This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. I have nominated Majura Parkway for GA. I tried to address all the feedback in the failed review at Talk:Majura Parkway/GA1, and double checked to make sure it complied with GA criteria. As I'm a still learning contributor as far as GAs go, and I know you have a lot of experience with GAs/FACs. I was wondering if you could review Majura Parkway. (I have also asked User:TonyTheTiger, User:Wizardman and User:Hawkeye7 if they could review.) I would like to improve my ability to get through GA faster, increase my understanding of the GA criteria, and would appreciate a comprehensive review. -- Nbound ( talk) 11:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Military history service award | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nick,
Thank you for contributing to the FAC for the 2012 tour of She Has a Name article; it was good to see the article go up on the main page last week. I have submitted another article for featured status: When God Writes Your Love Story. If you would be willing to contribute to the corresponding FAC, I would appreciate your input.
Neelix ( talk) 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have applied for "auto patrol" privileges. I was wondering if you could look into it on how I could get the privileges because I don't know if anyone is aware there is a few people asking for it. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D - I see Offender9000 has been on and blanked his talk page this morning. Moriori has restored the sockpuppet ban notice (and prevented him from making future edits) but it might be useful for material from that page to be restored to allow future editors who come along to be able to easily see why Offender9000 was banned in the first place (e.g. there is no violation of BLP notice on the use page) and the long-standing issues the community had with him? Clarke43 ( talk) 03:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that is most useful. Regardless of the policy I don't think having any further material would be required as that section shows the issues quite clearly for anyone who looks into his edits at a later stage. Do copies of general block notices also get put on a user page? Or do only sockpuppet ones get listed on both talk and user pages? Clarke43 ( talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Based on the infobox on your user page I concluded 1) that you were amenable to receiving feedback in a non-confrontational trout-slap and 2) that you had a sense of humor. "Get fucked" as your edit summary suggests neither is the case.-- Godot13 ( talk) 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D, could I trouble you to cast a quick eye over the New Zealand Special Air Service article? This is the first time I've built a comprehensive page myself, rather than just fire fighting other edits. I'm not after a formal review just some tips if you have a chance. I'm trying to decide what to do about the NY/QB Hons section at the bottom. A number of those awards were given for operational service (e.g. a BEM for Vietnam with a cracking citation, which really should have been an MM but seemingly wasn't supported by 1ATF, so NZ Army HQ awarded him the BEM instead) but I don't have citations for all the awards, therefore I can't 100% accurately divide them all up into correct deployments. Maybe I should just do the ones I can confirm and leave the others where they are? Thanks. Clarke43 ( talk) 11:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I just remind you about my question at the Talk:World War II page. I don't know if you have forgot the discussion, or your just busy, but anyways I wanted to remind you.
Regards, Ransewiki ( talk) 07:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick. Would you possibly be able to have a look at Talk:Gallipoli Campaign/GA1 and delete if it meets the speedy deletion criteria? The review page was created by one of the co-noms due to a misunderstanding. All the details are here User_talk:Keith-264#Gallipoli_GA_co-nom. Any assistance you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D, the editing history of this article is something that may bear occasionally looking at. Users EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver have had editing conflicts concerning the Battle of Kursk and another difference of views may be brewing. EyeTruth has asked me to neutrally observe the talk page interactions, and I am willing to do so -- but I think it wise if another pair of eyes also looks over the exchanges from time to time. My own take (on at least some of the differences of opinion) is that various sources contradict each other (typical for WW2 Eastern Front sources) when it comes to losses of vehicles and personnel. In the case of some of the differing editor viewpoints, it may be necessary (to achieve concurrence among the editors) for information notes in the article to point out in detail the varying outlook of professional authors/historians. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am using the John Ellis classic "The Sharp End" and the fairly recent and groundbreaking "To The Victor The Spoils" by Sean Longden for Brit secondary ration sources at the moment. There's loads more to tap. Thanks for the encouraging words. Cheers Irondome ( talk) 01:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your excellent contributions in reviewing articles at FAC! Your suggestions and comments are greatly appreciated, especially regarding the aircraft articles that you helped review in 2011 and 2012. Thanks, SynergyStar ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nick- I'm going to make some revisions and wondered if you could take a look at my response to your comment (re: Port Moresby crash) and let me know what you think so I can tackle everything in one go. Thanks- Godot13 ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, if you have a sec, could you check your copies of Eather and Bomber Units and let me know what aircraft 1SQN was operating between August 1939 and January 1940 (or thereabouts)? I suspect Demons then Ansons but all the sources I've seen are a bit vague on what and when... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D,
Can we continue with the A1 for George Juskalian? If you're busy it's fine. I could maybe get another reviewer. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D, 71.191.213.248 ( talk) has suddenly appeared to edit the article. No other article contributions other than Battle of Prokhorovka -- situation smells to me like someone has decided to edit without logging in, in order to provide cover for actions that might be seen as tendentious. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 04:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw or if it changed anything regarding your position, but just in case, I'm writing to let you know that I responded to your last comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Confusion (album)/archive1. Dan56 ( talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, just a quick one to let you know that I've just nominated the UDI article at FAC. If you're interested in taking a look, the review is here. Thanks, keep well and have a great week. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up, do you realise both you and Ian have turned down the award because the other wasn't recognized? Just sayin, ★★ KING RETROLORD★★ 03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose at WT:MIL that the top 3 vote-getters become the 3 co-leads again in the September elections; I think that's worked out well. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 16:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
MikeDS ( talk) 10:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, kinda tired of typing, can you add it, im going to sleep in a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolo68 ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, could you delete Wikipedia:Goings-on/Sunday, July 28, 2013 and Wikipedia:Goings-on/Sunday, July 21, 2013 for me? I rarely have to archive Goings-On so tend to forget how to do it properly... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi friend! I have uploaded an ALT version. Can you please have a look and give your valuable comment. Thanks in advance!-- Nikhil( talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I will agree to a WP:CONSENSUS determined at an RFC after User:Rjanag gets back to me with some statistics on the project. I understand that it will take at least a week after he creates the new category to have the data. I am drafting the RFC here. You can follow along.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 1 August 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 Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
Nick please see this posting to my talk page [1] -- Woogie10w ( talk) 11:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you don't mind my removal of this book you added from the Hiroshima Nagasaki article. The only review I've seen of this book (in the Australian War Memorial's magazine Wartime) was highly critical, and Ham is not an expert on the topic - his main focus is on Australian military history, where he's something of a journeyman author. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I have done a bit of copy editing on George Juskalian as part of my review. In doing so, I think I may have addressed some of your review comments. If you get a chance, would you mind returning to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/George Juskalian and letting the nominator know which of your comments remain outstanding? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. I, as the lone delete advocate now, am a bit peeved that there seems to be a group effort (I'm not saying sockpuppets) to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick, seeing as this article is on the main page, I feel like it's high time to thank you once again for the large amount of effort you put into it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I'd just like to thank you wholeheartedly for your excellent overhaul of the article on Operation Tungsten. Really stellar work. Cheers. Manxruler ( talk) 21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that I've addresses all of your concerns about this article. Please take a look and see if there's anything left to do.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is a note to inform you that a page in which you have previously shown interest, WP:FOUR, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Please can you moderate the current process for resolving the blitzkrieg dispute? I do not wish to get you involved in this but if it is possible for you to moderate this process with your non-involved administrator hat on, please kindly do so. I wouldn't have called you back if not because I'm seeing signs that show nothing has changed in Gunbirddriver's mindset. He again completely removed blitzkrieg from main content and instead moved it citation and notes section. You were right earlier, I should have taken the initiative to write the opposing view (although it would have been subpar since I have no sources for the opposing view). Well, I restored the content but with a major change: "The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...".
In the note [j], I first pointed out that some commentators/historians may not agree with this. That assertion still lack citations, except for Guderian's works (which would still require original synthesis in order to incorporate it as a source), and has been a major barrier to resolving this dispute for months. After that, I listed 9 historians (with supporting citations) that characterize it as an intended blitzkrieg. Essentially, the pattern I used is: Introduce, Oppose, Support. But Nick, if it is possible, can you please moderate this process. Please. EyeTruth ( talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth ( talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I come to you to ask a simple request for merging several articles into a new name. Why? I'm in the process of getting the state of Indiana in order of the American Civil War. There are several articles that have multiple pages such as the following:
The two above can be merged into the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment, for continuity of other renamed articles on that page by myself. For example No. xx Indiana Infantry Regiment.
The two above can be merged into the 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment, with the same reason as above.
It would be appreciated if this could be done as I'll eventually do the article of the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment and 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment and it would be nice to include the shorter term in with the longer term as they were both in the American Civil War. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, I think it's ready to go out but will leave till tomorrow morning to despatch (aiming for a bit before midnight GMT) so pls feel free to edit anything beforehand; left a similar note for Storm re. his op-ed now that I've moved it into the issue and given it a (provisional) image. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
[ Commons is officially broken]. Bidgee ( talk) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
— Maile ( talk) 12:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick,
I just finished translating Military history of Australia during World War II (what a monster of an article, I fear it is too big to get it awarded in de:Wiki as not enough people would attend the review and nomination phase) and came over something I wonder about the names of RAAF units. Mostly they are in the style of No. xx (yy) Squadron RAAF but if I read the article, the RAAF isnt part of the given name in the text. So my question is, is the RAAF for the squadrons and wings etc. an official part of the name or just used for differentiation from other nations units? I would like to know this because I want to translate some wings (squadrons are not seen as notable in de:Wiki) and want to give them the right names. Best regards -- Bomzibar ( talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on deleting Battle Trance and more importantly for the related multi-page cleanup. Dusty| 💬| You can help! 13:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, I don't think anyone has told you that the ADF article has been suggested in the "any date" section of TFAR. As it's a 2007 FA (even though it's one of yours ;-) ) I thought it would be useful to get opinions from you and others as to whether all it needed was a quick bit of polishing of cap badges before appearing on a parade or whether it ought to be reduced to the ranks for insubordination... There's no need to rush to reply. Yours, Bencherlite Talk 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Tungsten you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown ( talk) 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Operation Tungsten you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Tungsten for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown ( talk) 10:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
HI Nick, EyeTruth and Irondome. I wanted to make you all aware of my concern with the presentation of the voting options in the Kursk poll. I'm very seriously concerned with the neutrality of the presentation of the poll choices. I think the second choice (which I contributed in no small part to authorship of) is presented it in such a manner (w/ positive comment that equates to advocacy, whilst the first option is presented with a "blank" comment that makes it appear as if there's nothing to recommend it as a choice) as to introduce unintentional bias. Option #1 needs a comment/summary similar to the treatment Option #2 received, a comment that summarizes the proposed edit and highlights its attributes, or there should be no comment(s) appended to the second voting choice in the interest of fairness. Az x2 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thoughts and images
Thank you for quality articles such as
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, for
thoughts, for images used over the world, and for getting to the core of a situation, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (9 March 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 227th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I saw your contribution on the page and was wondering if you cold tend to an edit request I made on the article's talk page. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Nick. I have been attempting to figure out what has been going on with the editing on the Battle of Kursk page, and I believe the pieces of the puzzle have fallen together. I have mentioned you at the Administrators Noticeboard, and though you are mentioned first the complaint is not really directed at you. It's a little long, but read through it if you get a chance. Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 00:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick-D. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Please take care not to separate statements from reference citations while editing. I have repaired two detached paragraphs in subject article; but request you provide a reference citation for the Operation Mascot addition. Thewellman ( talk) 15:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nick, do you have any objection if I replace some occurences of "which" by "that"? I'm bringing this up here because I don't want to sidetrack a review with a copyediting issue. It's a bit involved ... I can go into it if you like. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please leave me alone over the whole Blablaaa episode? You've given me a very hard time and not once were you ever fair to me in the last three years. Okay I get it you hate my guts. Fine dude. Now please leave me alone. Thanks. Caden cool 11:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Issue 50: September 2013
| |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Here is the 50th edition. I can only apologise this is so late as a lot of work came up but it is still no excuse so again I will apologise. Inside includes everything since the last edition as usual. Enjoy. Simply south.... .. fighting ovens for just 7 years 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates (such as welcome templates and user warnings) on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou Nick for your message and your national election vote, which I saw on FB. That's the way I would have voted too. I do not intend to stand for coordinator election, but I'm quite happy for you to ask me to do so. Hope you're having a good weekend. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Nick-D. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind providing some feedback on an incubator group that I started a few months ago for articles relating to special operations and special operations forces. Being that it truly involves articles from around the world I was wondering if you had any ideas for generating interest/membership from knowledgeable contributors. For example I don't know anything about the Israeli special forces so I wouldn't even know where to begin to potentially solicit knowledgeable individuals on the topic to see if they would be interested in joining. Additionally I was wondering if after looking at some of the links you thought that maybe I made the group too broad in scope, because that's crossed my mind before but I didn't want to revise the entire group to make it more exclusive based on a whim of mine. I compiled a short (and incomplete) list of articles within the scope of the incubator group if it helps. Thanks for your help good sir, — - dain omite 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
On 11 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Mascot, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that most of the British airmen who attempted to bomb the German battleship Tirpitz during Operation Mascot in July 1944 could not see the ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Mascot. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ulster Defence Regiment has been almost totally rewritten by me. It failed A Class but is still up for GA status review with all the A Class comments resolved. Also, with regards to that article it has crossed my mind that it's far too long and I was mulling over the idea of creating Greenfinches - The Womens' UDR both to cut it down and to create what could be a very interesting article on its own. Unfortunately I can't be of assistance further than making suggestions because I picked up a topic ban due to an incident related to The Troubles elsewhere and the articles on the UDR are troubles related. SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D, I am highly certain, that editor Boba Fett TBH, currently editing on Contras, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Vietnam war pages and others, is a Sock-puppet of Horhey420. What do think? Regards, Stumink ( talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on No. 38 Squadron RAAF. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I'll try to get it done later today. Sorry I haven't uploaded those photos earlier, but I've been travelling the last three weeks or so, and I'm also not doing very well health-wise these days. Now, I've got a lot of photos, which would be more preferable? The most senior people lost in the operation, all the fatalities of the operation buried in Tromsø, or just one as an example? Manxruler ( talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Nick,
Please note at WP:AN, I've just posted stating I would accept your mentorship suggestion.
Would you perhaps agree that other editors should also seek a mentor if the topic ban is removed altogether. BTW User:Gaba p has just opposed the lifting of his own topic ban. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
First question. [3] User:Andrés Djordjalian is making the very serious allegation that I am committing citation fraud. I cannot of course respond due to the topic ban. However, if you take as an example the first topic where he alleges this to be the case, you will see I have provided URL to online sources that show this claim is untrue. How would you suggest I respond? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, sorry if I am writing in the wrong spot, I have no idea what I'm doing. My name is Schmaig, and have recieved a notification from you regarding information I have posted. You have deleted some of my contributions because I haven't met curtain requirements. This is understandable, but I do not know how to meet these reqirements. The information I provided was correct and up to date, and now that it has been removed, wikipedia is now exhibiting old, out of date information. This out of date info is what prompted me to make the corrections in the first place. Is there no way that wikipedia could confirm or deny the reliability of incoming info, rather than just deleting it? Thank you Schmaig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmaig ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, thanks for your reply. The articles that are out of date involve name changes to league divisions. I wasn't able to change the name. I looked for info regarding name changes and found info saying to redirect to new article with correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmaig ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I've done a little bit of work on No. 467 Squadron RAAF today, mainly just to focus on something different. I don't have any paper sources at the moment, unfortunately, so I can't take it much further. Not sure if it is on your list to expand, but if it is please don't hold back on my account. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. First, I'd like to thank you for your support at my RfA. I'm very grateful, and am trying hard to live up to expectations. Sorry about the long post:
Now, the Russavia thing: As you were the last to block Russavia, I thought I'd drop you a line.
I know very, very little about the whole Russavia block matter, but am guessing there are those who are not too happy with him.
He helped me out at IRC commons a couple of weeks ago. Then, about a week ago, I visited his enwp talk page just out of curiosity. There, I found some redlinked images and started a few stubs. Yesterday, he thanked me at IRC and asked if I'd copy paste two Simple Wikipedia articles over to enwp. I did. Then, he asked if I'd be a liaison and do more. Now, I like Russavia, and am very grateful for his help, but because I'm a new admin, I don't want to do anything inappropriate. So, I figured that as he's blocked, my acting as some sort of proxy would likely not be a good thing. So, I said, those three were it, and I wouldn't do any more.
I just wanted to tell you this. Maybe you could pass this link on to others who might think ill of me for doing that. To them I'd like to say that I'm very sorry, that I was acting in good faith, and that I realized two minutes after copying those stubs that the whole thing was probably not a good idea, and that it could upset people. So, I'm sorry and I won't do it again. Please don't be furious. I was sort of on the spot and I just said, okay, and then only right after said, oh dear, that's probably not such a good idea.
Best wishes and I hope all is okay. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Nick, Casualty figures for the Bombing of Darwin given in the Lowe Commission are incorrect. There is now documentary evidence available online, at the National Archives of Australia web site, which prove the correct figures. The Research Staff at the Northern Territory Library have compiled the list of dead from the Raid http://www.ntlexhibit.nt.gov.au/exhibits/show/bod/roh/location This is accepted by historians Alan Powell, Tom Lewis and Bob Alford as being the best possible reckoning. I have tried changing this on Wikipedia on several occasions in the past, but people keep undoing the changes. I am about to edit the casualties section again, and I hope no one will remove the changes yet again. Interestingly the correct casualty figures are shown for the Preston, Peary, Zealandia, Mauna Loa and Neptuna in the individual Wikipedia entries Regards John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Alexis Richards ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
noted, and ignored - I'm not into playing games - You appear to be continuing to accuse me of rudeness, aggression and insults without any basis for such accusations. To me, this looks very much like you are playing some sort of game. Please stop harassing me - I'm sure you have much better, more interesting and more useful things to do with your time. Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, I've added an ALT version of the image cropping out the sea wall. If you have a chance, could you take another look. It may (or may not) be an improvement. Thanks- Godot13 ( talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the message. How should we proceed. Since it was done with reference to the RFC we have just had about Vietnamese geo names - and since the problem of lack of full fonts in military history sources (Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War and a few other hardback sources excepted) was raised on that Talk page, how do you want to proceed. Should the RFC be reopened to see whether it applies to Long Tân? In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
A mate of mine from a very long time ago has possibly passed away but one of his NLA mates has posted it without a WP:RS - I for the like of me have failed to find anything online - just in case you might know of any other means of ascertaining the issue - please could you help with a source? Rupert Gerritsen is the guy. Thanks. satusuro 05:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, don't know how I missed this, just picked it up now when I had another squiz at the ACR while debating whether to nominate him or No. 36 Squadron RAAF as my next FAC. That's quite right about the chopper squadron being considered underprepared when deployed to Vietnam, it's just that Headlam's only published connection with the deployment seems to be this planning trip, and commentators always seem to bring up Chief of the Air Staff Alister Murdoch's name when discussing shortcomings with RAAF helicopter operations and Army cooperation. So I did mention the issue in Murdoch's article but I'm not sure if it's quite so appropriate in the Headlam one without more information on his part (if any) in the problem. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick-D, I'm not sure of the protocol here and I'm also not sure if your post on my talk page was a canned response to a new member, but whatever the circumstance thanks for the sentiment. I've lurked around on Wikipedia for years but finally figured I'd try to actually contribute something other than drive-by copy editing. If I have any questions, I'll let you know. V/R, Kintrix ( talk) 07:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Nick-D. Thank you for your note. Pending a review of the relevant diffs, I have struck out the warning I left. I agree that there doesn't seem much point "warning someone about something which happened a week ago", but I hadn't noticed the date, as I was more concerned about the content. That said, I'm sure you'll agree that it's not the same to warn someone for "common or garden" disruptive behaviour in an article (as in inserting "hello") as to warn them for insulting behaviour towards another editor. And behaviour such as personal attacks against other users are surely to be censored, whenever they happen. On the other hand, two wrongs clearly don't make a right. I have been insulted by vandals on several occasions and it would never occur to me to respond in kind, let alone to another registered user here at Wikipedia.
Which brings me to the second part of your note. When I visited the user's talk page to see what was going on, I saw a note you'd left there ("rather than continue your rude posts"), followed by another one in the same terms left by Pdfpdf. So I saw two users' comment referring to rude posts, which together with that "Piss off!" the user had left at Pdfpdf's talk page, seemed to warrant a warning. The original – and clearly provocative – comment left by Pdfpdf had been removed (one of the obvious inconveniences of allowing users to selectively blank their user talk pages, rather than simply archiving the whole thing in logical chronological order). As I'm sure you're aware, the warning I left is the standard Twinkle template for such cases, and if you, as an admin, consider it does not correspond, either in its wording or its intent, to the action an admin would take, maybe it should be modified accordingly.
I shall now leave an apology at the user's talk page, together with a version of the long-winded rationale I have left you here. Regards, -- Technopat ( talk) 00:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Salutations Nick. After expanding the Special Mission Unit article tonight ( before and after) I went to look at the Special Air Service Regiment article to make an attempt to expand that section on the SMU article and noticed you were the main contributor to the SASR article (at least in number of edits with User:Anotherclown as second). Anywho, I was wondering if you could/would be up for expanding the SASR section on the SMU stub since I assume your knowledge on them far outweighs mine (which is zilch I might add). Regards, — - dain omite 04:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Just querying the Little Boy arming plugs. Last I heard of them, they were in the possession of Clay Perkins. Where did it say this about the plugs? Was there an inscription in the Museum? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
Its been quite a while since we worked together on Project Operation Normandy! I am after some advise from a long time editor and admin. Over the last few months I have been working on a draft for the Treaty of Versailles article. Having removed the errors, sourcing what was left, expanding it, and copyediting it I posted it today. Granted it is long (around 221,000 bytes, of which ~156,000 is new information (actual text, photos, references, and sources)), but then it is not a simple subject and as can be seen by the world war articles (and doubtless others) the size is not exactly without equal.
I have came upon a situation with which I am completely unfamiliar, and hence the request for advise: I have just had my update reverted twice ( diff and diff) by User:AfadsBad - who from the hitcounter tool has made only two edits to the article, which were the revisions - to the clearly inferior and largely un sourced version and told to upload in small chunks so he and others can verify it piecemeal: diff and diff The same suggestion ( diff) was pretty much made by user: Rjensen although he did not revert the update and did start to make edits to work out what he believed was fluff and irrelevant to the subject.
I didn't expect my update to be without criticism, but I have never been in this situation before: well sourced updates being reverted and being told to update one section at a time so users, who have done little to improve (remove errors, add material etc) the article over the past year, can personally check every sentence when they have let numerous errors remain and reverted errors back in. It is boggling my mind that an update is being blocked like this (I acknowledge it is a major update, although it contains as much as the previous editors work that was verifiable and as seen from the page's edit history, the article has barely been worked on to improve it overall). I did start to look into getting the sandbox peer reviewed, although the peer review template does not work outside of an article's talkpage it would seem and there was nothing on the peer review page about doing reviews like this. Let alone how a peer review of the sandbox would resolve the issue at hand. With that said, what appears to be numerous personal insults from AfadsBad has left me somewhat aggravated and I think I should cool off before replying there further.
So any advise would be much appreciated. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 06:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I will unwatch now. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 06:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC))
Hi Nick, I noticed that you are involved with the Wikipedia East Timor group.
I've been alerted to all sorts of problems with pages that were created some years ago by the author of a recently published book. Most of these pages relate to Sparrow Force. It's been a nasty affair with hacked accounts, accounts set up to look like the author, and deleting of material referencing to the book. I suspect some sort of sabotage is involved. I seek your help to bring some sanity to this mess.
Firstly, we wish to see the Sparrow Force and related pages improved, rather than butchered. We wish to see the Wikipedia page as a first point of reference that encourages viewers to find out more on the subject by visiting associated links. At the moment, the page needs a lot of referencing, due mostly to removal of citations.
Secondly, the book in question is the authoritative reference for Sparrow Force. It amalgamates and provides a lot of original material. I also note that many of the references provided by the author linking to other books have been removed.
The author has kindly added photographs from his book free of copyright. What is the harm of referencing the source of these photographs by providing links to the website for his book? That isn't promotion - it is linking to a resource not in his book.
The book in question is endorsed by many academics and veterans. Is it possible if we could work together to improve this page by utilizing the selfless work of the author in question? If so, we need to find the correct way to reference the following:
The author no longer has access to his hacked account and is concerned about setting up a new account. What do you suggest he does? I am not that computer minded so I was wondering whether he could work alongside you to improve the pages?
I look forward to your response. -- DoubleReds ( talk) 00:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Issue 51: October 2013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I will also happily accept requests for the gallery (if not, images will be selected from archives elsewhere). Again I will also remind people that if they ever want to try doing a future month's issue, feel free to with your own style etc or even just stick to the current format. Don't hesitate to contact me for the resources of things to include in this newsletter. Otherwise, enjoy! Simply south.... .. cooking letters for just 7 years 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The user name is a dead giveaway as is the edit- I reverted but havent lodged a report. Could you do so please, probably a cu time to cleanout it and some similars that have no doubt slipped pass the radar... satusuro 07:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I'm wondering what your advice is on whether to respond to C'wood 26's endless fiddling with Canadian flags on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Maybe there are better things to occupy my time than this... Cheers Nickm57 ( talk) 06:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
??? I'm sorry?? Did I miss something? I thought we had just moved on from our little squabbles we used to have, and now you post something like this?? You have also ignored my comment on the talk page where I apologised to you. Well I take it back, if you are going to resort to name calling talking behind peoples backs then screw you, and NickM I expected more from you.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 04:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I only wish we could get along I dont know why you have to keep this going Nick.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 04:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 23 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 05:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings! On the Jefferson Davis FAC, you had mentioned adding something about his choices in foreign diplomats. If you don't have time to work on this, I can request the book you mentioned through interlibrary loan; it will just take a few days. Just let me know. Thanks. Also -- any further thoughts on the article? Omnedon ( talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Talkback|sketcher man}
i have made considerable updates and attempted to comprehensively reference all claims and remain completely neutral in tone. i have linked many youtube videos that establish the bands legitimacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketcher man ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D,
I trust all is well in your corner of the world.
Polish Armed Forces has been subjected to repeated vandalism by an editor whose login names are variable but appear to mimic MAC addresses used by networked devices.
Some short term protection has been placed on the page but the vandal continues to return.
Would you consider placing longer-term protection on the page? I know this is disruptive in its own right, especially since the vandal appears to use established accounts (or somehow manipulates the Wiki login ID system to produce established accounts). Thanks for taking a look at this.
Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What was wrong with Plibersek edits? Didn't you like them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryHighner ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#User:Martinvl and long term disruption of WT:MOSNUM, I probably should have asked your advice before posting there. Basically the guy has been pointing fingers in my direction, I guess hoping I'd bite but I've been following your advice to avoid needling comments. The guy just kept at it, so when he started the RFC, naming me yet again alleging a non-existent dispute when I really don't care I went to WP:ANI, notifying others who'd been involved in the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. I don't think I missed anyone from the discussion but he is continuing to accuse me of selecting people on the basis of their opinion. Should I respond or simply let the discussion run its course? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.
There is a discussion concerning the recent changes of Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher, by Speednat. AustralianRupert has been asked to participate, you as well. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Australia has a national motto, look this page :
/info/en/?search=List_of_national_mottos
Australia: Advance Australia (As shown on the 1908 coat of arms of Australia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azertopius ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you suggest some other WWII article which would be appropriate for this information? [8] Cogiati ( talk) 07:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:AN#Topic ban appeal by Martinvl I'm guessing I should just ignore this, right?
Did the guy really just threaten me with a libel suit in Florida? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of John Treloar (museum administrator) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 11, 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 Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 11, 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:
John Treloar (1894–1952) was an Australian archivist who was the director for almost 30 years of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), the country's national memorial to the members of its armed forces and supporting organisations who have participated in war. Prior to World War I he worked as a clerk in the Department of Defence and, after volunteering for the First Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in 1914, served in staff roles for most of the war's first years. Treloar was selected to command the Australian War Records Section in 1917. In this position, he improved the AIF's records and collected a large number of artefacts for later display in Australia. Treloar was appointed the director of what eventually became the AWM in 1920, and was a key figure in establishing the Memorial and raising funds for its permanent building in Canberra. He headed the Department of Information during the first years of World War II, and spent the remainder of the war in charge of the Australian military's history section. Treloar returned to the AWM in 1946, and continued as its director until his death. ( Full article...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to some of your questions over here, when you have a moment perhaps you can take a look. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As one of the article's A-class reviewers, I'd appreciate if you could take some time and decide if the article meets the FA criteria.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting Operation Tungsten to FA status. Brilliant work. I hope you plan on doing similar work on such operations as Source, Paravane, Catechism etc.. Manxruler ( talk) 12:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, of course. Something for TFA on 3 April next year? Just thinking ahead ;-) Bencherlite Talk 11:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Nick-D. Thanks again for your help with the SNCF article previously. While the section was previously improved greatly, it still has issues, and I would like to see if you can help me again. I have taken the slightly bolder step of adding a template to note this dispute. However, I would like to avoid further edits, provided I can get assistance from other editors. To this end, I have explained the situation on the article's discussion page, and would appreciate your involvement again. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Trick or Treat! Happy
Halloween Nick-D! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go
trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween!
—
dain
omite 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks. |
As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, sorry to bother you on a Saturday, but I wonder if Queensland University Regiment should be semi protected. Would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick :). As mentioned on the Milhist coordinators talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Military History, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Issue 52: December 2013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please feel free to suggest any changes or add any requests such as images for the gallery. If you also want to have a try for the new year's edition or any future editions, please do not hesitate to ask. Simply south.... .. cooking letters for just 7 years 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Arawe know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 15, 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 Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 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 Battle of Arawe was fought between Allied and Japanese forces during the New Britain Campaign of World War II. The battle was initiated by the Allies to divert Japanese attention away from the Cape Gloucester area of New Britain ahead of a major offensive there in late December 1943. A force built around the U.S. Army's 112th Cavalry Regimental Combat Team landed at Arawe on 15 December 1943 and rapidly overcame the area's small garrison. Japanese air units made large-scale raids against the Arawe area in the following days, and in late December elements of two Imperial Japanese Army battalions unsuccessfully counter-attacked the larger American force. In mid-January 1944 the 112th Cavalry Regimental Combat Team was reinforced with additional infantry and U.S. Marine Corps tanks and launched a brief offensive that pushed the Japanese back. The Japanese units withdrew from the area towards the end of February as part of a general retreat from western New Britain. There is no consensus among historians on whether the Allied landing at Arawe was needed, with some arguing that it provided a useful diversion while others judge that it formed part of an unnecessary campaign. ( Full article...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I got your name from here. Could you take a look at nomination for Did You Know? that I created? It's been days and no one has either approved it or found problems with it, and I'm getting worried it might get stale. Thanks in advance! VR talk 13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I've dropped off that book review on the review page for the next issue of The Bugle. Hope that is all OK. Let me know if you need me to discuss any of that with you or Ian. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have been mentioned somewhere on the case talk pages, or you have submitted evidence in this case. Please be aware that the evidence phase for this case closes at 00:01, 09 December 2013 (UTC), which is just over one day from now. If you have not submitted evidence and would like to do so, please do so before the deadline. If you have submitted evidence and would like to amend or expand it, please also do so before the deadline. Thank you! AGK [•] 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
If I give the reference and change the grammar, can I edit it again? Actually, I use a Hyperlink to the main article of this battle as the reference.This is one of the major battles in the China in 1939. I tried to use a short sentence to describe this 3-month battle because it is a profile article.I tried to find an applicable position to do this edition but the only section about the war from 1939 to 1940 is the one I edited before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have post to talk page. Is this what you means? Then I hope you can reply to my talk page because I did not know your previous reply when you put it in your talk page. Another problem is when I can get the feedback and how can I get it? Thank you. — Miracle dream ( talk • contribs)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday Nick. Bit of vandalism at Mark Donaldson recently (among others). As it is a BLP and the edit summary is offensive I think consideration needs to be given to hiding the edit altogether. If you agree are you able to arrange to do this pls? All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and effort spent reviewing Operation Backstop article. I really believe your input genuinely improved the article. Cheers Tomobe03 ( talk) 11:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC) |
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have commented or been mentioned on the case pages. I am the drafting arbitrator for this case. I have written the draft decision and proposed it for adoption at the proposed decision case page. The committee will now vote on the final decision for this dispute. If you wish to bring any information or comments to the committee's attention, the proposed decision talk page is monitored by the arbitrators active on this case. Thank you, AGK [•] 20:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering would there be any chance of a "B class or higher" progress bar for "Operation Brothers at War"? It would be good to have one of "B class" progress bar for that part our WikiProject. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday Nick - thanks for that cmt. All my points have been addressed but before I close the review I just wanted to check if your point has been sufficiently addressed. Also do you have any other cmts? All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 20:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I wish you a Merry Christmas too, Frohe Weihnachten! As the Notifications now are activated in de:Wiki too, could you maybe do me a favor and post [[:de:Benutzer:Bomzibar]] without the nowiki here? I want to see if the notifications are working on a interwiki-basis and found nobody who can tell me so this would be a test. ;) Best regards -- Bomzibar ( talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Tomobe03 (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 15:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas St Nick! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
last 2 @ /info/en/?search=User_talk:Billzilla socks needing blocks imho satusuro 08:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
As there are already good milhist articles about the borader military aspects of the early 42 scare - what is your opinion on the domestic and local responses around the country in the February to June 42 on the southern part of the country - a valid separate article? satusuro 07:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
sent an email about this satusuro 07:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Jtbrown43 has completed a new article German prisoners of war in northwest Europe I found it to be informative, he has done an excellant piece of work. I merely put it up on Wikipedia for him since he is a new user. Check it out.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.32.90 ( talk) 03:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. I have nominated Majura Parkway for GA. I tried to address all the feedback in the failed review at Talk:Majura Parkway/GA1, and double checked to make sure it complied with GA criteria. As I'm a still learning contributor as far as GAs go, and I know you have a lot of experience with GAs/FACs. I was wondering if you could review Majura Parkway. (I have also asked User:TonyTheTiger, User:Wizardman and User:Hawkeye7 if they could review.) I would like to improve my ability to get through GA faster, increase my understanding of the GA criteria, and would appreciate a comprehensive review. -- Nbound ( talk) 11:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Military history service award | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nick,
Thank you for contributing to the FAC for the 2012 tour of She Has a Name article; it was good to see the article go up on the main page last week. I have submitted another article for featured status: When God Writes Your Love Story. If you would be willing to contribute to the corresponding FAC, I would appreciate your input.
Neelix ( talk) 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have applied for "auto patrol" privileges. I was wondering if you could look into it on how I could get the privileges because I don't know if anyone is aware there is a few people asking for it. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D - I see Offender9000 has been on and blanked his talk page this morning. Moriori has restored the sockpuppet ban notice (and prevented him from making future edits) but it might be useful for material from that page to be restored to allow future editors who come along to be able to easily see why Offender9000 was banned in the first place (e.g. there is no violation of BLP notice on the use page) and the long-standing issues the community had with him? Clarke43 ( talk) 03:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that is most useful. Regardless of the policy I don't think having any further material would be required as that section shows the issues quite clearly for anyone who looks into his edits at a later stage. Do copies of general block notices also get put on a user page? Or do only sockpuppet ones get listed on both talk and user pages? Clarke43 ( talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Based on the infobox on your user page I concluded 1) that you were amenable to receiving feedback in a non-confrontational trout-slap and 2) that you had a sense of humor. "Get fucked" as your edit summary suggests neither is the case.-- Godot13 ( talk) 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D, could I trouble you to cast a quick eye over the New Zealand Special Air Service article? This is the first time I've built a comprehensive page myself, rather than just fire fighting other edits. I'm not after a formal review just some tips if you have a chance. I'm trying to decide what to do about the NY/QB Hons section at the bottom. A number of those awards were given for operational service (e.g. a BEM for Vietnam with a cracking citation, which really should have been an MM but seemingly wasn't supported by 1ATF, so NZ Army HQ awarded him the BEM instead) but I don't have citations for all the awards, therefore I can't 100% accurately divide them all up into correct deployments. Maybe I should just do the ones I can confirm and leave the others where they are? Thanks. Clarke43 ( talk) 11:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I just remind you about my question at the Talk:World War II page. I don't know if you have forgot the discussion, or your just busy, but anyways I wanted to remind you.
Regards, Ransewiki ( talk) 07:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick. Would you possibly be able to have a look at Talk:Gallipoli Campaign/GA1 and delete if it meets the speedy deletion criteria? The review page was created by one of the co-noms due to a misunderstanding. All the details are here User_talk:Keith-264#Gallipoli_GA_co-nom. Any assistance you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D, the editing history of this article is something that may bear occasionally looking at. Users EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver have had editing conflicts concerning the Battle of Kursk and another difference of views may be brewing. EyeTruth has asked me to neutrally observe the talk page interactions, and I am willing to do so -- but I think it wise if another pair of eyes also looks over the exchanges from time to time. My own take (on at least some of the differences of opinion) is that various sources contradict each other (typical for WW2 Eastern Front sources) when it comes to losses of vehicles and personnel. In the case of some of the differing editor viewpoints, it may be necessary (to achieve concurrence among the editors) for information notes in the article to point out in detail the varying outlook of professional authors/historians. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am using the John Ellis classic "The Sharp End" and the fairly recent and groundbreaking "To The Victor The Spoils" by Sean Longden for Brit secondary ration sources at the moment. There's loads more to tap. Thanks for the encouraging words. Cheers Irondome ( talk) 01:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your excellent contributions in reviewing articles at FAC! Your suggestions and comments are greatly appreciated, especially regarding the aircraft articles that you helped review in 2011 and 2012. Thanks, SynergyStar ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nick- I'm going to make some revisions and wondered if you could take a look at my response to your comment (re: Port Moresby crash) and let me know what you think so I can tackle everything in one go. Thanks- Godot13 ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, if you have a sec, could you check your copies of Eather and Bomber Units and let me know what aircraft 1SQN was operating between August 1939 and January 1940 (or thereabouts)? I suspect Demons then Ansons but all the sources I've seen are a bit vague on what and when... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D,
Can we continue with the A1 for George Juskalian? If you're busy it's fine. I could maybe get another reviewer. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D, 71.191.213.248 ( talk) has suddenly appeared to edit the article. No other article contributions other than Battle of Prokhorovka -- situation smells to me like someone has decided to edit without logging in, in order to provide cover for actions that might be seen as tendentious. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 04:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure if you saw or if it changed anything regarding your position, but just in case, I'm writing to let you know that I responded to your last comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Confusion (album)/archive1. Dan56 ( talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, just a quick one to let you know that I've just nominated the UDI article at FAC. If you're interested in taking a look, the review is here. Thanks, keep well and have a great week. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up, do you realise both you and Ian have turned down the award because the other wasn't recognized? Just sayin, ★★ KING RETROLORD★★ 03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose at WT:MIL that the top 3 vote-getters become the 3 co-leads again in the September elections; I think that's worked out well. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 16:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
MikeDS ( talk) 10:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, kinda tired of typing, can you add it, im going to sleep in a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolo68 ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, could you delete Wikipedia:Goings-on/Sunday, July 28, 2013 and Wikipedia:Goings-on/Sunday, July 21, 2013 for me? I rarely have to archive Goings-On so tend to forget how to do it properly... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi friend! I have uploaded an ALT version. Can you please have a look and give your valuable comment. Thanks in advance!-- Nikhil( talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I will agree to a WP:CONSENSUS determined at an RFC after User:Rjanag gets back to me with some statistics on the project. I understand that it will take at least a week after he creates the new category to have the data. I am drafting the RFC here. You can follow along.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 1 August 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 Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
Nick please see this posting to my talk page [1] -- Woogie10w ( talk) 11:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you don't mind my removal of this book you added from the Hiroshima Nagasaki article. The only review I've seen of this book (in the Australian War Memorial's magazine Wartime) was highly critical, and Ham is not an expert on the topic - his main focus is on Australian military history, where he's something of a journeyman author. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I have done a bit of copy editing on George Juskalian as part of my review. In doing so, I think I may have addressed some of your review comments. If you get a chance, would you mind returning to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/George Juskalian and letting the nominator know which of your comments remain outstanding? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. I, as the lone delete advocate now, am a bit peeved that there seems to be a group effort (I'm not saying sockpuppets) to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick, seeing as this article is on the main page, I feel like it's high time to thank you once again for the large amount of effort you put into it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I'd just like to thank you wholeheartedly for your excellent overhaul of the article on Operation Tungsten. Really stellar work. Cheers. Manxruler ( talk) 21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that I've addresses all of your concerns about this article. Please take a look and see if there's anything left to do.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is a note to inform you that a page in which you have previously shown interest, WP:FOUR, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Please can you moderate the current process for resolving the blitzkrieg dispute? I do not wish to get you involved in this but if it is possible for you to moderate this process with your non-involved administrator hat on, please kindly do so. I wouldn't have called you back if not because I'm seeing signs that show nothing has changed in Gunbirddriver's mindset. He again completely removed blitzkrieg from main content and instead moved it citation and notes section. You were right earlier, I should have taken the initiative to write the opposing view (although it would have been subpar since I have no sources for the opposing view). Well, I restored the content but with a major change: "The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...".
In the note [j], I first pointed out that some commentators/historians may not agree with this. That assertion still lack citations, except for Guderian's works (which would still require original synthesis in order to incorporate it as a source), and has been a major barrier to resolving this dispute for months. After that, I listed 9 historians (with supporting citations) that characterize it as an intended blitzkrieg. Essentially, the pattern I used is: Introduce, Oppose, Support. But Nick, if it is possible, can you please moderate this process. Please. EyeTruth ( talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth ( talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I come to you to ask a simple request for merging several articles into a new name. Why? I'm in the process of getting the state of Indiana in order of the American Civil War. There are several articles that have multiple pages such as the following:
The two above can be merged into the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment, for continuity of other renamed articles on that page by myself. For example No. xx Indiana Infantry Regiment.
The two above can be merged into the 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment, with the same reason as above.
It would be appreciated if this could be done as I'll eventually do the article of the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment and 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment and it would be nice to include the shorter term in with the longer term as they were both in the American Civil War. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, I think it's ready to go out but will leave till tomorrow morning to despatch (aiming for a bit before midnight GMT) so pls feel free to edit anything beforehand; left a similar note for Storm re. his op-ed now that I've moved it into the issue and given it a (provisional) image. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
[ Commons is officially broken]. Bidgee ( talk) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
— Maile ( talk) 12:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick,
I just finished translating Military history of Australia during World War II (what a monster of an article, I fear it is too big to get it awarded in de:Wiki as not enough people would attend the review and nomination phase) and came over something I wonder about the names of RAAF units. Mostly they are in the style of No. xx (yy) Squadron RAAF but if I read the article, the RAAF isnt part of the given name in the text. So my question is, is the RAAF for the squadrons and wings etc. an official part of the name or just used for differentiation from other nations units? I would like to know this because I want to translate some wings (squadrons are not seen as notable in de:Wiki) and want to give them the right names. Best regards -- Bomzibar ( talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on deleting Battle Trance and more importantly for the related multi-page cleanup. Dusty| 💬| You can help! 13:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, I don't think anyone has told you that the ADF article has been suggested in the "any date" section of TFAR. As it's a 2007 FA (even though it's one of yours ;-) ) I thought it would be useful to get opinions from you and others as to whether all it needed was a quick bit of polishing of cap badges before appearing on a parade or whether it ought to be reduced to the ranks for insubordination... There's no need to rush to reply. Yours, Bencherlite Talk 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Tungsten you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown ( talk) 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Operation Tungsten you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Tungsten for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown ( talk) 10:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
HI Nick, EyeTruth and Irondome. I wanted to make you all aware of my concern with the presentation of the voting options in the Kursk poll. I'm very seriously concerned with the neutrality of the presentation of the poll choices. I think the second choice (which I contributed in no small part to authorship of) is presented it in such a manner (w/ positive comment that equates to advocacy, whilst the first option is presented with a "blank" comment that makes it appear as if there's nothing to recommend it as a choice) as to introduce unintentional bias. Option #1 needs a comment/summary similar to the treatment Option #2 received, a comment that summarizes the proposed edit and highlights its attributes, or there should be no comment(s) appended to the second voting choice in the interest of fairness. Az x2 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thoughts and images
Thank you for quality articles such as
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, for
thoughts, for images used over the world, and for getting to the core of a situation, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (9 March 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 227th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I saw your contribution on the page and was wondering if you cold tend to an edit request I made on the article's talk page. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Nick. I have been attempting to figure out what has been going on with the editing on the Battle of Kursk page, and I believe the pieces of the puzzle have fallen together. I have mentioned you at the Administrators Noticeboard, and though you are mentioned first the complaint is not really directed at you. It's a little long, but read through it if you get a chance. Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 00:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick-D. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Please take care not to separate statements from reference citations while editing. I have repaired two detached paragraphs in subject article; but request you provide a reference citation for the Operation Mascot addition. Thewellman ( talk) 15:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nick, do you have any objection if I replace some occurences of "which" by "that"? I'm bringing this up here because I don't want to sidetrack a review with a copyediting issue. It's a bit involved ... I can go into it if you like. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please leave me alone over the whole Blablaaa episode? You've given me a very hard time and not once were you ever fair to me in the last three years. Okay I get it you hate my guts. Fine dude. Now please leave me alone. Thanks. Caden cool 11:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Issue 50: September 2013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Here is the 50th edition. I can only apologise this is so late as a lot of work came up but it is still no excuse so again I will apologise. Inside includes everything since the last edition as usual. Enjoy. Simply south.... .. fighting ovens for just 7 years 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates (such as welcome templates and user warnings) on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou Nick for your message and your national election vote, which I saw on FB. That's the way I would have voted too. I do not intend to stand for coordinator election, but I'm quite happy for you to ask me to do so. Hope you're having a good weekend. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Nick-D. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind providing some feedback on an incubator group that I started a few months ago for articles relating to special operations and special operations forces. Being that it truly involves articles from around the world I was wondering if you had any ideas for generating interest/membership from knowledgeable contributors. For example I don't know anything about the Israeli special forces so I wouldn't even know where to begin to potentially solicit knowledgeable individuals on the topic to see if they would be interested in joining. Additionally I was wondering if after looking at some of the links you thought that maybe I made the group too broad in scope, because that's crossed my mind before but I didn't want to revise the entire group to make it more exclusive based on a whim of mine. I compiled a short (and incomplete) list of articles within the scope of the incubator group if it helps. Thanks for your help good sir, — - dain omite 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
On 11 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Mascot, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that most of the British airmen who attempted to bomb the German battleship Tirpitz during Operation Mascot in July 1944 could not see the ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Mascot. 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ulster Defence Regiment has been almost totally rewritten by me. It failed A Class but is still up for GA status review with all the A Class comments resolved. Also, with regards to that article it has crossed my mind that it's far too long and I was mulling over the idea of creating Greenfinches - The Womens' UDR both to cut it down and to create what could be a very interesting article on its own. Unfortunately I can't be of assistance further than making suggestions because I picked up a topic ban due to an incident related to The Troubles elsewhere and the articles on the UDR are troubles related. SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D, I am highly certain, that editor Boba Fett TBH, currently editing on Contras, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Vietnam war pages and others, is a Sock-puppet of Horhey420. What do think? Regards, Stumink ( talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on No. 38 Squadron RAAF. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I'll try to get it done later today. Sorry I haven't uploaded those photos earlier, but I've been travelling the last three weeks or so, and I'm also not doing very well health-wise these days. Now, I've got a lot of photos, which would be more preferable? The most senior people lost in the operation, all the fatalities of the operation buried in Tromsø, or just one as an example? Manxruler ( talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Nick,
Please note at WP:AN, I've just posted stating I would accept your mentorship suggestion.
Would you perhaps agree that other editors should also seek a mentor if the topic ban is removed altogether. BTW User:Gaba p has just opposed the lifting of his own topic ban. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
First question. [3] User:Andrés Djordjalian is making the very serious allegation that I am committing citation fraud. I cannot of course respond due to the topic ban. However, if you take as an example the first topic where he alleges this to be the case, you will see I have provided URL to online sources that show this claim is untrue. How would you suggest I respond? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, sorry if I am writing in the wrong spot, I have no idea what I'm doing. My name is Schmaig, and have recieved a notification from you regarding information I have posted. You have deleted some of my contributions because I haven't met curtain requirements. This is understandable, but I do not know how to meet these reqirements. The information I provided was correct and up to date, and now that it has been removed, wikipedia is now exhibiting old, out of date information. This out of date info is what prompted me to make the corrections in the first place. Is there no way that wikipedia could confirm or deny the reliability of incoming info, rather than just deleting it? Thank you Schmaig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmaig ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, thanks for your reply. The articles that are out of date involve name changes to league divisions. I wasn't able to change the name. I looked for info regarding name changes and found info saying to redirect to new article with correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmaig ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I've done a little bit of work on No. 467 Squadron RAAF today, mainly just to focus on something different. I don't have any paper sources at the moment, unfortunately, so I can't take it much further. Not sure if it is on your list to expand, but if it is please don't hold back on my account. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. First, I'd like to thank you for your support at my RfA. I'm very grateful, and am trying hard to live up to expectations. Sorry about the long post:
Now, the Russavia thing: As you were the last to block Russavia, I thought I'd drop you a line.
I know very, very little about the whole Russavia block matter, but am guessing there are those who are not too happy with him.
He helped me out at IRC commons a couple of weeks ago. Then, about a week ago, I visited his enwp talk page just out of curiosity. There, I found some redlinked images and started a few stubs. Yesterday, he thanked me at IRC and asked if I'd copy paste two Simple Wikipedia articles over to enwp. I did. Then, he asked if I'd be a liaison and do more. Now, I like Russavia, and am very grateful for his help, but because I'm a new admin, I don't want to do anything inappropriate. So, I figured that as he's blocked, my acting as some sort of proxy would likely not be a good thing. So, I said, those three were it, and I wouldn't do any more.
I just wanted to tell you this. Maybe you could pass this link on to others who might think ill of me for doing that. To them I'd like to say that I'm very sorry, that I was acting in good faith, and that I realized two minutes after copying those stubs that the whole thing was probably not a good idea, and that it could upset people. So, I'm sorry and I won't do it again. Please don't be furious. I was sort of on the spot and I just said, okay, and then only right after said, oh dear, that's probably not such a good idea.
Best wishes and I hope all is okay. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Nick, Casualty figures for the Bombing of Darwin given in the Lowe Commission are incorrect. There is now documentary evidence available online, at the National Archives of Australia web site, which prove the correct figures. The Research Staff at the Northern Territory Library have compiled the list of dead from the Raid http://www.ntlexhibit.nt.gov.au/exhibits/show/bod/roh/location This is accepted by historians Alan Powell, Tom Lewis and Bob Alford as being the best possible reckoning. I have tried changing this on Wikipedia on several occasions in the past, but people keep undoing the changes. I am about to edit the casualties section again, and I hope no one will remove the changes yet again. Interestingly the correct casualty figures are shown for the Preston, Peary, Zealandia, Mauna Loa and Neptuna in the individual Wikipedia entries Regards John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Alexis Richards ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
noted, and ignored - I'm not into playing games - You appear to be continuing to accuse me of rudeness, aggression and insults without any basis for such accusations. To me, this looks very much like you are playing some sort of game. Please stop harassing me - I'm sure you have much better, more interesting and more useful things to do with your time. Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, I've added an ALT version of the image cropping out the sea wall. If you have a chance, could you take another look. It may (or may not) be an improvement. Thanks- Godot13 ( talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the message. How should we proceed. Since it was done with reference to the RFC we have just had about Vietnamese geo names - and since the problem of lack of full fonts in military history sources (Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War and a few other hardback sources excepted) was raised on that Talk page, how do you want to proceed. Should the RFC be reopened to see whether it applies to Long Tân? In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
A mate of mine from a very long time ago has possibly passed away but one of his NLA mates has posted it without a WP:RS - I for the like of me have failed to find anything online - just in case you might know of any other means of ascertaining the issue - please could you help with a source? Rupert Gerritsen is the guy. Thanks. satusuro 05:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, don't know how I missed this, just picked it up now when I had another squiz at the ACR while debating whether to nominate him or No. 36 Squadron RAAF as my next FAC. That's quite right about the chopper squadron being considered underprepared when deployed to Vietnam, it's just that Headlam's only published connection with the deployment seems to be this planning trip, and commentators always seem to bring up Chief of the Air Staff Alister Murdoch's name when discussing shortcomings with RAAF helicopter operations and Army cooperation. So I did mention the issue in Murdoch's article but I'm not sure if it's quite so appropriate in the Headlam one without more information on his part (if any) in the problem. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick-D, I'm not sure of the protocol here and I'm also not sure if your post on my talk page was a canned response to a new member, but whatever the circumstance thanks for the sentiment. I've lurked around on Wikipedia for years but finally figured I'd try to actually contribute something other than drive-by copy editing. If I have any questions, I'll let you know. V/R, Kintrix ( talk) 07:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Nick-D. Thank you for your note. Pending a review of the relevant diffs, I have struck out the warning I left. I agree that there doesn't seem much point "warning someone about something which happened a week ago", but I hadn't noticed the date, as I was more concerned about the content. That said, I'm sure you'll agree that it's not the same to warn someone for "common or garden" disruptive behaviour in an article (as in inserting "hello") as to warn them for insulting behaviour towards another editor. And behaviour such as personal attacks against other users are surely to be censored, whenever they happen. On the other hand, two wrongs clearly don't make a right. I have been insulted by vandals on several occasions and it would never occur to me to respond in kind, let alone to another registered user here at Wikipedia.
Which brings me to the second part of your note. When I visited the user's talk page to see what was going on, I saw a note you'd left there ("rather than continue your rude posts"), followed by another one in the same terms left by Pdfpdf. So I saw two users' comment referring to rude posts, which together with that "Piss off!" the user had left at Pdfpdf's talk page, seemed to warrant a warning. The original – and clearly provocative – comment left by Pdfpdf had been removed (one of the obvious inconveniences of allowing users to selectively blank their user talk pages, rather than simply archiving the whole thing in logical chronological order). As I'm sure you're aware, the warning I left is the standard Twinkle template for such cases, and if you, as an admin, consider it does not correspond, either in its wording or its intent, to the action an admin would take, maybe it should be modified accordingly.
I shall now leave an apology at the user's talk page, together with a version of the long-winded rationale I have left you here. Regards, -- Technopat ( talk) 00:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Salutations Nick. After expanding the Special Mission Unit article tonight ( before and after) I went to look at the Special Air Service Regiment article to make an attempt to expand that section on the SMU article and noticed you were the main contributor to the SASR article (at least in number of edits with User:Anotherclown as second). Anywho, I was wondering if you could/would be up for expanding the SASR section on the SMU stub since I assume your knowledge on them far outweighs mine (which is zilch I might add). Regards, — - dain omite 04:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Just querying the Little Boy arming plugs. Last I heard of them, they were in the possession of Clay Perkins. Where did it say this about the plugs? Was there an inscription in the Museum? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
Its been quite a while since we worked together on Project Operation Normandy! I am after some advise from a long time editor and admin. Over the last few months I have been working on a draft for the Treaty of Versailles article. Having removed the errors, sourcing what was left, expanding it, and copyediting it I posted it today. Granted it is long (around 221,000 bytes, of which ~156,000 is new information (actual text, photos, references, and sources)), but then it is not a simple subject and as can be seen by the world war articles (and doubtless others) the size is not exactly without equal.
I have came upon a situation with which I am completely unfamiliar, and hence the request for advise: I have just had my update reverted twice ( diff and diff) by User:AfadsBad - who from the hitcounter tool has made only two edits to the article, which were the revisions - to the clearly inferior and largely un sourced version and told to upload in small chunks so he and others can verify it piecemeal: diff and diff The same suggestion ( diff) was pretty much made by user: Rjensen although he did not revert the update and did start to make edits to work out what he believed was fluff and irrelevant to the subject.
I didn't expect my update to be without criticism, but I have never been in this situation before: well sourced updates being reverted and being told to update one section at a time so users, who have done little to improve (remove errors, add material etc) the article over the past year, can personally check every sentence when they have let numerous errors remain and reverted errors back in. It is boggling my mind that an update is being blocked like this (I acknowledge it is a major update, although it contains as much as the previous editors work that was verifiable and as seen from the page's edit history, the article has barely been worked on to improve it overall). I did start to look into getting the sandbox peer reviewed, although the peer review template does not work outside of an article's talkpage it would seem and there was nothing on the peer review page about doing reviews like this. Let alone how a peer review of the sandbox would resolve the issue at hand. With that said, what appears to be numerous personal insults from AfadsBad has left me somewhat aggravated and I think I should cool off before replying there further.
So any advise would be much appreciated. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 06:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I will unwatch now. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 06:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC))
Hi Nick, I noticed that you are involved with the Wikipedia East Timor group.
I've been alerted to all sorts of problems with pages that were created some years ago by the author of a recently published book. Most of these pages relate to Sparrow Force. It's been a nasty affair with hacked accounts, accounts set up to look like the author, and deleting of material referencing to the book. I suspect some sort of sabotage is involved. I seek your help to bring some sanity to this mess.
Firstly, we wish to see the Sparrow Force and related pages improved, rather than butchered. We wish to see the Wikipedia page as a first point of reference that encourages viewers to find out more on the subject by visiting associated links. At the moment, the page needs a lot of referencing, due mostly to removal of citations.
Secondly, the book in question is the authoritative reference for Sparrow Force. It amalgamates and provides a lot of original material. I also note that many of the references provided by the author linking to other books have been removed.
The author has kindly added photographs from his book free of copyright. What is the harm of referencing the source of these photographs by providing links to the website for his book? That isn't promotion - it is linking to a resource not in his book.
The book in question is endorsed by many academics and veterans. Is it possible if we could work together to improve this page by utilizing the selfless work of the author in question? If so, we need to find the correct way to reference the following:
The author no longer has access to his hacked account and is concerned about setting up a new account. What do you suggest he does? I am not that computer minded so I was wondering whether he could work alongside you to improve the pages?
I look forward to your response. -- DoubleReds ( talk) 00:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Issue 51: October 2013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I will also happily accept requests for the gallery (if not, images will be selected from archives elsewhere). Again I will also remind people that if they ever want to try doing a future month's issue, feel free to with your own style etc or even just stick to the current format. Don't hesitate to contact me for the resources of things to include in this newsletter. Otherwise, enjoy! Simply south.... .. cooking letters for just 7 years 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The user name is a dead giveaway as is the edit- I reverted but havent lodged a report. Could you do so please, probably a cu time to cleanout it and some similars that have no doubt slipped pass the radar... satusuro 07:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I'm wondering what your advice is on whether to respond to C'wood 26's endless fiddling with Canadian flags on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Maybe there are better things to occupy my time than this... Cheers Nickm57 ( talk) 06:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
??? I'm sorry?? Did I miss something? I thought we had just moved on from our little squabbles we used to have, and now you post something like this?? You have also ignored my comment on the talk page where I apologised to you. Well I take it back, if you are going to resort to name calling talking behind peoples backs then screw you, and NickM I expected more from you.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 04:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I only wish we could get along I dont know why you have to keep this going Nick.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 04:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 23 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 05:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings! On the Jefferson Davis FAC, you had mentioned adding something about his choices in foreign diplomats. If you don't have time to work on this, I can request the book you mentioned through interlibrary loan; it will just take a few days. Just let me know. Thanks. Also -- any further thoughts on the article? Omnedon ( talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Talkback|sketcher man}
i have made considerable updates and attempted to comprehensively reference all claims and remain completely neutral in tone. i have linked many youtube videos that establish the bands legitimacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketcher man ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D,
I trust all is well in your corner of the world.
Polish Armed Forces has been subjected to repeated vandalism by an editor whose login names are variable but appear to mimic MAC addresses used by networked devices.
Some short term protection has been placed on the page but the vandal continues to return.
Would you consider placing longer-term protection on the page? I know this is disruptive in its own right, especially since the vandal appears to use established accounts (or somehow manipulates the Wiki login ID system to produce established accounts). Thanks for taking a look at this.
Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What was wrong with Plibersek edits? Didn't you like them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryHighner ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#User:Martinvl and long term disruption of WT:MOSNUM, I probably should have asked your advice before posting there. Basically the guy has been pointing fingers in my direction, I guess hoping I'd bite but I've been following your advice to avoid needling comments. The guy just kept at it, so when he started the RFC, naming me yet again alleging a non-existent dispute when I really don't care I went to WP:ANI, notifying others who'd been involved in the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. I don't think I missed anyone from the discussion but he is continuing to accuse me of selecting people on the basis of their opinion. Should I respond or simply let the discussion run its course? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.
There is a discussion concerning the recent changes of Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher, by Speednat. AustralianRupert has been asked to participate, you as well. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Australia has a national motto, look this page :
/info/en/?search=List_of_national_mottos
Australia: Advance Australia (As shown on the 1908 coat of arms of Australia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azertopius ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you suggest some other WWII article which would be appropriate for this information? [8] Cogiati ( talk) 07:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:AN#Topic ban appeal by Martinvl I'm guessing I should just ignore this, right?
Did the guy really just threaten me with a libel suit in Florida? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of John Treloar (museum administrator) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 11, 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 Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 11, 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:
John Treloar (1894–1952) was an Australian archivist who was the director for almost 30 years of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), the country's national memorial to the members of its armed forces and supporting organisations who have participated in war. Prior to World War I he worked as a clerk in the Department of Defence and, after volunteering for the First Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in 1914, served in staff roles for most of the war's first years. Treloar was selected to command the Australian War Records Section in 1917. In this position, he improved the AIF's records and collected a large number of artefacts for later display in Australia. Treloar was appointed the director of what eventually became the AWM in 1920, and was a key figure in establishing the Memorial and raising funds for its permanent building in Canberra. He headed the Department of Information during the first years of World War II, and spent the remainder of the war in charge of the Australian military's history section. Treloar returned to the AWM in 1946, and continued as its director until his death. ( Full article...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to some of your questions over here, when you have a moment perhaps you can take a look. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As one of the article's A-class reviewers, I'd appreciate if you could take some time and decide if the article meets the FA criteria.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting Operation Tungsten to FA status. Brilliant work. I hope you plan on doing similar work on such operations as Source, Paravane, Catechism etc.. Manxruler ( talk) 12:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, of course. Something for TFA on 3 April next year? Just thinking ahead ;-) Bencherlite Talk 11:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Nick-D. Thanks again for your help with the SNCF article previously. While the section was previously improved greatly, it still has issues, and I would like to see if you can help me again. I have taken the slightly bolder step of adding a template to note this dispute. However, I would like to avoid further edits, provided I can get assistance from other editors. To this end, I have explained the situation on the article's discussion page, and would appreciate your involvement again. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Trick or Treat! Happy
Halloween Nick-D! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go
trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween!
—
dain
omite 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks. |
As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, sorry to bother you on a Saturday, but I wonder if Queensland University Regiment should be semi protected. Would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nick :). As mentioned on the Milhist coordinators talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Military History, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Issue 52: December 2013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please feel free to suggest any changes or add any requests such as images for the gallery. If you also want to have a try for the new year's edition or any future editions, please do not hesitate to ask. Simply south.... .. cooking letters for just 7 years 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Arawe know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 15, 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 Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 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 Battle of Arawe was fought between Allied and Japanese forces during the New Britain Campaign of World War II. The battle was initiated by the Allies to divert Japanese attention away from the Cape Gloucester area of New Britain ahead of a major offensive there in late December 1943. A force built around the U.S. Army's 112th Cavalry Regimental Combat Team landed at Arawe on 15 December 1943 and rapidly overcame the area's small garrison. Japanese air units made large-scale raids against the Arawe area in the following days, and in late December elements of two Imperial Japanese Army battalions unsuccessfully counter-attacked the larger American force. In mid-January 1944 the 112th Cavalry Regimental Combat Team was reinforced with additional infantry and U.S. Marine Corps tanks and launched a brief offensive that pushed the Japanese back. The Japanese units withdrew from the area towards the end of February as part of a general retreat from western New Britain. There is no consensus among historians on whether the Allied landing at Arawe was needed, with some arguing that it provided a useful diversion while others judge that it formed part of an unnecessary campaign. ( Full article...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I got your name from here. Could you take a look at nomination for Did You Know? that I created? It's been days and no one has either approved it or found problems with it, and I'm getting worried it might get stale. Thanks in advance! VR talk 13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I've dropped off that book review on the review page for the next issue of The Bugle. Hope that is all OK. Let me know if you need me to discuss any of that with you or Ian. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have been mentioned somewhere on the case talk pages, or you have submitted evidence in this case. Please be aware that the evidence phase for this case closes at 00:01, 09 December 2013 (UTC), which is just over one day from now. If you have not submitted evidence and would like to do so, please do so before the deadline. If you have submitted evidence and would like to amend or expand it, please also do so before the deadline. Thank you! AGK [•] 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
If I give the reference and change the grammar, can I edit it again? Actually, I use a Hyperlink to the main article of this battle as the reference.This is one of the major battles in the China in 1939. I tried to use a short sentence to describe this 3-month battle because it is a profile article.I tried to find an applicable position to do this edition but the only section about the war from 1939 to 1940 is the one I edited before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have post to talk page. Is this what you means? Then I hope you can reply to my talk page because I did not know your previous reply when you put it in your talk page. Another problem is when I can get the feedback and how can I get it? Thank you. — Miracle dream ( talk • contribs)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday Nick. Bit of vandalism at Mark Donaldson recently (among others). As it is a BLP and the edit summary is offensive I think consideration needs to be given to hiding the edit altogether. If you agree are you able to arrange to do this pls? All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and effort spent reviewing Operation Backstop article. I really believe your input genuinely improved the article. Cheers Tomobe03 ( talk) 11:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC) |
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have commented or been mentioned on the case pages. I am the drafting arbitrator for this case. I have written the draft decision and proposed it for adoption at the proposed decision case page. The committee will now vote on the final decision for this dispute. If you wish to bring any information or comments to the committee's attention, the proposed decision talk page is monitored by the arbitrators active on this case. Thank you, AGK [•] 20:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering would there be any chance of a "B class or higher" progress bar for "Operation Brothers at War"? It would be good to have one of "B class" progress bar for that part our WikiProject. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday Nick - thanks for that cmt. All my points have been addressed but before I close the review I just wanted to check if your point has been sufficiently addressed. Also do you have any other cmts? All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 20:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I wish you a Merry Christmas too, Frohe Weihnachten! As the Notifications now are activated in de:Wiki too, could you maybe do me a favor and post [[:de:Benutzer:Bomzibar]] without the nowiki here? I want to see if the notifications are working on a interwiki-basis and found nobody who can tell me so this would be a test. ;) Best regards -- Bomzibar ( talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Tomobe03 (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 15:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas St Nick! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
last 2 @ /info/en/?search=User_talk:Billzilla socks needing blocks imho satusuro 08:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
As there are already good milhist articles about the borader military aspects of the early 42 scare - what is your opinion on the domestic and local responses around the country in the February to June 42 on the southern part of the country - a valid separate article? satusuro 07:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
sent an email about this satusuro 07:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Jtbrown43 has completed a new article German prisoners of war in northwest Europe I found it to be informative, he has done an excellant piece of work. I merely put it up on Wikipedia for him since he is a new user. Check it out.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.32.90 ( talk) 03:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)