Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to db-spam this. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got a vague (and quite possibly mistaken) memory that it it already had been nominated for prod deletion when it came up years ago. Given that there was a fair bit of discussion of this article (mainly negative) at WT:MILHIST at the time, an AfD might be the better option. I'd vote delete on notability grounds alone. Nick-D ( talk) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I am the creator of this article and would like to discuss more closely the reason for your deletion of this article. I was aware of the issues the article had from the beginning thanks to actions done by NawlinWiki. He/she PRODed it with regards to promo/advertising style of writing and not enough notable 3rd party references but I then made significant changes about the promotional tone that convinced him/her to remove the PROD. It was made clear that I would have to still work on collecting those references which I have been doing since. Bear in mind, all this only happened yesterday and I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia - this was only my first article. So please consider making it available again so that I can do more profound research for those sources.

In regards to notability, what is your view on an entity that has won the best chain school of the year four times in the past six years, has a load of excellence awards from languagecourse.net in recent years and has accreditations from all the major governmental language education bodies in countries where it runs its business? Doesn't the above mentioned constitute quite a major notability? As I wrote to NawlinWiki, I have many more 3rd party sources which I was going to cite under the article in the upcoming days. Embassy English has a dedicated page on its web just for the accreditations and awards, please refer to it here - http://www.embassyces.com/about/accreditation.aspx. I hope this reasoning will help change your mind. thanks Kucherjan ( talk) 12:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kucherjan, I deleted the article as it was total spam - it was referenced only to the organisation's website, and was written in a highly positive tone. Do you have a relationship with this organisation? In regards to what's needed to establish notability, please see WP:ORG - in short, for an organisation to be notable it has to have been the recipient of in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. I'd be pleased to upload the article to your user space so that you can work on it, but will not do so without assurances that this isn't going to be used to advertise this organisation. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed out the mess we have when Category:Wyandot people seems to be using people to mean something else than Category:People from Michigan. I am hoping people consider more the problem of the issue of multiple people meanings being interspesed before we do anything to make a bigger problem. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manoora Dili (20060528ran8098578 008).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. — Bkell ( talk) 08:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As you've kindly reviewed History of Gibraltar for FA, I wondered if you had any thoughts or advice on the issue raised at Talk:History of Gibraltar#Personal anecdotes? Please feel free to comment there if you do. Prioryman ( talk) 12:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

Another user has made a slight update to the article. I was wondering if you could read the second last paragraph in the "Capture" section to see if it flows with the rest of the article. I have also found and placed a reference to that sentence and added the book to the bottom of that page. It would be appreciated if you could look at it and fix anything that needs fixing. Adamdaley ( talk) 04:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a topic I know anything about Adam, so my odds of improving the article aren't great ;) I'd suggest that you may any changes to the edit which you think would be beneficial. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you may not know anything about the article. I was concerned that the new additional information in the last 48 hours may have slight (or even a very small percentage) compromised the "A class" assessment. I am currently working on the new information that has been added by Africai. Adamdaley ( talk) 03:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This may violate WP:CANVASS. The project is not directly implicated in the RfA, the message has some bias ("a long-running member of this project"), and the audience could be partisan. If it is inappropriate, please remove it. Glrx ( talk) 02:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's standard practice to post such messages for editors whose focus has largely been within the scope of the project - the notification obviously cuts both ways given that it raises awareness of the nomination among people who don't consider the nominee suitable as well as those who do. I have amended the message to remove the 'long standing' bit though. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand your position. Glrx ( talk) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a larger discussion should be had after the current RfA. I can see where such a notification could be neutral, but just as easily it could be used for WP:votestacking, forcing us to look inside the head of the poster to determine their motives for placing the notice to determine if it was canvassing or not. I've been pretty active in RfA for a while now but haven't run across this. To offer a personalized example, if I were to run for Arb (don't worry, it will never happen) and I posted a notice at WP:WER, I would expect everyone to be rightfully upset and consider it canvassing, regardless of the motivation. That is the problem, it puts us in the uncomfortable position of determining motivation, and we are not judges. Again, perhaps a larger discussion is due, after the RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The trouble I have with calling this canvassing is that it opens the door to the possibility of not being able to post a notification anywhere, except, perhaps, a central 'RFA board' - which could easily get buried and forgotten. What would happen if you held a RFA and nobody came? Having someone post notices themselves that "I'm running for admin", I can see as canvassing. But a notice from another editor on WikiProject pages, neutrally worded? That's another kettle of fish, and we should assume good faith. Of course, this opinion will get you a breath of air, for everything else including the cuppa Joe I so desperatly need there's MasterCard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The flipside is the example I gave, since a Project where an individual is active is more likely to be favorable to them than not. It is difficult for me to picture a project as "neutral", but perhaps that is my lack of imagination. Some yes, others no, so we admin are forced to read their mind when they post it. I just used my best judgement based on my understanding of policy, just as you guys are, this just isn't something that has come up in a long time. Unquestionably, no one was trying to break any rules here, but the lack of clarity on the issue started some drama on the RfA talk page, which I attempted to shut down. As for neutral areas, the user's talk page is surely neutral. FWIW, I can't imagine an RfA that no one would show up for, the gauntlet always attracts plenty of attention. I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, and there are good arguments on both sides, hence the need for a larger, calm discussion or RFC at the Pump or wt:rfa next week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I for one would prefer more, rather than less, editors that are actually familiar with a candidate voting in their RfA. Alerting individual editors that are friends of the candidate might be vote stacking, but a neutral RfA notification message in a Wikiproject can only lead to a better RfA outcome IMO. -- Surturz ( talk) 03:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's my view - the people who are best qualified to comment on RfAs will often be the people most familiar with the candidate's history, and so where there's a strong connection to a Wikiproject a notification seems a good idea. This also helps to raise awareness of the process of applying for adminship, which new editors are unlikely to be familiar with. That said, I do see where the arguments against this are coming from. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, open up a new article just for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotoruan ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt that this report passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It received some media coverage when it was completed, but as far as I'm aware is yet to be adopted by either government. Please see WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting aka blocking the editing by non-admin users to Business Man telugu page in the Article namespace sir. You did the right thing. It would be better if you extend the expiry period. Thank you sir. Have a nice day and happy editing. Raghusri ( talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the protection duration to a minimum so as to not prevent productive editing - the goal with the shortish protection was to stop the edit war only. Please let me know if the edit warring resumes and I'll either re-protect the article to block the edit warring editor(s). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

O.K. sir. Now i understood your intention after reading this. Surely, after the expiration i will tell you the thing, if the edit warring resumes again (or) not! Thank you for your co-operation. Have a good day. Raghusri ( talk) 12:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir! No edit warring occured again. If it does then i will inform you. Have a good day and happy editing. Raghusri ( talk) 17:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day Nick, did you have anything else you thought should be addressed on this ACR? Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 10:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry - I forgot all about commenting on that ACR :o You've addressed all my comments. Nick-D ( talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate. First off, really like the Old Parliament House shot -- one of the best you've had in that spot... Next, did you discuss something somewhere about the more specialised AWM image licensing they seem to have adopted, e.g. CC BY-NC? I'm finally working on another article, on No. 1 AD, and I see the best relevant photo is AWM copyright and CC BY-NC, which I don't think helps us very much since it can't reused commercially by people ripping it off WP. Possibly I'm just out of practice, but maybe it's better to try a fair use rationale... WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, The AWM still claims copyright over the photos with those tags I'm afraid (though I don't see how they can sustain a claim over that particular image within Australia...). It's images such as this (picked at random) where they don't claim copyright internationally. The licensing doesn't seem consistent here - this 1959 image (also picked at random) taken not far from where your photo was taken is marked as being PD! Short version: I agree that a fair use claim is needed, though this may be a case of something going wrong in the AWM's database. Thanks also for the nice comment re the photo! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, at least the no-nonsense "copyright expired -- public domain" is still around, and sometimes you get happy inconsistencies like the Sabre one you've noted. The annoying thing with my No. 1 AD pic is that AWM copyright should in effect mean Commonwealth copyright, which on WP (as opposed to Commons) you could invoke Clause E of PD-Australia since it was taken more than 50 years ago -- but I bet someone would argue the point... ;-) Guess I'll go the FUR route and see how I go... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth sending them an email noting that this image appears to have been miss-labeled and asking that this be reviewed. My understanding is that the Sabre is marked the way the AWM intends things to be marked given that its moved into the public domain and the 1 AD one isn't marked correctly given that it's actually PD; I could be mistaken about this, or there could be something else going on with the 1 AD photo (eg, it could be a non-government photo which has been donated to the AWM, but they're normally pretty good about marking such records in their database). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D,

Would it be possible to put a temporary IP editor block on Eighth Route Army -- there is an IP editor from the Philippines who insists on adding a "see also" statement linking to the Malaysian Army, which has bullocks-all to do with the article's topic. I reverted the entries three times, no idea why they are being made, and of course, the IP addresses vary a bit each time so their talk page(s) are worthless in this instance. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 06:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, That gets the prize for the weirdest thing I've seen on Wikipedia for a few days. I've just semi-protected the article for a week and warned the editor: please let me know if this nonsense continues. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 18:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the WM-Au member to a single template that can be categorised in the future. Feel free to undo the change. Bidgee ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good change - thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 07:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif ( talk) 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're on the ball. I was thinknig about giving you a heads-up on this; I'd like to change all the 485-490 series. Then have to figure out whether to rename No. 10 Squadron RAAF to No. 2210 Squadron RAF (just joking)!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't do that to 10 Sqn ;) A few years ago there was a discussion over whether the 'Australian' Article XV squadrons should undergo a similar move, and the consensus was that they should remain at No. 4xx Squadron RAAF as this is what most sources call them (while also noting that in many cases the units contained few Australians and weren't under the control of the Australian Government). I'm not sure what the situation for NZ is, but if 'RAF' is more common then the moves would be a good idea. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I see 92 Wing wasn't formed until the late 1970s. What were the wings directing 10 and 11 beforehand at their separate bases? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest - Ian Rose will probably know. The RAAF's historical organisation is pretty confusing and very badly documented in published sources. Nick-D ( talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Clearly none of us have anything better to do... ;-) Yep, I think 10/11 Sqns just came directly under the relevant area/operational commands until 92 Wing. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian, can we dig up an orbat of the RAAF in 1950, 1960, and 1970, with all applicable wings, groups, and commands? Where would one look for sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought of that myself and have checked in a few areas because I've written most of the articles on RAAF wings here at WP (Nick did the excellent 1 and 80 Wing articles), and I'm working on and off on an article on RAAF area commands, but it's a bit hit and miss. For instance, George Odgers wrote a series of books on the Air Force, generally under the title RAAF or Air Force Australia in the 1980s and '90s, which are fairly useful in that regard, and there's also titles like Defence Reporter and Australian Aviation Yearbook that occasionally pop up in my searches. I checked a book or two Odgers wrote on the Air Force in the '50s or '60s that are in the Mitchell Library but they were more about deeds than organisation, unfortunately. Then again some wings' operations books are digitised at NAA, but not all, and not for all their existence (frustrating). Are you thinking of little orbat articles, or just interested for reference as and when needed? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

HAve you considered going directly to the Office of Air Force History, http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Contents/About-APDC/About-APDC/7/Office-of-Air-Force-History.aspx ? Seemingly at Defence Establishment Fairbairn. Would ring them to locate a historian rather than an administration clerk who might obstruct you, and then send that historian an e-mail. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also would you mind mounting your draft somewhere? Cannot find it in your five drafts. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, would prefer set Structure of the Royal Australian Air Force in 1955 or something of the sort. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've spoken to the Office in the past, having become acquainted with them when I wrote some of the base articles for the Units of the RAAF in 1994-95 (only wish I'd agitated for articles on wings, groups and commands, but I came to the project very late in the piece)... Anyway, a lot of what they provided me in my early days at WP is now online through the Air Power Development Centre. With unit histories and so on, unless they've been 'published' on the net, they're not that helpful as WP sources.

Re. the commands article, I tend to write my stuff in Word docs that I can work on anywhere, with or without the internet.

Structure snapshot articles sound like a good idea if we can source them -- now I'm getting back into articles a bit, I might raid the books at the Mitchell again and see about taking down the broad organisational data from the Odgers books, and anything else I can find. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ravi Rikhye at Orbat.com will publish any re-presentations of OAFH docos we might write. Who's your contact at the OAFH- I'll talk to them myself. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, just letting you know I've finished a draft of Project News and will quickly go over the other sections, then I'd like to despatch ASAP, since Prioryman/s triple-TFA should occur today (from 11AM our time of course). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I've made a couple of tweaks, and it all looks good to go to me. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey noticed you need a book review for the bugle cant wright one this week I am a bit busy. But I was wondering if the book Killing Rommel would be a good book to review for the bugle. Thanks Nhog ( talk) 17:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be great - when you're ready, please post the review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2013/Book reviews. We try to get the Bugle Out in (or about!) the third week of the month, so something in the next couple of weeks would be perfect. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've requested a PR for World War II, and thought you should know, as you seem to be a regular editor of that article. -- Aunva6 ^{talk - contribs} 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Here it is - relisted. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Selfe/archive2. Cheers :-) Witty lama 09:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll post a review over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. As someone who's commented on the Norman Self nomination, and now that the nomination is nearing the bottom of the FAC list with no new recent comments, I'd like to encourage you to make a statement of support/oppose or add new comments. This is the second time the article has been listed for FA as the first time was closed citing a lack of overt support votes. I'd hate for that to happen again. Sincerely, Witty lama 09:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - when I last checked in a couple of weeks some of my comments had not yet been addressed. I've just commented there. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, any chance Eighth Route Army could be protected for a while again? The "Malaysian Army" linker is back. It is quite odd. Thanks, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 08:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just blocked their latest account and protected the article for a month. As before, please let me know if this happens again. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Nick. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 14:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you recently left a review at my FAC :) I think I've addressed all of the matters you raised, if you get chance to stop by and take a look see if there is anything else that needs looking at that would be awesome :D Cheers -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 13:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help. Thanx -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, That's not really my area of specialty so I don't have anything to add. I'd suggest posting at WT:MILHIST if you haven't already done so. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:FULL, edits can be requested on the talk page. Please can you unlock the talk page as I have an uncontroversial edit I want to propose. He does live in Berkshire [12]. Widefox; talk 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not going to unlock the talk page given that it was only being used to violate WP:BLP. If you tell me exactly what change you'd like to make to the article I'll consider adding the material, but it might be best for this to wait until after the various rumors have died down. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Although almost moot now as the block is expiring..can you put padlock signs on the article and talk page, and my understanding of WP:PP is "If a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing." I'm no admin, so I guess you're following a higher policy?

My edit is "He has lived in the UK for more than five decades, residing in Bray, Berkshire. ^[1]

...but now I know the correct place for my edit request is RfE (never needed it before so this has stumped me)...I shall follow that procedure. Do agree with you about BLP violations of course. Widefox; talk 00:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't following some 'higher policy'; I just wasn't aware of that guidance. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem  Done - I meant WP:OFFICE as from my limited understanding/experience BLP full for both is rare (there's no template). Widefox; talk 14:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP also gives admins discretion to lock talk pages when they're being used to violate the policy (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Semi-protection, protection, and blocking and the earlier note in the policy that WP:BLP applies away from article-space). I didn't add the protection templates as there's a bot that automatically does this - it doesn't appear to have worked on the talk page though unfortunately. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm guessing the bot is locked out too on full protection. Thanks Widefox; talk 16:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to what you wrote. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir. I request you to protect the Baadshah (2013 film), because the film is released today and so many nonconstructive and test edits are occurring while i am editing. Please protect the article from unregistered users, non autoconfirmed users for a period of two weeks. Hope you will protect sir. Thank you. Raghusri ( talk) 12:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, The volume of vandalism doesn't seem very large, and there appear to be far more productive edits from IP accounts than vandalism, so I don't think that it would be suitable to protect this article at present. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Sir. Please see today's edits a lot of nonconstructive edits from IP's. I am reverting those daily. Please check again once. Thank you sir. Raghusri ( talk) 09:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Unless I'm missing something (which is always possible!), you appear to have only reverted a single edit today. I don't like IP vandals either, but that level of vandalism isn't even close to the level needed to justify semi-protecting the article. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K. As per you wish. Raghusri ( talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, just seeing if you were monitoring the review, it's ready for you to check back. BTW, another great shot at the top of the page here, particularly like the dust at the point of landing... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'm currently editing the article right now to take your comments into account. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, have recently found some Timorese decrees which suggest the structure of the F-FDTL may have changed significantly; a land component and support component, rather than the structure that we portray at present. Would like to check with the US DOD document you got, but it seems to have been removed: would you mind flipping me 'Embassy of the United States, Dili (2010). "U.S. Military Engagement: 2009 in Review". Embassy of the United States, Dili. Retrieved 18 July 2010' Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll check to see whether I saved a copy of that tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 12:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue 49: April 2013 Previous edition · Next edition

London Transport News April Customer satisfaction high as Emirates Air Line carries two million passengers Barclays Cycle Hire southwest extension construction works begin Wide-aisle gates at 180 Tube stations means more independent and quicker journeys DLR carries record-breaking one hundred million passengers in one year Transport for London team up with policing partners to donate unclaimed bikes to local charity Below inflation taxi fare increase to take effect - reminder March TfL issues OJEU for ticketing and fare collection services beyond 2015 Majority of Taxi and Private Hire licence fees reduced or frozen Oyster customer services moves to a local rate number Three new lifts transform accessibility at Crystal Palace station Transport for London proposes a new Sunday service for bus route B12 Transport for London urges teenagers to 'Stop Think! Live' on the road Her Majesty The Queen, HRH Duke of Edinburgh and HRH Duchess of Cambridge visit Baker Street Underground station as LU celebrates 150 years of serving London New lifts for Edgware Road (Bakerloo line) station TfL launches competition to find operator to run Crossrail services Transport for London launches competition to create accessibility apps 'Crossrail for the bike' in Mayor's £913m cycling plan Emirates Air Line to close for one week for planned maintenance Third public consultation results for Northern line extension confirms strong support for Tube link TfL opens the door to innovative ideas Thames Clippers to operate enhanced River Bus services between Putney and Blackfriars Tube customer satisfaction hits record high as strong reliability performance maintained Crossrail train funding announced Project News Alerts London congestion charge was delisted as a Featured Article in January London Necropolis Company has not been featured in Today's Featured Article Metropolitan Railway was be Today's Featured Article in January Hammersmith & City line has been put up for Peer Review in January and then promoted to Good Article status in February List of bus types used in London was put up for Articles for Deletion in January and closed as keep M11 link road protest was promoted to Good Article status in January St Pancras railway station was put of for Peer Review in February District line was nominated for Good Article status in February but was withdrawn in March London Underground departmental stock was nominated for Good Article status in March List of London school bus routes was nominated for deletion in April Project discussions Within the project, discussions included the Metropolitan Railway being TFA to mark the 150th anniversary of the tube, bus routes in station articles, comparing American pseudo facts with the London Underground, renaming Uxbridge Road station and identifying stations in photographs. Within other related projects, relevant discussions included a dispute over railway systems, various discussions on railway lines, station categories, historical station usage data, identifying train locations, train timetables, images, colours, a reliable source in road articles, road junction templates, signs, boundaries, referencing Wikipedia, deletions of lists of bus routes and a proposed official bus route guide. Requests If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor Things to do Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Lists of articles needing cleanup Expand : These top 10 favourite articles to Good Article: J. P. Morgan  · Heathrow Airport  · River Thames  · London Bridge  · London Underground  · London Bridge (Lake Havasu City)  · Gatwick Airport  · London Congestion Charge  · Tube map  · Tower Bridge These top importance articles to Good Article: 7 July 2005 London bombings  · Buses in London  · Crossrail  · London Passenger Transport Board  · London Transport (brand)  · London Transport Museum  · Transport for London  · Transport in London Photo : Upload your non-copyrighted London transportation images to Wikimedia Commons Stubs : Improve a stub article Update : London low emission zone, London congestion charge Other : Suggest: A Did You Know...? fact here or an Anniversary fact here. Patrol: Recent changes Join: Become a member of WikiProject London Transport or encourage others Membership Tommietomato ( talk · contribs) hoined in April, bringing the number of participants to 84. Welcome to them. Recent Activity of Project participants Editorial Editor: Simply south Special thanks to founders Unisouth ( talk · contribs) and Bluegoblin7 ( talk · contribs) for setting up the newsletter Here is April's edition. All suggestions for improvements to the newsletter are welcome at feedback page or Simply south Best Articles Featured articles (34) 1910 London to Manchester air race • Albert Bridge, London • Aldwych tube station • Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield • Baker Street and Waterloo Railway • Battersea Bridge • Brill Tramway • Brill railway station • Central London Railway • Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway • Chelsea Bridge • City and South London Railway • Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway • Great Western Railway War Memorial • Green Park tube station • Herne Hill railway station • Charles Holden • London Necropolis Company • London and North Western Railway War Memorial • Marchioness disaster • Metropolitan Railway • Moorgate tube crash • RAF Northolt • Frank Pick • Sinking of SS Princess Alice • Quainton Road railway station • Richmond Bridge, London • Underground Electric Railways Company of London • Vauxhall Bridge • Waddesdon Road railway station • Wandsworth Bridge • Westcott railway station • Wood Siding railway station • Wotton railway station (Brill Tramway) Featured lists (6) List of former and unopened London Underground stations • List of London Underground stations • List of London Monopoly locations • List of works by Charles Holden • London station group • Timeline of the London Underground Featured topics (2) Brill Tramway • Underground Electric Railways Company of London Good articles (111) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Good topics (1) List of London Monopoly locations Featured Portal (1) Portal:London Transport Good articles (111) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Recently Promoted Featured Articles, Lists or Topics None Recently Assessed Good Articles A1 road in London M11 link road protest Hammersmith & City line Good Article and Featured candidates London Underground departmental stock Gallery Selected by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 3 Wikipedia ads file info – #137 If you want to unsubscribe from this newsletter or, if you are visiting this user page and want to sign-up, then please visit this page. You may also like to provide your opinions on this newsletter by visiting The Metropolitan's feedback page or the project's discussion page. Any other issues with this, don't be afraid to drop a line at Simply south's talkpage.

Simply south.... .. eating shoes for just 7 years 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, discussion at WP:TFAR on a suitable article for Anzac Day this year and one of yours has been mentioned -- see under April 27 -- Charles Eaton (RAAF officer). I nom'ed the latter but Hawkeye suggested doing it on Anzac Day (which probably makes more sense) but I could just as easily shift it to a non-specific date. Your thoughts welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Ian - I've just commented there. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I closed this as delete, but User:Diego has pointed out to me that the BLPPRIMARY issues mentioned in your nom to have been resolved, something that I missed, and something that none of the participants voting "per nom" addressed. COATRACK really does not seem applicable since I don't see a NPOV issue with the article; it is about what it claims to be about. Since the most convincing argument--the sourcing--has been resolved, I am tempted to reverse my deletion. I wanted to get your input first, however. Feel free to reply here, although commenting on my talk page might help centralize discussion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the deleted article John Moulton (medical practitioner) I'm wondering if you might reconsider your opposition to this article. I have recently read WP:NRU and feel that it conclusively proves Moulton's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. I hope you will agree and assist me in it being reinstated. As the team doctor he was an administrator of a "High Performance Union" for a long period and also at the time of winning the Rugby World Cup so he is clearly deemed notable by current standards. Castlemate ( talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Notability of individuals is determined solely by the availability of reliable and independent sources which provide in-depth coverage of their life. If such sources exist about Mr Moulton he's notable, but notability isn't inherited by his job in the Rugby Team in isolation. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey There,

I edited the "Current Expenditure" section of the ADF article with the US concerns about Australian defence spending in 2012. I didn't leave an explanation because I'm relatively new to this and didn't know it was required. The articles cited are from 2012, which is much more recent than many in the overall article and I think still relevant because Australian defence spending has not been raised as a percentage of GDP since. I have taken the word "recent" out though, due to subjectivity.

Regarding your second comment, I think that American defence spending cuts since are irrelevant to the discussion. They have not retracted their critisism and neither has Tony Abbott so I consider that they both stand. Incidentally, even after cuts the Americans spend roughly double on defence as a proportion of GDP as Australia does.

Cheers. Crikeydick ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think that this would be best discussed at Talk:Australian Defence Force, and I've moved it there. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I've got a book review for you at the end of [ sandbox] on the Japanese Navy's air service. The one on the RN in the Med still needs some work. Feel free to edit as needed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - it's an excellent review. I hope that you'd borrowed the book! I've just posted the review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2013/Book reviews without any alterations. Please let me know when the other review is ready (or post it there yourself :) ). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. The RN in the Med review needs further thought, though I'm having problems thinking what else could be addressed in the review. If you've got any thoughts, I'd appreciate them.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 09:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You could expand upon the summaries of the activities of the fleet written by Professor Halpern (eg, do they make the book a good choice for editors looking for an overview of this topic?) and comment on how well selected these documents seem, but there's not really much to be said about compilations of primary sources such as this. Nick-D ( talk) 10:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of military history of Australia during World War II know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or one of his delegates ( Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), Gimmetoo ( talk · contribs), and Bencherlite ( talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The military history of Australia during World War II began with Australia declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939. By the end of the war, almost a million Australians had served in the armed forces, primarily in the European theatre, North African campaign, and the South West Pacific theatre. In addition, Australia came under direct attack for the first time in its history. Casualties from enemy action during the war were 27,073 killed and 23,477 wounded. While most Australian forces were withdrawn from the Mediterranean following the outbreak of war in the Pacific, they continued to take part in the air offensive against Germany. Australian forces played a key role in the Pacific War, making up the majority of Allied strength in the South West Pacific. The military continued offensive operations against the Japanese until the war ended. The war contributed to major changes in the nation's economy, military and foreign policy. It accelerated the process of industrialisation, led to the development of a larger peacetime military and began the process with which Australia shifted the focus of its foreign policy from Britain to the United States. ( Full article...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On 12 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ten of the twenty McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk aircraft (pictured) operated by the Royal Australian Navy between 1967 and 1984 were destroyed as a result of accidents? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well the article's up now, and submitted for B-Class assessment first off. Also created a DYK nom here, so feel free to tweak or add an alternative (I'm aiming to review someone else's hook on Sunday)... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 16:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian - and nice work fixing up that photo. I've just added a few more odds and ends to the article. Nick-D ( talk) 00:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, I don't know why I hadn't used Always There before -- must've confused it with Always First, which I have. BTW, for my next trick, I'll be creating articles for 90/91 (Composite) Wings, the ones specifically/temporarily created for Malaya and Korea. I think I finally have enough data from the usual disparate sources to take them on... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't use that book as often as I should either, which is a shame as it seems pretty good. It's good to see the links at List of Royal Australian Air Force wings turning blue, though I added another four yesterday! Nick-D ( talk) 05:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'm going to try and flesh out the 84 and 92 Wing articles eventually as well -- planning to raid the Mitchell's collection of printed RAAF News copies to see if I can't nail down some dates and other useful info. BTW, the Herc article is now at GAN -- took the liberty of listing you as a co-nom so you can take your share of the credit or blame... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm planning a trip to the AWM Reference Centre in a few weeks time to consult a few really obscure books, including their manuscript which has the key dates and locations for all the RAAF units of World War II - please let me know if I can look anything up for you (I have the status of 86 Wing in 1945/46 on the list to check). Nick-D ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good -- haven't been to the AWM for years as I haven't had occasion to travel to Canberra since my Defence contracting days, but I guess I should bite the bullet and just do it sometime... Till then, WWII wing orders of battle and especially establishment/disbandment dates would help. Aside from 86 Wing's disbandment (if applicable), what I need are:

• 72 and 73 Wing disbandment dates/locations.
• 75, 83, 84, and 85 Wing establishment/disbandment dates/locations, and OOBs at any given date/location.
• 81 Wing establishment date/location.

The other wartime ones I've found on digitised unit histories from NAA. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I'll add those to the list. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Found the 81 Wing info I wanted in an RAAF News in the Mitchell. Another issue indicated that 84 Wing formed on 11 September 1944 and disbanded in 1946, but locations for both those events and any OOB(s) mentioned will still be useful -- as will inaugural COs and any other notables serving with each of the wings I've noted. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, nice work. I hope that you didn't have to spend too long going through old newspapers for that information. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ian: thankyou for intending to take a crack at Nos 90 and 91 Wings. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D,

In a recent comment on the MILHIST forum, I alluded to what I perceive to be a relatively common practice; that of the introduction of propaganda into the EN Wikipedia. This diff is an example of what I referred to.
As a disclaimer, I'm an old guy whose roots are primarily Scottish and Walloon, so I hold no ties to either parties mentioned in the diff. But I find it curious the diff maintains an ethnic distinction in one case while in the other case, the ethnic distinction is simultaneously removed yet promoted to a more official ("government") status. To me, it subtly suggests that the one party deserved to get their tanks smacked by this missile because they were in conflict with the legitimate authority in the country.
Am I just too damned sensitive about this kind of thing? I left the diff alone because it is not too blatant, I don't wish to appear to be a Wiki-crusader, and I agree with the quote at the top of your user page concerning arguments with anonymous entities of the internet. I would appreciate your views on this. If I'm overly sensitive to these kinds of edits, please advise. Thank you, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 07:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, That edit does seem to reflect a POV of some sort. I don't know much about the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia to know whether 'government' is accurate/common usage or not, but it clearly reflects a different viewpoint. This is all over the place though - for example, lots of our coverage of the Vietnam War is written from an American perspective in which the US troops are fighting people identified only as 'Communists', and I imagine that you wouldn't have to look too far to find a questionable use of 'terrorist' or 'aggressor' in articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm also fond of banging on about the problems with using German terms for WW2-era things for which perfectly good English-language equivalents exist on the grounds that they're imprecise and can have a mystique of sorts attached to them, but I've never won a great deal of support! To cut a long strong short, I don't think that there are any significant programs to deliberately insert biased wording, but this kind of thing does add up to be a significant problem and I personally favour using neutral and plain-English terms. Nick-D ( talk) 08:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	for lighting fast action with you nuked every possibility of action of "that" vandal. Dэя- Бøяg 00:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much and very well done: I've not even had the time to add a further note at WP:AIV that I've seen only a flash :-) . Regards. -- Dэя- Бøяg 00:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries - I had a feeling that they'd keep coming back. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll back. Anyway, he's back, just to troll (again and again and again) in his talk. Could you please expand the block of Perrys Conscience (and, btw, MidTex) to the option cannot edit his talk page? Thanks. Could be useful to eventual further sockpuppets also. -- Dэя- Бøяg 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur that TPA revocation for general trollishness is called for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

MBisanz ( talk · contribs) beat me to it. Nick-D ( talk) 10:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved with this[ [13]] only as a passerby attempting to help. I don't normally get involved with these things. I noticed on the users talk page you have been involved with this editor previously and I didn't know where else to go or how t go about this. User:G PViB has continued to editwar with the same issue and displays quite the attitude. If you are not the right person to handle can you please notify another admin to review? This guy just isn't getting it, unfortunately. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 ( talk) 04:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23 ( talk · contribs) has looked into this, and I agree with their response, including their warning for G_PViB to be civil. Nick-D ( talk) 10:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks it really is a much better picture dnw ( talk) 09:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries - I'm pleased to have been of assistance. Next time I'm passing through with a proper camera (rather than a camera phone) I'll try to take a better photo. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

On 24 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lockheed C-130 Hercules (pictured) entered service with the RAAF in 1958, making Australia the first country after the United States to operate the aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Obviously I'm interested in engaging in a dialog on the talk page if there is consensus that the material (added by a community banned user) satisfies policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. You are, in fact, cordially invited to participate in that discussion. Thus far, however, contrary to your own advice, you and other editors seem to be interested only in edit-warring. Why is that exactly? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why the aggressive post assuming bad faith? I wasn't aware that there was a post on the talk page - thank you for pointing it out. Nick-D ( talk) 00:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Obvously a revert with an edit summary of "Take it to the talk page" when there is already a post on the talk page is totally inappropriate. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

See above - I wasn't aware that there was a post on the talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Did it not occur to you to check? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I do make mistakes occasionally you know. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 00:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comments in the ongoing discussion between myself and Buckshot06. However the issue is not one relating directly to an article being written or to specific edits. It is to a specific action that Buckshot06 failed to carry out in February of 2012 in relation to [14]. I am still waiting for him to give any sign that he does understand what the actual issue is. Graham1973 ( talk) 05:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied on Buckshot's talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 08:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong answer. I see you missed the one person (Myself) who didn't take part in the February 2012 discussion because someone couldn't be bothered to notify them it was taking place. I cannot trust Buckshot06 for that reason. Graham1973 ( talk) 15:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, could you please give me the reasons as to why the external link was inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunksood ( talk • contribs)

Because it had almost nothing to do with the subject of the article. Please see WP:EL. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, I'd like to ask you a question about this comment of yours please. You write: "Moreover, given that bans are only ever applied to people who have well and truly exhausted the community's patience..." So, my question is: what is "the community"? For example user Russavia is a member of the community, is he not? On the other hand you and other 3 users left one of the community's project because of Russavia:Jimbo Wales writes: "Russavia, this statement is so horrific that I am more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken. You should be ashamed. and so on, and so on. So, is this a good thing to "truly exhaust" Russavia's patience or is it a bad thing? Thanks. 76.126.142.59 ( talk) 19:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure that I understand your question (which might be based on miss-reading my comment; bans are applied to editors who have exhausted the community's patience, and not as a way of punishing people per-se). As noted in my edit summary at Commons, I don't have a high opinion of Russavia and am not interested in being part of a project he's leading. Nick-D ( talk) 23:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just meant to demonstrate to you that it is incorrect to talk about exhausting the community's patience because there are actually two communities. There are thousands of users editing Wikipedia. Usually not more than 30 users participate in the community ban discussions. Usually the users who participate in the community ban discussions are the same users. The vast majority of the users have never taken a part in any community discussions especially in the community ban discussions. Because only 30 users or so participate in the community ban discussions, each vote matters. Russavia participates in the community ban discussions. His vote is taken into account. You do not have a high opinion of Russavia, and you are not even interested in "being part of a project he's leading". Then you probably should not care about Russavia's vote in the community ban discussions, should you? Let's say that there are a few more users like Russavia who participate in the community ban discussions. Then we could assume that somebody who is banned by the community of russavias probably was banned for doing a right thing, and certainly was not banned by the community of Wikipedia. Regards. 76.126.142.59 ( talk) 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a dodgy local consensus is always a problem. I've never seen it occur in relation to a community ban though in all my years here, and hopefully it's never happened. Nick-D ( talk) 10:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nick -

Regarding your recent comments on my edits to the Owen Gun article, I would like to make the following inquiry: supposing an editor such as myself does see a weapon credited to one military or another in a firearms museum, is there any way he can use this as a source for an article? I have provided the photograph of the exhibit in question (part of a larger display which included several submachine guns, all supposedly ex-RhSF) but apparently that wasn't enough. The image seems to have been accepted without difficulty by former RhSF veterans I remain in contact with, and the camo scheme - a uniquely Rhodesian SOP type - appears quite authentic.

Perhaps I can get a qualified individual to verify the authenticity of both picture and weapon?

-- Katangais ( talk) 00:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Did you see that exhibit yourself, and what museum is it in? (and does this museum have a reputation for historical accuracy?). I can't find anything on the internet which confirms that Rhodesian forces used the Owen Gun, and a written source would be much superior. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 00:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've actually seen the exhibit in person - it's at the RSA National Museum of Military History at Saxonwald, Jo-burg. Their official webpage: http://www.ditsong.org.za/militaryhistory.htm.

Thanks! -- Katangais ( talk) 00:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's a reliable source. I'd suggest citing the museum display you saw directly then rather than a photobucket image. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how I could cite the exhibit directly? -- Katangais ( talk) 19:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Something along the lines of the name of the exhibit and the date you viewed it would do the job (eg, something like 'National Museum of Military History, Firearms gallery, as at XX Month Year). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 05:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Made some changes. Take a look: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr./archive1 — Ed! ^(talk) 16:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Take another look. — Ed! ^(talk) 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Have made a third effort at it. — Ed! ^(talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: this article; I've done some looking around for additional sources, but I can't find anything else biography-wise in either the library or books.google. Is there any source you'd suggest? — Ed! ^(talk) 13:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, I'm Sabretoothbeast, I'm apologize regarding to the photos copyright issues that you have warned me. But as an Admin, you should not use your power to block an account easily about issues that is not related to your country (even if it not irrelevant to Wikipedia), but i do respect your effort as an Admin to preserve the rules on this site. So, to make sure the longevity of my account i will try not to do the same mistake again. —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, great. There is no restriction whatsoever on admins responding to issues in articles concerning countries other than their own, and there's actually a general expectation that admins will work across all articles. Nick-D ( talk) 23:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, my apologies for not noticing that the bot hadn't told you about this article's main page appearance. I don't know why it didn't and it didn't occur to me to check whether the bot had missed this part of its regular task. And further apologies for the duff image - it looked better than the alternatives but I didn't appreciate the image status problems. Thanks for an interesting article, though - I thought it would be appropriate for VE Day to have something from WW2 and the timing of the Operation fitted nicely. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 15:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It was a good choice (though I am biased!), and accidents happen. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D

I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams#Proposed change: consistency in article title gendering. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst ( talk) 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I value your judgment as an administrator, perhaps you could look at this and give us your opinion? [15] It went unnoticed, but it's a serious problem with someone putting Nazi references into articles. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 08:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As your RSN thread was structured in such a way that it strongly directed uninvolved editors to conclude that the source was 'Nazi', I don't have any confidence in the results of that discussion I'm afraid. RSN threads should lay out the basic details, and seek genuinely fresh opinions. I'm unfamiliar with these source and don't speak Polish or German so I can't undertake my own assessment. As such, I'm not willing to follow up on this by sanctioning that editor. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do note that these are definitely sources from Nazi Germany and are not involved in RSN thread you pointed out

• Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
• Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935

(both are examples of publications from Nazi Germany the user adds to articles) And now we also have claims in line with Nazi propaganda that creating Polish Corridor was a crime [16] and insinuations that people researching Nazi war crimes have "low motives" [17] Also while I understand that you don't speak Polish or German, we have German admin who confirmed that the user was banned on German wiki and operates a sock farm [18]. He speaks English, so if you have any questions it might be worthwhile to ask him. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC) /font>]]

Smart move. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for the comment Nick-D ( talk) 05:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick - I have made some comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71 that might be of interest. Would love to hear back from you - really keen to get back to contributing. tim ( talk) 07:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

An edit war seems to be brewing over at World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. An anonymous IP in Moscow keeps inserting unsourced rant into the lead paragraph. You may want to consider protecting the page if this persists.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 19:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just warned them for edit warring, and will block them if this continues. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another anonymous IP just plugged in a big section of POV rant based on OR, on Russian Wikipedia they protected the article-- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Since May 5th these people have gangbanged the article seven times with POV rant-- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This was my post at talk [19]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 16:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. DeltaQuad's given a checkuser result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71 which confirms Timothypgraham = Tim-m-m-m-m (which we already knew, plus Timg231, of course). Howeever, checkuser suggests that it's  Unlikely this group is related to DavidYorke71. Given that Yorke's previous socks have generally been flagged fairly easily by CU, I'm inclined to give Tim the benefit of the doubt; I shared your suspicion of his edits, but his explanations seem plausible to me in the light of DeltaQuad's findings. I therefore propose unblocking his oldest account (Tim-m-m-m-m) and leaving the other two blocked. What do you think? Yunshui  雲‍ 水 08:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have just unblocked. Thanks for following up on this report. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Grand, glad we agree. I'll go archive the SPI now. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [20]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I see many people who choose not to engage politely when discussing issues, but you have been different in my experience. So you deserve this Wikipraise. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 17:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that very kind comment, and thanks also for your work modernising the references in the World War II article - I've been meaning to do this for ages, but have never gotten around to it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick,

have you seen this? I just startet translating the article into German ( here) and was a little confused about that reference as I couldnt find details about it. Maybe you can help me with this one? Thanks -- Bomzibar ( talk) 10:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Another point, I thought you mixed the publication year of two books in the section Air war over Europe and fixed it but as I started translation and looked at the use of the books, is it possible that the years were correct and you mixed the authors Stevens and Stephens? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 10:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did mix those up a bit :o 'Stevens' is solely about the submarine and anti-submarine operations around Australia, and Stephens is about the RAAF's campaigns. The 'Stevens (2006)' references should have been to 'Stephens (2006)', so your edits have unfortunately made the problem worse. Could you please revert them? Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just made this fix - thanks for spotting this! Nick-D ( talk) 11:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I ask first next time. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 11:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

On 16 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Skywhale, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hot air balloon The Skywhale has been described as "massive and wondrous", "a great achievement", "an embarrassing indulgence" and "terrifyingly nipply"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Skywhale. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hi Nick. I just saw your request for contributions over at the milhist talk page. I have knocked together a review of the last book I read at User:Dumelow/Sandbox2. If you feel it is suitable I am happy for it to be included in this months or a future edition. I would be grateful if you could check it over for grammar/style etc. as this is the first such writing I have done (not sure it it is a bit long?). Cheers - Dumelow ( talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That's an excellent review, and I've posted it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/May 2013/Book reviews - feel free to edit it further. I've been reading that book on and off for a bit over a year now - it's very good, but the level of detail is pretty daunting! Windrow's earlier work The Last Valley is one of the best military history books I've ever read. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Eighth Route Army has been vandalized again with the same Malay nonsense. This diff looks like the last valid version. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just turned on pending changes for that article for a six month period to stop this idiot. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I've requested a peer review for Gallipoli Campaign. If you have a free moment, would you mind taking a look? The review page is hear: Wikipedia:Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive1. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post some comments (though I don't actually know that much about this campaign, despite being an Australian war history nerd...). Nick-D ( talk) 10:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, just tweaked the op-ed, feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Plenty there that struck a chord, especially re. Omaha. I don't know if you want to quote Les Carlyon's "You must see the ground", but I always liked its simple directness. Once I've added awards from April, are you right for this issue to go out? Unrelated, could I trouble you to delete an out-of-process FAC page for me? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Given that I've (strongly) opposed at least one of the previous FA nominations of KFC by that editor, it would probably be best if another admin handled that task (it's an uncontroversial task, but if I perform it the editor might misinterpret the action). I'm happy for the Bugle to go - I have Carlyon's book on the Western Front, but am yet to read it (everyone says it's great, but it's so huge!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Page deleted! Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good old talk page stalkers -- tks Ed! Nick, no prob, quite understand. Re. Carlyon, yeah, it is big, have to admit I've only read the intro myself, but that's where the quote was... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also from me Ed. Nick-D ( talk) 11:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Great op-ed, Nick. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Military History talk page that you are one of the coordinators for the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju ( talk) 14:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm interested, but I'm a bit wary of emailing editors without a lengthy contribution history as this reveals my email address. Could you please provide me with a link to more information about this survey? I'd be interested to know more about a) who you are b) what the purpose of the survey is c) why you're conducting it and d) what the privacy arrangements you're operating under are. From your user page it appears that you're a student at a well regarded university, and the well regarded university I attend requires ethics clearances, information handouts for participants, etc, so I'd appreciate seeing more information to guide my decision on whether to participate or not. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I send you an email explaining the purpose of the survey and some information about myself. I also send you the survey questions. If possible, you could response to the survey using email or just reply on my wiki talk page. Thank you very much for your interest and time! Best regards. Xiangju ( talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick,

Regarding your latest article in the history monthly The Bugle. The photo with the words "Historic Area: No games, picnics or sunbathing," reminded me of the time I toured the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. I was speaking to a friend while we were inside the Alamo, and one of the lady volunteers rushed over and whispered to me, "Please speak more quietly, this is a sacred place."

I look at her for a second or two, and then replied, "Yes I know, I saw the Jim Bowie and Davey Crockett salt and pepper shakers in the gift shop." Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a great story! Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I believe I have addressed all your issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nexus 7/archive1. Could you please have a look? Cheers -- Sp33dyphil © ^hat _ontributions 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do - sorry about the slow response (I remembered that I'd forgotten to follow up on this on my way to work this morning!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I've opened a peer review for List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals with the aim of improving to to A-Class and possibly FL standard, and was hoping that if you had a spare minute you could take a look? Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, its people like you with good common sense that keep me here on Wikipedia after seven years. Notice how the users IP address keeps shifting, Russian Maskirovka may be at work here.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment! Engaging with subject matter experts such as yourself are one of the things which keeps me here. While some vandals deliberately hop between IP addresses, it's becoming increasingly common for ISPs to allocate different IPs when people log in and out (which some editors use to attempt to evade blocks). Nick-D ( talk) 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks for that. Incidently, "bau sekali" means "smells bad". mature hey. I've tried to get the guy to talk about his edits. no luck. see Jepara Regency. -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries - I'm actually rather shocked to learn that it's possible for anyone other than bureaucrats (or at least admins) to completely redirect user pages in that way. That looks like the usual list of random facts which blight articles on Indonesia, so removing it would be a good idea... Nick-D ( talk) 04:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Base user pages should not be moveable by default... who would want to move them except vandals? —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick - just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your input on the New Zealand articles you have been looking at over the past couple of days. It is very refreshing and reassuring to have an editor of your experience come through and independently help sort some of these articles out - many of us have been battling for some months to try and improve the quality of them, all too often without success. Clarke43 ( talk) 04:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all. I'm trying to get a feel for how big an issue this is, and it seems to be pretty big. The BLP violations are particularly concerning. Nick-D ( talk) 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It may become apparent that many of the issues on the articles come back to a single editor. It is frustrating as he has outed himself as having COI in the NZ Justice sector and admits that he has strong bias but then goes on to make major edits in support of that bias (including self-referencing his self published book) - time and time again on a wide range of Justice and crime related articles. A search on the history on various noticeboards, talk pages and mediation pages brings up the same issues with him over and over again, but unfortunately nothing has come of it so far. Clarke43 ( talk) 06:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking that a topic ban is probably necessary given that this is an ongoing problem. The proposal for this will need to be supported by diffs to demonstrate the COI and problems, as well as evidence of previous interventions having failed. Nick-D ( talk) 06:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you need help pulling this together - please don't hesitate to ask. Clarke43 ( talk) 08:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do - I'm pretty certain that I will need help from editors with longer experience in this matter. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, okay if we move your resolved comments to the FAC talk page? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	For restoring a remembrance for User:bahamut0013 on Memorial Day 2013, I award you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for posting the remembrance. Nick-D ( talk) 06:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Great spot. I saw the edits come in, but didn't bother to check them.

I rolled my eyes when I saw the root of the problem: Rjensen's uncritical use (I lack the evidence to impute anything more serious, though he would hardly be the first to let personal views get the better of him) of Stanley Payne. In the intro to the book Rjensen was relying on, Franco and Hitler, Payne offers praise for... you bet, Gabriel Jackson. Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship. Interesting how people like Antony Beevor can mention and take account of criticism of Jackson (from his The Battle for Spain: "[T]he struggle within the Repulican alliance has provoked major arguments, of which the most famous was Noam Chomsky's critique in American Power and the New Mandarins of Gabriel Jackson's history of the war. Chomsky attacked the book for its assumption of the 'official' standpoint and its reliance on testimony of Republican ministers and army officers, who have felt a need to justify their support of communist power."), yet Payne felt unable to do so. In this regard, he is below Jackson himself (from the lead into Chomsky's criticism in APNM):

It is no criticism of Jackson's study that his point of view and sympathies are expressed with such clarity. On the contrary, the value of this work as an interpretation of events is enhanced by the fact that the author's commitments are made so clear and explicit. But I think it can be shown that Jackson's account of the popular revolution that took place in Spain is misleading and in part quite unfair, and that the failure of objectivity it reveals is highly significant in that it is characteristic of the attitude taken by liberal (and Communist) intellectuals towards revolutionary movements.

Overall, no surprise to see Payne crop up in an attack on the internationals. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 01:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a preliminary draft here, but I could use some feedback. I'm working at Western Playland every day this week, so I will be slowly to get back to you but any feedback you can offer on what's there would be appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the material a little and did some linking, though as before I could use some feedback if you get a minute. If you like it lemme know and I'll be happy to move it where its suppose to go. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks really good Tom. As a suggestion, the statement that "While active work is only occurring on Phase I" isn't completely accurate - there is some work on other stages, though this is dwarfed by the continuing effort on the ships (for instance, I've been slowly working on Operation Tungsten and some articles on battleship guns have been appearing at GAN recently). Thanks for developing this so quickly! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 04:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about the picture caption, it gives the impression that most of the FAs are American, but that certainly isn't the case—the US actually needs to catch up! Even four years ago, when the majority of the FAs were US (Nevada, the Iowa-class battleships, and Montana-class battleship, they weren't that far ahead—Parsecboy had some of the German battleships/cruisers going already (e.g. SMS Von der Tann). Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article, Tom, although I'd like to make a few suggestions. I don't really expect that people will be working on things in the sequence that you envision as we finish up with the ships. I suspect that I'm one of the few that actually find the guns and weapons articles interesting enough to work on, so I think that people will work on whatever tweaks their interest, regardless of the phase. The biggest news, IMO, is that we're only one article and a list from finishing up Battlecruisers of the world, a 63-article topic. The next two closest topics to being finished are Russian and French BBs, so the US is sadly lacking in that respect although it's gotten some needed attention in the last couple of months. Topic boxes for all three are visible on my sandbox page if anyone is interested.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had no more suggestions for how to improve the Op-ed piece, so all that's left is moving the page to its destination. Can you give me the link where the Op-ed should go? Once I have that I can move the page and it'll be all yours for polishing my sp&g errors and publication in The Bugle. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Gidday Nick, a quick question RE A/GA class ratings for you (having a number of A-class articles under your belt). An editor, an admin no less, has changed the class ratings for Talk:Alexander Godley from A-class back down to GA (although the Milhist rating still shows as being A-class due to the A-class pass tag). When this particular article passed ACR I bumped up the WP NZ rating to A-class to match the Milhist rating and from a quick review of other Milhist A-class articles, it seems most are also A-class for other projects without having gone through a specific ACR for those projects. If an article passes a Milhist ACR, is it appropriate to upgrade the ratings for other projects or not? Cheers. Zawed ( talk) 08:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, That's a good question. The A-class ratings are specific to projects, but many projects recognise one-another's ratings as a matter of course (especially when these are the result of a formal review process). I don't think that WP:NZ has an A-class rating process, and only three articles are listed as being of this quality on its main page. I'd suggest raising this with the other editor or (possibly better still) at WT:NZ to see if there's agreement for this project to recognise the military history project's ratings. I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) WP:Ships and WP:Aviation made formal agreements with MilHist long ago to recognise each other's A-Class ratings. WP:Australia and WP:Biography seem to recognise MilHist's A-Class ratings as well, but I've never seen any formal consensus for those. The point is, there's reasonable precedent for WP:NZ formally accepting MilHist's A-Class assessment, but you may need to generate consensus among the members. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I have left a query on the WP:NZ talkpage regarding this. There doesn't seem to be any formal ACR process over there and I would think that the rigorous Milhist ACR process would be quite satisfactory for the project. Zawed ( talk) 08:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Irrelevant_to_compare_to_deaths_caused_by_Japanese_occupations.3F Boundarylayer ( talk) 16:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, FYI, since I've 78 and 84 Wings at ACR and you have C-17, I was going to wait for 78 to pass before nominating C-130 -- but it looks too damn good to leave sitting around so I'll probably do it this w/e anyway! Just expanding 36 Sqn now (great minds, I see you've taken care of 38 already) so I'll see if anything else apropos C-130s comes up there and then I might kick it off. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that sounds good - there isn't much purpose in waiting to nominate the C-130 article. I'm thinking of taking the No. 38 Squadron article to GA, so please let me know if you spot anything I've missed there. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I expect I'll do the same with 36 Sqn, so ditto... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The new infobox image just reminded me, I think it'd be good to use crests where possible but the only 38 Sqn one I've seen lately is tiny and probably not worth the trouble. If one of us finds a better version, think it'd be worth using (36 Sqn's on the RAAF site is excellent, same quality as the 33 Sqn one I added to that article not long ago). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we should be aiming for consistency here. By the way, I have a memory of reading recently that the Government had decided to retain No. 38 Squadron's King Airs, but I can't find this anywhere. Can you remember seeing it? Nick-D ( talk) 10:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, you got me there. I'd been looking in vain for something suggesting the RAAF would get more than 10 C-27s (the implication being that they'd replace 38 Sqn's King Airs as well as re-equip 35 Sqn) but hadn't -- are you saying there was such a plan but not any more? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What I remember seeing is that the government had decided to retain the King Airs as light transports once the 10 C-27s enter service on the grounds that they'd proven to be a useful and cost-effective capability. I suspect that I've miss-remembered, or saw this on a dubious source as I can't see anything on it on the Defence websites. Nick-D ( talk) 00:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, just finished (for now at least) expanding 36SQN. I'll put it up for GAN but not ACR as yet (will add detail on maintenance history at the very least before considering that). I suppose it'd be logical for us to each review the other's at GAN but perhaps we should avoid even the semblance of QPQ. At the very least we should check each other's for consistency since the two squadrons had such an intertwined history for a while, even becoming effectively the same unit once or twice...! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I've just calculated that if I add another 400 characters or so it'll qualify for fivefold-expansion DYK -- so maybe I'll add some maint history sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Success -- fivefold expansion, and it all came down to a bit of routine maintenance... ;-) Now, thinking about DYK hook, it looks to me like the Linda Corbould article was never at DYK (at least according to its talk page). Is that correct to your recollection? If so, I think it'd be a great opportunity to get that article and 36SQN on the front page -- just let me know so I can write up the DYK nom one way or t'other... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Great work! The Corbould article was never on the front page, and her leadership of the unit would make a great hook. I'm planning to work on the 38 Sqn article over the weekend, and will nominate it for GA status. I need to add something on it being merged with 36 Sqn. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(od) Hi mate, the ACR could be closing shortly, are you happy for it to be nominated at FAC straight afterwards, and with a similar nom statement? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I've figured out what happened to the C-130Es, and will add that later today. Once that's in I'd be pleased for this to go straight to FAC when the ACR concludes. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Added (I stumbled across the key reference a few weeks ago while browsing a recent magazine! - talk about good timing). Do you think that it's worth separating out the material on the retirement of each type now that the topic is fully covered? Nick-D ( talk) 11:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff, Nick! Re. reorg, heh, the idealist says yep, the pragmatist says no way after what looks like a successful ACR -- gimme a chance to read it again and I'll see which of those wins out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, had another look (and tweaked a couple of things) -- pragmatism aside, I think only the C-130A disposal sticks out a bit, the others are relatively short and fit in pretty seamlessly, so not sure we need to break 'em out after all (the next question is just where we'd put the section or subsection anyway). So happy to leave the structure as is unless you feel strongly about it or until a reviewer suggests we change it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was puzzling over how to turn this into a separate section this morning, and didn't come up with a genuinely satisfactory solution. The best option would probably be a 'disposal' section at the end of the article, but that might look a bit clunky. As such, I agree to leave things as they are unless there's a few complaints (or someone comes up with a better idea!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That title and position in the article was in fact the best I could come up with as well, and given the type is still a going concern it didn't thrill me either... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's FACed -- don't forget that if you want to keep the momentum going with the C-17 article, it's okay to take it to FAC as well since you'd have only one solo and one co-nom there (I may well solo-nom Hely as soon as it completes ACR). We'll just owe FAC a lot of reviews (on which I'm sure we'll make good)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian (thanks also for the suggestion on nominating the C-17 article; I've been sitting on the fence with that one). Nick-D ( talk) 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously it's shorter than the C-130 or F-18 service articles but the type's been around a much shorter time. Seven years is long enough though, I think, for this to go to FAC, especially since it was deemed enough for ACR. Regardless of future details, the structure should stay the same. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(od) Well congrats, we did it, C-130s now FA -- might have to start thinking about another one (there's always Caldwell I guess!)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, thought it might be worth trying this even though joint awards are pretty much unheard of... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm undoing you're removing of the context paragraph I added. There were references included. Nothing I wrote is surprising or new or hardly in need of a reference. Context is pretty important, especially in such a subject. It is like yelling, "Fire!" without mentioning it's outside in a fireplace. Desecration of war dead is a real phenomenon; I have no objection to including reports of it in WP. On the other hand, anybody can use WP for a soapbox. Eventually, however, this dilute its value and hurts those who contribute, including you and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasCreek ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no references whatsoever in the material you've just restored [21], so that's not true. Please provide some citations to support your claim that the subject of the article is merely "gallows humour". I tend to agree with you that this article is overblown (it was created by a POV pusher and used to be much worse: at one stage the article was arguing that most American troops went around chopping the heads off Japanese troops), but you need to provide citations. Nick-D ( talk) 07:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

All the references were to WP pages, appearing as normal WP links, including the definition of gallows humor, which is obviously one end of the spectrum of the motivations. The original writers include a long litany of motivations, mostly as pejorative as possible. Neither they nor I were there during the incidents. Was it due to racism or due to the fact that many of the kids were about to die or had just seen their bosom buddy shot through the head by an enemy far more tenacious than expected? The writers cannot compare the European war (Army, large-unit action) to the Pacific island campaign (mostly Marines, in vicious small-unit assaults). As to your deletion of my remarks, which are truly mild, well-referenced, and obvious to most historians of the war, are you trying to suppress dissent? As I said, I am putting the article in context, which is essential in reporting on stories from the past. Sorry, but I'm undoing you're unjustified deletion. Spend your time deleting some of the rest of the article, which hides behind cherry-picked references. SilasCreek ( talk) 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Please don't do that. Wikipedia articles can't be used to reference one another, and you need to provide citations to external references (eg, books, reliable websites, etc). I'm not going to defend the content of the article, and I agree with you that it's cherry picked (it does largely reflect the sources on this, though they're not what I'd consider particularly good quality academic works - all seem to have been written by people with axes to grind). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick, Could I ask you to have another look at the Normandy landings article? Editor Syngmung is getting close to a edit war and is reverting the deletion of rape allegations with strange comments. The base of these allegations is only one recently published book on the Normandy Campaign (not landings) and a review of same. I have to say that this "editor" seems to have an unhealthy obsession with rape, looking at his editing history. Would be glad of your imput/action. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, This guy seems to be on a crusade to prove that American soldiers are frequent rapists, and is edit warring all over the place. He's been warned for this previously, and I'd strongly recomend that you lodge a report at WP:AN3 given that the edit warring is persisting. Nick-D ( talk) 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick, Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I have added my comments to your complaint. I must say that this "editor" does seem to have an unhealthy interest in rape and is pushing POV. As you will see from the Normandy landings Talk page, I did get another admin involved - it may be an idea to request his views on the latest developments. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 12:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope I haven't created a mess by starting a deletion discussion without going through proper procedures. What happens if the result of the discussion is to delete an incubate? Can the deletion be done without a formal nomination at Articles for deletion? Should it be formally nominated now or after the discussion has run it's course or does it need to be formally nominated at all? Thank you for any advice you can give.-- Wikimedes ( talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, If the consensus is to incubate (as seems likely at present), an uninvolved admin should be able to do this - I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators asking for an admin who is also a coordinator to volunteer for this. If the conclusion is 'delete' then this will probably need to go to an AfD discussion. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Then I'll refrain from complicating things further with a formal AfD. Thanks.-- Wikimedes ( talk) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, you'll recall that you contributed to the FA review of History of Gibraltar few months ago. I've nominated it at TFAR for July 13, the tercentenary of Gibraltar becoming a British territory. If you have any thoughts on this you're very welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 13. Prioryman ( talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

On 6 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 38 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 38 Squadron was equipped with DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft for 45 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 38 Squadron RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well there seems to have been a nasty quasi edit war created on the Australian Greens page ever since you reverted me. ( As a side note, normal users are people too like administrators)

I only edit wikipedia on a very part time basis and had completely forgotten about the three revert rule. User Bidgee is also engaged in this edit war.

Since Bidgee is using your wanting the pictures in as a reason to repeatedly revert me, could you explain your position and how it is backed by policy?

The pictures would seem to go against recentism, undue weight and the precedents set on other Australian political party pages, such as the ALP or the Liberals.

Please explain. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 09:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who's edit warring (and I have commented in the talk page discussion). Nick-D ( talk) 10:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well could you comment again and offer some policy based reasons for your viewpoint. I wasn't aware we were allowed to so blatantly violate established policies as soon as we got two people to agree to it, even if one of them calls themselves an 'administrator'. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 10:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to have discussions about article content, but not with people who throw accusations of bad faith around. Nick-D ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the latest stalker. Nice work. bobrayner ( talk) 09:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries Bob. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You (Vietnamese: Cảm ơn) Nguyen QuocTrung ( talk)18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC+7)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Nick-D ( talk) 11:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I spent a good amount of time sprucing up microconsole per your suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/Microconsole. Could you please take a second look at the DYK nom when you have a chance? czar  ·  · 19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)