Could I suggest that you nominate this article for an A-Class Review? I think that it would easily pass. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that nick, much appreciated. A-class review ay, I might just do that :D Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nick, in the past you expressed an interest in whether the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" should be used in the Gazelle article I have now raised the matter in the article A-class review if you are interested. Ryan 4314  (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

hehe
From the academy page on coordinatorship:


 * ...make sure you change the "name" parameter - several new users, as well as a few veterans, tend forget to do this and others are thus forced to check and fix the error as it appears.

Glad to see you caught it. Though I have a good feeling that you'll be reelected this term, I still wish you good luck with the elections. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom, though I was hoping that no-one would notice ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Adminstrator abuse
That's three years to the day (give or take a few hours) since joining the site that I've kept a clean block log. The trout's in the post, and I hope it seriously stinks by the time it gets down under. Seriously, no worries, I'm glad you caught it :) EyeSerene talk 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, your true identity finally revealed? I think I'll wait until you've got an article at FAC or something :) Regarding Mrg, thanks for your help with the whack-a-mole; I noticed their re-emergence on the Arnhem talkpage. It's a shame in some ways as they do make some good edits, but from their comment on my talkpage ("...if you can find ONE SINGLE CASE OF ME USING SOCKPUPPETS, I will gladly never edit ANY Wikipedia article again") I am starting to wonder if there are some other issues. EyeSerene talk 08:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice move
"10:09, 8 September 2009 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked Nick-D (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Block evasion)" -- This was good :)). You just made me laugh continuosly for about 2 mins. :)) --Eurocopter (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While you're on a spree, I think it's been a while since Jimbo was last blocked. Seriously, are you sure this account isn't compromised? EyeSerene talk 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be giving the block button a bit of a rest I think - its clearly malfunctioning due to all the recent blocking of Mrg and Top Gun socks ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably wise, before it achieves sentience. I've edit-conflicted myself with multiple tabs before now, but your multitasking is much more impressive :D EyeSerene talk 11:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rofl Nick. Enjoy the lolcat. :-D — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I think that it might take a while to live this down. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, are you evading a block, or wheel-warring with yourself? I get mixed up on Wiki terms sometimes. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Both, I think. It's what us rouge admins do. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchuria
Regarding the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945), there are a few things that, to me, seem inconsistent, and I was wondering if you might be able to explain them to me? So, in summary:
 * The article says 'the Soviets named it the "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" '. However, outside of Wikipedia, WP derivatives and David Glantz, I have not been able to find a reliable source to verify or support that statement, and the article itself doesn't quote a supporting reference. Can you identify a source and/or a supporting reference?
 * The article immediately follows with a Russian phrase saying "Lit. Soviet-Japanese War". Again, no supporting reference.
 * If it translates literally as "Soviet-Japanese War", then why is the Russian name "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation"?
 * Why would the Russians call it the "Soviet-Japanese War"? There are several conflicts that could be referred to as a "Soviet-Japanese War"; it seems unlikely the Soviets would label just one of them as THE "Soviet-Japanese War". What did they call the others?
 * Reading the talk page archives, EconomistBR says russian WP calls it "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945". That makes sense. But it is still not the same as "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation".
 * Similarly, no sources are given for the names "the battle of Manchukuo" or "the Soviet invasion of Manchuria".
 * A source is quoted for "the Battle of Manchuria" (Maurer, Herrymon, Collision of East and West, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1951, p.238.), but personally, I haven't ever seen that term used.
 * (Note: I am deliberately NOT including "August Storm" in this conversation.)
 * 1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from?
 * 2. Where does "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" come from?
 * 3. Where does "(Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War)" come from?
 * 4. Why is what's stated in the article inconsistent and unreferenced?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Mrg3105 was the editor responsible for endlessly seeking to have the article named the 'Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation' and most of the other issues you raise (his disruptive editing over this and similar articles contributed heavily to him being indefinitely blocked). The article's current name was the result of a very long discussion on its talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply; it explains a very long and tortuous history very concisely. (Well done!)
 * So, I interpret your response as:
 * Q1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105. - No supporting reference.
 * Q2. Where does "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" come from? - A2. "Attrition". - No supporting reference.
 * Q3. Where does "(Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War)" come from? - A3. ? (Not answered.)
 * Q4. Why is what's stated in the article inconsistent and unreferenced? - A4. Because that's the way it happened.
 * Do you you agree with that summary?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In brief: 1) Yes, 2) Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page 3) Not sure 4) Yep, and because it was subjected to a very tedious campaign of disruptive edits by Mrg Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Toy block
You might as well have an award for it. Thank you for the entertainment. :) Durova  314 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well earned ;) EyeSerene talk 09:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Haygood
Thank you for adding this to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military; I was looking for something like this list earlier, when I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but I was too clueless to notice the link on the right side of the page. Now I see it. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha...
...shakes head. --Merbabu (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and it's not that much worse than what was left in the article... Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know - i read the talk page comments and I thought "how hard can it be - surely a copy edit will fix things". But, upon reading it. groan. It's not so much the way it is said, rather it's the decisions on what is included and what isn't. Anyway, I've likely caused controversy over my work at the Hawke-Keating Government article. --Merbabu (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate companies
Want your opinion on this. There are 15 odd separate non-combat companies listed at Category:Numbered companies of the United States Army. Now that the 722nd's been deleted, should I do a mass AfD on all of them? Or do you think some are notable? Appreciate your thoughts. Buckshot06(prof) 09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some may be notable - 295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA) has a book which covers it for example (I'd be willing to bet that the book was written and published by the unit, but this may not be the case). From looking at a random selection of the others, most seem to make a claim of notability (eg, that they were the first or only of one type of unit) so aren't speedy deletable, though 220th Military Police Company (United States) probably is. I'd suggest speedy deleting the ones which make no claim of notability and are unsourced and nominating the others individually. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Type 45 destroyer
Hi Nick. You reverted my addition to the aforementioned article commenting 'uncited, appears to be personal opinion'. Perhaps we can discuss specifically the problem you see so the text can be integrated in a mutually acceptable way? --Wranadu2 (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your addition as it wasn't supported by a source. If you can provide a reliable source which unfavourably compares the Type 45s with the large AEGIS ships then please include that in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The text I added contained links to the articles for each class which show they carry greater numbers of VLS tubes than the Type 45, and a link to the Standard missile article demonstrating it's greater ranger than the Aster-30. Is this not sufficient? --Wranadu2 (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's original research. Please provide a citation. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is uncontested and well sourced in the respective articles that the Type 45 carries 48 VLS cells and the, for an example of an AEGIS ship, Ticos carry 122. I don't understand then how this is OR. (not that I'm unwilling to try). --Wranadu2 (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What you want to include in the article is text disputing the head of the RN's claim that the Type 45 is the best air defence ship in the world. For that you certainly need a citation, and I suspect that it won't be too hard to find one using Google and/or searching on news websites. More generally, all material in all Wikipedia articles needs to be cited. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how there is any dispute - it is a simple matter concerning number of missiles carried and the range they can reach - rather than any analysis of capabilities which could be argued either way (which would enter the realms of OR). The 1SL is a political appointment much more than a military one, and of course he is to claim the Type 45 is the 'world's best air defence ship' despite the fallacy of this statement shown by the numbers. However, I respect what you have said. I'll take your advice and see if I can find a third party source, and cite as appropriate. If not, then I'll leave it out completely. Thanks for your comments! --Wranadu2 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section I added and found some suitable references that dispute the superiority of the Type 45. Hopefully this time it's acceptable to stay! --Wranadu2 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Block of 85.134.164.15
Normal Wikipedians have to go through a series of warnings before a block is instated. You should not block users after only two counts of vandalism just because you have the ability to. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 12:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * * Shakes head, wags finger* Nick, Nick, Nick ... I'm going to have to send you into timeout now. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking the featured article of the day is a particularly serious offence, and it's perfectly standard for people who do that to be blocked in case they do it again, particularly when their only other edit is vandalism (this makes it pretty clear that the blanking wasn't an accident). The block was only a 24 hour 'soft' block and a registered user whose first two edits were outright vandalism would have been blocked indefinitely, so I don't see any problems with this at all. WP:BLOCK does not state that editors 'have' to be warned before a block is imposed by the way. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I whole-heartedly agree with Nick on this one; the IP's first edit is particularly egregious. It's a clear demonstration of the user's intentions here, and the primary purpose of blocking is to prevent damage to Wikipedia, which is exactly what Nick did. An excellent block, I say. Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Articles for deletion/Australian veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq
Would you consider redirecting this article to Operation Slipper or Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Kure
I feel your pain, Nick. I'm looking for sources for Operation Ironclad, the Battle of Madagascar, and there's no book devoted to it; I'm having to find bits in dozens of books. Would the USAAF official histories not have a few pages or a chapter on the bombing? Skinny87 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The USN and USAAF histories have a few pages on the raids, but they don't allow the article to be expanded beyond its current state. Given the scale of the attacks its really surprising that they didn't give the raids more extensive coverage. Madagascar is easier in my view; as the relevant volumes of the British official history have reasonable coverage of it. Have you seen that the full text of the second volume of The War At Sea is now online? The relevant volume in the excellent series on the Asia-Pacific Theatres also has at least a couple of chapters on this campaign and might be the best source if you can find a copy. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks! I've got access to my university's electronic journals for a limited period until I graduate in January, although it might cut me off at the end of this month. If there are any journal articles you know of, I'd be happy to find them and try and email them to you or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the offer. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this about the Kure raid listed on a WWII forum board, but I don't know if it helps you any. I'm still looking for more sources. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've asked in a couple of forums if anyone knows of any other sources with more detail. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cla! Hopefully it will turn something up. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heya Nick, I have a book that remarks a bit on the March raids on Kure; . I added a para on it to JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Haruna:

"On 19 March 1945, American carrier aircraft attacked the remainder of the Japanese Navy at Kure. Damage was light due in part to the base being defended by veteran Japanese fighter instructors flying Kawanishi N1K "Shiden" or "George" fighters.[29] Led by the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, Minoru Genda, the appearance of these fighters, which were even or superior in performance to America's main fighter, the F6F Hellcat,[29] surprised the attackers, and several American aircraft were destroyed.[30]"


 * I don't have the book with me at college, but next time I go home I will scan it for any info on the July raids. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Murray Robson
Hi, I wonder if you can help me. There are some good images of Murray Robson on the War Memorial site but I don't seem to be able to put them on Wikipedia. Would you be able to do it for me? It looks to be one of your areas of interest. Is there a page that explains simply how to upload pictures - I was once able to do it but seem to have lost the knack. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the instructions at Help:Files and WP:UPLOAD? Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I had a look, but they don't seem to even start to tell me how to do it. Castlemate (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is it that you're having trouble with exactly? The basic process is to save a copy of the photo to your computer and then upload it from there, placing PD-Australia in the licensing/permission field where the photos are out of copyright. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit War Again on the Allies of WW2
Please take a look at the ongoing edit war at the Allies of World War II An Admin needs to get involved Thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that I've been involved in editing this article, I'm not able to use any admin rights there. The best places to seek intervention would be Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and/or Requests for page protection. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You could also ask one of my fellow coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject to look in on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Several of them are admins and can protect the article (which is what it, at minimum, needs) and block disruptive editors (which also seems justified). Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest I am about to give up editing Wikipedia, it has become a waste of time Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that you don't; you're a great editor. I've un-watchlisted that article as it isn't worth the grief though, so that could be an alternate strategy. Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. Other editors have had to revert 23prootie on a number of WW2 related articles.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I have your attention, question. What role if any did the 11th Austrailian Div have in the war? --Woogie10w (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 23prootie has a very long history of edit warring, and is probably heading towards an indef block. The 11th Division fought in the New Guinea Campaign and New Britain Campaign. Why do you ask? Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-14
I'd ask that you reconsider your assessment of this article as you down checked it for information which simply isn't available for the vast majority of Soviet aircraft of the 1950s and 60s. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just reviewed the article, but still don't think that it's B-class. I do sympathise with the problem of obtaining adequate sources though; I've written quite a few articles on obscure ships which have used every available source but which have been assessed as only start class as these aren't enough to provide a comprehensive account of the ship (Japanese ammunition ship Kashino and HMAS Heros for example). That said, I'd encourage you to re-list the article for assessment if you'd like another opinion on it; it's certainly a good article and I wouldn't be the slightest bit offended if you ask for a reassessment. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Locke
I've reverted your deletion to Matthew Locke's article page, please see the discussion page on that article for more info. Cheers JFonseka (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I covered much of what you're asking after in my comments on the most recent election page, I do have the further following comments:
 * I enjoy working with the other coordinators and members of the project. The quality of the project's work, and relative absence of drama, is highly satisfying.
 * At the last election I proposed splitting the main project talk page into a series of thematic pages due to the huge amounts of traffic it was receiving. I didn't try to implement this, however, as the number of posts dropped sharply and there was no longer a need for it
 * My main irritation with Wikipedia is the amount of latitude given to disruptive editors. Obvious POV pushers and edit warriors are given countless chances before being permanently blocked and too many admins are willing to reduce the blocks which are imposed. This discourages good editors, especially when they're hassled by these jerks. Banning IP editing is also long-overdue in my opinion as it encourages and facilitates vandalism (the process to sign up a new account is pretty painless, so I don't see it acting as a deterrent to casual good-quality editors).
 * My suggestions for the upcoming term are to develop some guidance for editors on common notability questions (eg, of military people and units - I intend to start drafts of these when I get back from holiday) and start work on rationalising the current set of task forces. Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I will eagerly await your proposals for TF reorganisation. Large tracts of military history are uncovered by a specialist task force. I wish you the very best in your re-election. AshLin (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Holiday
Have a nice one, Nick. Anywhere nice? Skinny87 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm going to the US for a few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of HMAS Melbourne up for deletion
Hi Nick, you might be interested in the discussion. - Nick Thorne  talk  05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WWII archive
Dear Nick,

I wanted to look through WWII talk page archive and found archices ##31, 32 are missing. Do you have any idea what happened? Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've had nothing to do with the page's automatic archiving. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean these archives were lost?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Very belated thank you
Hi Nick. I was thinking about it the other day, and I was absolutely horrified to remember that I do not award you anything&mdash;nor thank you properly&mdash;for all of the effort you put into the Tom Derrick article. I feel so very ashamed that all of this escaped my mind, and must have had you thinking all of your efforts went unrecognised. In truth, this is not the case. I cannot thank you enough for everything you put into that article, and without you it would by no means be as good as it is today. Again, I am so extremely sorry that your efforts went unrecognised, but I do wish to&mdash;very belatedly&mdash;present you with a little something as a thanks and token of my appreciation:


 * No worries - I really enjoyed working on it, and it's wonderful that it's a FA. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An FA that you were integral in developing. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Chuan-Ni ??? - WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force - Requested articles
Hi Nick, nice work blocking yourself, lol. A question I have for you is whether the Battle of Chuan-Ni referred to in the requested articles of WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force, is actually supposed to be the Battle of Chuam-ni. I cannot find any information on the Battle of Chuan-Ni. I believe that User:Anotherclown may be the person who added the Battle of Chuan-Ni? I have left same message on Anotherclown's talk page. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Western Wolves FC
Im going to create the article again, with so many references, what do i need to do to convince you. If you live in melbourne, play soccer and know soccer then you wouldnt delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoccerOnly (talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hist merge
Nick, are you able to do hist merges? Tata Advanced Systems Limited was cut-and-pasted to Tata Advanced Systems today. If you aren't able to do it, I can post at the Holding Pen. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bill, I don't know how to do history merges. Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks anyhow! - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Hat Dich
Hi Nick, wondering whether I can get your valued comment on Talk:Battle of Hat Dich regarding moving of article. See previous comments left by me. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't know anything about that battle, so I can't be of much use. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian Women at War
Hi mate, just wondering if you have Patsy Adam-Smith's Australian Women at War close at hand. I paid a quick visit to the Mitchell Library to see what there was on Mary Bell (Commandant Women's Air Training Corps who lost out to Clare Stevenson as Director WAAAF) for my next article, and then clean forgot to check the index for her while I was reading other interesting stuff. If you have it on you, so to speak, could you check if Bell's in there? If it's not convenient, don't worry, I can probably get along to the Mitchell again by Friday. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the book, so it's no hassle. I'm afraid that Mary Bell isn't mentioned. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, my subconscious knew something... No matter, I have enough to go on with elsewhere - many tks for checking and saving me a special trip! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm looking forward to this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucky day.
You want tips? How about straight from a guy that has done exactly what your wanting to ban more quickly with less effort? If you don't want to ruin your rep on Wikipedia then try one of Encyclopedia Dramatica's articles of vandalizing Wikipedia to look at their methods. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft engines
You asked if I was intending to write more of these articles; the answer is yes. Is there one in particular you're interested in?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really; I was just wondering if this was your next project. Keep up the good work! Nick-D (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got two books on them so I'm going through and picking out stuff of interest. No real plan involved, I'm afraid. I tend to be a bit ... Oooh, shiny!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm the same. The articles in the to-do list on my user page are probably those I'm least likely to work on! Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai‎
Hi Cla, if you have time, would you be able to have a look at the Battle of Morotai‎ article and let me know if you have any suggestions on how it could be further improved (or just add them yourself, of course!). I'm thinking of nominating this for FA status this weekend. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been awhile since I nominated an article for FAC, but from what I've observed lately many of the reviewers have really been focusing on minutiae, especially concerning images. I went through the images and tried to make the sourcing more clear on each image's Commons pages.  I see that you already have the alt text done, so that should take care of that.  I checked the footnotes and refs to make sure they were properly formatted and didn't see anything out of place.  So, I think as far as the MoS is concerned, it's good to go.  Prose-wise, I think it's excellent but I'm often surprised by what the reviewers come up with.  Good luck! Cla68 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I haven't forgotten about completing the upload of those Japanese heavy cruiser images and helping with using the Japanese naval war crimes book. I need to get the captions for the cruiser images translated before I upload them so I can give them the proper context.  Sorry for taking so long. Cla68 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that - I really appreciate it. I've found a copy of the Japanese war crimes book in a local library, but haven't made any use of it yet.

British Armoured Divisions
I just noticed your comment on creating a seperate article on this subject. Am willing to take the first step and set this article up however i have never created an article that wasnt focused on a military operation of some sort.

Is there any particular templates/infoboxes one would need to use and would a title of British Armoured Divisions during the Second World War surfice?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any infoboxes would be suitable and that title sounds good to me. I don't know if I'd recommend it as a good example, but you might be interested in Australian armoured units of World War II, which is one of the first articles I created, as a source of ideas on what to do (and not do!). Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips and the link to that article, i will get started.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Top Gun
Hi Nick, I saw you had been investigating Top Guns IPs and sockpuppets. Could you please check ? He made just one edit, but that was to reinstate the OR of LiquidOcelot24, another Top Gun sock. Thanks in advance. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. That's definitely Top Gun, and I've blocked the IP address. Please let me know if you spot any other edits from this guy. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Surviving Sabres
Just notice that you have moved List of surviving Sabres to avoid confusion with swords. The title was did not mention F-86 as it is intended to cover not only American, but Australian and Canadian Sabres which are not F-86s. Raised it at project for some opinions Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I've commented there. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone AfD
Hello Nick-D. I've left a question for you at the David Shankbone AfD. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Treloar
Happened to see your note on Bryce's talk. He may know better, but I'd have thoguht the mostly likely palce to find anythign would be his service record, but unfortunately, it appears his WWI record has been merged with his WWII record, so hasn't yet been digitised. David Underdown (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. His service record actually has been digitalised so that would be a good place to look, though, as David points out, it is mixed with his Second World War service. The AWM usually has digitalised copies of recommendations for honours and awards for the First World War, but unfortunately there is nothing there. Same again with the London Gazette entries on the awards; they only state he was awarded the honour, but not what for (MBE, OBE). The AIF Project also does not yeld much . Sorry I couldn't be of much help on this matter. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well found Bryce. Closest thing to a citation is on p102 for the MBE and p104 for the OBE.  Don't really shed much more light though.  David Underdown (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that guys. It's surprisingly that that information isn't available given that Treloar personally set up the relevant archives! Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

 * Congratulations! Good luck with being an admin - it can be a lot of trouble, but it's generally quite satisfying. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Lahtzanit
Hi there!

Thanks for assessing that article. The book I used, while indeed Egyptian, also relies on Israeli sources. However I'll see what I can do. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan
Excuse me, but why did you revert my edit? You said it was uncited. It wasn't. The number 836 that I put for the number of US dead was based on the icasualties.org site that is being used as reference number one in the article. The reference clearly states that 836 US soldiers died, check out the reference if you don't belive me. All of my updates were according to that site. The number of wounded Americans that I updated was per reference number two used in the article. Check it also out if you don't belive me. Also I fixed a mathematical error previous ediotrs made in the total number of dead in the table that breaks down per nationality the dead. What is uncited here? You wanted an explanation, I gave it to you, are we ok now? UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No citation is provided for the various totals or changes in British fatalities and Australian wounded. This article has a long-running problem with an editor who makes up their own totals on the basis of random media reports, so strong cites are needed. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want I can put the icasualties reference beside the number of dead in the table (which on a personal note I think should be done for all of the numbers in the table), but than again because of the * there will be a stylistic problem of bunching. As for the British and the Australians, the British update is based on the wikipedia article linked in that section that covers the British forces casualties and it is also based on this reference. And as for the Australians...well...that was uncited...I heared on an Australian news report a couple of days ago a reporter saying that a total of 87 soldiers have been wounded so I put it. This British MoD reference is missing from the article, I will put it so the British casualties update is better reference. Please stop reverting me. All of my updates are cited exept for the Australians casualties. Ok, I will not update again the number of wounded Australians until we can find a better reference...but all of the other updates are properly cited. Ok? :)UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, that news reported I mentioned, they were talking about some cool stuff about the SAS in action in Afghanistan, preaty cool. xDUrukHaiLoR (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the Net trying to search for that last update if we can find a reference, the Australians update, and I was only able to find a reference from a month ago that 83 (not even 84 as it says in this article) were wounded by than, after that I only found a few individual reports of several more soldiers being wounded. I wouldn't want to sum up the numbers in those few reports because there is a posibility that more soldiers were wounded between those reports and those incidents went unreported by the media, also I think it would go against WP: Synthesis. So I was thinking of maybe putting the reference which states 83 wounded into the article since the sentance which states the number of dead and wounded Australians, even though linked to an article that has references for that number, is itself not referenced in this one. Plus of course correct from 84 to 83 the number in the article so it would be in line with the reference. What do you think?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Hudgens protection
I was just going through my watchlist and I noticed heavy IP vandalism has resumed on the article. I thought you had done a three-month semi-protect on it after my RFP request but I saw that the three months was applied to moving the page, with only a week to the article itself. Was this intended?  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I meant to semi-protect the article for 3 months. I've just fixed this. Thanks a lot for the note. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMNZS Charles Upham

 * Congrats to us - a double header on the front page from the Australian MilHist contingent... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you as well for securing the top slot in the DYK update. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PD pics always give one an advantage...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Billabong Koala Park
Could you please explain your deletion of Billabong Koala Park, it is a wildlife park/zoo and is within the scope of WP:ZOO. It did not meet A7 criteria. website might help you. I would have appreciated it if i was notified of the delete.  Zoo Pro  03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article made no claim of any notability and did not include any references to reliable sources independent of the park. I'd be happy to post the material on the article in your user space at User:ZooPro/Billabong Koala Park so you can work on it if you'd like. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks that would be much appreciated. Regards  Zoo Pro  03:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done; The article is now at User:ZooPro/Billabong Koala Park Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking action on the use of the word "Paki" (message I had left on the Admin board). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian Corps
Any chances of finding some sources for this article? Buckshot06(prof) 02:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be zillions of potential references; I imagine that hundreds if not thousands of books have been written about the Corps. I just added links to the official histories Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

new page look-over please
Hi - I see you uploaded the photo of Roland Griffiths-Marsh parachuting. I've just made a stub for him but I'm not a military historian so would appreciate your input. Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Griffiths-Marsh, but that looks like a good little article! Don't forget to nominate it at T:TDYK. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed - this article looks great. My only real suggestion is that you might want to add the military person infobox to it. Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick and Ed - Thanks for your nice words: too short for DYK, I think - but what I meant was, are there any military howlers in it, mis-use of terminology and the like? I sort of skirt around military history with my Batu Lintang research, usually leave that to User:Grant65 so have a vague grasp, but am always unsure whether I'm misunderstanding/misquoting the military aspects.  Thought you might know more about him Nick as you uploaded the photo.  My interest in RG-M was piqued as I've heard he's going to be the subject of an Aus CHN 7 (?) documentary, but there's actually surprisingly little about him on the web.  I have a quote from Tom Harrisson about him, but won't add it to the stub as I think it might unbalance it too much towards North Borneo, my interest ...  By the way, do you think it's worth creating a category for Members of Z Special Unit? Jasper33 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All the military-talk looks good to me. I uploaded that photo to illustrate the No. 200 Flight RAAF article, and was unaware that the man in the photo was notable. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about his notability as far as the MM went - would that count on its own? What swung it for me was that he won two literary awards for his book, one of which was previously won by Peter Carey (twice - now that's just showing off).  As I'm in the UK I probably won't get to see the documentary, if it comes off, but he sounds like an interesting chap. Jasper33 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not; it's normally assumed that only the highest medal (the VC in this instance) leads to a person being certain of meeting WP:BIO. I agree that it's the literary awards which make him notable, though the documentary will definitely remove any doubt. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to put Waddy
Hi mate, interested in your opinion here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Forever!
You might remember me from the Emu War page, which segues nicely into the matter at hand - I think that in the spirit of our current fund drive banner, which in fact contains no link and serves solely as a statement, we should create a people's movement or perhaps a guerilla uprising: sanctioned with the task of maintaining this great Encyclopedia in the face of the dark world leaders who presumably seek to crush and abolish our beloved Wiki. We shall fight from the underground, valiant and steadfast, securing the freedom and longevity of our aforementioned beloved Wiki, and all shall remember our cry of... freedom! WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

We must create a project page and begin recruiting memembers at once! We already have a banner, a slogan, a core. We just need a secret place of meeting and perhaps a tag and the movement begins!

Your fellow in Wikipreservation, Some guy (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always wanted an excuse to become a rouge admin - this could be it! Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Make haste at once, forthwith and so-forth! Some guy (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Design 1047 battlecruiser
why was that unhelpful?
 * Because it added an unnecessary abbreviation which wasn't used anywhere else in the article. If you'd like to discuss this I'd suggest that you do so at Talk:Design 1047 battlecruiser so other editors can comment. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

the captions use it...and 'The 1047 was inferior in its armor protection' and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagschip (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your query here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Operation_Majestic_Titan -MBK004 on the iPhone 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * click MBK's link and read. Did you forget to reply to Slagschip's second comment, by the way? ;-)) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to shock you Ed, but I do log off the computer and do other things from time to time, and I make no appologies for reverting explained changes to FA articles by new editors which change the name of something in the text so it's different to all the other times its mentioned. Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick, I didn't mean to insult you. You've done nothing wrong, and I was not attempting to imply that you did. Just trying to make a (bad) joke... — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries Ed. The 'gotcha' aspect of this kind of experiment needs to be carefully managed though. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1913 proposal
Heh, thank you. :-) Conway's has no mention of a 1921 bill, however, and Google Books isn't showing me any preview with the book you added. Would you care to expand the rest of the article with info from that book when I'm done adding everything from Conway's? — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  Many thanks, 07:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the van Dijk book. (p. 124). Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I gathered that it was in the book, but the American (as opposed to the Aussie) doesn't show me a preview. :/ — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't realise that Google books differed by country. I'll add some more stuff when you run out of steam, but I don't really want to get into the Dutch military and political debate which van Dijk describes in detail. I think that there's enough material available on this proposal to support an A class article... Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and my university library has a copy of the book. Maybe I will develop a sudden interest in pre-WW1 Dutch military and political disputes ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha I wouldn't complain. ;-) If you do, would you like to work on Java-class cruiser as well (assuming the book covers it?) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not - I've got lots on my to-do list already and the chapter in the book is almost totally focused on the BBs. I'll see what happens though. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, no problem. Good luck with Australia, by the way. You may want to ping, who seems to have good sources on British battlecruisers (which I assume would apply in this case). — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep - see below (this is a very active project!). Australia was identical to the British ships as far as I'm aware, so the same sources should be relevant. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * L-o-l. Of course I posted a minute after him without realizing it. ;-)Cheers dude, —  Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please
The record shows that in August you deleted an article on a Ryan Bell under WP:CSD. I would appreciate your assistance in locating the discussion as to why the earlier article was deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the article's history I did it so that the Ryan Bell (basketball) could be moved there over a redirect. From looking at the pre and post move versions the content appears to have been the same. Why do you ask? Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From further investigation, this relates to Articles for deletion/Ryan Bell (2nd nomination). The Ryan Bell] article was at the time a disambiguation page contianing a blue link to [[Ryan Bell (basketball) and a red link to Ryan Bell (naval officer). The article on the naval officer has never been created, so the AfD was unessessary as this was an uncontroversial administrative change. I hope that helps. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

HMAS Australia
I just noticed that you're going to work on the BC Australia. Just wanted to let you know that I'm working on the Indefatigable-class article and can help with technical specs, etc. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw that you had the article checked out. I don't have any sources on Australia's specifications or construction, so I'll need to rely on what you find. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Castle/archive1
I have replied to your concerns at the above FAC. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Scherg
Hi mate, having finally got through what I think is probably my magnum opus here, I'll naturally be taking it through A/FA review shortly. Still have some tidying of image licensing, MOS and all text to do over next day or so, so if you have a chance I'd welcome any comments as a sort of stealth peer review (no obligation!). Be interested particularly in whether you feel I've hit the mark contextually on the 1TAF, Confrontation and Vietnam episodes, if you think there's too much anecdotal stuff in the Early Career section, and how the Legacy section flows. Obviously I think I've pretty well got it after much redrafting and rearranging of info but an extra pair of eyes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries Ian, I'll have a look at it today. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Many tks - last thing is if you reckon there's any good 'background' pics out there that'd be appropriate as it's a tiny bit threadbare in the image department for its size due licensing issues (would love to have found a "1RAR in 'nam" pic for instance but couldn't spot any). Failing that I could possibly chuck in a Mirage or something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. If you have time, would you be able to have a look-in at the Battle of Morotai article? - I'd like to take it to FAC as soon as my current one finishes, but I think it needs a second pair of eyes on it first (the second half of the article in particular). Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, should be able in next 24h or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the article's talk page. It's a great bit of work. Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted and responded there - much appreciated, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Morotai reviewed and comments on talk page - excellent as usual, just formatting-type issues... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties
Hi. Just to see there wasn't any misunderstanding. In the World War II casualties, I added the total range of 22,054,000 to 25,854,000 deaths in the Soviet Union just based on the numbers in the table, 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 soldiers, 12,254,000 to 14,154,000 civilians and 1,000,000 Holocaust victims. Unless I'm missing something? Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you label such a significant change a minor edit and not use an edit summary? I don't see where the figures of 22,054,000 to 25,854,000 come from in the Soviet casualties table - it sums to a total of 26,600,000. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed it just was a mistake in the article, since it was a single number of total deaths but an range of numbers in soldiers/civilians. My bad. Since the number in the table show a range from 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 soldiers killed and a range of 12,254,000 to 14,154,000 civilians killed shouldn't you, like with the other numbers in the article where there are a range of numbers, add up the the low estimates (8,800,000 soldiers, 12,254,000 civilians and 1,000,000 Holocaust victims, 22,054,000 total) and the high estimates (10,700,000 soldiers, 14,154,000 civilians and 1,000,000 Holocaust victims, 25,854,000 total). I find it hard to see how you can't at least see where I'm coming from with these numbers. It's another thing if they are incorrect, then of course it shouldn't be used, but then I would like to know how. Where does the 23,954,000 number currently in the article come from as well? Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. This should be discussed on the article's talk page so that other editors can comment (User:Woogie10w is the most likely to know where all the numbers are sourced from and be able to check these sources). Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Nick D (or anyone who's read A War atHome
Asked here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bombing_of_Darwin#Questions_for_Nick_D_.28or_anyone_who.E2.80.99s_read_A_War_at_Home.29

Thought it would be best to let you know Lenbrazil (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination)
Hello! Concerning this article, please see here, i.e. the specific topic is the title of at least one book. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but that book appears to have been generated from this Wikipedia article - when you zoom in on the title page (see ) it states that it contains 'high quality content by Wikipedia articles'). Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of articles relating to the Sydney-Kormoran battle
As a major contributor to Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, HMAS Sydney (D48) (formerly "HMAS Sydney (1934)") and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, I am asking for your opinion on my expansion/improvement of these three articles. Before I start the climb towards a possible FA nomination, I was hoping you could have a look at the articles' current conditions and make a few observations (either here, on my talk page, or on the relevant article's talk page).

For transperancy, this expansion was prompted by a desire to get the articles looking solid before they appeared in "On This Day" (the entry for the battle was scrubbed a couple of days ago in favour of another WWII event). The article for Kormoran is not yet complete: content relating to the post-war searches and rediscovery needs to be expanded and cited, and will be updated in the next few days. -- saberwyn 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll have a look at them over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please email me
Please erase that as soon you note it down Lenbrazil (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a policy of only talking about articles on their talk page so that other people can join in. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask you if as a favor you could scan and e-mail the applicable pages of the Lewis book to me. It is out of print and sells for over $140 (plus postage) nor is it available in any Brazilian libraries. As a token of my appreciation I could send you (via snail mail) a woodblock print by J.Borges who has works in a few museums including the Lourve and US Library of Congress.

http://picturedigger.com/ims/album.php?u_id=452xeY1W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbrazil (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm afraid that I don't have a scanner. I'd suggest that you try an inter-library loan if none of your local libraries has a copy. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

 * Thanks Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Front discussions
I give up Spain. Majority decision.

You warned me over quoting opponent's name, unfair. We two previously agreed to discuss dispute with each other on the discussion page, quoting meant no offense, just to show whose PoVs I was counterproving.

It's your right to oppose my PoVs. But opposition while claiming not to go though opponent's PoVs is too arrogant. If you think my PoVs are unworthy to read, then don't bother responding. Nor will I welcome so.

Hope we won't have any more words. Vulturedroid (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Best regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vulturedroid. To quote someone's name and to target the editor, not a content are two different things. However, I am grateful for your support of my point of of view, especially for providing a source supporting the statement that the Shirer's book is outdated.


 * As Wikipedia articles are shared by everyone it seems a bit odd to seek to limit a discussion on their content to just two people. You both should have sought external views on this dispute. Nick-D (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your external view was very helpful, of course. My point was that, since Vulturedroid and I were involved in extensive discussion previously (and other editors abstained from participation in it), his direct addressing to me was just a consequence of that fact. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK; it appeared rude to me. Nick-D (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that. It was not my intention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks
You're welcome, it's my pleasure! A pair more to come.--Outisnn (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty
I have engaged a procedure for amending Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.
 * See Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.

I construe the process to require me to notify you; but of course, you are not required to do anything. --Tenmei (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Abbott
Already saw it :) Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rude edit summaries
I am sure Timeshift9 has a thick enough skin. --Surturz (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Turnbull
First you say the ETS wasn't the issue with the leadership motion, now you are pushing the ETS-leadership in the lead. What gives?? --Surturz (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe order of battle
Hi Nick, yes you are right about Task Force 74.1 being a covering force. It only covered the landing for the first day and then returned to Milne Bay, where it then with Task Force 74.2 covered the landing as part of the Battle of Cape Gloucester on December 26, 1943. I have also done some research and found the following also participated: USS PC-1119, PT 110, PT 138, SC-747, LST-453, and First Resupply Eschleon LCT consisting of LCT's 88, 378, 380, 382, 384, 386 and 387 with escort force of Apc 21, YMS 50 and SC 743. USS APc-21 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 17 December 1943, USS APc-15 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 27 December 1943. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also USS APc-2 was sunk by dive bomber, off New Britain (06 d. 12' S., 149 d. 03' E). Newm30 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that information. What sources are you using? Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources= Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * APc-2, APc-15 and APc-21 (Conflicting information from this source relating to sinking/damage of USS APc-15, see APc-15.
 * APc-21
 * LCT 380 Operations
 * www.j-aircraft.com (Interesting source for USAAF, RAAF and JAAF squadrons involved.)
 * 19. PLANES AT ARAWE - PT-110 and PT-138
 * p376 Breaking the Bismarcks Barrier
 * Another source=592nd Engineer Boat and Short Regiment, 2nd Engineer Special Brigade Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very interesting read. Splinter fleet: the wooden subchasers of World War II
 * Thanks for that. I'm going to start reworking the Battle of Arawe article at User:Nick-D/Drafts8 as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems. I have just found a source Disposition:, on small transport craft that states that APc-2 and APc-15 were sold off in 1947. It would appear that they only damaged by the air attacks and not sunk. (APc-2 damaged at 06°12'S, 149°03'E and APc-15 at 06°12'S, 149°03'E). I have also created a stub article on USS APc-21. The Battle of Arawe and the Battle of Cape Gloucester need reworking and expansion. Newm30 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Emu War
I thought that was something from jokesters like this guy. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably was, but the military history categorisation is valid in my view as this was an incident which involved the Australian military and was authorised by the Defence minister. I hope that the GA nomination is successful. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge and LaRouche
A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Chronicle
Just letting you know I have expanded Operation Chronicle, let me know what you think. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks excellent. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Turnbull bullshit
Turnbull's "bullshit" quote really isn't notable. His support of the ETS is already covered in the Abbott article. It might be notable in Turnbull's own article. --Surturz (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree; it's a pretty extraordinary action for a recently deposed opposition leader to take. I'd suggest that you discuss this on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:ANI
I was out of line here, having been off for so long I panicked and posted here when the post really did not need to be made here. I have apologized to the users at ANI and, and to Damwiki1. I signed on briefly to leave the messages. Thanks your for the critical response, I appreciate it. I am off again until Wednesday, then I should be back for the rest of the month. Stay safe, Nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I deserved that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of RQ-170 Sentinel
Hello! Your submission of RQ-170 Sentinel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools Debate Popping Up Again
You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) since you were one of the editors involved in the WP:SCHOOLS debate. I just figured you'd have an opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 07:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I've responded there. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for RQ-170 Sentinel

 * For a minute there, I thought that the grokstats counter was saying your DYK got 110,800 hits, which would have been an all-time DYK record! Then it dawned on me that the high volume arrived two days prior to your article going live on the main page, in step with a USAF announcement and extensive blog/news interest. :/
 * Good article, though! Nice work. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those nice comments. It was still one of the highest-viewed DYKs of the month so far - though I imagine that many of these views were still coming from news reports rather than the front page ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

23prootie
Oh surprise surprise. Not quite one of wikipedia's finest - in my humble opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He is permanently blocked now though (at last!). Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oz new arts
sure looks like the alex bot lives - but the project manually created new page update looks like a thing of the past -

Re SMU Santa Maria 1, Cirebon, Jawa Barat‎‎ - I would have tried possible translation if there was any attempt at providing mention of a notable alumni (it is ironic they claim they have had em - but no specific individual is mentioned) - or some aspect of the schools role in javanese indonesian history or whatever - but my rushed read suggest not of that domain SatuSuro 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Alex newbot's owner needs to press the button to make it work each day, so it doesn't run when they're on holiday. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rape during the occupation of Japan
Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan I restored the deleted sections from page history. Can we discuss WP:NPOV issue about Australian troops and WP:RS issue about a reference. Whether you are POV or acted wrong by lack of knowledge, all editor's opinion matters. And if you provide the RS objecting parties original quotes, I will add them, instead removing all paragraphs, to balance the section for better NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As you plainly haven't bothered to read my talk page comments to date (in which I provided the page numbers you ask for several weeks ago), clearly haven't looked at the references to the stuff you've re-added (as a hint, Peter Schrijvers clearly didn't write the quote which is being attributed to him - several other citations also clearly don't support the statements they're being used to reference), have re-added material that's out of place or has no bearing on the topic of the article and still have the gall to declare that I've been editing in bad faith, I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage with you. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal issue, but a historical truth issue. You gave "Gerster, Robin (2008) Travels in Atomic Sunshine" as a source in talk page which I do not own, in a commentary style. What I require is non touched blockquotes from sources, not your interpretation over the text which you didn't provide. Also, as far as I can tell another user objected your arguments in talk page, if I am not mistaken. By the way, I read your points in talk page, that is why I ask you to provide blockquotes from the books, so we can add them as a balancing counter-source. Yet, you are utterly wrong about removing allegations, factual details, and removing even a peer reviewed academic journal as non-RS. Moreover, the claim about "false testimonies" do not solidly prove the testimonies are false. For NPOV we can only provide both contradicting sources in the section, so that each claim balance each other. There is no good faith I can assume for replacing "330 rapes a day" with "low number of rapes" by removing "330 rapes a day" from the context. If anyone makes such a critical mistake in a history article I call the case POV or Censorship, which is not an insult and much better than calling their judgment or understanding capabilities are weak, in my opinion. As a reminder, you even censored the allied forces censorship section. If it is uncivil maybe so, but we can tell what civility may do in both Japan, US and other WWII countries cases anyway. Again as I said, POV or UNCIVIL (as being I called), every editors' opinion counts for me, and the truth matters not personal opinions. Just provide the original paragraphs so we can all evaluate them and leave the discussion to the article talk page so we can end the dispute in an academical way. Kasaalan (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the statement wrongfully attributed to Peter Schrijvers is still in the article makes me wonder about your interest in persuing accuracy ;) I re-wrote the stuff about censorship policy (in this edit) as it was largely irrelevant to this article - the fact that reports of rapes were not allowed to be published is highly relevant, but it needs to be put in the context of the supression of reports of other issues and discussion of how the censorship policy operated belongs in the Occupation of Japan article, not here. In regards to Dower, from memory, the footnote which includes the figures for daily rapes was actually provided to support the statement in the body of the book that the incidence of rapes was low - I need to double check this though (I don't own a copy of the book so will need to re-borrow it from the library, which will take at least a few days and may have to wait until after Christmas). In the edit I made relating to Dower, I added his statement that the number of rapes was low as well as maintained the statement that the number when up after prostitution was decriminalised, so your claims about me "censoring" this are careless. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am not a native English speaker, so time to time I cannot pinpoint what you mean. As far as I understand you say a quote wrongly attributed to Peter Schrijvers, which he quoted from someone else. Just provide a line about it, make a proposal or edit the article yourself, without removing the quote, so we can handle the issue. I noticed the other editor, but he didn't reply yet. Censorship of US allies part is highly relevant, because if even mentioning the censorship is censored, you may easily guess what would happen if any rape cases occur. As long as you provide a scan of the relevant pages or direct blockquotes texts consider the objecting source will be in as balance. But again a single source against multiple ones cannot justify removal of claims of others. For NPOV we should add both sides claims. Thanks for your help and bothering to answer. Possibly I am not the most CIVIL editor around, mostly because I am a bit careless about Personal Relations, yet too strict about facts at history and social issues like rape, abuse etc. cases, especially against removal of facts or references as inclusionist. On the other hand, I also respect whoever bothers to go to a library and borrows a book for Wikipedia. Peace. Kasaalan (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just removed it from the article, which is what you should have done if you'd taken the time to check the source - which is even online. I'll explain why on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Process for inappropriate user pages
Nick, do you know what the process is for removing inappropriate user pages? I'm thinking of User:DFR(RAAF), which is a copy of the deleted Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, and may be inapproprite as advertising. -- saberwyn 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They can be nominated for deletion through Miscellany for deletion. Note, however, that there's typically resistance to deleting user pages unless they're a copyright violation, attack page or clearly advertising (as appears to be the case here) so you might need to make a strong case for deletion - pointing to the AfD should help. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Okinawa
In the edit comments of your removal of a sentence from the Battle of Okinawa, you said that the claim wasn't made in the source. By my reading, it is made almost verbatim. "rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women."

Hohum (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The book covered by the review doesn't make the claim that rape was a "general practice" - this is the reviewer's view, for which he provides no source whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can read the book further or provide texts of it you may join discussions at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan. Kasaalan (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that the page was a review. It would make a lot more sense to change the citation to the book itself, with a page number. Hohum (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I borrowed the book about 18 months ago to look for the page number when an editor first started to add this material to other articles, but was unable to find it anywhere in the book - other claims made in the review are also not supported by the book. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ausairpower not a reliable source?
Nick, would you mind revieing this edit, and the [ similar edits on F-15- and F-18-related articles by User:Hcobb? I'm not sure he isn't just having a knee-jerk reaction to information that is not certain one way or the other, and it seems he is calling the publication unriliable based on one story. Anyway, I figue you should have a more informed veiw of the sources reliability. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill. I'm in two minds about this. One one hand, the ausairpower site exists to promote the views of the site's authors and its analyses are, in my view, biased and unreliable as a result. On the other hand, the authors of the website have published large numbers of articles in Australian defence magazines and seem to have appropriate credentials (though I suspect that their articles are provided to the magazines free of charge). My inclination is to regard the website as an unreliable source as it is self-published and has a strong emphasis on advocacy, but other editors may have different views - I think that this would be best discussed at WT:AIR. Merry Christmas by the way! Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I was condisering doing that anyway, but since you were around, I thought I'd ask you first. Hcobb, however, seems to be basing its unreliability simply because he disagrees with them! That's not quite the same thing. And thanks, and Merry Christmas to you and yours. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian military articles...
Nick

You're correct in saying the problem with translating from WP ID is the lack of sources used on wikipedia Indonesia. I don't believe anything should be added to wikipedia without a RS, and that includes translating from WP ID. I hadn't really given much thought to basing notability on the existence of RS. But, the existence or otherwise of RS is only one of a number of factors to consider when establishing notability.

Not sure if any of that helps. --Merbabu (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As for my opinion - as I say at the milhist talkpage - the issue is whether WP N over-rides WP RS - If it doesthey should be stubs without bulk of uncitable crap which we get regularly.

The other very big problem is the amazing capacity and urge on the part of established and IP editors to make lists on WP Indonesia en - of names of things - with no backup of RS or cites or anything. The project is littered with WP UNDUE lists - with not a link or cite in sight. It makes the project look like the product of paranoid new order era officials too frightened to make a statement about anything - so a list of names of things is better than nothing - bollocks SatuSuro 07:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks both for your input. Buckshot's suggestion of a list of Indonesian infantry battalions sounds like a good idea to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing - the over-large Indonesian military article got separated into the different forces - if it was possible to keep the same theme in new lists/articles - so that there are no-oversized lists again- referenced or not - it would be appreciated if any effort was made in that direction SatuSuro 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am afraid we are not off to a good start - stubs with no WPRS and limited content. SatuSuro 08:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

COI/ownership issues
Nick, would you mind looking at Langley Flying School? The problem should be evident from reading the history and talk pages. I'm supposed to be going to bed, so it'll be awhile before I can respond. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just protected the article for a week and warned the other editor. I think that you should have sought external input over this earlier though - you're both in breach of the 3RR. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This person claims to be the founder/owner of the company. ANy actions I took were in the intersts of protecting WP. I'm sorry you think I was merely edit warring, but that isn't the case here. I did stop reverting the content once it was apparent he wouldn't stop, and I stopped revert his removal of the tags when it was apparent he wouldn't stop. I considered these separate types of edits, so I was counting 3RR separately. Consider me warned for 3RR in any case! I contacted you as soon as I noticed you being active on my watchlist, and I did contact WTAIR before that. I don't use ANI, as it's been a waste of my time in the past. Thanks for stepping in. Even when we disagree, I still respect you as an admin, and will continue to call on you as long as the door is open for me to do so. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries Bill - it was clear that you were editing to protect Wikipedia from someone who wants to use it to advertise their own company (which may not meet WP:ORG). The point I was trying to make is that 3RR is a black and white rule (the policy page calls it a 'Bright-line rule') and that repeatedly reverting anything other than clear vandalism, copyvios or the addition of libelous material can lead to a block, regardless of the reasons for the reverts, and that other admins may have imposed sanctions on both of you. I think that I should have gone into greater depth in my above post though as it was a bit abrupt. Regards, (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I said, I consider myself warned! I'll be more careful in the future. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Articles
Hey Nick-D, i have been researching the East African Campaign of World War One and noticed that today someone created around 10 stubs about real battles that are all identicle and contain bogus information. Battle of Kibata (1917), Battle of Kibata (1916), Battle of Matamondo, Battle of Mkalamo, Battle of Kahe, Battle of Mpotona, Battle of Narungombe and about a half dozen more. It looks like they were all created by User:Starzynka. They all should probably be deleted as they all contain the same information and besides the names are completely bogus..XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that there isn't a speedy deletion category these fall into - a battle is a claim of notability, and they're not sufficiently clear-cut hoaxes for the vandalism criterion to apply (they could conceivably be minor skirmishes or something, for example - though I think that you're right). I'd suggest prod deleting or AfDing them. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Germans did not come into contact with Portuguese forces until late 1917, many of the battles listed occured in 1916 and were in German East Africa fighting British and Belgian Colonial forces. The source listed on every single article is contrary to what is listed on the pages created. What is prod deleting?XavierGreen (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Nick. Xavier Green, a prod is WP:Proposed Deletion; take a look at what I've done to Battle of Mkalamo. Cheers and Happy New Year.. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Buckshot. Xavier, as that editor's talk page shows a number of complaints about creating content under the wrong name or duplicating existing content and they're creating articles on other topics which are unsourced but may be OK, I don't feel comfortable about zapping these as hoaxes at the moment - is the 1922 The Encyclopædia Britannica online? Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea you can check it out at []. Every single one of the battles he created is likely a real battle. However all of the information is inaccurate as they were all fought before the German invasion of Portuguese East Africa. If you need more sources i can provide them. He literally just copied part of the infobox and the first line of text from the article Battle of Ngomano which i had just created today. The only thing in each article that is correct is the name of the battles as he took them from the campaign box where they were previously redlinked.XavierGreen (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I'd suggest converting the battles which can be verified to redirects to the relevant campaign and prod deleting or AfDing the ones which can't be verified. This is very poor editing on Starzynka's part, but I don't think that it's something where admin intervention beyond warning the editor to not do it again is appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but why would you red link these battles if they were non existent? If they never happened who was the fool who red linked them in the template?. The last editor of the template, Xavier is to blame. It is very poor editing on his part that he didn't remove the "hoax" links. Try assuming good faith on my part.Starzynka (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The names of the battles are real, all of the information you put in them is false. The Germans did not fight the portuguese in east africa until late 1917. Virtually all of the battles you created articles for happened in diffrent places, different times, and with different belligerents than you have listed. Did you even read the source that you listed on each of the stubs?XavierGreen (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. But if the battles actually happened tagging them for deletion is pointless. Please quickly correct the errors and I hope they will develop into good articles.Starzynka (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that you created the articles, why don't you take responsibility for fixing them? Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been removing the prod tags, on the basis that I as reviewing administrator, cannot tell which ones were real and which were not. If the battles are real butthe description is wrong, just fix them, or redirect them to the correct article.  If they are not real, take them to AfD with some evidence of that beyond your own personal knowledge of that.
 * That's pretty unhelpful DGG; as described above, every detail of the battles other than their name is wrong, and they need to be re-written from scratch. I hope that you help out with this effort. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Myself and another editor have removed the majority of the incorrect information. There is very little left in the articles, most simply only having the name of the battle and stating it was a battle of the German east africa campaign. So far only one of the battles has been verified by an additional source. The infoboxes are just empty shells.XavierGreen (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette noticeboard
Hello Nick, I just noticed that you commented on the wikiquette page and I was wondering if you could please look at my post about User Chhe. Thanks so much, Malke  2010  03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, too, Nick. I'll try to do better on this too. Note that the dude is banned from It.wiki for behavioral and editing issues. His poor language skills are just a part of his WP problems, but it sure doesn't help! I should have posted a note on the Bell 222 page the day I deleted his "contribution". I'll endevor to behave better myself. - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries Bill - you were pretty massively provoked by that editor. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

F-111B
Thanks for the kind words! What do you think of a separate article for the F-111C "Pig"? Do you think there's enough material out there to justify having it on it's own page? - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely - the delayed procurement of the aircraft was a major political scandal for about 10 years in Australia (the aircraft were seen as too complex and too American for the RAAF and they spent years in hangers in Texas due to technical problems), and this generated huge amounts of media coverage, and several books and chapters of books have been written on the aircraft's subsequent service (which is generally agreed to have been outstanding and well worth their cost and delays). An alternative could be General Dynamics F-111 in Australian service, which could also cover Australian use of F-111Gs and provide more room for the political issues surrounding the aircraft. I'd be happy to help out with either option. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I remember, the RAAF leased F-4s in the interim, and the RAAF pilots loved them, and wished they could keep them. Other than range and perhaps payload, the F-4 was probably a better aircraft in most ways. Interestingly, the F/A-18F is in some ways a modern F-4, and even goes by the radio callsign "Rhino", a common F-4 nickname, on USN carriers.


 * As to format and title, variant articles do often cover other models, such as the F-15E Strike Eagle's coverage of the F-15I, S, and SG. Granted the G will be covered on the main page too (unless we split off the FB-111), but I think it will work. Be aware that it took 9 months for this one to get done, and that is thanks to Jeff's hard work on the text. I can set up a sandbox page, and we can see how it takes shape. If we think it would work better as a history articel rather than an aircraft vartian article, we can always change the focus mid-stream. The CF-18 and CH-124 article both devote large portions of the articles to political issues, and I think they work quite well. I split the CH-124 Sea King page off of the BilCat (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The sandbox is up at User:BilCat/Sandbox/General Dynamics F-111C‎. Also, do you have any ideaa when the F-111C retirement is scheduled for? I've seen 2010, but nothing more specific than that. I don't know how much time we have to prepare, but it might be nice to have the article ready for FA when it retires, or at least something suitable for "In the News". If it's sooner rather than later, I could make it a priority to get it to mainspace, but sheperding it to FA status is something beyond my current capabilities. I'm not trying to over-reach with the suggestion, but as I said, it would be nice, and a fitting fairwell, I would hope. - BilCat (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that approach sounds good Bill. The aircraft will be retired in December 2010. According to F-111.net, ceremonies to mark their retirement will be held on 2 and 3 December, so I guess that 3 December will be the last flying day. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That gives us a chance to get something done without haveing to hurry too much. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have specific questions, such as on specs, but we can discuss that at User talk:BilCat/Sandbox/General Dynamics F-111C. (And thanks for the help with the IP hounder - I did try real hard to behave this time!) - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SEA
I see the SEA taskforce tag for the template appears to not work - as it was a field of operation of its own - and is considered the actual source of the use of the phrase SEA as well - I have started a sub cat of mil hist of asia - which I consider an abomination of a category - I hope you support such a move - the cat tagging and management in milhist stinks - looks like no one has thought about it for years - cheers SatuSuro 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - most of milhist's category tree hasn't been maintained and there's scope for improvement. On the other hand, it is rather massive. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well who is the whatto of category trees in the project - or is it a default to nothing issue - theyre all interested in battles ? :) SatuSuro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also get rather nervous when I see things like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Asia - is that really a viable item? I wonder whether someone needs to have a close look at items like that and have a good think.... SatuSuro 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that the military history of continents series of articles are ridiculous. Military history of Europe sort-of makes sense, but all the other continents have had hugely diverse military histories (eg, what does the military history of Syria have to do with the military history of Japan?). Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the Asia category in milhist should be disassembled as a priority - see what I have done for SEA SatuSuro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I bit the bullet - so to speak - I would be very interested in your opinion as to whether it was the right way to go - please feel free to criticise the way I have gone if it seems the wrong way to do it - I am hoping for some intelligent debate to follow on from the proposals for deletion SatuSuro 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn the Afd and Cfd before it even got under way - I remain totally unconvinced that the issue will be resolved - it is a case of wait and see SatuSuro 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Batalyon Raiders
Would you mind taking a look at my investigation of this article and, as an additional admin, take any measures you see fit? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Jclemens beat me to it. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Help, please
Can you help with this? . This editor seems out of control. There's no reasoning with him. The threads have been archived by Jade Falcon. Please, this man needs a break from editing. Malke 2010  03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

delete
You proposed deletion on an article that I wrote quite a bit (prod). This is a similar article that is most deserving of your wrath. Consider removing your prod from the 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan and moving that prod to this one International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament JB50000 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate it for deletion yourself, though it would probably survive as the commission has been going for some time now, thereby generating coverage in the media, etc, over a long period of time. I didn't place the prod deletion on the Kevin Rudd article BTW - I merely endorsed it. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you are going to try to delete it in a few days? JB50000 (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete what? I personally think that the Kevin Rudd visit article should be deleted, but the article on the commission is OK. Those are just my views though. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. Are you personally going to attempt to delete the article or seek it's deletion should an AFD be filed?  This is important because I may not work on an article if I think someone is going to throw it in the trash.  I will not call you nasty names if you do say this is your plan, but I would like to know.  Thank you. JB50000 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but User:Timeshift has said that they will. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may add, articles cannot be summarily deleted except in spoecific cases where they are elligible for Speedy Deletion, such as direct copyvios, vandalism, obvious hoaxes, and the like. Prods (proposed deletions) are inteded to be a quick way to delete an article that is not eligible for a speedy deletion, but can be contested simply by removing the Prods. This sends an articel to the AFD process, were discussions are held to reach a consensus (not a vote system). Only if there is a clear consensus to delete can an article then be deleted, and that is done by an editor, often an administrator, that is not involved on the discussion.


 * Almost every experienced editor has had articles sent to AFD, and has had a few deleted that way. I have, and I'm fairly certain Nick has too. An AFD can be a painful process, for even though no editor "owns" wikipedia article, one still becomes quite attached to them, having spent a lot of time and energy in creating and improving the articles. SOme of this pain can be avoided by seeking opinions of experienced editors as to whether an artivcel should be created in the first place, of if the information would be better covered in existing articles. Be assured though that ab AFD is not generally an arbitrary process, and great though and consideration goes into the discussion. Even if an article is deleted, there is an appeals process if an editor still feels that the deletion was unwarranted. I hope this helps. Finally, look at this a a learning process, and learn what you can from it about how to improve articles. I learn more every day that I edit here, even though I've been here over 3 years.


 * Because the article does assert notability, and has 40 citations, I am removing the Prod. Whether or not the notability is questionable, or has not been sufficiently established, as asserted in the Prod, can be determined in an AFD, if one is filed. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Bill. I've had articles I've created and images I've uploaded deleted and it's not a big deal. In general, the system works well and articles sent to AfD are treated fairly - many editors have an aversion to deleting articles and look for ways to save them or at least to preserve the content in other articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)