This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

G['day Nick, Fixed all you asked thanks for the help

Hi Nick, you could well be right, I was mainly trying to convey the structure more precisely, i.e. that TAG East is a subsidiary of 4RAR (rather than an equivalent unit). Cheers. Grant65 (Talk) 01:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there. I didn't see your new material at all until just now. Maybe we both tried to save at the same time and I just beat you. It shouldn't work out the way it did though. Weird. BTW, as usual, good stuff there and well done. Grant65 | Talk 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nick, my source (an Army History Unit article) simply said that the 34th (and its Bns) was renamed/restructured as RAR. If you have better information, that's all good. But the way the RAR and BCOF articles read now, the 34th Bde and the 65th, 66th and 67th Bns still exist, parallel to the RAR. It's ambiguous. I think we need something to express the exact relationship between the 34th Bde and RAR. Grant65 | Talk 08:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

G'day Nick. Can you have a look at this and check for any errors I may have made? Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 08:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at speedy deletion criteria I3, that image could be deleted at any time without warning. Category:Non-commercial use only images shows you the template that would be on the page including the link to Jimbo's email announcing the new procedure. I apologize that I didn't say anything. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nick, do you know where i can get info about the current composition of 1RAR for its article, any help is appreciated . Regards hossens27 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info much appreciated, do you have any thoughts on how to further improve the article. Regards Hossens27 13:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ADF Command.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. You have noted on the page for Image:ADF Command.JPG that the image was "released into the public domain". it wasn't. CoA maintains copyright on it. Releasing something into the public domain has a specific meaning. -- Myk 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your question at the above-referenced project page. Hope this helps! :)

— Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The source is informal but close to the information, but I expect it to be in the public statements soon. There are only a few candidate squadrons based upon the press release info anyhow, independent of what I posted. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the vote was even was because no one bothered to inform me about it. As the main author of the main article, I would have voted for inclusion. Obviously, it's one paragraph, the original split is dumb. I am re-merging. Maury 13:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the squadron numbers for the RAN's FAA should follow the same pattern as for the Fleet Air Arm. I've attached what seems to be the only FAA squadron article for No. 849 Squadron FAA. Hope this helps. Hammersfan 5 March 2006, 18.00 GMT

Hey nick just letting you know that i just started a Military of Australia Portal thought you moight be interested. Also could you give me a hand on the intro to the portal not sure how to properly discribe the military of Australia. Hossens27 09:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

Can you please have a look at Iron Range National Park, Qld, Rattlesnake Island near Townsville, Palm ISland, near Townsville and Mt Louisa Townsville.

YOu might be able to add further info/links to these wikis if you are interested Peter

I've replied to your comments here; hopefully I've made the reasons for my concern a bit more clear. Kirill Lokshin 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick

I've just coded up a link to your user page, as part of an endnote in an external article. It is in the endnotes for: Richard Tanter, 8 June 2006, Ten questions about East Timor for which we need answers, Nautilus Institute at RMIT. Let me know if you aren't happy with this. I can easily delete it or change it. Ta. -- Jonathan O'Donnell 05:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Great I didnt even get around to asking anybody yet, now thats enthusiasm. I have to get in contact with Kirill Lokshin now I can tell him there is at least 2 of us. Hossens27 12:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem about the RAAF template. Hossens27 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saw the page already looks good, but theres still work to do. RAN main article already lokks better too. Hossens27 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You voted for Military history of Australia during World War II which has now been selected as Australian collaboration of the fortnight. Please help to improve the article. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah fair point, i am being a little slack not rewriting it. Hossen27 10:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed the following pages are up for deletion with no objections, though you might want to check on them

• No. 29 Squadron RAAF
• Officer Training School RAAF
• School of Air Navigation RAAF
• School of Air Traffic Control RAAF
  

FalconZero 23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nick can you give me any suggestion for more Aussie made and or developed mil equipment (besides RAN ships), im running out of ideas. Hossen27 12:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick. Hossen27 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. I dont think that the Leeuwin class is a major problem, they were Australian built and as far as i know not used by anybody else. Anyway, the list features a good variety of Aus military equipment. Hossen27 13:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of the information of UFOs in Iraq, the US should pull all its troops out of Iraq to focus on fighting an interplanetary war against space monsters. Clearly the photos show an Earth invasion is imminent. Rintrah 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, your expert comments on Battle of Vevi (1941) would be appreciated. Grant65 | Talk 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick, are you sure that this edit is correct that the airport was used for ferrying aircraft between Australia and New Zealand? Would it not have been to ferry aircraft between New Zealand and the theatre in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, etc? That was my understanding when I visited the island a few years ago. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 12:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll remember me from discussion at orbat.com etc. Which specific instances in RGF do you think are unjustifiable commentary and why? Do you think I should make no comment on the efforts to raise combat readiness? Really would appreciate your help to improve the article. Cheers Buckshot06 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in your comment on JDW. Do you think they're full of people's opinions? They pass themselves off as being experts etc. Will change the section you quoted as you suggest; my personal opinions themselves are obviously showing through. Would you mind (a) telling me anywhere else you've noticed in the article that seems POV, and (b) going back to the A class review in a few days and saying whether you're happy with it on the basis of the changes. I'd suggest you put things on rotations in Iraq under MNF-Iraq if they're old rotations, and Iraq War OB if they're current. Cheers Buckshot06 02:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant work inserting the photo of General Maslov. Great to have a photo to add to the name; I never thought of it!! Buckshot06 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks Nick for your note on the FAC nomination. We'll see how it goes... Buckshot06 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just about to drop you a note. Better to have some good info on women in the Russian forces than dreadful examples of misogenism (sp?). When we can find the good info, that is! I agree, women are probably treated poorly (when they're not being sexually assaulted!). Buckshot06 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Do you want to cooperate on something else? Next project article? My new one is Red Army, so if you want to take a look at its current peer review request, that'd be welcome. Cheers Buckshot06 02:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you really worked over that article listing those cites!! I suppose it's back to the library for more refs!! Thanks. Buckshot06 06:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The article contains the lines: "The costs of the project will be partly offset by the decommissioning of the two oldest units, with Canberra paying off in 2005 and Adelaide in 2006. The first upgraded vessel, Sydney, returned to the fleet in 2005." in the upgrade section. This seems out-of-date unless Adelaide is still in service and "paying off" means the same thing as "paid off" - We would use stricken or decommissioned in American English. Rmhermen 16:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I created M Special Unit. It's just a stub for now. -- James Bond 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is ready for an FA nomination now. Do you want to self-nom, or I can do it for you, as you wish. Buckshot06 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats Nick! Roll on another Featured Article... Buckshot06 08:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good work! Cla68 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I have a bit too much on my plate at the moment to get involved, but I thought you might interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Australian_maritime_history. Grant65 | Talk 15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your comment on Jetwave Dave's talk page, and would appreciate your input to the discussion on the MILHIST talk page - we're trying to decide exactly what to do with the category. Carom 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Appears viable and is now started - please excuse any rough patches in the start - any suggestions would be appreciated! SatuSuro 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Nick, here's your chance to improve the article. Please submit some information that can provide a more balanced perspective. Bzuk 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, USMC was the only template for a single branch of a nation's armed forces, being an FA. There is no FA template for the military of an entire state. Because Military of the Soviet Union is on my hit list, I asked Kirill for some comments, which he gave on my talk page. I'll happily do an informal review and suggestions on ADF if you wish - I'll leave it at the talk page if you like. Drop me a line saying if and where you want it.

Thanks for the photos in Red Army, by the way.

Cheers from across the ditch - it's nice and sunny here today! Buckshot06 02:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A while ago you asked me for the SAS kill ratio in the Vietnam war. Did you find that out? As for the secret combat deaths, well thats common knowledge, can't really cite that. Thankyou. Goldfishsoldier 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a book about the ANZAC involvement in the Vietnam war, by Richard Pelvin. He states that the SAS during their time in Vietnam had 492 confirmed kills for 2 KIA. Goldfishsoldier 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I just noticed your comment re Cowra. While I don't think it's that relevant to banzai charge, I did a fair bit of research on this when I wrote Cowra breakout. I couldn't find any bigger breakouts in terms of the number of prisoners involved, although it could be argued that Sobibor was more a successful escape and a more amazing story. If you're right — and you may have good reasons for your view — then a few other articles will also have to be charged, e.g. see Stalag_Luft_III#Other_large_escapes_during_World_War_II. Grant65 | Talk 11:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did find Jasenovac concentration camp, which appears to have been bigger. I guess it also depends on what constitutes a breakout/escape. Grant65 | Talk 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nick I have put the Australian Mil Portal up for review (see here). Any thoughts would be helpful. Hossen27 04:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There was an article in today's Japan Times about this subject and included a photo of the relatives of the four killed submariners greeting the ship returning their remains to Japan. Since it is a public domain image I went ahead and uploaded it to the Commons as "Image:Kamakura Maru.jpg". There doesn't, however, appear to be room for the image in the article, but if there is a Commons gallery with images related to this article then perhaps it could be included there. Cla68 03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by the copyright information you've listed on this image, for several reasons:

1) You've used the {{ PD-Australia}} template, which is for images created in Australia. However, the photo is listed as having been taken at Lord's. 2) Wikipedia cannot use images listed for non-commercial use only, except under the very limited fair use exemptions. This has been established many times as a requirement, and we certainly can't list such images as PD. 3) In any case, if the AWM still controls the commercial rights then surely the picture isn't out of copyright; I don't see how the AWM can have it both ways!

Can you help on these questions, please? Loganberry ( Talk) 01:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer to that. I think as it now stands it's okay, though as you mentioned yourself in your reply I'm not sure the AWM can "require" anything of an out-of-copyright picture. In any case (as you also mention) it's British law rather than Australian that applies to this image. Cheers, though; I think the new tag is much better! Loganberry ( Talk) 13:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For the barnstar. Nice to be appreciated. Hope you're having a good holiday season. Cheers Buckshot06 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Please read WP:OWN Thanks DXRAW 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Having developed an article to FA-standard with someone else means nothing "This policy in a nutshell:

If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to." DXRAW 00:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

hello nick, THANK YOU for the "battle for australia"!!

mathias

Thanks for uploading Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Please be aware that fair use images are not permitted in Portal space per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Durin 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree a photo of a female member would be appropriate. I have no problem with the image, its not the best but seeing we cant use pics off defence.gov.au it will have to do for now, also a picture of WWI/WWII nurses would also be good. Hossen27 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I saw your edit regarding the photo' of Stukas, in the Sheffield article. You're right, of course, the photo'should have been of JU88s (or Dornier 17s or Heinkel 111s ) and not JU87s. Do you think any of the photo's already on Wikipedia in the above articles (or others) could be used as a replacement? thanks Wikityke 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nick i am considering adding a section to History of the Royal Australian Navy detailing the contribution of women to the RAN. Do you think it should have its own section (if so where in the article should it go), or should it be divided up into the different periods. Hossen27 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:NZ_Jav_wn06031149tn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the removal of the commercials from the "trivia" section? Carajou 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message, I can see where you're coming from regarding the removal of the commercial trivia, so I won't insist that it be put back. But I would like to state that it was a unique bit of the ship's history which was never done before that time, and I had a great deal of fun being involved in it. Carajou 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess i didn't read it throughly enough, it looks fine now though, anyway. Good work.. Fooptia321 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nick I am glad that the process is finally over, some of the objections were a little pedantic but I really wanted to get the portal featured. Thanks for our work on the units, equipment and other stuff. Hossen27 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep I've changed it. Hossen27 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I have no problem with people disagreeing with the article. However, as you are suggesting, removing cited information and replacing it with rumour is not acceptable. Best regards, Mark83 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Is Dip A (Mil) a real degree? But I thought Duntroon was a military college, and as such wouldn't it be a Bachelor of Arts? Possibly Bachelor of Arts (Military studies)? Googling it - the references mainly come back to wikipedia, and Harvey Shore's entry here . Was this originally a prank entry? It seems a little overblown Fast Rita 07:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nick *smacks own head*. Harvey Shore IS onero... The Duntroon website doesn't seem to say what qualifications can be earned there. Any other suggestions for how to cross reference it? Fast Rita 07:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I am ashamed *hangs head* -- saberwyn 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm gonna smack a question mark on that one. Just because the first ship of the class decommissions shouldn't mean that the class name gets retconned... should it? -- saberwyn 08:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the title of the article. That has proved problematic as the article has already gone through a number of titles. All the information came from the bipartisan U.S. government report called the Cox Report, therefore perhaps the article should be titled Timeline of Cox Report controversy or some such, I don't know. Help yourself. I'm not much interested in the article anymore. I created it, but dropped it a while ago. The nuke tests were included because they were what caused the Energy Department scientists to conclude espionage had taken place. Look under November 1995 in the timeline. I reverted them back into the timeline. Regards, --Jayzel 04:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)-- Jayzel 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

hi mate, yes those guy's are NZSAS, only the NZSAS use the m4 in the NZDF, it was at an air force open day where they put on a display of tactical landings with a C130, I don't know if bluring is relly needed as they are camo'd up well and recognition would be difficult, but if it's asked I'll remove the photo mough

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aust_NZ_Tonga.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ABCA_(NZDF).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick

My name is Jonathan O'Donnell. I work for Nautilus at RMIT, a small group that works on security (including human security) issues in the region. We would like to talk to you about a project that we thought you might be interested in. Could you please drop us a line, maybe. Either e-mail myself ( jonathan.odonnell@rmit.edu.au) or Richard Tanter ( richard.tanter@rmit.edu.au). Any contact would be greatly appreciated. Jonathan O'Donnell 07:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have fairly limited knowledge of the intricacies of licensing in this regard, and none at all of the particular situation with Australian law. All I can say is that Crown Copyright has typically been accepted in the past as sufficiently free for us to use; but my recollection of the issue predates the current push for tighter licensing control. Kirill Lokshin 01:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of one off the top of my head; have you tried posting a question to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems? Kirill Lokshin 06:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nick. Two comments and then I'll leave it to you:

Runway excursion means "to leave the runway" either at the end or on the side. "Over-run" means using the whole length and going off the far end.

The article does not specify, but according to the picture in the referenced article it seems the a/c left the on the side. As far as the gravity of the incident, we'll have to wait for more details. If the pilot made a mistake, its minor. If a main gear collapsed on the runway for no apparent reason, causing the runway excursion, its a major incident.

Regards, Hudicourt 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, the pic is a good find, the Imperial War Museum doesn't seem to have any of the actually landings.

The laws are very confusing, but my understanding is that "created in Australia" can also mean "taken by an Australian in another country", and Template_talk:PD-Australia#Location_or_Person seems to confirm this. Grant | Talk 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nick just a quick question on the daily units on the Aus Mil portal. Obviously where about half way through the year with them, do you think we will need to repeat any units before the end of the year (mainly air force) or do you think there is enough. Also I noticed that the daily unit is a good way of improving articles, i'v found myself uploading images and improving articles so I can use it on the daily unit page, have you found this also. Hossen27 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, I have no problem with using the bases of all three services in the daily units. Hossen27 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Your opinions would be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Article British anti-invasion preparations of World War II has been promoted to featured article. Thank you for your help and support. Gaius Cornelius 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it I was just about to create the exact same article. Just a small question also, should the article include information about all the former professional heads of the RAN. This includes when the title was different eg. First Naval Member, Chief of Naval Staff. Or should the titles have a separate article. I have the complete list if you want it added. Hossen27 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started the list is it to your liking —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hossen27 ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

just gave my Polar Bear Monument picture a promotion. Thanks. Carptrash 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For creating well over 100 Daily unit entries for the Military of Australia portal. Keep up the good work. Hossen27 08:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit from my "talk" page: Hi Bzuk, I hope that you don't mind me reverting your edit in the F-35 Lightning II‎ article in which you'd combined the 'references' and 'further reading' sections. I personally find it confusing when these sections are combined and the guideline Wikipedia:Guide to layout states that they should be separate. regards, -- Nick Dowling 07:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I do not mind at all, although let me give you my concern over even having a "further reading section at all" in that if the article is based on research, the relevant sources should already have been part of the references. As an academic librarian, I find that there has been a confusing departure in bibliographic referencing protocols in the entire Wikipedia format.

If you are citing reference sources, these are normally listed as a footnote or endnote. Since there is no provision for footnoting, then the endnote is the only option. Yet the Wikipedia guidelines do not refer to an endnote, rather editors have incorporated a "notes" section after the main body of text. Then on top of the notes section is another section called "references" which would normally be called a "bibliography" in research and academic writing which Wikipedia strives to emulate. There is a provision for separate notes and references but most Wikipedia editors follow a format that combines the two lists, which is fine since the notes and referenced sources can be seen in relation to each other in a "tight" format.

Now on top of all of this is the "Further reading" (or viewing, or listening, etc.) section which allows editors to provide a completely new listing of sources. First, when there is no provision for individual research or "first-hand" commentary, why is there a listing of personal favourites or "any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers?" If these sources were so important, why were they not used for research in the first place?

Then to cap off the whole "sloppy mess" is the over-arching guidelines that state: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research." Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.

• Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
• Wikipedia has an established code of conduct and respect.

That Nick, is why I usually do not have a "Further reading" section in my edits. It is confusing enough to have a "references" page, why introduce more references? Now don't get me started on the mess over using an APA bibliographic style guide over the usual MLA guide and then those %4#2*& "templates." That sums up my concerns over the bibliographical sourcing that is recommended by Wikipedia. IMHO Bzuk 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Just thought you'd like a heads up - over the next month I will be doing a lot of research on Centaur as part of a university assignment. A very substantial rewrite will slowly take shape at User:Saberwyn/AHS Centaur Sandbox/Rewrite. If there's any books or other texts you think I should have a look at, please give me a holler.

Regards, -- saberwyn 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is there anything in particular I need to put in the email to get A Critical Vulnerability? I've had a look at it and there looks like some good context in there, but I hate working from PDFs with a passion... a hardcopy would be excellent. -- saberwyn 11:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've 'completed' (I use that term loosely) the AHS Centaur rewrite. Can you please have a look and offer your opinion before I go and whack it into mainspace? -- saberwyn 09:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the image and the alterations doen to the article. Per your suggestions, have expanded on the introduction (although I believe it is of low quality), and have attempted to clarify matters regaring the war crimes investigation. Can you please have another look at these and comment? -- saberwyn 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. My dream is to get this to FA status, but its a dream that will be accomplished one step at a time. -- saberwyn 08:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest... I'm kind of confused as to how it made it. The only outright support was from yourself, and there seemed to be a lot of mild opposition. Can you enlighten me?

Also, what do we need to drag this article, kicking and screaming, up to FA status? -- saberwyn 08:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for the copy edit. As for stuff on the nurses, I don't have access to that kind of information on hand, and the texts I used (now all returned to the various libraries) didn't really deal with that specific subject. However, there are a couple of books at my local library I'll check out tomorrow, histories of Australian military nursing. Might have something. -- saberwyn 12:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The two texts, Our War Nurses by Rupert Goodman and Guns and Brooches by Jan Bassett, both on the history of Australian military nursing, do not detail specific reaction to the deaths of the nurses, just general reaction to the whole mess. I could list the other 11 nurses, but that this point in time that's all I can expand on

Its not hurting. -- saberwyn 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on this article reaching A-class status. With you no doubt aiming to improve it to FA, I think it's important we include a (balanced) criticisms and controversy section. This isn't especially important in itself for the ADF, though it will be very useful. The thing is that for any other national armed forces articles that reach FA should have the same sort of section; important for the Chileans, the Russians, Chinese, etc (and helpful for our objectivity as westerners!) What do you think? Cheers Buckshot06 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An 'assessment' section sounds fine; fits in reasonably well with what the level of problems (low) in the ADF actually are. Buckshot06 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and you have at least two sources - that Army History Unit ref - but I don't see anything there about recruitment/retention problems for, for example, Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr level pilots, specialist naval ratings (comms/electronic, for example in the RNZN;), Army manning levels etc. Some mention of those issues would make for a more complete picture. Cheers Buckshot06 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great news for both the Aust Army and the RAAF if that's the case! Can you provide cites+links for the second infty trng bn and the sufficiency of aircrew for the RAAF/Aust Army articles? (Also you might want to consider archiving your talkpage; just a thought.) Cheers Buckshot06 00:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity and as a reply to your comment on the Churchill article,

"I don't see how a wealthy writer who concentrated on poltical and military history can be 'couragous' or why that's ironic."

I like to know what you believe Courage is. Since I have a dynamic IP address, please reply here. Thanks. 141.155.117.80

Why do you think that Churchill was a courageous writer? He's hardly the first person to successfully write lots of books to get them through financial hardship and he seems to have done his writing in comfortable surrounds. AFAIK, the content of Churchill's works weren't considered controversial at the time so he wasn't risking his career or reputation when he wrote them. As a comparison, I'd consider Ulysses S. Grant a courageous writer as he completed his memoirs while suffering from the cancer which would kill him in order to provide for his family who would have been destitute if the book wasn't completed by the time of his death. While Churchill was unquestionably physically and politically courageous, I really don't see how this carried over into what he wrote and how he wrote it. By the way, why don't you register as a member of Wikipedia? It would get around your issues with IP addresses. -- Nick Dowling 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the quality of the AHS Centaur is as good as it is going to get for a while, and I would like your opinion on the subject of making this a FAC. What I want to know is if I should go for it, or if there are any changes I need to make before shooting it off.

No matter what you suggest, I just want to say I deeply appreciate your assistance during the course of this excercise, and request that you lend me your wisdom and guide me through the minefield of my first Featured Article nomination. -- saberwyn 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for both your assistance with the article and your support. I'm surprised with how easy it was... maybe I need to try my hand at another one? -- saberwyn 09:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenge accepted! -- saberwyn 10:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get most of it knocked together, then I'll insert it gradually. -- saberwyn 10:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes following your comments at the recent A-class review of Ironclad warship and would be interested to hear your thoughts before renominating. Many thanks, The Land 13:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Your comments would be welcome at the discussion on images from the Australian War Memorial database: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#June 19. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick

Thanks for the mail and your encouragement. I am still finding my feet on Wikipedia.

Um, no. It isn't active tense yet.

>"The three Australian armed services were established during the first decades of the 20th Century without a single chain of command."

This is passive tense because we cannot see who did the establishment. This is active and is it accurate?

"During the first decades of the 20th Century, as the three Australian armed services were establishing themselves, they did not share a chain of command."

Once again, thank you.

Regards - Alan.

Alant 03:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC) How about: "During the first decades of the 20th Century, the Australian Government established the three armed services without a single chain of command." Alant 03:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC) That is perfect Nick, thank you. Alant 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not a pain in the neck, just a very thorough reiewer. That was what was needed for the article. Thankyou for taking the time to review it in detail and your comments have made it a better article. Thankyou Woodym555 11:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For supporting my nomination for adminship, I appreciate it. Grant | Talk 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm close to finishing. Aftermath needs expanding (in particular the general and Kuttabul sections) and the lead could use a rewrite, but that's it. Please have a look and tell me if I'm missing anything. -- saberwyn 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I got bored and have completed the merger. On the talk page is a list of things that need doing, feel free to add as necessary. -- saberwyn 10:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, what is the advantage of the scrolling references? They are a bit annoying. Is it simply for space reasons? If so, I don't really think it is necessary, as the whole page scrolls - like any web page. Sure, it's a neat trick, but I'm not convinced of its advantages. kind regards -- Merbabu 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You do realise that this is all your fault. Run for FAC, or does it need a little fine-tuning and expansion first? -- saberwyn 10:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it 24 hours... I've got the day off so I'll spend some time trying to weed out the best news article for covering the ceremonies on August 6 (the one you just added to the article and the one that afternoon at the wreck site for the relatives [1]) -- saberwyn 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I repeat my assertation that this is all your fault. -- saberwyn 10:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you have made several changes to Military history of New Zealand, I take this to mean you are interested in this subject and I was wondering what your views were on my suggestion on its talk page. Blacksmith2 ^talk 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I have modified the SASR Structure according to your AUSSOCOM Orbat Citation SASR Organisation The SASR’s three squadrons rotate between contingency and counter terrorism configurations. Two squadrons are maintained in the contingency role and organisation with the reminder filling the counter-terrorism role. Rotations occur every 12 months, so each squadron spends one year out of three in the CT role and configuration. During the Sydney Olympics the proportion of CT and Contingency squadrons was reversed, with two CT squadrons being available (see appendix 6). However, since the establishment of TAG (East), 4 RAR, this expedient has not been necessary (see appendix 2). Each of the two SAS contingency squadrons consists of a Water Troop, Air Operations Troop, Mobility Troop and Signals Troop. Each troop consists of a Troop HQ and four 5 man patrols. During emergencies, extra patrols are formed from the Troop, Squadron and Regimental HQs. The SAS counter terrorism squadron (Tactical Assault Group West) consists of Water Troop, Land Troop, Sniper Troop and Signals Troop. The Water Troop is the Offshore Assault Team, and includes attached divers from the RAN’s Clearance Diving Teams. Hopefully I made it right

I have tagged Image:Anzac_Iraq.jpg as {{ no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 09:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged Image:Aust_SOC.jpg as {{ no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 06:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged Image:Aust_Army_Choppers.jpg as {{ no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 06:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You know that informal review I did for the ADF, which you got me to put on the article talk page, could you do one for the above article? I've improved it a lot recently, but it could use another pair of eyes on it to sort out it's future direction. Meanwhile the ADF article is nearing FA clearance; I think it'll get there. Congrats in advance.... Cheers Buckshot06 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Noticed the brigade link that you just inserted. That was where my only question on your comments was, too. Do you want me to cite that ordinary brigades have circa 3-5000 personnel, or if not, what? Cheers, Buckshot06 11:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Only citation possible would be 'Buckshot06, assessment made 24 July 2007, based on several weeks

of examining references to DRC brigades on internet'. What do you want me to do; cite it like that or remove the tag? Buckshot06 12:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Brillant - good initiative. However, at the NZDF Library in Wellington the NZDF had copies of Jane's World Armies - you could have a look for that as well - is there an ADF Library open to researchers? Also, if you want to evaluate whether I've answered all your and BanyanTree's comments, and once we've incorporated your new JSENT material (we may have to go back and forward about it - you might like to put some draft sections on the talk page), I'll put it up for A-class. (one last thing: check your sources for 2 Air Group - is 'Kamia' really Kamina?) Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and change the Air Force entry as you've suggested, noting the source by each aircraft entry in the table (or do you think the table should go totally?- it's a bit misleading). For the Navy, there may well be four commands, but if you run a search on Google you'll find references in 2007 to the First Naval Region and the Fifth Naval Region, and I have another source that confirms the Fifth Naval Region. So please insert the data on four commands, but link the Goma one to 5NR and the Kinshasa one to 1NR, while noting that the data is '02, and we are conflating two different sources. Please also if you can change/insert some text following footnote 5, as right now, it's a lift and paste from the Library of Congress Country Study '93 (which is allowed, but mirroring it isn't fantastic). Many thanks Buckshot06 08:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this is ready for A-class yet or do you want to run your eyes over it again? Buckshot06 16:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it up as soon as Kirill has had a chance to tell me whether he think's its ready or not. Thanks for your tweaks. Buckshot06 13:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What else do you think needs to be done before I put this forward for FAC? Cheers Buckshot06 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did know about it, but I have neglected that list recently. Thanks for reminding me and for listing Len Waters. Since you haven't made any changes to the article, I guess you think it's OK(?) Grant | Talk 09:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit unclear. The Australian Dictionary of Biography entry on Waters' brother Jim (they don't seem to have one on Len yet) seems to suggest that the AIF was more open than the Militia. Which goes some way to explaining the career of Reg Saunders. And my impression is that the Army was generally less discriminatory than the RAN, which accepted some indigenous people, but barred Jack Wong Sue, who was nevertheless able to join the RAAF. There are a lot of people with Chinese surnames like "Chong" and "Wong" on the WW2 Nominal Roll, but I get the impression that Asians were officially barred from army combat units. I definitely recall reading of at least one Chinese Australian and one Afghan Australian who served on aircrews with RAAF squadrons in Europe. Perhaps the RAAF was the least racist because it was the newest of the services (although it was rumoured to have a "glass ceiling" for Catholics, oddly enough). Grant | Talk 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this has most of the answers, at least in regard to indigenous people and I have worked it into the Waters article. Kamuel Abednego, a Torres Strait Islander who was commissioned as a 1st Lt in the US Navy(!), might be might be worth an article too. For that matter, I wonder how many people realise that quite a few white Australians enlisted in the US Navy and Army during WW2 as boat crews, and possibly in other occupations for all I know . Grant | Talk 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And here is something about the situation in regard to Chinese Australians. Grant | Talk 10:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on taking this to FA - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here. I'd be interested to know your thoughts. Megapixie 07:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMAS_Armidale.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 11:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Saw your edit summary on the portal entry - tend to agree, don't think it adds much to WP... Cheers, Ian Rose 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. By putting a size forcing on this image, you REDUCED the size of the image (for me and all others who use large thumbnail settings - mine was 300px, so you took it down quite a bit by overriding my global settings) - please do not use size forcing unless really necessary, for example to align an image under a box of a fixed width (size forcing is also discouraged by WP:MOS). If you feel thumbs are too small, please instead change your own thumbnail preferences (see your "my preferences" tab). Ingolfson 08:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed a compromise with a larger fixed size. See article. Cheers. Ingolfson 09:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work! And it's nice to see that someone else is keeping an eye on this page. (The page has a history of being "censored".) Thanks, Pdfpdf 10:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries - it's pretty blatant stuff. Whoever's doing it seems to have learned to missquote cited sources as well and use weasel words to confuse issues. -- Nick Dowling 10:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

> Whoever's doing it seems to have learned to missquote cited sources as well and use weasel words to confuse issues.
Perhaps the person is a politician?

Oh dear! You've introduced a pile of errors. The facts are:

• The Commonwealth Govt owns the land.
• They have leased it to Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd.
• CIA P/L own the lease, and therefore the right to do pretty much whatever they please there.
• CIA P/L do NOT own the Airport; they own the lease.
• The Airport is run by Capital Investment Group P/L.

Pdfpdf 10:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Could you fix it up? Citations will probably be needed to make it harder for the airport to remove anything it doesn't like. -- Nick Dowling 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. (I'll be leaving the citations alone. I agree that they might slow the propagandist down.) Pdfpdf 11:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't as hard as I thought it would be!
BTW There's a red link to Jon Stanhope Media Release in one of the citations you added.
Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be done to this before I put it forzward for FAC? Cheers Buckshot06 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been promoted! Thanks for all your help. Cheers Buckshot06 09:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Was wondering if you can read my response in the FAC to see if it answers some of your concerns.

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rape of Nanking (book)

Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats where I had the image in the first place then I decided to move it to the location of the site section. I was planning to add some more images of the interior of the bunker when I eventually gain access or get permission to use someones elses images. The trivia section was sourced from an NNA document and was added by someone using an ip in the Bankstown article. I wrote half the article and the ip came along and added most of the history section. I reverted to restore the trivia, which was my main concern. I plan on looking into other tunnels and bunkers around sydney, eventually . Cheers Adam.J.W.C.

Okay thanks for that. I'll look into fixing the citations. The info about MacArthur was added by the ip but I have heard about it as well. If I cant find a ref I may remove it some time later on . Cheers_______Ad@m.J.W.C. 05:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, today I have received News paper scans from 1971 and so on that state Macarthur visited the bunker, I am not sure if it is direct proof, but I have atleast 2 news paper articles that say he visited the site. I know this does not prove anything, but if you want I could probably send you an attachment or possibly upload the paper clippings to wikimedia where you could have a look. I am not sure what the copyrite is though for newspaper articles . Cheers_______Ad@m.J.W.C. 09:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I may also be receiving information about other hidden bunkers around sydney but the type of bunker that I would like to report on would be the lesser known bunkers that are hidden in the suburbs of Sydney. The type of thing that people would find interesting . Cheers_______Ad@m.J.W.C. 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've noticed that you've been changing my edits regarding the background colour of writer's boxes. It appears to be standard for the other writers that I've seen Samuel Beckett was where I first saw it. Aside from the desire to create a sense of uniformity I also think that it just looks better. Thanks. Doktor Waterhouse 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is cool! I have an idea, draft out an article, and next thing I know two other people have improved it! Any suggestions on where to go from here?

Also, I think Russell Offices should be a separate article from Campbell Park. Do you have an opinion?

Cheers, Pdfpdf 09:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate, re. your earlier sugguestion this could get up for A-class, I wanted to wait until I could add detail and quotes from a paper by Kristen Alexander, plus a pic of Arthur, but think it's probably ready now. Do you reckon it should go peer review first or jump straight in to the A-class review? I'm quite sure it's at B-class, though I haven't upped it from Start (prefer peers to do that to articles I've largely written). Let me know... Cheers, Ian Rose 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, if they are really free images, considering AWM's mail, and therefore if they can be used on Commons. As you know, Wikipedia articles might be used commercially. Does it mean, that since they are copyright free, we could just ignore AWM claims of keeping watermrk and demands of fees in case of commercial usage?.. Pibwl ←« 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate, was in the middle of checking sources... Well at least the key issue of the Battle of the Coral Sea is fixed. I'll still probably do a little copyedit, plus I don't think we can accept a citation which reads "Information supplied by R. Eyers VAOC worker" - unpublished/anecdotal. Stephens had no references but I may yet wade into the Official History to check on the Air Defence HQ question. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 6 - September 2007

"It's funny; recently I've started to notice people's impersonations of me, and it's basically like a hyperactive child. I'm a big fucking spaz."- Dave Grohl Project news "Today", Wilco, Pearl Jam, John Frusciante and Audioslave reached featured article status in the past month! Well done to Brandt Luke Zorn, Teemu08, the various Pearl Jam editors, NSR77, Grim-Gym and Gocsa respectively. The discographies of The Make-Up, Neutral Milk Hotel, Nirvana, Lightning Bolt, The Breeders and John Frusciante all reached featured list status during the past month; a record month. Well done to Drewcifer3000, Brandt Luke Zorn (who both wrote two featured lists!) CloudNine, NSR77 and Grim-Gym. Blood Sugar Sex Magik was featured on the Main Page on September 24. We collaborated on Nirvana (band), Jimmy Chamberlin, Noel Gallagher and Courtney Love during the past month. During the month of September, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, Era Vulgaris (album), Feeder (band), Harry and the Potters, " I Don't Remember", Kicking Television: Live in Chicago, Powderfinger, "Starlight" (song)" and Weezer (1994 album) were all promoted to good article status, a total of nine articles!

New members User:Dihydrogen Monoxide and User:Connorhalsell joined the alternative music fold during September. Editors User:CloudNine

You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Xihix 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC) .

Hi Nick, I have noticed this character too and -- after I just checked its history -- found that he/she/they has/have made a phenomenal and frequent number of unhelpful/borderline mischievous edits, often pushing a Filipino nationalist agenda. I have blocked edits by unregistered users from this IP for one week. Let's see if that does the trick. Cheers, Grant | Talk 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Now in lock-down for a month, unless he or she creates an account. Grant | Talk 08:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tobruk_beaching_ADF.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear oh dear, anyone would think TOBRUK beaches every other day, and in full view of the general public... Nick, having contracted with the Navy for years, I for one would support the contention that a free replacement image is not readily obtainable (any existing one would almost certainly have been taken without permission) so let me know if you want assistance attempting to retain this one. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Nick. Seeing as you are interested in ADF stuff, would you be interested in reffing this FA from the old days? atm, it seems like easy meat for FAR. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at this new article for cleanup/merger/whatever. Cheers Buckshot06 02:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the man on our template for whole-of-armed-forces articles, having brought Australian Defence Force to FA. Would you like to do an informal review and set of recommendations for the above article, on it's talk page, as I'm toying with the idea of improving it, probably at least for A-class. Cheers Buckshot06 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing that an image with as much information justifying its use as this one has is still tagged by this bot. Usually it targets files with no FUR at all - be interested to know what it's failed to find that it was looking for, or vice versa. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This bot seemed to be searching for the fair-use templates (which only need to contain material I'd already included). I've just added them and removed the copy-vio warning. I guess that there'll be another message eventually asking why I can't find an amateur photo of this event... -- Nick Dowling 10:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You cynic... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 10:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NZ Seasprite.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 09:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NZ Solider Dili.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NZ MPs.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NZ LOV wn06016555.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NZ C-130s.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When you undid my edit at Pacific War to re-add Thailand as an Axis power (which was itself an undo of an IP removing it from the list), your edit summary suggested that you agree that Thailand was on Japan's side from 1942 onward. So I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with me or not.

As for whether Thailand really should count as part of the Axis, I'm always a bit hesitant about the smaller countries that, at one point or another, join the Axis practically at gunpoint. But the Thai government that declared war on the UK and US was nonetheless the same one as before the Japanese invasion, so I'd lean towards adding it. Kelvinc 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay. So you agree that it's on "Japan's side", just not whether that side should be titled "Axis Powers". Hmm... ...I certainly see the argument that the Japanese and European Axis were almost completely independent in their operations and using the term "Axis" may appear to excessively emphasize a tenuous relationship. But "Axis" is, nonetheless, the conventional shorthand for "everyone the Allies fought", and Japan itself was part of the Triparite and Anti-Comintern Pacts, though not Thailand. I'll give it some thought. Kelvinc 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha okay. At least you did raise a good point about whether "Axis" or "Allies" mean anything in the Pacific. Kelvinc 01:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I took all the info from your article and for the Joint Forces Command and the 2 support units I had a look at the 2020 paper - if there needs anything to be corrected, let me know :-) -- noclador 12:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick, google "Ed Rees" and "Under Pressure" for the best descriptive paper of the F-FDTL available in open sources (and if you want to discuss this matter more, email me) Buckshot06 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, now seen you've found it. Another reference which I've linked in the article lists a 'Communications Unit' as part of the F-FDTL. Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

fixed it. -- noclador 08:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick

I saw you remove the table comparing Oceania and South East Asia as original research. I agree. What about the other tables? There's a link to World Gazette home page, but I bet that someone has done a lot of that number crunching themselves. I extra suspect when they talk about the "Accuracy of calculation". I went out on a limb and removed the Asia-Europe stats. What do you think? And the others? -- Merbabu 12:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Intervasion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intervasion. Thank you. WLU 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

G'day Nick. I finally got a chance to revisit the main source on Koolama and I think the text now addresses the queries you had about it. Grant | Talk 03:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I appear ignorant, but do you come from Perth, WA? Are you currently looking to become a teacher in profession? Sorry for the strange message! Auroranorth ( !) 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Any relations in Perth? Thanks for answering my strange question... Auroranorth ( !) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply but other people must have left messages around the same time so I must have missed yours.

With the categories I must agree that I have been a little over enthusiastic when adding them, I was just trying to find ways to help more people find the article/s that I create or any article that I come across. I will try to do it the correct way whenever possible. Also thanks for the compliments . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. ( talk) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is another on its way either tonight or tomorrow sometime, have you seen the Middle Head Fortifications pics . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. ( talk) 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, heres the other article that I recently mentioned fresh of the press Georges Head Battery . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. ( talk) 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you happen to know how more of those could be obtained legally and for free for use in Wikipedia? I believe image 005042 could be useful for both Fiat M11/39 and 2/6th Cavalry Commando Regiment (Australia), and 008413 would be good addition to L3/35 article because it shows both the basic tankette and the L3 cc-version with the Solothurn anti-tank rifle. Läyhä ( talk) 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Reading a bit further, images would be legal to copy from the AWM's site, but the expired copyright and the lack of user fees in this case won't mean that they would send any higher resolution versions by email for free? Läyhä ( talk) 11:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been nothing said on the talk page about the Zinn material since the middle of September, so why act now? It would also have helped if you had explicitly cited the talk page as justification for the removal in your edit summary. Since I hadn't noticed any activity there recently, I had no reason to look there now. -- Donald Albury 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, its a new thing I have recently learnt . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick, has there been any word yet if the new administration down there is going to be "shaking up" the ADF soon? Australian Labour governments seems to have a record of major cuts to defence projects, and I was wondering if there'd been any word on projects such as the Super Hornet and the Canberra class ships, among others. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page of the article. -- Shark face 217 00:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would gladly be able to write the culture section for the US-Australia relations article. HoweverI am currently swamped with tons of real-life work-related issues. I will be, however, dedicating a substantial portion of my Christmas break to editing Wikipedia. If you wish to do a major overhaul on that section this week, I am afraid I won't be able to help much. Now that I think about it, scrapping the section temporarily might be a good idea. :-P -- Shark face 217 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to delete the section. I'll just do the overhaul next week. -- Shark face 217 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And just so you know, I left a reply on the US-Australia relations article talk page with some possible links to places we can search from. -- Shark face 217 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be willing to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 ( talk) 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would gladly second this. Grant | Talk 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't onerous. If you want more info about what we do, email me. Grant | Talk 12:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed (this is getting too silly, bring on the real vote). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were one already! - BillCJ ( talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked to be nominated and accepted the nomination. If you'd like to comment or vote on my nomination, please visit: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nick Dowling -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thank you for fixing that slip-up with Russian in WWI. If you have a look at the discussion in Barbarossa, you will see that I would like to attempt a major rewrite on the article. The overall objective is to introduce consistency and relevance into it while either maintaining or preferably reducing the length. Given your participatory experience, I would appreciate your comments on the discussion there so far (with only one other person). Do you know anyone else that might be interested? Is there a way to find people by their area of interest? Cheers -- Mrg3105 ( talk) 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Please disregard this as I have now found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force -- Mrg3105 ( talk) 23:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... its getting there. The size of this article is scaring me at the moment.

I'm having trouble wrapping up the final years (from about 1980 onwards) as most of the dedicated texts finish in 1980 or 1982. Do you have any suggestions? -- saberwyn 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on holidays for the next three weeks, so I will only be doing minimal edits (if any). Go nuts. -- saberwyn 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have explained in Talk why I deleted the section. It is pure opinion. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 04:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am editing this article. Please stop causing edit conflicts by doing the same thing. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am checking all the references and removing any "example" which is not linked to a source in which someone reputable calls the object in question a "white elephant" - that seems to be nearly all of them so far. This is a very sloppy article. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your work on the Australian Defence Force and have decided to support your RFA. People do read the article without editing it! Good luck. I'm impressed with the FA. I did a lot of work on the Boeing 747 article and nominated it for FA. Hope I will be as lucky as you! Archtransit ( talk) 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Q1, I hope you realise that as an admin you may have to (on regular occasion) excuse yourself in an admin capacity from areas which you have been involved as an editor. As an admin of 9 months plus in the same areas I can advise personally how frustrating this is, especially when something is running loose in the top paddock in the Australian politics sections (which happens a bit too often for most people's liking) and every available Australian admin is COI. Orderinchaos 03:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first - well done, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A belated congratulations and happy new year from me also. Grant | Talk 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at my talk page. Best wishes, WjB scribe 13:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Here's your new mop and bucket. Use it well :) henrik• talk 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick, I have added section to Westgarth (Victoria) in relation to the bunker. So the page can be deleted. If the owner of the photos wishes to transfer into Westgarth article then he/she may do so. Regards -- Newm30 ( talk) 02:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up on the Military History page, the page really doesn't seem up to the standard FAC standard (I notice from reading previous FAC reviews that candidates have been rejected before just for having sizes over 100K alone, even without looking at content). Narson ( talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests ;) All the best!.... ~ Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, have you seen the SBS series "Real Top Guns" at 8pm on Wednesdays about the RAAF? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wild Surmise ( talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New Year greetings from Wild Surmise.

While wrecking my painstaking work you asserted 'formatted images - WP:MOS says that thumbnail sizes shouldn't be forced, except for maps and similar graphics'.

Does it though? What it says is -

Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for the overwhelming majority of readers), and a maximum of 300px. However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where a specific image width is appropriate include:

images with extreme aspect ratios

detailed maps, diagrams or charts

images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image

a lead image that captures the essence of the article (recommended not to be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences).

Some users need to configure their systems to display large text; forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.

I don't think that to say that something isn't necessary is (necessarily) to say that that thing shouldn't be done. The above from WP:MOS contains some comments which may imply that in general it's inadvisable to do it, but that's as far as it seems to go.

Perhaps though it needs to be pointed out that, despite what WP:MOS says, the width will not be what readers have specified in their user preferences. It won't be, because a very large number of readers will not have set any preference. Many will not even be aware of the possibility of their doing so, not to mention some poor souls who although aware of the possibility haven't yet figured out how to do it.

Regards . .

Dear Nick,

Thanks for your reply. I apologise for being so slow in responding - I wanted to give the issue some thought, which I've done, although its not brought me any nearer to a conclusion. I'm quite happy in practise to defer to heads that are older and wiser than mine, but I'm still not absolutely convinced.

As you may have noticed, I pulled all the photos I had placed in the BLG article, mainly because I thought that, while I am trying to understand the issues involved, it would be better to restore the status quo - but also because I think that most of them just don't work at all at the default size. I think that, very often - although, obviously, not always - clicking on a link is no substitute for seeing the picture immediately as one is reading. This would apply to certain images in particular. The photograph of Halsey, glowering out from under the heading 'Criticism of Halsey' is, I think, an example of this. And it just doesn't have much (or any) impact if it's restricted to the default size and/or one has to click on a link in order to see the actual image.

I appreciate that having that sort of impact may not be what Wikipedia is about (and perhaps you can let me know whether you think that is so). This is probably the main reason why I'm inclined to just give way cheerfully on the issue (well, almost cheerfully).

However, more generally I feel that images at the default size tend not to enhance Wikipedia pages at all - personally I would far prefer to simply have some text indicating the link and briefly describing the image. The default size seems to me to fall between two stools (can a size do that?). These grotesque little postage-stamp sized (on my setup literally postage-stamp sized) carbuncles disfigure the text and also deform the layout, without offering anything very much in return. Sometimes they're an adequate guide to what you'll get when you click on the link (if you do). Usually they are thoroughly misleading, more so than a verbal description of the image would be - and they look just plain ghastly.

So much for the rant. I appreciate that if someone is on a lower screen resolution then what I was doing with/to the article may have been rather less than ideal. I would like to enquire what resolution you are using, by the way.

As regards the section on Fletchers, I think that you are entirely wrong - or anyway that you are not entirely right. I was aware all along that there was something a little eccentric about the section (and perhaps eccentricity is just not acceptable in Wikipedia). However, whether or not its existence was out of order, the reason you give for removing it seems to me to be obviously unsound (I won't say 'spurious').

On the discussion page you wrote 'I've removed a section on the Fletcher class DDs as this material simply described the ships, and hence really belongs in the article on the class'. In fact the section didn't 'simply describe the ships. Almost all of the text in the section described (albeit very briefly) the nature and extent of the Fletchers' role in this particular battle. That's one reason why, it seems to me, it does belong in the BLG article. (There was hardly enough text, I would admit, to justify its being made into a separate section - I was intending to write in more detail about the Fletchers' participation in the battle, but I hadn't at that point managed to do the necessary research).

That's enough for now, I guess (just some ranging shots),

Regards, and my apologies again for the tardy response,

Wild Surmise ( talk) 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nick,

Yes, I can see that images at the larger size are likely to be a problem with that screen resolution. I had experimented with looking at the article with my own resolution set to 1024 x 768, but I must have taken too cursory a look at it and my initial impression was that it was OK although far from ideal. It was obvious that it wouldn't work for 800 x 600 or lower, but I'd think it very difficult to design for such low resolutions in any case (but perhaps I'm mistaken about this).

Thanks for the sort-of-invitation to reinstate the section on Fletchers. I'm not sure about it now anyway - I was a little uneasy about it all along. As I wrote, I think the section was essentially about the role of Fletchers at Leyte Gulf, but I would concede that a separate section on them is probably not the best way to include that information.

Thanks for your response. It was good to hear from you.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise ( talk) 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Do you happen to know if the "Battle of Gallipoli" actually had an Operational name in the British planning? I have only seen it referred to as the "Dardanelles landings".-- mrg3105 mrg3105 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. It seems to me 'including' is less ambiguous then 'with'. Cheers-- mrg3105 mrg3105 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

If you have any suggestions for expanding the memoir I can probably do it... perhaps you can unnominate it for deletion? swain ( talk) 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read WP's criteria, the only defense I can offer would be official reviews, encapsulated on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/047119705X/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Otherwise I can understand how it's not quite notable enough to qualify as "notable." A shame, because it's an excellent memoir. swain ( talk) 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. There is a stub article called Penetration (warfare). As far as I'm aware the first use of the term in military use was by the ANZAC troops during WWI in France called 'peaceful penetration' during Sir John Monash's inspired raid operations to rattle the Germans. However I don't have my sources handy, and I expect you do. Would you mind expanding on that part in the article?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nick. First, may I greet you - I often see you patrolling through articles that interest me as well.

I see you removed from the above article the "lead photo - that mine was swept in Australian waters by the Royal Australian Navy. The RN had no role". Your comments of course are correct. But the type of mine involved and the Aussie methods of countering mines were the same as in Britain. The photo is correct in all its graphic details and, for all you could tell, could have been taken off Dover. The points you mention are points you couldn't establish from looking at the photo - you would have to be informed from other sources. The problem is that there are no other photos currently in Commons that do justice to the topic. When I find time I intend to try and source photos for small naval boats and such matters - there is a famine on commons in this area. But for now, it seems reasonable to me that the photo remain - perhaps with a caption saying something more neutral like "Contact mine of the type used by Germany against Britain"-- Geronimo20 ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I have found useful images using this search but they have "Imperial War Museum" plastered over them. Does one need to buy each image at £30.00 per pictrostat, staff resources permitting, and with a processing time of four weeks? Or is there another way? -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 09:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding Template:RAN amphibious warfare ships. I wasn't sure if the landing craft ought to go in, so I left them out, but I have no problem with them being listed. I was going to create the template from scratch, but borrowing the coding from the RAN carrier template. However, when I found Template:Kanimbla class landing platform amphibious, I didn't see a reason to have a separate template for only two ships, so I "stole" its history. I wasn't sure about the title, or which article to link to in the Title Line. There isn't a dedicated page on RAN ambhibious ships, at least that I could find, so I chose Current Royal Australian Navy ships instead. Any thoughts? - BillCJ ( talk) 08:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and change the title link when you can, or I'll get to it on my tomorrow. An Amphibious warfare ships of Australia page sounds good too, especially with the big ships on the horizon. Not urgent, but when you get ready to start, we can see if there's anything I can do to help. - BillCJ ( talk) 09:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for the tags. Could you possibly now advise whether, in your opinion, this article may now be considered notable and/or what else needs to be done? I would like to put in a picture, but don't want to rob/ copy the main article. Or do the tags suggest that this new stand-alone article should be removed and the old sub-section within F-22 expanded? Many thanks. Wittlessgenstein ( talk) 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your message of 10/01/08. I will indeed try and "tweak the cockpit article further to focus on how its a major advance in technology", or at least how is was at the time. Wittlessgenstein ( talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick - I've re-added "(see list of episodes)" to WP:DAFT. As is explained in the introduction to the page (and as was my original intention when I started it), the list is for any strange-sounding or dumb titles - the only reason the term "freaky" was used for the page was so as to make the apt acronym "DAFT". To quote the intro to the page: Bewildering titles, bizarre titles, and surreal titles - all are equally fair game. I'd say that "(see list of episodes)", though not classically freaky, is still pretty bewildering - and what's more, WP:DAFT was mentioned during its deletion debate as a likely place to record the title. Grutness... wha? 09:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have added a case for this entry not to be deleted. EliteXC is a major US promotion on Showtime and all of their events have been chronicled on Wikipedia without incident. Just like the UFC, each event is worthy of a entry and this show is extremely noteworthy to MMA fans who have shown a high level of interest. Thanks for your time. ( Udar55 ( talk) 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the reply. Since you seem to require an outside source to validate my claims, I offer you two of the most popular MMA websites and their coverage of this event. Both are independent of the EliteXC organization:

http://mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=5396&zoneid=1

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news.asp?n_id=10706

In addition, I offer up another news item from the Sherdog site entitled "Eight Reasons to be Excited for '08" where they mention the notability of EliteXC:

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=10528

Finally, I invite you to search EliteXC on either website. You will find that the company does get featured frequently on two of the biggest MMA news websites. Feel free to contact the editors on either website to ask them if EliteXC is a valid organization. In fact, Google it and you will see the noteworthiness of the group. ( Udar55 ( talk) 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Nick, I will add links to the individual page as you suggested. In terms of noteworthiness, I fail to see your logic. MMA fans like to use Wikipedia as a source for who won and lost on individual cards. I feel every card the UFC puts on is worthy of its own page, just like ones professional wrestling cards get. I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject for Alternative music. Do you really feel that each Lighting Bolt album deserves an individual entry? After all, that is a much smaller niche than MMA and one could certainly argue about the noteworthiness of them. If so, then why should a MMA company scheduling events (like a musician releasing an album) be excluded? ( Udar55 ( talk) 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Regarding your last comment, where does it say in "What Wikipedia is not" that you can't collect sports results? And what if I were to say that "I don't think that Wikipedia is or should be an unofficial database for alternative music bands. If you're not happy with the offical websites, then start a Geocities page or something." I'd sound a bit snarky, eh? ( Udar55 ( talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for uploading Image:TAG E.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-obscure aviation jargon? Non-reliable source? Firstly the metar given actually backs up the possibility of windshear, secondly that information is freely available. METARs are published by the airport operaton - BAA in this case, so it is reliable. Mjroots ( talk) 09:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This website gives the weather in a format you may understand better. I realise that Pprune may not be considered reliable as a source generally, but the METAR would have been obtained from a reliable source (LHR) in the first place, and therefore I would consider that the METAR is accurate. I'd like to repost it, maybe with a translation in the references section? Mjroots ( talk) 09:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the info with the METAR in the ref + details of primary & secondary sources, and a translation on the talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick

I hope this is the right way - and place on the page - to leave a message. Thank your for formatting my post correctly. I didn't know what was appropriate myself.

Yours

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed O'Loughlin ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't able to add that section to US-Australia Relations yet, so I nominated the article for WP:ACID. Hopefully this will much needed attention to this article. -- Shark face 217 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is admittedly a minor point, but isn't prefixing the title of this series with Official History of a case of historical revisionism. The Kiwis clearly labeled their official history The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War (for example, see http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/WH2Cret-fig-WH2CretSpi.html for an image of the spine of one of the volumes in this series). However, the title of the Australian series, as it appears in the books of the series as published, is Australia in the War of 1939–1945 (for example, see page 1 of http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/00.pdf). As I said, this is a minor point, but it appears that the Official History of prefix has been invented post-publication, and hence creates confusion and constitutes revisionism.

Much of the confusion over the name of this series is the fault of the AWM since they don't consistently use the publication title of the series on their website. One can find the series cited in Wikipedia as Official Histories – Second World War; no doubt this is due to AWM using this wording on their website in reference to the series. BTW, the AWM does not appear to use the Official History of prefix, instead preferring their alternative title Official Histories – Second World War. So from where does the Official History of prefix come?

R. A. Hicks ( talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. "Official History" may be a popular nickname for the series, but those two words can add a bit of an Orwellian overtone (the Soviet Union during Stalin's time in power offering an excellent example of history as a hostage of propaganda). Perhaps the editors of Australia in the War of 1939–1945 wanted to avoid that connotation. R. A. Hicks ( talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. I'va almost finished my rewrite of the HMAS Melbourne article, and just want to ask your advice on one bit. Should I leave the "Refits" section as it is (and find a source to wrap up the dot points), or should I work the information into the "Operational History" sections? -- saberwyn 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, these are significant refits (The ones in paragraph form definitely are, the ones in dot point form maybe not so much, I'm trying to find more sources to wrap things up... with little luck). Melbourne went into refit or self-maintenance at the end of every year.

And actually, the RAN wanted three carriers. Two would be in active service at any given time, while the third underwent refit. -- saberwyn 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He's adding maintenance tags to an article that was literally just created and pretty much bullying the author. And he's way over 3RR, having reverted this article about 5 times now. Equazcion •✗/ C • 07:27, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this. Equazcion •✗/ C • 07:41, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on the article right now. No, I am not in an edit war.

It is a technically fairly advanced topic and requires my attention of which if I was not having to deal with this stupidity, I would be able to continue at a greater speed.

I want to ask an honest question. I have started many pages and never dealt with a situation like this before. Have I been flagged up on some admins' list or tickled some cabal or another? This is outrageous and it is utterly contrary to spirit of the wikipedia.

I would not even mind if these individuals were expert in the subject but they obviously know nothing and are using that pretext to ... bully, as Equazcion has kindly stated. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 07:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I am not new. I had to change my name because I lost a password. Look at the use of citations and formatting, does that appear to be a newbie.

Do you know anything about the subject? if you do not, then please remove your deletion. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 08:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no history with this other guy at all ... but he does with similar conduct issues, see; Wikiquette_alerts. I would not have cared if they knew anything at all about the topic but one was a youngster and the other a bully.

I stated clearly that I was present and working on the article which has quite complex formating and citations beyond the norm. It is also a highly specialized topic.

Firstly, could you correct your comment about me being new and, secondly, provide a basis for your WP:OR? -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnan garra 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This bot is replacing mentions of 'a RAAF' [Royal Australian Air Force] to 'an RAAF' (as one example: [2]. This is not grammatically correct - can you please stop it doing this? Thanks, -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 02:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Could you tell me how this isn't correct? If you look at A and an it talks about how an and a are used in English. The acronym is pronounced 'Or aye aye eff' right?

Cheers, CmdrObot ( talk) 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The acronym is normally pronounced 'r double aye eff' or 'raff'. I've read an awful lot of Australian military history and have never seen a reference to 'an RAAF' thing. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 05:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick, since it's usually written 'a RAAF', I'll defer to convention and get my bot to leave it alone. You've got to admit that it doesn't quite sound right though. In computer networking, there's a set of standards documents called RFCs (Requests For Comment), and one of those documents will be referred to as 'an RFC', rather than 'a RFC' because in the latter there's an awkward stop between the 'A' and the 'R', whereas 'An R' rolls off the tongue more easily. Anyhow, thanks for the feedback, and please let me know if the bot causes you any other problems. Cheers, CmdrObot ( talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick,

re Spiritualism (Philosophical) how much work do I have to re-do that has been done in other articles?

I mean, if you follow the link to Monism, it is perfectly well explained and referenced. Ditto Dualism and so on?

Can I politely ask, how much do you actually know about these topics to be able to make the judgement that you are doing? Is it really too much to expect individuals to follow one link and find those citations and references?

• I went through that entire section adding wikilinks to do just that. Does everything on every article have to be double stated?

I just find it hard to accept it when I look at some of the utterly unreferenced or ephemeral articles on the Wiki that read more like blog pages ...

At present I am continuing to work on it to develop it toward an article on Spiritualism (Philosophical) alone, which was my first intent/wish ... and the topic remains the only article on the rather prominent subject with in the field of history of philosophy. I feel that this entire process is artificial as it came about via a rabid wikipedia tagging it in the first few minutes whilst I was working on it. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick,

I'd be grateful if you would, when/if you have the time, suggest some places where citations or references should be provided. (I entirely agree that many are needed).

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise ( talk) 10:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - a fair amount of work there then.

Oh well.

Dave

Wild Surmise ( talk) 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick, Article appears to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_maritime_history#Notability_criteria, as this ship was sunk with loss of life during World War II. I admit the article needs further information and am in the process of obtaining further articles from the period, e.g Newcastle Herald (1943). Regards -- Newm30 ( talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I have added some more sources - I appreciate it is marginal but would you like to review your notability tag and make a suggestion - I can't see a good spot for a merger Regards -- Matilda ^talk 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the tag - I still think that the ship is of marginal notability (she was one of thousands of merchant ships sunk during the war and one of 27 sunk in Australian waters, so there was nothing special about her), but it's probably OK now those sources have been added. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a query regarding your deletion of this article (and quite rightly also) you haven't done the complete deletion - the talk page is still there. Is there a reason for this? !! Justa Punk !! 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I just missed it. I've just deleted the talk page as well - thanks for spotting it! -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a page, for some reason, blocking my move of 'Special Air Service of New Zealand' to 'New Zealand Special Air Service' as per the discussion on the talk page. Would you please move it for me? Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Nick, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Sorry to arrive late. C'mon, that list is plenty notable given its author. Wisden has reviewed it, admittedly for sales also but thats good enough for me. — Moondyne 14:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick, You initially, and correctly, nominated a 'Delete' for the Wilmington Montessori School article. I began my first wiki entry (for WMS) by viewing most of the other articles for sister schools in the Mid-Atlantic region. At the time, I was unaware of WP:WAX (and WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS), as such, my first entries mirrored many of those articles that I thought were representative of good, approved wikipedia entries. Obviously, as a result, my initial draft did not carry much weight for notability even though I was providing as much or more information than other representative schools (again, unaware of WP:WAX). Since that time, I have been working to provide better sources (reliable, verifiable, etc) for notability. Whether or not you agree with my opinion, I would value another review and request your editorial opinion on the article as it stands today.

Regards. -- Daddy.twins ( talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I appreciate your time, even if you hold an opposing view. It was well-spoken counter-arguments like yours, DGG's, and Dhartung's that encouraged me to seek out and understand wikipedia policies and find better sources for my article. I like a good debate and don't always need unaniminity to feel that something worthwhile was accomplished. Regards. -- Daddy.twins ( talk) 12:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bushmaster ASLAV.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

When I reverted your recent edit to Bagram Air Base I said I was reverting vandalism. I went too far. I shouldn't have called it vandalism. I was angry when you called it "uncited trivia" -- you clearly had not bothered to look at the reference I supplied in the sentence immediately prior to the sentence you deleted. You don't seem to have even looked at the title. -- Sex, soldiers and consequences at Bagram Discipline challenged by dozens of pregnancies at U.S. base in Afghanistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know they follow. But I don't reference ever sentence -- only the first per paragraph.

Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AMTG.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as his parting work, Kirill's set this up. What do you think we should concentrate on first? Do you like my idea of sorting out, then working on, an initial list of five or so countries? Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I like those suggestions, and especially Indonesia and Brazil, and have suggested it at the project's talk page. I tried to respond on your talk page, but you have a link to a banned website ( http:// www dot army - guide dot com ) in there somewhere which is making it impossible to post new messages! -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 09:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Can you try again now? I think I have removed the problem link. Buckshot06 ( talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Also, I think adding refs to those Korean articles is going to be a long job... cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 09:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you were an advocate for this, you might like User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Mattinbgn article. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 08:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This KPA organisation may be a wiki-invention; I cannot find any reference to it on the net except in wiki-mirrors and the US Country Profile and Globalsecurity.org don't mention it. Can you look it up in the Bernandez book? Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not part of the Korean Peoples' Army though, is it? Rather it's part of the Ministry of Public Security? Buckshot06 ( talk) 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That'd be good - it's a pretty complicated picture. Buckshot06 ( talk) 05:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been improving the newly created template on East Timorese History (and creating the odd new article to fit it). There is a link to the "History of East Timorese Military". Do you think we need such an article? If we do, could we cut the text from the history section of Military of East Timor to create a new article, and summarising that section in "your page"? What do you think? Delete link from template, or create article? I wouldn't be too upset if we just removed it from the template. -- Merbabu ( talk) 12:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for that Nick -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not even consider calling them references - they are not used for the in text cite - they are further reading and i think you should have left them there - in my very minority point of view on this - the more books listed at the bottom of an article the better! Satu Suro 09:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I know there is always the potential for that - but considering how few articles in australian wikipedia articles have even what might be reasonable reading lists - I feel that they are, even with the risk of book spam occuring - they are to be taken pride in rather considered something to trim down - as for further reading - I find it very useful to have something against an article that can be possibly sometime in the future used a ref (if i live long enough) - and a sign to others that there is a written item related - rather than a blank space between the end of the article and the category - but thats the way i look at it Satu Suro 10:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand however your perspective within a milhist frame of mind where you guys do show the rest of the oz project how to get an article well ref'd - I'd say major theme articles deserve a good list - whereas smaller issues/subjects in a manner of speaking could well have nominal limits on the number of further reads or ref texts listed. It is all a matter of balance i suppose Satu Suro 10:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. If I couldn't rely on you for sensible support, the world would be a sad place. Thanks, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I really appreciate your help with this article. My great grandfather was an Officer on the ship, hence my interest. I have a fair amount of historic information which my mother left me, so over time, I will add it to the article. If you could keep an eye on the article from time to time (but particuarly my referencing which lacks skill), that would be great. Cheers Spy007au ( talk) 04:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nick, user:Mrg3105 did an edit to this page, substituting 'Xth Division (Germany)' for 'German Xth Division' which appears to have destroyed many, many links to functioning German division articles. It's about the sixth edit down in the history at the moment- 23:33 9 February, and it was a crazy thing to do, notwithstanding that we do want to eventually move to that type of title for all units. Would you mind either rolling it back yourself, restoring the links, or allowing me the feature to do the same thing. As an admin, you may wish (or not) to say something to Mrg at the same time. Regards Buckshot06 ( talk) 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06 is just upset with me because I'm not doing what he wants me to do, but exhibiting a mind of my own. There are many German sometime-editors and even IPs who go around fixing these on daily basis. I know, because I am watching all of these units. The best way to tell people what the new format for unit is, is to change it in the central location. Actually having a redlink in an article may prompt an editor, or god forbid even a reader, to fix it, and maybe even contribute something. When I get back into the EF project I will be fixing them anyway. However, I thank Buckshot06 for tearing himself away from his Soviet units project to bring the German units to the attention of other editors. I just wonder why he waited two weeks.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything here as there doesn't seem to have been any discussion I can see on the article's talk page or either of your talk pages, but I don't think you should have changed links to existing articles from a key list without first moving the articles so that the links match up. It's now that much harder to find the articles and there's a risk of duplicate articles being created by well-meaning editors. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

May be. Quite frankly I don't care much now after the last few days. Consider this - 7th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). To my mind all German units of the Second World War were a part of Wehrmacht and not "Germany". Same with "Soviet Union". It was RKKA, the divisions belonged to. I though about changing all the links to Wehrmacht, but reconsidered it because it would have been too much of a change for the rest of the editors. I have rather rapidly realised that Wikipedia lacks sound foundations for building a reference work. These sort of structural issues should have been decided from the onset and not arrived at by "consensus" years later. Impressive statistics trumpeted by Wikipedia really fail to transmit the chaos that reigns within. I don't really care what Buckshot06 does with them. He can move them, rename them, roll them back, or have them shaken, not stirred for all I care. GIGO.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments at the MilHist WikiProject Review of this article. I've recently made some changes designed to help eliminate traces of POV prose. Perhaps you'd care to comment on those changes, and – more to the point that you raised in your review – the discussion of Indonesia's perspective and/or the question of the lead image? Thanks again for your attention to detail. –  Scartol •  Tok 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to ask you to chip in to the discussion: I am so pleased that you have done so. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind introduction to my discussion response.

I can't seem to find where I can edit the Kevin Rudd introduction. It says I need to signed in but I made an account but still can't seem to edit the article.

Thanks Nick.

- Ruddrocks ( talk) 10:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to inform you that you have been elected to serve as an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject for the next six months. Congratulations!

If you have not already done so, please visit the coordinators' talk page, where you'll be able to find some open tasks as well as reference material and discussions relevant to you. You might also be interested in a bit of advice that I have to offer.

Again, congratulations, and good luck! Kirill 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your election as an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done Nick. I wish you another six months of happy military mopping, more good times reading articles at WP:MHR and success with your own article writing on Australian military history. The first time that we have had two Australian coords at once. And hopefully another big period of growth for WP:MILHIST. Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On another bright note, a very large and comprehensive book about Australian forces in the Vietnam war has just been acquired by my library. So hopefully, some haymaking on Vietnam/Australian military articles by yours truly in the near future. I nearly fell over when I noticed that Nui Dat doesn't have an article yet. Best regards, Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well done and best of luck. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who voted for me. This is an honour. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 09:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your election, Nick. I hope this term is a good one for the project. Kyriakos ( talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! and Good Luck! -- SMS ^Talk 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Grant (lurking) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.214.105 ( talk)

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

Well done to get where you did - now before you get too busy :) - i was stumped the other day to see if anybody had actually written about the american troop and equipment placements in australia during the 2ww - maybe it was my own perverse way of trawling through stuff but i was sure i could not find anything - it is just there are a number of west australian articles that i am aware of what could do with a broad overview of say - fremantle naval base, and some of the troop recquisition of australian facilities - i had thought I had seen something in the past - but just thought id ask in case something came to mind - cheers Satu Suro 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Really odd - as there were the brisbane riots, significant placements (however transitory within the whole operation) and at the times social issues about the us men getting the local ladies etc - there are definitely academic articles around - will have to pursue the issue - might need some advice later about it though - cheers Satu Suro 10:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - sorry my knowledge of the australian milhist domain is limited - thanks for being patient putting up with my ignorance - cheers - i might sometime in the distant future try to see what there is for australia wide issues - there was an abc doco some time last year about the australian girls who went to the states with their usa boys - must track the details down - along with the other 56700 threads i seem to get tangled in :( - thanks again Satu Suro 10:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How's that?

PS: Congrats on your recent string of promotions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when you give me stuff to do. :P Now, I just need to wrap up HMAS Melbourne (R21) and get it to A->GA->FA. Any suggestions? -- saberwyn 22:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a diff. Is that what you meant? -- saberwyn 04:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maralia and I are just going to have a bit of a play with it, then I'll shoot it to A-class and see how it goes. -- saberwyn 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada ( talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your mention of Jane's access reminded me of a minor lingering issue on a ship article I wrote a while back. I'd be interested to know if you could track down the Dominican Republic ship Independencia (P-204, earlier P-105). She was reportedly the former USCGC Icarus (WPC-110), which sank U-352 in 1942, only the 2nd U-boat sunk in US waters, and the first from which POWs were taken. One of my sources said that Independencia was still listed in Jane's as active in the Dominican Navy in 1995; I'd be curious to know what's come of her. No rush at all, mostly just satisfying my own curiosity here. Thanks! Maralia ( talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 07:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick, per a message left on my talk page by User:Meyerj, the US National Infantry Museum figures 303 recipients of the third award of the Combat Infantryman Badge during the period December 1941 to December 2007, and the US Army Center for Military History number of 575 Medals of Honor for the same time period." Therefor, the 3rd award of a CIB is in a sense more notable then the Medal of Honor, which is a standard of auto-inclusion. I left that on the DRV page, just thought that was an interesting point. MrPrada ( talk) 08:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use some help keeping an eye on the SH-2 Seasprite page. With the cancellation of the SH-2G by the new governemtn, I'm have trouble keeping the politics out of an aircraft page. See this diff for an example. While I'm certainly no fan of your new govenment, as you should have gathered by now from my other posts to you, I'm really trying to be neutral here. I want to keep the coverage focused on the helicopter, not on political sniping by various leaders of whatever party. When a leader is sure of what he's doing, and has concrete reasons for doing it, there's no need to put down others in that way. - BillCJ ( talk) 08:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and after reading the defence minister's statement on the SH-2G, I'm conviced the Super Hornet and M1 Abrams deals will be cut next, and perhaps more programs. However, when they're done with all their cuts and changes, I'm afraid it really will be seen as the equivelent to scrapping the CV in the 80s. For your sake, I hope I'm wrong. Oh well, it's a good preview of what we'll get in the US is Obama or Hilary is elected, and possibly McCain too! If I were Northrop/Airbus, I wouldn't do too much celebrating over the KC-45 just yet! - BillCJ ( talk) 09:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For an ace bit of topical humour, -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 10:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Young man, Your thought: ("As such, the issue is whether infantrymen who are sent into a war zone 3 times are automatically notable.") Might have merit if the infantry soldier did get one award for every visit to a war zone, but that is not the true case. If an American soldier is sent to Iraq in 2oo6, returns to home station for any length of time and is sent to Afghanistan in 2008 and returns home and then is returned to Iraq in 2009, he will only be eligible to receive ONE CIB award for the entire conflict providing he meets all the other criteria, i.e. actually being shot at, serving in an infantry job in an infantry unit, etc. (Caveat: there are always exceptions to rules ( W. E. B. Griffin wasn’t in the infantry, either by MOS or assignment – but he did have a friend who was a three star general) and some rules change over time ( See Combat Infantryman Badge) so that any information must be evaluated in the context of the rules that applied to the periods in question) The organization I work for sends soldiers over to Iraq who may be, by occupational specialty, 'infantry', but if they are not assigned to an infantry unit (which our personnel are not) then they are not awarded the CIB. Combat Infantryman Badge explains all of this. Doing some simple research for the number of soldiers that served in WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War; there were over 23 million who served (just during the periods of the wars). There were many others who went of to some small conflict that is not on the list for which the CIB may be issued. What the 303 men who fought (FOUGHT) in those three conflicts did was notable in the history of the US Army and therefore honored by the Infantry Museum. It was pointed out to me some time ago that the CIB was for over 50 years the only award worn on the Army dress uniform placed higher than the MoH. Today, because of the "War of Terrorism" and because our soldiers deserve it the EIB/EMB/CMB/CAB are given the same status as the CIB. When the CIB was first established, they thought that soldiers might be asked to fight in more than one conflict and determined that there would possibly be a need to award a soldier with a fourth award of the CIB. No one has ever been awarded a 4th. 303 out of God knows how many millions sense 1941 have earned 3. In the ‘old’ days the CIB was actually accompanied by a Bronze Star for the specific action with the enemy, today that does not happen. As for the article about Col Meyer; his membership in the elite triple CIB group is very significant, but so is the fact that he went through parachute training at age 51 in a combat zone and was for a time the oldest soldier to have done that. Two years later a National Guard soldier, not in a combat zone, did the course with his unit at age 60. And that is nothing to sneeze at either. I couldn’t do it and I am at that age. As for a comment regarding the Medal of Honor... There have been MoH‘s awarded to at least two men who never saw the whites of the eyes of the enemy except in photographs; MacArthur and Doolittle. Just a little bit of a history lesson. Meyerj ( talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:BIO and come back when you can find some articles which attest to this person's notability. Your personal opinion of his achievements isn't good enough. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize you guys have real lives in addition to your WP stuff, and I admit I am a novice at WP article publication and that I did not read all of the fine print when I started to write an article. I read a “free and open content”… But I did expect that some of what was written would be understood. Reading the discussion that you good folks are having about the article shows me and I presume others, that some of the quoted elements are misquoted, 3 verses 2 of a particular award (may not be significant to a person who does not understand the importance of the award) but I do not want anyone to misrepresent / misunderstand the truth. My beginner status told me that if I put the text in "(expand image at right to read the article from the Green Beret Magazine Aug 1969)" that someone would do just that and read the article. The rational was two fold; it showed substantiation for an unstated “claim of notability" and provided some additional information about the character of the article’s subject. Do me a small favor and read Robert L. Howard and keep this in mind... Bob was recommended for the Medal of Honor on three occasions for three different events during a 12 month period in 1968-69. The first two times it was downgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross (DCS) (second highest award) and finally on the third event in that year someone thought that this guy must be doing some really noteworthy things and approved the recommendation for the MoH. Most soldiers will never receive a DSC, no less two. All of the valorous awards have tremendous significance. A civilian may receive a Medal of Honor and it has happened (for action in 1861… includes Dr. Mary Walker who was involved in three major battles and became the ONLY woman to get the Medal.). But a civilian will never receive a DSC. Generals have received Medals of Honor and did not participate in direct combat with an enemy. Generals, who have not previously received a CIB, will never get one even if they stand in front of the troops and lead the charge unless they change the criteria for the period. To understand the various importances of the elements of any article the reader must read when provided by link or statement, the conditions that were in place for the period of time for which something happened and that is why WP enables us to do this Combat Infantryman Badge. George Washington intended the Purple Heart, which bears his likeness, to be the highest award for a US soldier because it actually meant there was physical damage received, inflicted by the enemy, while serving the nation. It was some politician who came up with the Medal of Honor for valorous behavior during combat. According to AR 600–8–22, “The Soldier’s Medal is awarded to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, …who distinguished himself or herself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. The same degree of heroism is required as that of the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross” {not the DSC as stated in WP which you as an editor can fix}. “The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. Awards will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.” Now, if a reader is not interested or feels that military awards are earned like Boy Scout merit badges or come out of Cracker Jacks boxes they wouldn’t care about that. Leo J Meyer was 5’8” and 135 pounds, wearing an additional 15 to 20 pounds of equipment when he jumped into a flowing river in Korea in 1950 after a fellow officer who was 6’2” and 215 pounds and couldn’t swim. He didn’t just save the guys life; he put his life in extreme danger (not during combat) and was awarded the Soldiers medal for it. He didn’t plan for it like it was a merit badge.

I apologize for going on but I have read time and again WP editors/administrators who, judging the efforts of others appear to think that only the Medal of Honor has meaning in the United States and that disturbs me and other veterans. Meyerj ( talk) 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but for someone to qualify for an article there need to be reliable sources which prove their notability in line with the relevant guidelines. I'm not very bothered by this article, but as there are no sources which meet WP:BIO there doesn't seem to be any reason to include this person. Out of interest, are you related to the subject of the article? - your user name is the same as his last name. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to indicate you view at the straw poll being conducted here. Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your edit to the Criticism section of Robert Fisk. As I was responsible for the recent re-write I thought I'd better respond.

First, when I called Malkovich a "pro-war activist" I meant of course in relationship to the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq - I wasn't implying that he's pro-war in a general sense. Ok, I confess that I didn't actually check that he was actively campaigning for the invasion - and now when I do check, I can't find anything that says he was. So why did Malkovich want to shoot Fisk? Because, apparently, of Fisk's "virulent anti-Semiticism." And what evidence does Malkovich produce for this charge? Fisk, he says, believes that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. It all gets very bizarre. I certainly can't credit that Malkovich voiced a desire to murder Fisk because he didn't know his Bible. But what was it all about? Given the time-frame, I still feel that the Iraq war is behind it. But, as I say, I have no information. So by all means I accept the edit you made, yet we're left with questions over just what was going on. (Incidentally, I also don't believe that Malkovich for a moment really wanted to murder anyone - but he should have been al ittle more careful with his language.) PiCo ( talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with user:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti at this page. There is a claim sourced from the Turkish Army website at Turkish Army#Modernization which we are close to edit-warring about; I want to insert that 'the Turkish Army says that it can deploy a corps of 50,000', while RGDA wants 'the Turkish Army can deploy a corps of 50,000'. I've repeated quoted WP:SELFPUB and compared the text with a U.S. country study that says the army has suffered deployment problems (also quoted in the section just above Modernization) but he won't stop. Can you take a look/warn him, as you see fit? Regards Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-03-03/WikiProject_elections - hope you have spare time in your life :) Satu Suro 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:OBW Bushmaster ADF.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nick, the In Fiction article appears to meet the Notability (music) guidelines. Specifically the 2nd criteria "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart", which In Fiction has done twice within 12 months with The Four Letter Failure and Ghost (EP).

They meet number 4 also "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". They have been on two annual Australian Boys of Summer Tours, headlined the annual national Boomtown Showdown and played main-stage at Soundwave Festival alongside The Offspring and Push Over Festival.

When Ghost (EP) was released, they were also on regular radio rotation on the national station Triple J and Nova 91.9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.183.64 ( talk) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by users-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I've been converting some of those ADF infoboxes, and looked again at this squadron's article. Do you have any idea why this new squadron number, so far out of sequence, was first used in 1980? Why couldn't the RAAF resurrected a previously active unit numberplate? Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 09:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick, can you tell me where you took Image:Melbourne bell.JPG, a photograph of one of Melbourne's ship bells on display? It might be worth noting in the final paragraph of the article, which mentions the stained glass window at Garden Island and the ship's anchor at Nowra. -- saberwyn 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny... According to Vic Cassells, there's an anchor in Nowra. Were more than one kept, or is it the same one, moved after the book was published in 2000? -- saberwyn 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know she had at least two (maybe more), I'm just curiuous if two or more were preserved. A mystery for another day. -- saberwyn 11:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/16/2190745.htm - cheers Satu Suro 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Although i am now of an age where excitement is no longer appropriate (according to some) - it is !!!! Satu Suro 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for your help in categorising some of the photos I have recently uploaded to the Commons. Initially I had tried to categorise them myself, but my cats got clobbered as "over categorisation". Frankly the whole gategories thing in the commons seems to be a mess to me. I tried browsing therough the categories, but found none that made sense, then I used the "commonsense" tool to find categories, but apparently using too many of those (even though I tried to keep it to relevant ones) make some people think that the photo is "over categorised" (this seeme like BS to me, but there you go). Do you have any clues about how to get round this problem?

Anyway, I am currently going through the current photos I have uploaded and cleaning them up, removing dust, scratches etc. Nick Thorne ^talk 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's been autumn here in Australia for 21 days now... -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I see now that I was incorrect, have changed it. Harland1 ( ^t/ _c) 09:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was getting around to it, but thank you for starting the article anyway. Feel free to drop me a line if you have concerns though or think I'm taking too long over something, perhaps that might be a better way of hinting than in an edit summary. I was making a cup of tea as it happens. Bloody good it was too. Benea ( talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No harm done. I used Colledge for the ship list, but he doesn't list the naval bases, so I didn't include it immediately. I set everything up to write the article, went off to make the tea and by the time you'd got back you'd already made a start. Hurrah. It all seems to work and link correctly so job's a gud un. I'm popping out for brunch now. Hold the fort til I get back. Pip pip, Benea ( talk) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added to the footnote the two datasets I used to calculate the conversions, and indicated that they are from the RBA. To be honest, I'm not 100% sold on the need for the conversions, especially as conversions were not available for all figures, and also per your points on the discrepancy between military and civilian costs. But, it was reasonably asked for at FAC, and I was able to comply with it, so I just did it.

As an aside, thank you for all you help in getting this article shipshape and across the line. -- saberwyn 09:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

G'day Nick. Thanks for adding the "requires notability" tag to the OTVA entry I did for that association in February (I've been travelling back from a couple of years in Vietnam to resume residence in Oz since then, hence the delay in responding to your tag). I don't know much about the "Wikipedia style" and was simply responding to a request from the OTVA executive committee to upload some information about the organisation, given its importance to archivists, researchers and the like. I had some discussions with Cuyler, who helped me format the text until he was happy with it. But then your "requires notability" tag appeared as I was leaving Vietnam, so have only just been able to address it. I've now edited the text to include three external third party references which will hopefully satisfy your concerns, although I may not have formatted them correctly - if not, I'm sorry about that but am just a retired corporate communications exec doing his best to string a few (well researched and previously approved) words together so historians and others who may be interested in Australia's international telecommunications history can identify a potentially useful resource. Btw, I'm not even sure if this is the correct way to discuss these matters so please accept my apologies once again if I'm not following "Wikipedia protocol". Cheers Martin Ratia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linhmartin ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies once more Nick, I couldn't even sign off correctly!!! Anyway, as the auto prompt (or whatever it is) has pointed out, my username is Linhmartin. Cheers linhmartin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linhmartin ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out! I was kinda using it as a crude rewrite/update checklist, but I'm so swamped in with work and uni and the ever-evolving ship infobox that the whole Bathurst class project has been indefinitely postponed. If you just want to fill in the list and drag it out into mainspace, I'll help out with that, but don't expect much else from me for a while. -- saberwyn 12:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to write on your user page rather than here in the discussion. I will get to work on the Niko Bolas page to better meet the style desired, as you suggested, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmcgillicutty ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

G'day Nick.

I added a section in the discussion of the current RAAF aircraft article I just wanted you to read what I put there and review the statement about the F35 and the Boeing 707.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Current_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_Aircraft

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezstar ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt Military of the DRC will improve too. Hey, are you able to recover the contents of that deleted AfD, List of Inactive MAJCOM Wings of the United States Air Force, or some such title? If not you, could you ask somebody who might be able to? I'd like to do a improved version, maybe starting in my userspace. Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 ( talk) 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Hope you had a good day yesterday. Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 07:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind doing the reassessment on Battle of Moscow and Battle of Smolensk (1943). I don't think either of them are FA, or even GA for that matter.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article. I see that you are involved in military history, and the deletion note says the person isn't significant.

I am new to Wikipedia, and thought that his military service in WW II was relevant to his overall biography - I have some experience with writing articles and it's typical to try to be somewhat thorough in what you are writing about. thI'm not claiming military significance - his significance is in the contract cleaning industry. I would be happy to remove the footnotes to Peleliu if that is the problem.

Your help would be appreciated.

Thanks Intararts ( talk) 13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, Can you advise me what your opinion is in relation to U.S. theaters of operations in World War II and within the list the link Papua Campaign. I am not sure if this is US reference to Western New Guinea campaign or Battle of Buna-Gona. Can you help as to where this should link to? Regards -- Newm30 ( talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How does one do that?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, found it...a bit hidden away-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for taking some of your time. I found you listed at the Japanese military history task force as someone who may be qualified to help me in a referencing problem for 3 articles on subjects from the WWII period. I have already asked a question on the talk page but have had no response. Sorry if you have already seen this query there, but I am no expert in Japan or its military history so would appreciate some expert guidance. Any help would be much appreciated, even if it is to advise where/who else to ask. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 10:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the quick response. I'll try User:Cla68 before being bold and moving pages as I'm struggling to reconcile these sources. Your point regarding articles about non-english speaking subjects rings true, as all three were created by the same editor who created a lot of articles, but did not convey themselves very well in english. I think a lot may have been "lost in translation". regards ascidian | talk-to-me 11:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Sorry if I didn't make it sufficiently clear, but the staff newsletter, annual reports and organisation's archives that I quoted as sources independent of OTVA are all owned by OTC (the Overseas Telecommunications Commission), not OTVA, which is an association of veterans who worked or had an interest in some aspect of Australia's international telecommunications industry. Hope that helps clarify the situation and that it will enable you to remove the tag you placed on the OTVA entry, which is causing much consternation amongst those who understand the background to OTC and, separately, the OTVA. The only link between the two organisations is their involvement in international telecommunications - which also, of course, applies to many other organisations in Australia today, including Telstra, SingTel-Optus, etc, all of which are completely independent of each other. Cheers Linhmartin ( talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I'm co-founder of Scripped and we have had a really hard time getting a page up about our company. We have been mentioned in several business journals including Alley Insider and Mass High Tech, as well as a nod in Variety magazine, and we are very similar to Zhura, which has a Wikipedia page.

I noticed you took down our last futile attempt, so if you could offer even just a sentence or two about what we did wrong or what else we need to do in order to stay up, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbucks ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for your reply there. There is some confusion as to 'which version' did you endorse. Did you read my argument (at the bottom of this thread) why do I consider certain additions undue? Not a single general work mentions any of those controversies, they are restricted to minor specialist publications - because they represent only a tiny exception, not the rule. To give another example, a similar argument would be to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article, or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on. Sure, such things happened - but they were so minor it would not be neutral to unduly stress them in the lead. AK committed one massacre (the Dubingai massacre) with ~30 victims, plus there were some other smaller civilian casualties (to be expected during the war) - we have cited plenty of sources for that; to keep the lead which equals it to Ukrainian Insurgent Army, responsible for (among others) tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths during organized ethnic cleansing ( Massacres of Poles in Volhynia) or Lithuanian Security Police, a collaboration police force actively persecuting Jews and Poles, it just as good as comparing the mentioned Free French or US Army to those units. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me a diff to that particular version? Unfortunately around the time of your talk comment the article was undergoing a revert war :( I agree with your examples - they are indeed widespread. The ones I mentioned, as is the case with Armia Krajowa, are on the other hand very minor.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Note that you've posted your comment at 06:24 April 8, at the time when the version I supported was used. Half an hour later, at 06:58 April 8, User:Miyokan (who has not commented on talk at all, and whom I have notified of our discussion here) restored an older version I find not acceptable with the edit summary: "per talk, third party Nick Dowling agreed that this was warranted". -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. In that case, could you remove the NPOV tag from the current version? I feel it would be better for a neutral editor to do so, if I as an involved party would do so, it may lead to bad faith edit warring.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

There is a bit of a mess with a redirect someone created without checking that it doesn't link to another article already. Its here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Koltso&redirect=no however the Operation Ring is related to a 1991 operation, and the Operation Koltso, now inaccessible, is the 1942 operation which ws part of the Battle of Stalingrad see list of operations towards the end. The recent Operation Ring, in accordance with the project convention, really needs to be named Operation Koltso (1991), however in the first instance, do you mind fixing up the redirect because I'm not sure how to do this. Cheers-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are still online Nick, could you do something about this IP?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick, please could you delete, or get deleted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buckshot06/Sandbox_MAJCOM_Wings ? The article it was created to write is now functioning in main-space without any difficulties. Buckshot06 ( talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up for so many. Very much appreciated, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nick. Not sure what you mean about a third party cite for APA's lack of success. Most of the sources I/anyone is likely to find will not be academic but rather non-notable ad hom. BTW it took me a while to find the cites for the current comments (and learn how to actually add them), let me know if more is required to back up the statements made (I tried to phrase them objectively). Battlensigns ( talk) 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey again.....Yes the Report raises all the issues individually raised in the various submissions and deals with them one by one under headings. Both Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon are referenced by name (as they were the principle parties raising most of the objestions to the current plans) and then other defence officials and experts were used to either validate or void the arguments/issues raised. Battlensigns ( talk) 11:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:2-Cav.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thanks for your earlier note about speedy deletions. This page, List of South African Divisions in World War II, was probably written when there were not articles for all the divisions listed. There now are, and there's a category which serves the purpose perfectly. Can you or I speedy-delete this under general housekeeping, do I prod it, or how should I proceed? Thanks Buckshot06 ( talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking of useless stubby subpages, I've just prodded First-echelon and Second-echelon, both of which replicate and distort information at Deep operations and AirLand Battle without providing context. Can you get them speedy-deleted? Buckshot06 ( talk) 04:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Can you take a look at Category:Military facilities of the United States in Spain and get at least one of the useless redirects deleted? Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 06:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - I've zapped them both under the housekeeping speedy deletion clause. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - {{ Infobox Class}} and {{ Infobox Ship Class}} are deprecated and will soon be nominated for deletion. I notice that you are using these templates in your user space and wanted to inform you that they will no longer function once the templates are deleted. They have been replaced by using {{ Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. Thanks :) -- Brad ( talk) 07:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just removed them. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, your removal of this article from LGBT group was reverted by User:Zigzig20s. I agree with you that there's no clear evidence she was lesbian. It's purely speculation by one agenda-pushing writer Lillian Faderman, which the majority of recognized historians refute. As such, the article itself seems to have an WP:UNDUE issue in giving this minority view so much weight. Your thoughts on rectifying this? JGHowes ^talk - 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick,

I saw your edit where 2 Military Police Unit was changed to 2nd Military Police Unit (Canada). You'll have to pardon me as I'm new to creating/naming/editing pages. I don't have much objection to the inclusion of (Canada). 2 Military Police Unit (2 MPU) however is just that. Military units in Canada do not have the same naming conventions as those in the US. In the US, it's likely the "2nd MPU", whereas in Canada, it is not. 2 MPU is not the second unit, it's simply 2 MPU. For example, this can be evidenced on the page for 2 CMBG Headquarters & Signal Squadron. They are not "2nd CMBG".

Gary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armymp ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you added a neutrality tag to American mutilation of Japanese war dead. I see nothing in the talk page to justify it. Could you please make an entry on the article talk page explaining the issue(s) that caused you to insert the tag so that we can resolve it and remove the tag? thanks-- Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. There's a page at Royal Laos Army that should be at Royal Lao Army but I cannot move it - it's a former redirect. Would you mind untangling it and redirecting it? Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one. Mrg3105 has moved the Soviet 89th Rifle Division to 89th Rifle division (Soviet Union), in line with convention but also, unfortunately, in line with him sometimes lower-casing division (we talked about this a while ago and he said upper-casing 'Division' was a German, rather than an English thing(!)). I cannot move it 89th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) as that's an already existing redirect. Would you mind straightening this out please? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. That was unintended as I forgot to capitalise the original.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's silly how redirects cause these kind of problems. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nick, I'd like to give Scripped another shot on Wikipedia. I noticed that Zhura stayed up, and I can tell you with confidence that pretty much everywhere there is a mention of Zhura, there is a mention of us too (to test this, try googling "scripped zhura".)

With over 5000 writers on our site now, we'd like to have a presence here too. So, for what it's worth, this is just a heads up that I'm going to post an article on Scripped again.

Would you mind providing a third opinion at this page? Mrg3105 is adding the Soviet WW2 'home guard' divisions to the page, and initially called them 'Nardonoe Opencheniye,' as per the Russian. In accordance with WP:UE, I translated the term to 'People's Militia'. Mrg is not happy with this. Would you mind giving us some guidance, one way or the other? Thanks Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does opolcheniye need to be changed to militia, but landstrum, cossacks, and others do not? In any case, as you will see for the copious examples on the talk page for divisions, there is no clear translation to "militia" in English usage. This is besides the point that it is a type of troops.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know much about this topic, but David Glantz appears to use 'People's Milita'. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He does not. He uses it as an approximation of translation, for example in Leningrad:city under siege p.25 people's militia divisions and in brackets transliteration diviziia narodnogo opolchenii. However the standard in Social Sciences is to use the non-English term and then provide the English translation. That however, is besides the point. There are lots of other sources that say differently going back to 19th century, and also offer translations different to Glantz.

If this doesn't do it, consider the following. Wikipedia aims to be a premier online reference work. However, how many articles will come up in a search for people's militia referring to either Russia or Soviet Union if named People's Militia? On the other hand Leningrad People's Opolcheniye Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is the first page returned, and the Narodnoe Opolcheniye is second, explaining what it is in English terms. No need to wade through the 137,000 people's militia articles to find out which was true for Red Army during the Second World War. That is what I call good referencing.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(od) Mrg3105 has requested an RfC on this issue at Talk:List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957. I'd appreciate your input and maybe we can get this business sorted out. Regards Buckshot06( prof) 00:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the Judy Moran article was deleted? I thought there was a clear consensus to keep? Should this decision be reviewed?-- Sting au Buzz Me... 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to have been a wrongful deletion - there was a clear consensus in the AfD that Ms Moran is notable in her own right and sources had been provided. I'll restore the article when I get home this afternoon. Nick Dowling ( talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than be restored. -- Longhair\ ^talk 10:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree: there was a consensus to keep the article and no BLP concerns, so the admin acted incorrectly. Their action wasn't in line with Wikipedia:Deletion policy or Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators as the reason given for the deletion was their own interpretation of the article, and not a clear breach of policy. Wikipedia:Deletion policy states that "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care." and this is what I've done - a DRV isn't neccessary given that the article shouldn't have been deleted. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just read over Bduke's talk page and admit I was surprised myself the article was deleted. I'll sit back and watch how this one pans out if you don't mind. As the nominator I'm somewhat erring on the side of deletion but only if that's what the community wants. Cheers. -- Longhair\ ^talk 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should say that to David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariabk ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I, and it appears everybody in this discussion (although I could of course be wrong), had not considered the article on the family, Moran family. That article has a section that contains only a small amount of material less than Judy Moran. Moran family points to Judy Moran in this section as the main article. In hindsight, I would have closed the AfD by redirecting it to the family article after merging a few words. What do you think about that? It would allow it to be forked off again if good material can be found in the future, but would be more satisfactory when the article and that section in the family article are essentially the same. -- Bduke ( talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added merge tags and started a discussion at Talk:Moran family. It is easy to miss things. I have also restored Talk:Judy Moran which I deleted with the article. -- Bduke ( talk) 04:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You were helpful with the redirects before, so I'd like to ask that you remove the Air Army redirect from the Air Force article. The Air Army, to my knowledge, was only used for the Soviet (not Russian) Air Force formations, and so I will need it for the appropriate article. Cheers-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually also used for Japanese aerial formations, so this needs to be taken into account. Buckshot06 ( talk) 09:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You can make that change yourself - all you need to do is edit Air Army so that it's no longer a redirect (after you click the link and get redirected click the link in the '(Redirected from Air Army)' text to go to the redirect article). I agree that turning it into a disambiguation page would be most appropriate with, perhaps, seperate articles for Air army (USSR) and Air army (Japan). Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, tomorrow-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As one of the coordinators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force, could you lend me some arbitration on a WP:NPOV point here? Many thanks! Neddyseagoon - talk 09:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nick: I am rather new to Wikipedia, and need the advice of experienced hands concerning company policy. I am trying to do my bit by assessing articles for the Military History Project, and all has gone smoothly until I came to the article on the Haditha killings. In this incident, several Iraqis were killed by a squad of US Marines; among the victims were women and children, who were unquestionably innocent victims. The Marines may or may not have been following Rules of Engagement; the innocents may or may not have been caught in crossfire, or may or may not have been slaughtered by men who may or may not have been enraged by the loss of a comrade. In other words, the Marines may or may not have been guilty of murder, which may or may not be decided by a trial that may take place this coming October. Given all the murk, it seems impossible to avoid POV, although the author does present both sides, perhaps as fairly as is possible. Out of all this, I have two questions:

1. Is it history? Some people, including me, believe that history and journalism are distinct. I would therefore exclude the article from the task force, not because it is not military, but because it is not history.

2. Does Wikipedia welcome such controversy? I know that excluding them will subject the organization to criticism from those who will think that it is cowardice, but I don't see why we have to compete with the political blogs on either the right or the left. PKKloeppel ( talk) 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. It does tell me what I want to know. PKKloeppel ( talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I don't know, but just had a look on the web and found a few references. It looks to me like this was regarded as purely a NEI transport squadron, rather than a joint unit, which would explain why it does not appear in the standard references on the RAAF. Grant | Talk 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you've deleted the article on Mary White (the Welsh one, I don't know of the Australian one).

Firstly:

"I've just speedy-deleted this article and the other above Mary White article as neither of these people appear to be notable from the information contained in the articles"

Should simply not have happened. Non-notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion Wikipedia:CSD#A7

Secondly, the speedy deletion tag was applied when the article was a couple of minutes old, after the author had saved what was only a few lines of first draft notes. This is an issue close to my heart at present, please read either my talk, or recent threads at user talk:Orangemike (Topics LNWR 2-2-2 3020 Cornwall & others and Convoy SC-143) (possibly archived now Orangemike/Archive_4) The problem is that editors making early saves are regularly having them deleted by a zealous application of a policy that was never intended to do this.

Thirdly the article as deleted was expanded considerably from when it was tagged. As a new article, it showed promise. Obviously I can no longer see it, but AFAIR it established notability quite satisfactorily. One citation of the University of Wales bio ought to be enough for that.

Fourthly we're supposed to practice consensus here. If the person is considered non-notable, then AfD it and give people time to respond. Speedy isn't for notabilty, even on BLP.

Would it be possible to restore the article please, or else clarify what the grounds were on which it was speedily deleted. Thanks. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the restore. I can't promise to do much expansion on this, as I really don't have the time, but the original author still seemed to be busy with it.

As far as notability goes, she ought to qualify easily - I recognised her name myself (through the Atlantic College and South Wales connection) and the Aber bio ought to be adequate paperwork to class as verifiable. Really her notability in the field comes from the crossover between calligraphy and ceramics. As always with artists though, the problem is getting usable images of their work. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure how to address the problem; your lead was very useful for me. (And the moral support felt good, too!) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I was considering writing an article about the Dutch ship Concordia that went missing in 1708. However, there is already an article about another ship with the same name. Please see here. What is the protocol and what heading should I use?? Cheers, Spy007au ( talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)