User talk:Nick-D/Archive 7

Happy, happy

 * Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thank you very much for that! Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

World War II
Can you please discuss your changes on the article's talk page rather than edit war? Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly happened? You reverted my change, I then tweaked it for you, added more to the citation for you, and put it back, in an effort to work toward WP:CONS. Besides, we are having a discussion on the World War II talk page, where I've even stated I want to engage in re-wording the line with you. I have brought and have expanded on a citation, and have referred to further reading that I think you'll be interested in. I do it all with good will. This use of the term 'edit war' seems unfair. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for General Dynamics F-111C
Materialscientist (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I sent you an email. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal library question
Outside chance, but I thought I'd ask. Do you have any books in your substantial library on infantry weapons? I used to own a copy of Janes Infantry Weapons (1970-something) and I was wanting to look up what term they used for the German round used in the Gewehr 98 and Kar 98 rifles when I found I had got rid of it at a carboot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not... Guns aren't really my thing I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the quick answer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 * Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands
Dravecky (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

invite
You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Manar Group
Articles for deletion/Manar Group, Looks ready to close, would you like to visit again? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

 * Thanks Kirill Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of photo
I noticed you deleted the spring weather photo from the Sydney article claiming that it was a photo shopped version of the other photo that you pointed out. This is not the case, they are two different photos taken on different days from the same location, you need to check the dates in the camera data, they are about a month apart. If a photo has gone through photo shop the meta data would state this. Check the data for this photo, this is the main photo for the Sydney article, it is also a featured photo and you will find that this has been through photo shop. If my image had been through photo shop the way that you claim it never would have been nominated as a quality image. Also if you look at the waves breaking against the cliff side in either photo you will notice that formations are different and the photo without clouds was taken from a different vantage point as the bushes are not obstructing the view of the cliff. Would you say this has bee through photo shop. Thanks ***Adam*** 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see how File:Dover Heights, New South Wales 2.jpg is a photoshopped version of File:Dover cliff tops.jpg, I can tell the angle is different (same location but not the same spot). Also I'm assuming that Adam is using a polarizer filter on his camera as it is the same effect I get. Bidgee (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK no worries. File:Dover Heights, New South Wales 2.jpg is identified in its commons record as being a version of File:Dover cliff tops.jpg and the clouds look a bit odd so I assumed that it was a modified version of the original. Thank you both for setting me right. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't use any filters just the lens itself, the clouds may look unusual due to the fact that it is a stitched panorama, in height and in width. I took the first row with the camera facing up and the lower level with the camera facing down to the water, there is about 15 shots all up from what I can remember. Clouds may also look unusual due to the fact that it is higher up and the clouds look as though they are heading towards the lens of the camera. Also do you think there may be a use for the sub photo that I have linked above. Cheers. ***Adam*** 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That explains it, reason why I said assumed as I thought that there could be another possibility. (Sorry to Nick-D for hijacking his talk page) I've taken the next step of panoramas by trying to do a Equirectangulars (360x180) but it isn't going too well without a panohead. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No-worries, good luck with the panos, I just did a quick google and found this page on flickr. You can press play and watch the whole thing as a slide show, check it out. I might even give it a go myself later on but I am not to keen on warped panoramas these days. I think this one of my own a 60 photo stitch might be close. Cheers. ***Adam*** 05:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

76SQN
Hi mate, no doubt this is on your list but just a prod that it could really use the same sort of treatment you gave 75/79SQNs sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...I was thinking the same thing yesterday ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice straightforward division of labour here -- you take care of the squadrons (viz. 76), and I'll take care of their notable commanders (viz. Turnbull)... ;-) I did have Alan Rawlinson next on the list but he's proving a bit more of a challenge now I find he left the RAAF in '46 and joined the RAF the next year, which is where the info starts to thin out. Did get his RAF commission/promotions/decorations from the Gazette -- he added an AFC and OBE to his wartime DFC & Bar but just what he did to earn those is anyone's guess -- looks like he commanded an RAF base according to Flight International archives and also heard he flew Meteors and Vampires (but not from a reliable source) and of course his NAA file stops in '46... I'll continue to investigate but if you come across any snippets of him post-war, let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. It seems that the RAF keeps its personnel files on a tight leash as well: so they're not likely to turn up online. Let me know if you spot any obscure Australian books which would be of use - the NLA will have a copy I can look up. The production of RAAF squadron articles has been slowed down a bit by me losing my copy of Steve Eather's Flying Squadrons of the Australian Defence Force book, but my current intention is to focus on the squadrons which are currently active on the grounds that they'll be of most interest to readers. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Mitchell has a copy of Eather so if you do as much as you can with the Concise Unit History and whatever other sources you have, I can occasionally check on Eather for you when necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I found my copy of Eather's book - hooray. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:


 * is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
 * Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship PR
Nick, I added a cultural significance section to the article that partially addresses the question you raised about the human side of the ships. I am still working on digging more information up for the human side, but I thought it important that I inform you that I finally had some success in addressing this point (I think so, anyway). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work Tom. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I replied to your comment. Veriss (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable commanders
Hi mate, suddenly got a burning desire to finish adding notable commanders (i.e. they have articles or they soon will) to RAAF squadron articles -- since some of my date ranges come from other than the Concise Unit History or Eather, pls let me know if you happen to find anything I add to be dubious as it may mean I have to update the relevant commander's bio... ;-) In fact you could help me straight away with 3SQN, as I find I have both Wrigley and Anderson commanding in 1918-19. ADB says Anderson led from Oct 1918 till he went sick in Jan 1919, so I guess it's possible Wrig commanded on either side of him in both years, but be interested in anything you have on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to AWM, looks like Wrig only commanded after Anderson, but still interested in dates you have from the two book. I'd always understood Wrig to have commanded 3 in combat but I now suspect he only flew with it (maybe as flight commander) during WWI and then led it post-war. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, Vol 2. of the RAAF Concise History gives 16 October 1918 as the date Anderson assumed command but the next commander listed is Lukis from 1 July 1925 (when the squadron was reformed)... (p. 6) The series is pretty patchy with recording acting commanders though. No. 3 Sqn's AFC-era war diaries are on the AWM website here and might be helpful if you haven't checked them - the entries for the last months of the war are big downloads! From a quick check, Wrigley signed the December 1918 war diary as the unit's commanding officer but the January 1919 diary gives 6 January as the day Wrigley temporarily assumed command. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef Full Protect on 1961 Indian annexation of Goa
Hi Nick. I was just reviewing indef fully protected articles to make sure no articles are protected that could possibly be semi'd or unprotected. I came across 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, and it looks like you meant to protect this for 3 days to stop an edit-war, but it remains indef protected. Just thought I'd bring your attention to it in case indef protection wasn't your intent. Hope you're having a great day! -- Gnowor TC 06:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops! Thank you for letting me know - I've just lifted the protection. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that allied warships came that close to Japan before the end of the war. Thanks for the good article! Location (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. It was an interesting article to research and write. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From memory, Garzke and Dulin have some information on the bombardments in both Allied Battleships and United States Battleships (User:The ed17/Library). I don't have them with me at college, but if you would like to take the article to FA in the future, I'd be happy to add references to those two over spring break or during/after May. (also, great article!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. I should be able to get my hands on that book at the Australian Defence Force Academy Library (from memory they've got a copy). Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. The article is looking great right now, can't wait to see it even better! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Purple Heart
For displaying grace under fire in the lead up to and during the World War II arbcom case I hereby present you with this purple heart. God knows you've earned with the all crap you've taken trying to keep things in order over there. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tom, and thanks also for your contribution to the case. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded :) On a related note, I'm not sure I'm really getting anywhere with User:Iqinn (see my talk page and their recent edits to the drone attacks article; they apparently know everything they need to know about editing policy and don't need any advice). I'll continue to keep an eye on the article but I'm usually off-'pedia over the weekend, so ANI/another admin may be your best bet if anything develops. Best, EyeSerene talk 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. That discussion on your talk page is consistent with Iqinn's standard conduct (eg, insisting that he or she is clearly right and everyone else is wrong while edit warring to push their preferred view of things). Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WikiCopter (t • c • g &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted - the copy edit is on my to-do list Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Military history B class assessments
Nick-D,

Yes I understand completely. I tend to stay away from "B-Class" criteria, because I feel it's upto someone else who know's what to look for otherwise, I'd make a mistake and possibly promote wrong ones or all of them! Rather help get them assessed for "B-Class", than leave them blank. As for any other Military History articles, that you would like me to look at, I'll do my best as for User:AustralianRupert is a little bit busy with the cleanup of the Brisbane flood. Thanks for the message. Adamdaley (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Aerial Battle of Taiwan-Okinawa
Could you please assist to suggest better name? How about "Aerial Battle of Taiwan Sea area" or "Aerial Battle in Sea area of Taiwan"? Are these better than the original name?--alberth2 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they're not good grammatically and there's no sea called the 'Taiwan Sea'. Can you please move this discussion to the article's talk page?

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I'll look into it. Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, feel free to ask me Nick. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Ed Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Minas Geraes-class battleship ACR
Hi, Nick, I'm trying to determine if WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Minas Geraes-class battleship can be closed as successful. Have your concerns been addressed? Would you mind stating on the review page whether you support its promotion or not? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, my comments have been addressed sufficiently for me to support the article's promotion - I've commented in the ACR. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL!
another reason why previewing edits is a good idea. Indeed ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the string of stuff ups was in one an article which is going to be very popular today ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Highland View Academy listed for deletion
I have listed Highland View Academy for deletion. I noticed you had participated in previous AfDs of high schools and thought you might participate. The discussion is located at Articles for deletion/Highland View Academy. WikiManOne (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. While this does look like another non-notable high school, unfortunately AfDs on high schools are always mobbed by editors who Google the school and proclaim that trivial media coverage in local media adds up to enough RS to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize that which is why I am notifying editors who have previously taken a more balanced approach to participate. As of yet there have been no comments and I would like to establish precedence for deletion of high schools with ridiculously low coverage and will never be anymore than a "start class" article at best. Welcome your thoughts. WikiManOne (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Northern Marianas raids
Hey Nick-d ive responded on the review page to your recent additions.XavierGreen (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey/2OTU
Hi mate, can I ask a favour -- the Mitchell Library has gone and lost Volume 8 of Units of the RAAF just as I was about to check Peter Jeffrey's dates as CO of 2OTU (later 2OCU), so would you be able to furnish those with page refs? I understand from other sources he had it the first time from Apr/May 42 until taking over 1 Wing from Caldwell in Sep 43, and then again from Oct/Nov 44 to Jun 46, but nice to get additional sourcing when you have a sec... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian, I'm afraid that I don't own that volume, so it will take a while for me to check that (within the week, with a bit of luck). Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I didn't know they could be got separately! No prob, the Mitchell has my mobile and has promosed to call if/when they find it so will let you know if it happens soon (BTW, if I don't get it first, also like to confirm when 2OTU moved from Mildura to Williamtown -- the RAAF website says Mar 43 but I've reason to be dubious about that, suspect it was May or after)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've bought my copies second hand, so I only own the ones on fighter units, bomber units, maritime and transport units and bases. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if I ever spot the training units volume, maybe I'll spring for that, 'cos you seem to have all the other key ones! Not too fussed on this now anyway, the most my current sources disagree on timings is a month so no big deal. Also don't worry about OTU at Williamtown, I think all that happened in Mar 43 was the Spitfire section moved to Williamtown; the HQ and the rest the unit appear to have remained at Mildura. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. I'm looking forward to seeing this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You and me both! This one was supposed to be a quick B/GA-level article but ended up taking ages, partly because I had to resort to microfiche in the State Library to locate even one obituary, then 'cos no two sources precisely agreed on his combat claims, and finally there just turned out to be more and more interesting things to write on him -- I don't think there's enough post-RAAF stuff for FA but reckon I'll take it to ACR to reward myself for the effort... BTW, your excellent 1WG article helped speeed up writing the Pacific section a bit, so tks for that as well as the quick B-Class assessment...! ;-) cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: the Mitchell rang today to say that they've found the Units training volume, so the set should now be complete once more... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent - and that's good service - the NLA didn't bother telling me on Saturday that some of the books I'd ordered were at their offsite storage facility and wouldn't be delivered until Monday. Who would have thought that obscure volumes of the US Stategic Bombing Survey dealing with naval bombardments would be in deep storage? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PSE check RMCDE source
Hi Nick,

I've added a source for the RMCDE article. Could you please check if this is sufficient?

thnx Hans de Haan (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Hans, that weblink doesn't seem to work Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently they are restructuring their site. I'll figure out where the page went Hans de Haan (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Included a temporary link to RMCDE information until the original page is back on-line Hans de Haan (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1
Hey Nick, thanks for the review. As always, your advice greatly helped the article's development into a FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries Ed - it's great to see such high quality articles on these battleships. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He's back
See User:61.68.175.113's contributions. Alos, his "debating style" seems similar to another problem user on WP, User:MickMacNee, though without the profanity, but with plenty of other PAa, particulary accusations of lying/falsehood on my part. A check user might be intereseting though I seriously doubt that he 'is'' Mick, he's clearly not a brand-new user, and may well have been banned/blocked before. I've also alerted Milb1 about this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've just warned about their rude comments. I don't have checkuser access, so you may wish to take this to WP:RFCU. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'm way past my sleep period, so I'll check into that later, if someones else hasn;t already. - BilCat (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Polish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Polish Polish casualties 23/01/2011 1 soldier and 1 civilian were killed when IED exploded under ROSOMAK APC ! Please don't cancel editions if u dont know what happened. http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1816230.html that 23th soldier and 1st civilian ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.165.246 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide sources when you add material to articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship Peer Review
The Iowa class battleship Peer Review will be closing in the next few days. If you have any additional comments, questions, suggestions, complaints, or advise on how to improve the article, or if you wish to strike any comments you believe to have been addressed, please do so now before the review closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

World War Two
I'm vaguely aware there was recently some kind of arbitration case with the WW2 article, and that it may be targeted by POV crusaders and other fruitcakes. The way I see it, you've admirably stepped up to the task of policing the article and guarding it from disruption. I'm sure I can speak for everyone when I say I am grateful to you for that.

At the same time, because you are an administrator your behaviour is under greater scrutiny rather than less - precisely because you are expected to set an example. You and user Stork Stark 7 have had a couple of minor conduct disagreements that I know of, and I have my own minor concern which I hope to resolve now. I hope that if you'll consider what I have to say, it might help reduce conflict at the article and be of benefit to you in the future.

Perhaps it is all because of the enthusiasm you have for maintaining order at WW2, but you have made me wonder about (i) your choice of words in Talk page discussion and (ii) your commitment to collegiality.

This is not a big deal and this is not a formal complaint. The moment that stuck out was an incident when you reverted my content, I then re-worded the content you reverted, and put it back again once. You then alleged I was 'edit warring'. I think that was a rash remark, and you meant I was 'editing rather than discussing'.

Per WP:RV, '' revert a good faith edit only as a last resort... Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. ''

Personally I adhere to the essay Restoring part of a reverted edit which states...

'' Restoring part of a reverted edit is a recommended practice in on-line collaborative writing. Often when an article version contains more than one disagreeable passage, it is easy to revert to a previous version. This gets rid of all the "mistakes" in a few seconds, but it also can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. ''

My understanding is that WP defines an 'edit war' as three blind reverts within a day. Please correct me if I'm wrong. More to the point, though the essay I've quoted above is just an essay, it recommends editors re-word removed content and put it back again, as a method of working toward consensus. When I told you I felt your 'edit-war' allegation was unfair, you replied it 'would have been better' if I'd discussed the content on the Talk page. That may have been so, but the fact remained that you had alleged 'edit warring'. I believe it would have been more persuasive if rather than reacting judgementally, you could have crossed out the allegation as an innocent mistake made in haste, and invite me to discuss the content with you. Instead, it appeared that you couldn't care less. In the real world, false accusations of misconduct which damage reputations can be considered libellous; at the same time rash comments can be retracted and forgiven.

You've used word 'normal' more than once. To my mind that is a volatile word which may not persuade editors to comply with you. It implies that your perspective is normal while others' are not. For example, you assert its 'normal' to always discuss changes on the WW2 Talk page first, before making changes. I'd suggest it would be more persuasive if you told editors 'In my experience it is more constructive to discuss on the Talk page first - please do so', rather than implying that their conduct isn't normal. It would be different if there was some kind of notice on the page that said consensus or administrator intervention had established a page-specific rule that all changes must be discussed first. There is a notice on the page when it is opened for editing - but it does not go that far. I may be blind, but I havn't seen any kind of indication of this convention, anywhere. If you want to set up such a formal notice or 'Please talk first!' mechanism, I would support you. It might save a lot of reverting, misunderstanding, bruised egos and fraught exchanges in the future. Otherwise, without such a formal mechanism, one could form the inaccurate impression that you are dictating personal rules at WW2.

If you do remove fresh content from the article page because it hasn't been discussed, you've got to follow through and discuss it. You raised an objection to my Second Front content, but then haven't fully engaged in discussion yourself. Pushing content from the article page to the talk page and then effectively leaving it there just doesn't look like you really are committed to talking. I appreciate it might be a busy administrator's time-efficient technique of generally keeping the status quo at the WW2 article, but its going to backfire if this becomes a knee-jerk reaction or a habit of throwing away everything whether its good or bad. If you demand discussion, you've got to fully participate in discussion. With respect, you haven't always done that.

As I say, I think you are doing an admirable and unenviable job at WW2, but I'd suggest you invite another couple of admins to share the burden of WW2 quality control with you. I would recommend Transporterman and Sandstein, although I would expect them to stay out of this content area.

These are just minor issues, but I raise them at length partly because I never want to again, and I expect us to do plenty of good work together in due course. It also may help to nip something in the bud. Take your current discussion with SS7. He's put in the effort to provide us a source to back up content that he obviously feels strongly about. You told him his source is 'contested'. I don't see any evidence that it was contested by another secondary source. I think you meant was that it 'appears to be contradicted by other sources'. Maybe you are about to provide evidence of it being contested. But if you know you were rash or mistaken in using the word 'contested', then please cross it out and use another word. After all, nobody is perfect. Yes, this level of linguistic precision is tedious, but it keeps things much, much cooler. So to go back to where I started from, I'm humbly asking you to take renewed care about your choice of words as well your commitment to collegiality. And again, I sincerely thank you for your good work at the WW2 page.

Phew. That's it. I feel another Wikibreak coming on. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Chumchum, and thanks for your comments - I really do appreciate them and will take them on board. I'm sorry if you were offending by me saying that you were edit warring - I actually have a very high regard for both your editing and conduct in discussions, which is consistently constructive and good humoured. There are no set number of reversions for an 'edit war', and its generally best to err on the side of not making a second reversion in high profile articles. I try to be level headed, but there are certainly times when I've edit warred in various articles, so please don't think that I'm putting myself on a pedestal or seeking to insult you. Without digging through old discussions, if I didn't discuss changes I'm sorry about this as well (though at times I've deliberetly stepped back from discussions so that other editors could have room to comment). In regards to SS7, there have been a number of disagreements between myself and him or her over the years, and I've got serious concerns about their editing practices, which all too frequently is to pick out small sections of books or journal articles on a contentious topic that support one viewpoint without acknowledging other viewpoints (even when these are discussed in the same source) and aggressively react to comments about these changes. A number of editors have had similar experiences with this editor. I'm trying to limit my involvement with this article as a) I'm burned out following the ArbCom case and b) I agree completely with your comment that a more diverse range of views is needed, and have asked the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject to keep an eye on it (see WT:MHCOORD). I should note that as I'm heavily involved with the article's content my comments on the article's talk page and edits to the article have been with my editor hat firmly on, and my admin hat firmly off (it would be quite inappropriate for me to intervene as an admin against anything but gross breaches of policy such as vandalism or copyright violations in an article I'm involved in). Thanks again for your comments - I hope that my response is useful. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to have been the topic of conversation here, without being notified. No matter, I've given Chumchum7 my views at his talk page. Cheers.--Stor stark7 Speak 11:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you need to be notified? This is a discussion on a user talk page - there's no requirement to notify other editors who are mentioned. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Move protection
Nick, the NBC Universal article has been moved multiple times in the past 3 days, including by me. It's a bit unclear at the moment as to whether the new corporate name should be spelled "NBC Universal" or "NBCUniversal". Could you move-protect the article for a few days, to give us time to sort out the correct format? I'm sure it must be driving the redirect update bots batty by now! I'm leaning towards "NBCUniversal", as used on the company's website in its copyright notice, but I'm not going to move it back to the "correct" version while also requesting protection. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, I've just move protected the article for a day - the move war (for want of a better term) is fairly slow paced so I hope that this is an adequate circuit breaker. Let me know if further protection proves necessary though. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem - there's definitely contradctory info out there, and all the moves, including mine :), appear to have been in total good faith. Enough is enough, though. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks very much for the work on this (knowing someone else was working on it certainly motivated me to keep going!) and for detecting and dealing with the issue in the first place. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thank you as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 9, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 

In the "Black Friday" air attack of World War II a force of Allied Bristol Beaufighter aircraft suffered heavy casualties during an unsuccessful attack on German destroyer Z33 and her escorting vessels on 9 February 1945. The German ships were sheltering in a strong defensive position in Førde Fjord, Norway, forcing the Allied aircraft to attack through heavy anti-aircraft fire. The Beaufighters and their escort of North American P-51 Mustang fighters were also surprised by twelve German Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters. In the resulting attack the Allies damaged at least two of the German ships for the loss of seven Beaufighters shot down by flak guns. Another two Beaufighters and one Mustang were destroyed by the Fw 190s. Either four or five German fighters were shot down by the Allied aircraft, including one flown by an ace. Due to the losses suffered in this raid the Allied anti-shipping force adopted new tactics which placed a lower priority on attacking warships. (more...)


 * Congrats Nick! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Belated congrats from me, too, Nick. Just started working for a living again after my extended travel break so you may have noticed I haven't been quite as active here lately -- on the other hand I didn't see too much vandalism on this one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. The ratio between time spent travelling and the amount of time you need to spend at work to pay for the travel is always depressing! Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Persistent blanking of properly sourced content by IP editor
Hello Nick, wonder if you could wave your magic wand to salt the article page of Type 45 destroyer for a week or two? Honestly, we're quite fed-up with the content blanking rhetoric of a certain IP editor over the last 48 hour period. Thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please disregard the above, matter has been taken care of. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see. Cheers Dave. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Engvar at Drafts7
Did you wish to have UK spelling at your /Drafts7 sandbox article? The subject seems primarily Usonian to me. I can go through and Americanize the spelling if you request it. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about that today... American English would probably be more appropriate given the subject, so please do make those changes. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done! Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Donnerkeil
Hi Nick. I can't find any information that says specifically that the RAF dropped mines in anticipation of the KM breakout from Brest. Can it count as a preparatory measure against the CD, if those mines were laid to interdict German/Axis shipping and damaged Scharnhorst by mistake? Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, but the fact that it was air dropped mines which did the damage seems well worth including in the article. I don't think that the British would have regarded this as a 'mistake' ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You know I was going to change that to "fluke" before you read it, but got distracted. Dapi89 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for No. 29 Squadron RAAF
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for John Hines (Australian soldier)
r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As requested
I've posted a list of IPs and the involved articles that you requested here. I'll be watching that section if you have any questions or observations. See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spruce Production Division
Thanks for the GA review! Nice to see that it passed. Jsayre64  (talk)  04:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries - it's a very interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested
is a very reliable source which has attracted excellent reviews. Actually the author started writing for a newspaper associated with far right after that, defending "patriotic" members of Luftwaffe Legion Condor, and making other statements along this worldview. It sometimes happens to some German historians it seems ;) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the book's a RS. If other RS come to different conclusions that should definitely be included in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maginot Line Article
Nick-D,

Article: Maginot Line

Over the past few days there has been a discussion between an administrator (on en.wikipedia.org) as well as Tim PF and myself concerning the English version to use on this particular article. So far we have agreed to go with "British English" and have done distance conversions where appropriate. I suggested the following people may help the three of us that has started the conversation to improve the article or have suggestions. The following users have been named by myself who could be of some assistance:


 * Ian Rose
 * AustralianRupert
 * Parsecboy
 * Nick-D

Hope you can join the conversation on the Maginot Line Discussion page. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe Baugher
Please revisit WP:RSN, I've raised some questions in response to points you made. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded there. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

50 Squadron RAF
Re your copying of the temp article into the existing article - doing that kept the copyvio in the history. I deleted the article under CSD G6, and then moved the temp article to the original title, thus keeping the history of the new article and losing all trace of copyvio from the history at the same time. All that was left to do the was remove the temp notice from the new article. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Thank you for fixing that up. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, those who never make a mistake never make anything! Thanks for the barnstar. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Groups
Would you please mind reviewing my recent actions and those of User:Marcd30319 in regard to the above articles? We have quite a different view of how they should go... Marc wishes to keep as much as possible U.S. Navy terminology and official pronouncements, while I think they're bloated and there's inclusion of material that hinders improvement. User:The ed17 has given a few opinions but says he's quite busy. Would you mind adding any thoughts you might have to mine or Marc's talkpages? I've recently started another section at Marc's talkpage. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 4 Squadron RAAF
I have given you my thoughts on the matter, and I do not intend to edit the article. I am simply being a conduit for observations of other articles on aerial units, and how they were/are written. My intent is to suggest possible improvements, nothing more.

For instance, if you check out unit lineage in the article for the 477th Bombardment Group, you will note several changes in unit focus and function while it retained its original number. On the other hand, such units as No. 213 Squadron RAF changed their number designations as their history devolved. My opinion (note, opinion) is that lineal coverage of unit histories gives the most intelligible result, and orphaned stubs may be in danger of AfD.

I might add that my opinion is that of a military biographer with a secondary interest in Forward air control. I whip up squadron stubs on occasion to create linkages to bios of flying aces, but otherwise seldom bother editing articles on units. Having stated my opinion, I repose my trust in you to create the best article(s) you can about the units that interest you. I may drop in on a unit article to link to it (usually under "Notable personnel" or the WWI portion of the "History" section), and I would take it kindly if you would allow such linkage.

Thank you for your courtesy, candor, and lack of defensiveness in this discussion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

North Australia Air War
Hi Nick, just wondering whether you have come across North Australia Air War before? Should this be merged into North Western Area Campaign? Any thoughts?? Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't seen that before - probably as it isn't linked from any articles. I agree that the two articles should be merged. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

LCM2000 question
Nick, are you able to confirm or disprove my guess at Canberra class landing helicopter dock that the LCM2000 landing craft were covered under Joint Project 2048 Phase 1 (the source I used only says that phase 1 was for new landing craft to work with the Kanimblas). Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 04:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. The media release from October last year stating that the LCM2000s had been added to the 'projects of concern' list states that the relevant DMO project was Joint 2048 Phase 1A. I don't think I have a source, but I remember reading that the LCM2000s weren't going to be either compatible or suitable for use with the LHDs (which, along with the hull cracking, presumably explains why they're being sold or scrapped rather than mothballed). Nice work with redeveloping the Canberra class article BTW. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and the compliment :) -- saberwyn 11:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalking by Nick-D
Hi Nick-D, I see that you are stalking me, for example to Chenogne massacre, and Commission for Polish Relief. It would be a pitty if you engaged in WP:Stalking, so please read up on policy. All the best.--Stor stark7 Speak 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Stor, Adding a link and tweaking a word (as in the Chenogne massacre article) and expanding an article using a reliable source (as in the Commission for Polish Relief article) is hardly harrasment, so please don't throw baseless claims of 'stalking' around. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Commission for Polish Relief
I noticed your edits and added something on Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and especially in Poland. It would be worth mentioning that Hoover's attempt to get aid were in conflict with Nazi plans to starve "untermensch" population into mass death. In any case I added some information including policy of stealing food from Poles and Jews by Nazis and redistribution of food supplies based on racial criteria. Cheers! --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I elaborated on Nazi policy in Poland that is backed up with reliable sources. Wikipedia is a joint endevor where we work together. Cheers--Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The more people working on articles (in good faith, of course) the better. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted a comment on the article's talk page about the order of material in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you add your Medlicott's citations on a per-sentence basis, not per-para basis? I find some facts quite interesting, but in collaboratively edited projects it is hard to make sure that the paragraph-citation integrity is stable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do (though it might take a day or two). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At that point I think the article may be around C or B class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Drone attacks
Replied (belatedly) on my talk page. EyeSerene talk 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Crappy ranking by Bangkok Post‏

 * Hey Nick, mind taking a look at the following below? Can't blame me for being sceptical, right? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1.) Talk:Chengdu J-20

2.) Reliable sources/Noticeboard


 * Hi Dave, I've commented at WP:RSN. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable or not, this sort of addition is typical of Hcobs's editing style, which is mostly composed of adding news-quotes to articles. See Next Generation Bomber for an example of this "he said, he said" style at its worst. - BilCat (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Think we need to refresh people here about 1.) WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; & 2.) WP:Competence is required. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything that bad with those edits - adding news stories can be a useful way to lay the ground work for future expansions. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive/deluded anon editor claiming to be god
Hey Nick, I've reported the IP editor to ANI, could you please take a look at his disruptive editing behaviour? Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just blocked them for 24 hours for edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the pesky bugga. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Hopefully whatever religion he or she is the (or a) god of is forgiving ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My feisty Chihuahua would love to meet him. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

echelon and google
My google was just to add a pragraf with says that theres is in fact SPECULATION about that google is and echolon porject funded by the cia, i have proved with webside from the web there is speculation.

The source is realiable to tell there is speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.42.75 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Commission for Polish Relief
Orlady (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Britsh Twelfth Army
Thanks for joining me in updating this article. I don't have the bandwidth at home to do a comprehensive google books search, so I was relying on my (very useful) copy of Holt's 'The Deceivers' for the basics. I'm wondering if a (British) Public Records Office search might also turn up some useful information as there are some things in Holt, such as the relationship between Twelfth Army and the British XIV corps that his book does not make clear.

Do you know anyone who'd be willing to tackle the formation insignia?Graham1973 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid not. I don't know much about the British PRO either I'm afraid, but there are some MilHist editors who have used PRO files, so a general appeal for help might work. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011(UTC)
 * Started to explore the |National Records Office World War II page. At the very least it should give access to the raw material Holt used.Graham1973 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Contacted a user of Wikipedia who I thought might be interested in doing some of the British Phantom division insignia based on his work with the US Phantom Divisions. Got the 'if it's not online, it's not true' response which rather annoys me.Graham1973 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures, many of them
Hey Nick, I left this message with Saberwyn, but it applies to you as well. As you are interested in Aussie ships, I have a feeling you're gonna like. Specifically, Australia has quite a few photos in these two categories:. There's a thread on WT:SHIPS about the uploads. Hope you enjoy! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Ed - that's an excellent resource. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They say, he say, she say, me say
REF: this edit
 * Hello. Per the above WP:CPUSH statement: This is getting way out of hand, the guy's rhetoric is getting from bad to worse and all he does day after day, week after week is nothing but the insertion (or the attempt of it) of content that does not readily improve the related article pages in most ways than not. Check out his contribution history and it is very apparent what I'm saying here is verified; Talk:Chengdu J-10, Talk:Chengdu J-20 and Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II being pages where he goes on and on about such crap (apologies for lack of a better word to describe it). Should we have a specially formed panel of committee members for WP:AIR or WP:MILHIST to help curb such piling of nonsense that does not serve the Military section of WP as an online free-to-edit encyclopeida (which is factual and accurately written by responsible editors backed up by verified facts and figures). Or should we refer this to WP:RFC/U or WP:ARBCOM instead? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To be quite frank Dave, I think that Hcobb's editing and general conduct is fine. Adding bits of information to articles is useful and, from what I've seen, he or she responds in a civil and constructive fashion to talk page posts and changes to or the removal of material they add. I can't see anything wrong with the talk page post you provide a diff off - asking for a reference about a feature of the aircraft on a talk page to prove or disprove a viewpoint before it is added to the article is actually a productive editing practice. If there's some kind of long-running problem here, you should substantiate it through a RfC/U or similar. However, I really don't see any issues here beyond a clash between different editing styles. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In isolation or moderation, such activity is not a problem with most user. With Hcobb, it's the sheer volune of his edits, and this is the bulk of them for his entire time on WP. I keep waiting for him to grow out of it, the fourum-style comments and not-news additions never let up. He is civil, and not a behavioral problem as such, but WP is not a forum, and there are better outlets for the bulk of his talk page questions. The he said/they said additions to articles can be useful, but they end up being the bulk of some articles, and that's hardly encylopedic, in my opinion. The fact that he is quite prolific makes it a bear to try to clean up after him. Several editors have approached him about these issues in the past, but he has not moderated at all, in fact getting "worse" at times.


 * But add to his penchant for smart-alec remarks - something Dave and I also practice - a cryptic, hard-to-understand way of dealing with other editors: See his response here, which is hardly helpful in anyway. In the end, the Lexinington talking-head Loren B. Thompson - a favorite "source" of HC's - proved to be dead wrong,a nd the item removed again. Again, it's really only an issue because he tends to respondd that way a lot. Compared to genuine tenditious editors such as our "friend " Tenmei, Hcobbs's not that bad at all. But it would be nice if he'd show some discernment in his talk page comments and article additions, which he has yet to really show. - BilCat (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill. If you think that Hcobb's overall pattern of editing is unhelpful (which I personally don't think is the case) but civil, I'd suggest that a RFC/U is the way to go. I really don't see anything which warrants admin intervention here and I doubt that any other admin would either, but a RFC/U is a good way to provide feedback on editing in a semi-formal setting. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence - Merger?
Nick-D,

As you maybe aware I have started a discussion with the WikiProject Council concerning the following:


 * WikiProject Espionage.
 * WikiProject Intelligence.
 * A third is possibly associated with WikiProject Military History.

You can clearly see, that I'm willing to leave the one associated with WikiProject Military History to that WikiProject. My aim is to merger or come to some agreement with the three users who seem to be still active (which includes myself) on WikiProject Espionage and have approached WikiProject Intelligence to seek their advice, opinions, or have a discussion about merging. If they want to keep it seperate it's upto them, but I would like to know where they stand with the current discussion I've started with the WikiProject Council. I welcome any feedback on this suggestion to be located on the WikiProject Council page where there has been alot of discussion about it going on. Would like you to inform other coordinators within the WikiProject Military History about this. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Saigō-no-Tsubone assessment
Hi, please see the discussion at the Help desk regarding an assessment you did and I hopefully corrected. Please check it to make sure it's right now. If I screwed up, my sincere apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note - I've responded there. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading your comment, I realized that my change knocked out your inclusion of the military history assessment. So, I went in again to the Talk page and restored the page to your edit + the listas parameter added by the other editor. I think it's correct now, but I have far more confidence in you in this area, so please check it one more time to make sure it's complete and accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That looks fine now. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove alt text
Copyedit from my page: "Removing alt text as you did in these edits and adding odd comments about it as you did here isn't very helpful. If you don't like alt text, please discuss it rather than remove it arbitrarily. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick, I saw your comments regarding sight-impaired users and on the basis of that concern, I can see the need for alt text. However, the original issue I had was that editors have insisted on the inclusion as a means of satisfying GA/FA review requirements, which is not the case. Besides, the very poorly written alt comments have been piling up and finally, I did make a deletion and explained the reasoning both in a talk comment and edit comment. This is a now a non-issue, but I do wish there were some standards to making an alt note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Yeah, there's a lot of confusion about the status of alt text and how it should be worded - the introduction of alt text was handled poorly, and the policies relating to its use and guidance on how it should be written have since changed considerably without much publicity. I think its worth keeping unsatisfactory alt text rather than removing it, however, as it's at least of some assistance to readers. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, but after seeing the mass of alt text submitted by one zealous editor, I simply wanted to address the issue and was not intending to open up a "cauldron of smelly fish." The initial contention that the alt text was a requirement for feature articles was off-setting as is the entire campaigning of the editor to rewrite articles into his/her own bent, ostensibly under the feignt that the changes were necessary to adhere to a FA/GA standard. FWiW, my primary concern was that the alt text was not well written. Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC).
 * OK, no worries Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Spammer
See here, primarily USN ships. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have rolled back almost all the spam. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graeme Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

> Please stop spamming references to Wendy Lewis' books. This is basically bad-faith editing > as the references are being added without any apparent consideration of whether they're a > good reference for the topic (or even a precise page number) and it appears that you have > a conflict of interest. You will be blocked if this continues.

I will stop. I'm sorry that this has been seen as a sign of bad faith. Would you like me to go through the references and put page numbers in?

Ben Morphett Ben morphett (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes please. And remove the references where the material was already referenced. Nick-D (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Chief of Defence Force (Singapore)
Despite The Wrong Version being protected (isn't it always?), I had no intention of restoring what was originally in the article (then taken out by the other user) again until others had weighed in, so I'm not sure what you really hope to accomplish with the protection. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Strange Passerby, Applying full protection to articles which are the subject of an ongoing edit war is standard practice. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Britain Day
I just wondered if you had time to give me a quick opinion on whether or not this is ready to go to GA. Dapi89 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the basis of a quick skim of the article, I think that it's ready. Great work! Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Block Required
Hi Nick, User:99.7.155.224 needs to be blocked for making continued vandalism and unconstructive edits as shown via User talk:99.7.155.224 and here. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Newm, As the last vandalism from that address was almost a week ago and the volume of vandalism isn't huge I can't block it at the moment. Please let me know if they return to vandalism though. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous attacks agains YM
Could you review this guy's messages? I have a strong faith that he is the guy who wrote the attacking open letter and has WikiHounded YM for a long time (and now he changed his IPs). These comments are full of strong language (rubbish, me not, not coming back etc.) which I tried to remove but I can't fully do that. Would you mind archiving this discussion or protect YM's talk page against anons until YM return. I feel so bad for seeing a anon use his status to drive YM out like this.--115.75.150.108 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that I've made some (what I think are fairly strong) statements in support of YM, I'm not an uninvolved admin on this issue and can't take any action I'm afraid. It might be worth taking this to WP:SPI as it seems certain that this IP editor is someone who has been blocked from editing, most likely by YM, and has a grudge. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank for your reply (I'm the IP guy above). I see that an other admin has fulfilled my request and I am so delighted. I agree with you that he might be someone who was blocked by YM and now he try to add fuel to the fire so that YM would never come back. Have you heard anything from YM? I tried to send many emails but YM has replied any of them yet. Moreover, YM's facebook profile is disappeared. He reminds me of the admin User:RickK (I don't follow RickK's case much but the way people remember RickK is like the way people remember YM) . What a life!--115.75.144.240 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't heard anything from YM. I do hope that he's OK - I was put through a relatively mild version of a Wiki-witchhunt a year or so ago (over an indef block I imposed and was overturned), and that was a stressful experience. These sort of things tend to attract the crazy fringe of admin-haters who unleash their bile upon the poor admin in question and then get away with it as its seen to be in the context of feedback for a bad admin action, and it's really unpleasant to deal with. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, this is one of many weak-points of Wikipedia. Sometime, policies and guidance are true obstructions and they easily make people crazy. In Vietnamese Wikipedia, I myself experienced a witchhunt that is somewhat like the case of YM in which people kept attacking and questioning an admin's decision for a very long long by using SPAs and IPs until this admin became inactive (before that time he contribute about 12000 edits for Vietnamese Wikipedia but now I rarely saw him). And this made I think letting people edit and create account freely is both most attractive feature and the greatest weakpoint of Wikipedia which some can abuse if they have knowledge to avoid getting blocked. By the way, if you by any chance could talk with YM, please send him my best wishes and tell him that he has some kind of supporter like me so that do not surrender to haters. Thank you very much for everything you have done.--115.75.130.227 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Nick, thanks for adding that image to the 2/3rd Pioneer Battalion article. I've been quite busy the past few weeks on a course and haven't had much time for Wiki unfortunately, so I hadn't yet had a look through the AWM's database or on Commons for images. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, though the article reminded me (again) of my plan to get the Battle of Tarakan (1945) article up to A class or better. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for DYK review
Hi Nick... I appreciate the review and comment on my submission for DYK. I've not done that before and I'm relatively new at article creation. Just an FYI, first, I added a couple of alternate hooks and then went back to check on the reference. Both Amazon and WorldCat indicate the reference for the hook was not published by the author but by Fulcrum Publishing. I'll learn not to trust one source on that information! If everything else checks out, I'd like to use the first DYK nom. I know it's in other editors' hands, but I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for patience.. I'll get better.  Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to bug you, again, I'm new at this. What happens next with the DYK nom? The page says that, once approved, "any editor may add the hook to the DYK template preparation area, and then delete the hook from the DYK template talk page". Is that something I should do?  Is that appropriate/standard? or is it something another editor should do? Sorry for the newbie questions, but it looks as though you've done this quite a lot! :)  I have to say that the process is just a little confusing. :)   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly good question. There are several editors who specialise in looking after DYK, and I normally leave it to them to move my nominations into the DYK queue. This can take a few days. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A favour
Hi, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to review WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mike Jackson for me. I'm in no rush, but I'd hate for it to fail because of lack of comments, so any input would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to have a look at it over the weekend (university essay permitting!) Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review. I hope I didn't distract you from your essay for too long! I've replied to your comments when you have a minute. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   09:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Kanimbla-class amphibious ships
User:Kwamikagami has moved Kanimbla class landing platform amphibious to Kanimbla-class amphibious ships, with several intermidiary stops, which have not been updated for redirects, and some are probably dubious names. The current title includes a hyphen between the ship name and the word "class", which is not done in almost all of the other ship class article. As an admin, he should no better than to leave such a mess. Can you help to straighten this out? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BilCat, I've fixed the double, triple, and (once I moved the page from plural to singe) quadruple redirects to this page. Related discussions include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 23. -- saberwyn 01:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks also, Saberw. - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian flag debate article
My additions to the article were well referenced.

We'll see what comes out of the dispute resolution process.

I've been accused of this before and prevailed.

Gloriousrevolution (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Under what user name? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thank you for that :) Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Kita
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hardest Day
Hi Nick

I seem to have picked up a troll on this page who is making life difficult and generally being abusive. I plan to get this article to GA soon, but this pest is determined to challange everything while claiming all the usual nonsense: WPOWN and such. I have left a note on the Administration board. Enough is enough. I'd appreciate input regardless. Dapi89 (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

IP: 71.111.136.163
Hi Nick. This IP editor is apparently back to editing in the same fashion; this time as 71.111.136.163. Just like last time, he is citing sources that don't actually support his additions, and he is making said additions across the same group of articles. For example, this print source says nothing about Vietnam, and this print source says nothing about Vietnam, and neither of these two sources say anything about Ethiopia. The latter two sources are online so they can even be searched for the word Ethiopia, which doesn't turn up. I have given this editor two warnings so far, but considering his edit history I don't think he will take notice. ROG5728 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted their talk page, and will block them if there are any further complaints (they haven't edited since your warning) Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Following his second warning, he added Vietnam back to the same two articles. The source he cited does not actually make any reference to Vietnam. ROG5728 (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rog, thanks for the notification - I've just blocked them for a week. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

 * Thank you Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your positive welcome :) 110.33.2.238 (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries - thank you for your contributions. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you weight in
Because you are a long time member of WPMHIST, could you join this discussion as a neutral admin?--115.75.155.250 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just commented there Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've misread the IP's argument. He doesn't deny that such claims are made -- in his first post to my talk page, he said "I found the 'Phan Dinh Phung was killed by the French' claim only in some online newspapers" -- but that he's looked into them and concluded they're false, and therefore shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Given that the Vietnamese Wikipedia article reports both sides, suggests an opposite conclusion, and cites a source (which the Google translation isn't clear enough for me to track down, I would say that NPOV clearly requires rejection of the IP's exclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

New page incubation
Thanks for signing up for the new pages incubation trial! The instructions are on the page itself - any questions or quibbles before you get started? Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No. 75 Squadron GAN
Hi, Nick, I've started the GA review for No. 75 Squadron. The review page is here: Talk:No. 75 Squadron RAAF/GA1‎. When you get a chance, can you please take a look? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I've responded in the review. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing
We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In short: focus on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the content and quality of the writing and references. FACs often end up with, in my view, an excessive amount of attention being placed on MOS issues (though this situation has gotten better in the last year), and this is discouraging for both new reviewers and editors considering nominating an article for a FAC. There's no need to FA reviewers to be MOS experts - all that's needed is attention to detail. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've put all the responses together here; feel free to add or subtract. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

B.Davis2003
I'm trying to figure out why you decided to unblock B.Davis2003 without consulting me, the original blocking admin of his original account, and, quite frankly, I can't grasp the decision. He's a serial violator of copyright, of NPOV, of sourcing, and generally lacks competence. Though he's stayed away from the upload button that got him into trouble with the original account, this account has had the same bad behaviour that merited the original block, plus block evasion. I don't get this action at all, and I strongly object to it. Courcelles 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Courcelles, given that the editor has acknowledged their poor behavior and given a commitment to behave properly in the future, I didn't see how continuing the block could be justified. My perspective on their editing under the B.Davis2003 account was that they're probably young and are doing dumb things on that basis. I've warned them that the block will probably be reimposed if there are any further problems with their behaviour and have watchlisted their talk page, so he or she will have a short editing career if they don't come through on their commitment. That said, I'd have no problem at all if you'd like to take this to WP:AN or ANI for a second opinion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The block was still serving a very useful purpose- he is a serial violator of copyright, and has never in any of these various unblock requests (including the last one; that reads like he's "telling us what we want to hear") given any glimmer of hope that he understand copyright policy for either text or images. He hints at the personal attack, but not the wanton disregard for copyright he exhibited under his old persona. There were no less than four admins who had evaluated the situation and left him blocked (myself, Sandstein, MuZemike, and JamesBWatson), and we never unblock the sock- if an unblock is to be granted, it is always to the original account to preserve scrutiny and logs. I am hoping that you'll read the entire history and reblock him, as that unblock request didn't acknowledge most of the things that got him in this situation, and gives little confidence he will behave well, because it leaves little confidence he knows what is expected regarding copyright, sources, or personal attacks. Courcelles 02:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Courcelles, I'm not going to reimpose the block - I've made a judgement that the editor warrants a last chance as their past conduct seems to have been driven by youth and inexperience rather than outright malice. If they act up again I'll block them if no-one beats me to it. As I said though, I really don't mind if you take this to a noticeboard to ask other admins to review this decision - I've been an admin for a few years, but I'm not silly enough to think I always get things right! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles, Although I did not mention the Copyright issues in my reason to be unblocked, I have as, Nick-D has said, will not upload images onto Wikipedia articles, and I have not done so since the warnings came on my account. I have also explained my reason for this second account, which you can read on my talker page. B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I really didn't want to do this, but this was a bad unblock.Courcelles 03:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Gar, this getting all so confusing, if you want me to use my old account and then appeal for an unblock on that account, I will, I just need to find my password for the old account, as I have misplaced it. Courcelles, I repeat, I have noted and expressed my remorse now for the issues surrounding both my accounts on my copyright warnings and personal attacks, and have complied with everything i've been told since. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just in case you didn't know, the discussion has now been moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know that. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review
Hey Nick, I was wondering if you could do an A-Class Review on the Frank Buckles article. User:HJ Mitchell was reviewing the article, but his computer is "on the blink" and I have talked to him by email and he says it is going to be a few before it is fixed. If you can give it a look-see, I would appreciated it, but if you can't, that's cool too. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll have a look at it later today. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! User:Anythingyouwant is working on the article as well, so he can help on some of the things you bring up.  I tend to edit at night (am a night owl).  Thanks for helping out. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 06:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded to all your posts on the A-Class review page. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am awake and I am a quick editor. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded on the review page. I am going to crash out for a couple.  I will respond further after church, about 1pm EST. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 09:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I live in Australia BTW, so our time zones aren't going to cross over too much ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm typically a night owl, so they will. :) Just have to be up this morning, it's Palm Sunday. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Got a Problem
User:Brad101 is being insanely unhelpful, giving short answers as to what is wrong with the article, not being forthcoming with information, and generally not responding to posts. My first two posts were ignored essentially, and my third was a pure frustration post for his post to the A-Class review page that read simply: "Oppose Overlinked article per MoS. Good luck at FAC." I asked MuZemike what to do, as I unsure how to respond any other way to this user and really feel they are holding up the review by not being helpful or responding. Mike asked what the overlinking problem was and Brad101 responded back with this, saying it was his last post on the subject.

I am afraid with the oppose, it will keep the article from going to A-Class and on top of that, I feel I am going to have to go through this all over again on FAC. I have posted to others for this final opinions and have three "supports" (to the one "oppose"), the only ones left that haven't responded are GraemeLeggett and HJ (the latter probably can't respond, of course). What should I do? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that there's any requirement that there be no remaining 'oppose' votes - promotion to A class is determined by coordinators of the military history project on the basis of whether there is a consensus to promote the article per WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class. I think that the normal rule for FACs is that if substantive criticisms of the article are judged to have have been addressed then the 'oppose' can be disregarded when the nomination is closed, and A class reviews normally follow the procedures used in FACs. The place to ask this question is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators as they're the folks who will have to make this call. For what it's worth, and I'll comment there if you raise this, I think that you've addressed Brad's concerns - the degree of linking is now reasonable, particularly given that the article needs to be easily understandable for non-Americans. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted at the page you linked above. Essentially it was a copy/paste of the above. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He edited in the 12:00 EDT hour, but not to the post I left on his talk page, so I don't expect anything from him on this one. :( - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!
The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Air raids on Japan
Hi, Nick, I've just taken a quick run through the Air raids on Japan article. I made a couple of minor edits. Please review and check that you are happy with them. I came across something I was not sure of, though. Currently the article has "313rd Bombardment Wing" and "313rd" etc. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "313th Bombardment Wing" and "313th"? Would you mind taking a look and changing if necessary? BTW, the article is impressive. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've printed out the article (all 28 pages of it!) and will be doing a larger-scale tidy up soon. You're right about '313th' (which is what the official history of the USAAF calls it) - I've just fixed this. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user Brennan Hanalei Torres
Hi, Nick. I saw that message you left on Bsadowski's talk page. The sockpuppeteer in question is User:Brennan Hanalei Torres who had been blocked some time ago for vandalism and sockpuppetry. The socks all have the same general naming convention, so he's easy to spot. Ditto his MO; he primarily writes fantasy articles about himself as some sort of child actor. Hope this helps. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've just tagged the account - I see that he's got a lot of socks! Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

77 Squadron
Nick, you have incorrectly captioned a photo on the RAAF's 77 squadron page. The photo I am referring to is a picture of a 2OCU FA-18 that is being operated by 77 squadron, but not a 77 squadron aircraft which is what is captioned. I would recommend using this picture: http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/exercises/pitchblack10/gallery/20100805/20100730raaf8160785_0097.jp

I have also just noticed you have incorrectly labled a picture on the 75 squadron page. Once again, the aircraft may be operated by 75th, but the FA-18 pictured is from 77 squadron. I suggest for the sake of getting everything accurate, we use pictures of the right squadron aircraft and not necessarily worry about which squadron is operating it. Ceskazbrojovka (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change the captions then. However, as these squadrons were borrowing the aircraft at the time, this should also be noted in the caption (it's my understanding that F/A-18s are now frequently swapped between the RAAF's 'classic' Hornet squadrons and so the unit markings on them often don't mean much - who the aircraft was operating with at the time the photo was taken seems to be more important, and the captions are correct in both those instances). Please note that we've only got a fairly limited number of public domain (PD) photos of Australian F/A-18s to choose from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:F/A-18_Hornet_in_the_Royal_Australian_Air_Force and we can't use Australian Department of Defence photos as they are covered by copyright. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding reliability
Can you name any fully-reliable websites that I could include on the 24th Infantry Division (Germany) article? I have searched around, though - like many German divisions, I have found few that mention it by name. While I understand that a written work would probably be considered a reliable source of information, I do not myself have in my collection a book directly involving the Wehrmacht's units, themselves (the only book I can find is a translation of the Nuremberg trials' transcripts). Can you think of anyone heavily involved in MilHist who could help me, or should I just go to the library?-- OsirisV (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/index_01.htm is pretty good for order of battle information (its author is a published historian and so is a reliable source), but I'd suggest either asking at WT:MILHIST or hitting the library - I think what's really missing from the article is information about what the division actually did. David Glantz's book on the siege of Leningrad will probably be useful if you can get your hands on it. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Wong Sue
Hi Nick,

just wondering how one gets info deleted from a site that is not referenced. I have looked but can not find any sources to back up the info stated in the article, hence the 'citation needed'. I do not want the Jack Wong Sue article deleted as I believe that Mr Sue is a very important member of Z Special, I just feel that the article needs cleaning as there is so much info that is just not sourced.

Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, You can just edit it out of the article (though you should discuss any changes you think might be controversial on the article's talk page first). Jack Wong Sue is unquestionably notable per WP:BIO so I see no grounds to delete the article. Please note that material is only revision deleted from articles and their talk pages in exceptional circumstances (for instance, when the material is libelous as was the problem with the posts on the article's talk page). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed article

 * Hey Nick, mind providing some peer reviews as well as quality class assessment for the article page of Republic of Singapore Air Force? It's been stuck with a "Start class" assessment for way too long now, really appreciate if you could help. Thanks and best. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, that looks like a start class article to me (due to the lack of references for much of its material). I'll have a closer look at it and leave some comments on the talk page later today or tomorrow. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, cheers~! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

what makes this special?
the country has lots of diplomatic and military relationships - what makes this special? - Good question! And you aren't the first to have asked it ... I think the simplest answer is: "They have (had?) lots of money and seem prepared to spend some of it on things we find useful". That template is yet another wonderful example of a certain view of the universe. (BTW: Do you, like me, think it strange that Miss Universe is always a humanoid?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential issue
Nick, a potential problem that may call for administrator intervention -- it looks like user "The way is was" may have a sockpuppet called "Regnbågen2". At any rate, these two accounts introduced exactly the same material into 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen and 42nd Infantry Division (United States) within about one-half hour of each other. The material introduced are tendentious assertions that troops of the 17th SS Division were massacred by U.S. troops near Nuremberg in 1945. There are a couple of problems with the assertions; one is that they are simply printed in two books by authors who specialize in publications about the SS (Munoz and Williamson) without any sources or corroboration by other authors; the other is that the material posted into the two Wikipedia articles is a direct lift from Munoz's book. Tendentious material or not, this is a copyright violation. I also suspect that deliberate or erroneous readings of the war history may be confusing this purported event with an actual massacre of SS camp guards at Dachau in 1945, but since the sourcing of these allegations is so poor in the Munoz/Williamson books, it is hard to be sure. I've reverted the edits but I am wary that a revert war could occur as a result. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update -- reverted today by another user whose sole edits are his reversion of my removing the copyrighted and tendentious material yesterday in the two articles mentioned above. I reverted back to the "pre-tendentious version", but expect this may happen again.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've blocked all three accounts. On the basis of their contributions, it appears that they're all, who I've tagged as being the sockmaster. Let me know if this guy pops up again. As a friendly tip, when reporting editors to admins, if you use the user template it makes the admin's life a little bit easier as they can immediately see the contributions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks for looking at this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pacific War
For the question about commander in article "Pacific War," I don't know what page I should discuss on. My opinion is Sun Liren is just a major general but in that article he is the major commander and leader. Xue Yue and Peng dehuai which I added are the captain general and joined many battle so I think they are more important than Sun. If the major commander must be in Burma theater, I think the captain general Wei Lihuang is more important. By 210.53.1.98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.53.1.98 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Pacific War would be the best place for this. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper
Nick-D, thank you for your good suggestions on Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. I may have a conflict; I recently discovered I met Captain Heide at a Summer Camp in 1979. I have not had any contact with her for over 30 years, but have email contact with her now and this may put me too close to the subject - I do not feel comfortable working on her page now. However, I have no problem searching for links to use for citation. I have place a number of them on her Talk Page. Perhaps you could look them over and work on her page? Thank you. Gamweb (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm afraid that I don't have enough background on the US space program to be able to make particularly sensible edits on this article. The people who participate in WikiProject Spaceflight might be able to help. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Attack on Yokosuka
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Buckles
Please see here, and thanks for your several helpful comments at the FAN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Women's National Emergency Legion
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unusual editing
A set of unusual edits from a well-respected editor has got me worried. Can you look into: this? Bzuk (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Hi Bzuk, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with Ken's editing pattern so I can't make a call on this. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

NW Pakistan War
It isn't vandalism, watch the news. Ever see the WikiLeaks cables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.146.106 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Flag Society of Australia
Less than 2 weeks ago you deleted Flag Society of Australia as G5, it is now back again created by a new user, as I don't know what the issue was first time around can you look at it again to make sure the same issues don't exist with this version. Mtking (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The article is being repeatedly recreated by a blocked editor (who's also been making legal threats). I've blocked the account and deleted the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Mtking (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rawlinson
Hi mate, I did see your challenge on that squadron edit a few days ago... ;-) While I have plenty on his WWII career, unfortunately I still don't think I there's enough reliable info on his post-war career for even a B-Class article, never mind the GA-level I usually aim at with bios these days. I'm going to try and find an obit in the Mitchell Library and also see if one or two of our British brethren have access to anything. Maybe you can find something in Canberra that would help, since he seems to have returned to Oz after leaving the RAF in '61. What I have at this stage is here -- aside from the sparceness of the data, only the Gazette and Flight are through-and-through reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. In addition to the above, there's a book called Fire across the desert: Woomera and the Anglo-Australian Joint Project I saw on GoogleBooks that has a snippet or two and which I can check at the Mitchell, but this seems to refer to a mid-50s posting (still very useful), not his post-RAF experience there in the 60s. There's a digitised file at NAA but this only goes up to his termination from the RAAF after the war -- you should have a quick look though at pp.28-30, as the assessing officer for his performance review is a name you might recognise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Ian - I'll see what I can dig up. I'm considering putting the No. 79 Sqn article up for a FAC (though this might need to wait until I've got more spare time), so would like to turn that red link into a blue link. His WW2 career is mentioned in a few different Osprey books - I own the Spitfire Aces in the Pacific one (and very good it is too) and ADFA might have some of the others. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks, I think I have access to all the relevant Osprey books -- those plus the digitised file and two books on Australian aces gives me all I need for his life up to the end of WWII, it’s just after we could use more. If I get desperate I may order an mp3 of the interview with him that the NLA holds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes, I think you should take 79SQN further than GA; considering the number of stops and starts the squadron's had, it's quite a comprehensive article. One thing, how wed are you to the Hawk picture in the infobox? I'm just thinking the symbolism of the phoenix makes the unit crest quite compelling there. If you want to use it and can't locate a clean copy, let me know and I can probably finesse the version on the RAAF Museum page to get a vanilla background. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all attached to it - it could easily be moved to the 'Current status' section (replacing the rather dull photo there). Could you please add the crest? - I agree that it's rather apt. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Two heads are better than one

 * Hey Nick, sorry to trouble you again but could you please come over to my discussion page for a bit. Best. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

QE Carriers
Hi Nick, I noticed your revert at Future of the Royal Navy and just to note that I left a little note on the IP's talkpage. (As it happens it is registered to NATO but hey). There was a small discussion at Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier a week ago. It sounds feasible but we are going to have wait until any official statement before it goes in an article. As you stated it's all speculative at the moment. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that background. The story which was being quoted as a reference was rather contradictory (it started by saying that Prince Charles had been approached and had agreed to this and concluded by saying that this couldn't actually be confirmed...). I agree that it's feasible, but the sourcing to support including it sure isn't there yet. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Enidblyton11
I've revoked his talkpage access at User:Jarrodaus11copy and User:Jarrodaus11 as well, directing him to post any unblock requests at User talk:Enidblyton11. -- Lear's Fool 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. The editing of User talk:Enidblyton11 is entertaining - no-one will suspect that they've sanitised their talk page! (it's not like admins check block rationales, page histories, contribution histories or anything like that...) Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Theres nothing to discuss. Very few surface battles occurred between US and German forces during the war, especially in 1942 and right off the American coast, the Diamond Shoals action was one of them and I felt and still feel is is a notable event. You can delete it if you want but theres a good chance I will just recreate the page as it is one of the more direct engagements in the North American Theater, a topic which I have worked on for a long time. There are many articles on wiki for engagements that were significantly less climactic as the Diamond Shoals action. I am not saying it was a great or major battle but if the Battle of Point Judith has an article, so should this.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article looks great, as long as the information is somwhere I suppose it is just fine. I would of created an article like that but I wanted to use a military conflict box for the battle info but it still works. Thanks for the help in this project.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Qingprof
Thanks for bringing that discussion into my attention. I have replied at WP:ANI. It appears to be a textbook example of WP:BOOMERANG <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Raising complaints of non-response at a central noticeboard within minutes of posting on the editor's talk page is always a sign of a disruptive editor, especially when they keep banging on about it while loudly proclaiming the excellence of their contributions. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

82 Wing
Hi mate, after a protracted investgation and writing effort (due to the priority of home renovations) I think I'm about done updating this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Your alignment with vanda/indef blocked editor
Hi Nick. The single editor you refer to was a flagrant vandal. He cut out an article in its near entirety, as it was at DYK -- uniquely disruptive editing. He was reverted for vandalism, and has been blocked indefinitely, as well he should. He is certainly not an editor in good standing. If you have views as to the article, I will be happy to discuss them at the article's talk page, but the article is of FA/GA level, IMHO, robustly referenced, and not at all as you characterize it. I'm about to go into a meeting, but will look at your edits later. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The indef block was lifted by another admin (with myself and several other admins agreeing) as it's clear that the (new) editor - while mistaken in their approach - was editing in good faith. I don't think that the article is anywhere near GA status, much less FA. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zoo City
Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Fox and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids
I've just marked this ANI thread as being resolved, as there seems to be no need for any admin intervention and dispute resolution should be used. I would very strongly encourage you to tone down your comments - comments such as these and these are needlessly uncivil and don't contribute to resolving the disagreement. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish you hadn't done that, Nick. WP:MERGE states, "In more unclear, controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." You moved the request from WP:AN to WP:AN/I and then marked it as resolved. I was attempting to seek consensus by doing what is advised at WP:MERGE. Moving a request made at the right forum to the wrong one, then marking it as resolved, certainly will not solve the dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, not sure what you found uncivil about either of those comments. We base edits on reliable sources, not JPG-GR's memory. Yes, that is really what he's basing his edits on, as his comments show. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Firsfron, Given that there wasn't either a consensus to merge (one editor proposing the merge, one editor disagreeing with the merge and no evidence of any attempts to seek wider input) or evidence that the results of the discussion were either unclear or controversial (beyond you and JPG-GR trading rude comments), I really don't see any need for admin involvement. This is basically a content dispute, and you need to seek wider input. If you like I can close the discussion on the article talk page as 'no consensus', but I don't think that that's the best option. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You advice on the proposed merger is appreciated, and will most certainly be followed. However, I would again ask that you not move discussions from WP:AN to WP:AN/I and then mark them as resolved. WP:MERGE encourages users to "request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." Consensus states that "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus", and one of our most valued policies is sticking to reliable sources. JPG-GR's memory, which he wants to use in place of reliable sources, cannot override that policy. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ANI seemed the appropriate place to handle things as this seemed, to me at least, to be a specific article and editor content issue rather than a generic issue requiring admin input (as there was clearly no consensus on article's talk page and the discussion had grown heated). If you really think that admin intervention is still needed here I have no problem with you removing or striking the 'resolved' tag, though I really do suggest that you take some time out from the discussion and seek other editors' input. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * For the benefit of the project, of course, but I take it as a personal kindness. Thank you so much. :) If you want me to reciprocate, just name your (no sports, no computers) article. :D (I will tell our correspondent how things have gone.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. There's no need to reciprocate, but if you do have some spare time in the next few weeks I'd appreciate it if another editor could read over No. 79 Squadron RAAF and give it a copy edit as I'm considering nominating it for FA status in a month or so. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On my list. :) --12:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I request you get involved as a third party in this ANI
Arilang1234 having a go at his POV pushing on the boxer rebellion article, claiming the content in the article is from "chinese high school text book", when not a single chinese or communist source was used in the article.

look at the section now- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion

report I made on his edits- he tries to link the black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war to anti imperialism on the boxer rebellion= User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/Report ANI

marxists, black panthers and vietnam protestors have something to do with anti imperialism in the boxer rebellion according to arilang

since benlisquare mentioned australia also includes anti imperialism in its textbooks, arilang1234 goes on to claim it must be because australia is a "socialist" country

Now he thinks dropping off conspiracy theories about high school text books, australia, marxists, black panthers, and vietnam on the boxer rebellion article and filing an ANI report after he was criticized for doing so is acceptable

Arilang1234 attempting wikilawyering and making threats when he was caught trolling

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Racist.2C_Cold_War_style_combative.2C_and_disruptive_behavior_of_user_.CE.94.CE.A5.CE.9D.CE.93.CE.91.CE.9D.CE.95_on_talkpage_of_Boxer_Rebellion. After his trolling on the Boxer rebellion talk page, Arilang1234 proceeded to file this ANI report complaining about me after I criticized him for his attempt at linking marxists, black panthers, and vietnam war to the Boxer rebels...]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And he titled the ANI thread "racist", and proceeded to provide not one single piece of evidence that I said anything racist at all. One also has to wonder what the "cold war" he inserted into the title has to do with anything other than to grab attention.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that admins are already involved in the ANI report, which has turned into a massive case of TLDR. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

then can you confirm this
besides the fact that Arilang1234's whole complaint it tenuous (such as calling me racist when he couldn't provide evidence of a single racist comment), Arilang1234 lodged two false accusations directly against me, see this User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ.False Accusations. They've crossed the border into outright lying. Arilang1234 deliberately showed past revisions of the talk page rather than the current one, in order to claim/lie that I did not respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. I need other users to confirm that he deliberately lied with malicious intent.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for blocking User Rohan11eleven for Spam. I would normally report through AIV (and have done on quite a few occasions) but just thought this needed to be looked at first. Vrenator (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for your kind words of support during and after the review, it is easy to get disheartened. Thankfully after commiing into contact with one or two horrid individuals that frequent the FAC section, I can say that the reviewers on this MilHis A-class review were far more encouraging and civil! I've just came across Air raids on Japan, do you think it is ready for a GAN? It is a big article, but it appears to be in good shape. As you are a major contributor, it seems respectable to ask you on your opinion. Kyteto (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that it was an OK experience - a key difference with FACs is that most A class reviewers also regularly nominate 'their' articles for review. In regards to the Air Raids on Japan article; I think that the content is there, but it needs a copy edit - which I'm (slowly!) doing at the moment. My plan is to get it to at least A class standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you help?
There seems to be an newcomer with IP contribution that indicated very important information in an article you were involved with once, as I am really busy these days perhaps you would be willing to help him?  --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm rather busy as well I'm afraid. And why are you assuming it's a him? Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will look at it later then; I assumed its him because posts seem similar.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Animal Justice Party
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted the Animal Justice Party page? Thanks144.136.101.238 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you created it in violation of your block. Thanks for alerting me to your latest block evasion. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mormography
Hi. Just to let you know I've lifted the block on User:Mormography, after reading your comments on the user's Talk page. I do understand your misgivings, so I'll keep an eye on their contributions for a while - let's hope the good faith is well placed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I agree with your reasoning. I'll leave their talk page watchlisted and hopefully the editor will work out OK. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Query
I asked for a sanity check from User:Dave1185 hereon a dispute that seems to have broken out on Falkland Islands History. Warning: Long Tendentious argument with many rabbit holes before arriving at the point. Dave suggested that I bring this up with you. The accusations are that the text is failing NPOV and TBH I just don't see it. Another check on my sanity would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I knew and noted that he is sane but his opponents might not be. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Given that this is the subject of an arbitration request (Arbitration/Requests/Case) it's out of my hands as an admin at present. Moreover, this appears to be reasonably polite (if lengthy) content dispute which is being limited to discussion on the talk page, so I don't see a need for admin action. Taking my admin hat off, I don't know much about the pre-1982 history of the Falkland Islands, so I'm not well placed to comment. I'd suggest opening a RfC and/or posting on relevant Wikiprojects talk pages to ask for uninvolved editors to comment. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention on the Friendly Fire article. One of the problems with that guy was he developed a tactic of mixing legitimate edits with wikifiddling and other disruptive edits. I was getting bogged down in separating wheat from chaff. I have no problem with the edits you made. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries - there are a steady stream of oppressive editors like that on articles about current wars. They're obsessed with including all news reports and key developments concerning whatever the topic is in the article, and edit war when other editors point out mistakes or try to summarise things. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yo Nick~! While you are at it, could you take a look over at Republic of Singapore Air Force? It's the school holidays and the kids are out with their mom over at the in-laws' house, finally some quiet time for me to de-weed the article. Buzz me on my talk page when you're done, alright? Thanks and best. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC
 * Apologies but I now have User:Hudicourt on the Civilian Casualties in the Afghan War coming after me. Could you please sanity check my reply.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WCM, get out of there while you still can, that article is a friggin' tickin' timebomb~! One hell of a minefield for even the most experienced Admin to step into, as far as I can tell. Best. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Communicat
This is clearly them being just as congenial and accurate as always. What is the appropriate place to report them? Edward321 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:AE is the best location. This is a clear violation of both editing sanctions placed on him. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've lodged a request at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now I know what to do if the problem recurs. Edward321 (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries - could you please post there to confirm that you think that this IP is Communicat? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Was having problems with my IP over the weekend, or I would have. Will do if there's a repeat of this. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on top of things. Finaly have net access again and will weigh in as needed. Edward321 (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification, and for asking for a review of your closure of this MfD - I hope that I'm as courteous when other editors question my actions as an admin. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting correct edits because one has issues with the indentity of an editor
I'm sorry, but when someone reverted my good edits and justified it by telling me that ANOTHER editor was a sock puppet, I found it hard to swallow........ This guy took his witch hunt too far and I had to make him understand...... Hudicourt (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects
I have removed the prod tag from Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Long Range Flight RAAF
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Help Expanding the Fourth Army (United Kingdom Article)
I've found information relating to the first appearance of the fictional Fourth British Army as part of operation Cockade which gives me the first look into the original fictional Order of Battle unfortunately it is clearly incomplete listing only three divisions (3rd British Infantry, 3rd Canadian Infantry, 52nd British Infantry), Howard indicates that at least five divisions formed part of the original Fourth Army OOB, but does not name them. My access to sources is limited and any assistance would be greatly appreciated.Graham1973 (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Graham, The only source I'd have on this is Howard's Strategic Deception in the Second World War, so if it doesn't provide further details I'm afraid I'm not going to be of much assistance. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah well. Going through my books again I found that one of the two missing divisions was the US 55th Infantry Division. Cockade was a very different operation. Most of the units used were actual units with their status misrepresented.Graham1973 (talk)

Enidblyton11
Just out of interest, are you receiving e-mails from him too? -- Lear's Fool 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No I'm not - should I feel left out? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hahaha... my anti-virus caught his shite! *phew* -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I spoke too soon... No it didn't, my primary puter is down. Think I better disable my email feature for the time being. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder

 * Mate, I need you to provide a sanity check here → Talk:CAC / PAC JF-17 Thunder. Thanks. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this one. It looks like things are well under control now. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries but the problem now is... my primary puter is down (the big blue screen of death!), could be due to the malicious file my anti-virus caught earlier on. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block evasion
Paulio is back using IPs for block evasion. Would you mind taking a look. I've reverted some changes as unsourced. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And now canvassing Hudicourt Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note - as they keep coming back under that IP and no-one else seems to be using it, I've blocked it for a year (the maximum duration for IP blocks). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Juno
Hey, Nick, I think I've addressed/fixed all of your comments on the article Juno Beach. Can you check back in to take a look? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I replied
See Talk:NATO. Thanks. 67.101.7.143 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob Gould
Hi Nick-D. Thanks for the compliment. I met Bob a few times when visiting his store. He could be a gruff old bugger, but he certainly had an interesting life. Cheers, WWGB (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Racing dreadnoughts
Hey ol' buddy, I replied to your comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/South American dreadnought race. Could you check back at your convenience? Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. You should come visit me in winter sometime – I'll show you what real snow is. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We only ended up with snow on the nearby mountains and a few flakes in the city. That's just a bit different to what you get ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Reserves
Good evening - I am the editor of the above mentioned page and am also the webmaster for the www.defencereserves.com. I would like it reinstated, I am the Director of Communication, Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division, Department of Defence, Australia Thank you deannanott


 * Hello deannanott, As the material was taken from a copyright protected website, it isn't possible to reinstate it. Wikipedia operates on the basis of Creative Commons licences, which aren't at all compatible with the copyright status of Australian Department of Defence websites (please see WP:COPYRIGHT and Donating copyrighted materials for information on these topics). The article could be recreated using original material, but only if this organisation passes the relevant 'notability' criteria - these are explained at WP:ORG but basically boil down to the availability of references on the organisation which are completely independent of it. As you obviously have a relationship with this topic, it would be best if you didn't work on the article, though you could draft it and then list it for review and then creation by another editor using the Articles for creation process. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Blockade of Germany WW2
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read and consider the article of the blockade of Germany in WW2. I have no doubt that in marking it as ‘original research’ you have acted in good faith to maintain Wikipedia’s integrity which we all strive for and admire; however I think this broadbrush approach is a little unhelpful. It would be much better if you were to point to specific passages which might be looked at, perhaps reworded or have different sources applied. I take your point that there is potential for bias and propaganda within some of these news reports, however, the blockade is a fairly ‘dry’ subject and I don’t agree that there are many post war secondary books on the subject - any books available only address certain elements and not the blockade in its entirety. Most other Wikipedia articles on the Battle of the Atlantic, convoys, U Boat campaign etc did not mention the blockade at all, (at least until I changed them!) merely concentrating on the military aspects of the conflict. I spent several months researching and writing this article, but my intention was merely to provide a starting point which will obviously change and improve greatly over time. It already has. Just because there is propaganda present within these publications, does not automatically render them valueless.

Regarding the War Illustrated, it’s true that there is bias in the editorial comment, but it is not difficult to distinguish opinion from the hard information which may also be gleaned from these sources as they often reprint speeches and official bulletins from ministries and government. They also reproduce comment from the other side which is valid and part of history, and useful in demonstrating a neutral point of view. In some cases, this propaganda has itself passed into the historical context, but above all, these publications were written in the first hand. We should remember that these contemporary writers wrote days or hours after the event, and did at least witness and experience the events they were describing, TIME / LIFE did seek to maintain a firm editorial control and were primarily overseas news review publications, not a mouthpiece of the Ministry of Information. No doubt the 12 published volumes on the war which were produced by Churchill in the late forties would be considered good sources, however they tell it from his own perspective and gloss over his failures. The surviving French politicians in particular bitterly rejected his version of events, and repudiated it in their own journals.

As we know, Wikipedia is mainly concerned with the use of sources where it is likely that some editorial control has been exercised. For this reason most internet articles are not considered good sources, unless official, such as government sponsored. Can you please clarify what is the problem with sources from US / UK National Archives? These often record minutes of meetings and debates verbatim and their validity surely cannot be disputed. I am well versed of the norms of academic research etiquette which Wikipedia seeks to maintain, however my personal view is that many of the books currently being circulated are merely a re-hash of pre-published content. This is especially the case with recent works, such as the award wining Wartime (Juliet Gardiner 2004) which lists no less than 652 previously published books in its bibliography, and the best selling D-Day by Antony Beavor used a similarly high number, although I cannot be bothered to count them. How can someone writing so long after the time, re-interpreting contemporary material hope to avoid adding their own slant? Just because a book has been published does not make it a reliable source. For example, the Fontana History of England, which runs over several volumes is chronically biased, yet I doubt anyone would dream of disputing the validity if this publication were to be cited in an article

One of the Wikipedia core principles is that work does not have to be perfect, and any glaring inaccuracies will doubtless be quickly corrected by others – there has certainly been no shortage of people happy to read and edit this article, and in some cases supply additional sources. I myself am far from completely content with it but believe it is much better than some I have seen, and intend to add to it and change it as I find improved sources. I also hope to add some excellent photographs in my possession, if I can demonstrate that they are sufficiently in the public domain. If you could kindly point to specific areas that you are unhappy with, I would be pleased to take a look at what can be done to make it better. Please don’t say ‘the whole thing!’--Godwhale (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Godwhale, I think that the article is now looking really good - great work creating such a detailed article on this important topic. If you like I'll post a review of the article on its talk page in the next day or two. I'm rather wary about using wartime news reports due to the combination of censorship, only one side of the story generally being reported and (most importantly) the availability of postwar sources which provide a more rounded picture. The British published a two volume (and very detailed) official history of the economic blockade of Germany (basic publishing details here) which I believe is still considered the key work on this topic. Adam Tooze's recent book The Wages of Destruction also discusses the German war economy in detail, including the impact of the British blockade. Christina J. M. Goulter's book A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command’s Anti-shipping Campaign, 1940–1945 is also very useful, as it provides a critical discussion of the RAF's attacks on German coastal shipping which draws on economic data to evaluate the campaign. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for the comment and your kind words, a review would be good. I did anticipate some critisism for the use of some of these sources, and you are correct that they can be biased and give only part of the story, but apart from the Wages of Destruction I was unaware of these other sources you mention - you certainly seem to be an authority on this kind of thing. I will try to track them down and continue to add alternative sources. Thanks again--Godwhale (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you have trouble getting hold of them - I have access to all the books (via libraries) and can look stuff up for you if necessary. I'm not an expert on this topic - I've just read way too much about World War II ;) Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for the review. I think the points you make are fair; there are some areas where it perhaps drifts away from the central subject, and it would probably benefit from being shortened. I think the allied bombing is relevant however, because this was a deliberate change in policy from mere contraband control to a more offensive effort at wearing down German production. I will take a look at when I come back from holiday and try to remove the less relevant parts. Thanks for your help with this.--Godwhale (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Enquiry on deactivated Impact Pro Wrestling Australia page
I am wanting to recreate or take over the Impact Pro Wresting Australia page, however I will need your permission first before taking over or recreating the page.--Smoco01 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I speedy deleted this article as it had no references to independent reliable sources which demonstrated the notability of this organisation/competition. Do you have any detailed references on this topic which can be used to develop an article and demonstrate it is on a notable topic? - please see WP:ORG for the relevant notability requirements. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Autogenerated citations
Delta has inserted these with arbitrary numbers while at the same time deleting plain English grouped citations. While they make no difference to readers in edit mode its impossible to know to whom the arbitrary number refers. These have appeared in Battle of Jerusalem Battle of Rafa and Sinai and Palestine Campaign. I've re edited the two battles - the first taking me 5 hours and the second just under an hour - a skill I would rather not have developed! But they still remain in the campaign article. AustralianRupert suggested I contact you as an administrator in the hope you might have the tools to fix these, dare I say it 'automatically' as its not possible to simply undo, as there are intervening edits. I'd be glad of your advice, help etc. --Rskp (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I presume that you're talking about edits such as these? I'm afraid that the admin toolkit doesn't include anything that helps with fixing problems such as this. As a suggestion, you could copy and paste the article (in edit mode) into a word processing program and then use the find and replace tool to relatively quickly fix things (eg, search for 'autogenerated11' and replace it with 'Cutlack49–51' or similar). I agree that these automated changes seem to be unhelpful. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks. It does seem that, so far, delta is the only editor who has been doing these changes. Are there any ways that delta can be discouraged from this unhelpful practice? I've tried twice asking why the changes but not only was there no reply, delta cut my messages. --Rskp (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi do you have diffs for that? Delta/Betacommand has a history of such behavior and is under some pretty heavy duty editing restrictions: Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not. What are diffs? --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The URL to the version history of a page showing how it's changed - see WP:DIFF. I looked for exchanges between you and delta in your editing history, but couldn't find them, and the diffs to your posts and his responses would be helpful. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. I posted to his talk page, but I didn't keep a note of when they were posted. I did complain to Dana, I think, soon after my second message was cut. I'll see if I can get close to a date. --Rskp (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Hi, I left the first message on delta's talk on 23 May which was replied to. Since then my messages of 24 May, 27 May and 2 June have been ignored. The messages read -

On 21 March you spent considerable time going through Battle of Jerusalem and adding 'autogenerated' citations. Can you explain why you did this because from my point of view they make it very difficult to make future edits. --Rskp (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Autogenerated citations
 * 19% of the references where duplicates (57 out of 204) merging duplicates makes things cleaner. Feel free to rename them I just merged duplicates. ΔT The only constant 11:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I'm working on a re-edit of the article I will change all the autogenerated citations back to plain English. This will involve me in considerable time wasting duplication of effort which is disappointing. But it will be worth it as they will still clearly be duplicates but it will make it easier to re-edit. Please don't insert autogenerated citations in any other articles that are connected to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign as they are all works in progress and the citations need to be in plain English so others can re-edit the pages. I appreciate your cooperation in this regard. --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The 39 autogenerated citations you edited into the Battle of Jerusalem article took over 5 hours to change back into English. Please, if you are tempted to do this to any other page on Wikipedia, for the sake of wiki, DO'NT. --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Autogenerated citations

Can you please tell me why you think its better to replace an identified source with a anonymous number? --Rskp (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC) --Rskp (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Autogenerated citations Battle of Jerusalem


 * Hi, I've been out of town and missed this - I'll follow up on it tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Recently [delta] has started renaming files - I understand he is doing this to more clearly describe the photos - could you tell me how he does it so that I can help? --Rskp (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't know. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

clarification
Good day, Arequest for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you were involved or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice please
Hi, can I get some advice please. You may remember I came to you after User:Alex79818 opened a frivolous arbcom case against me. The guy is still following me on Talk:Falkland Islands flinging a lot of mud and bad faith accusations around. What would you suggest I do? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just warned them about their most recent comment. Given the nature of the dispute, it would be best to handle any further issues via WP:ANI, including diffs as appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Paulioetc is back, block evading again
, for evidence refer to the edits in May. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree - that's obviously him/her and I've blocked the account - I'll leave it to you to revert their edits per WP:DENY. This is getting really tedious! Let me know if/when other socks appear and I'll block them as well. Cheers,


 * Thank you for both. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Now using a public WiFi network. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He seems to have moved on now. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Royal Military College, Duntroon article
Hi Nick, the 23 June 2011 Army News article titled "How RMC works" uses many of the words in our own Royal Military College, Duntroon article which I spent considerable time rewriting over the past couple of years. While I think that it is great that the Army News has deemed the work good enough to use in their own article, I'm a little concerned that someone might tag my own work as a copyvio of the Army News, when in reality it is the other way around. Is there anything I should do to ensure that this doesn't happen? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (TPS) The talk page template Template:Backwardscopy may be of use. -- saberwyn 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added that in now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that saberwyn. It's ironic that Defence is very strict about its copyright conditions, yet does something like this. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)