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 there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Labuan 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ceradon -- Ceradon ( talk) 18:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nick, I have been going through the Battle of Labuan article that you created recently and I came across this US Navy loss ( USS Salute (AM-294)) during the lead up? Wondering if USS Salute (AM-294) should be written into the article. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 03:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure to be honest - none of the sources say whether it was operating near Labuan specifically. I might add it in Nick-D ( talk) 06:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just added this - thanks for poking me on this Nick-D ( talk) 09:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nick, I am flummoxed by Wikipedia citation method/style. Can you help me out on citing casualty numbers on battle of Luzon. here is battle of Luzon 205,535 Japanese killed (about 195k to 205k depending on how you count: https://books.google.com/books?id=BSrFX51AGPMC&pg=PA694&lpg=PA694&dq=US+Army+in+World+War+II,+War+in+the+Pacific,+Triumph+in+the+Philippines+appendix+h-2+japanese&source=bl&ots=jeBWkhNo3f&sig=FkinbcGFo3Jv7bEErQwG0Gam28w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tFi1VP-2LMacgwTwx4L4AQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=US%20Army%20in%20World%20War%20II%2C%20War%20in%20the%20Pacific%2C%20Triumph%20in%20the%20Philippines%20appendix%20h-2%20japanese&f=false I have other references on the range of civilian deaths I am working on prviding. 73.212.229.38 ( talk) 17:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there's advice on referencing at Help:Footnotes. I originally learned how to do it by copying from another article, so that works as well ;) Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lord knows why the box should only include "the three main Allied leaders" considering the war began while Chamberlain was Prime Minister and ended while Truman was President. I think it's rather misleading to only include those three.

That's been the consensus of various discussions (and I was mistaken: it's actually the main four). If you think it's worth re-opening this, please start a discussion at Talk:World War II, but the consensus is likely to be to keep things simple by only listing the main leader for each country. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 05:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Nick-D, back quite some time ago, you deleted a page about a Tasmanian soccer club - Nelson Eastern Suburbs FC. While I'm not questioning the lack of notoriety mentioned, or quality of the previous article, I intend to write up a new version of it, as they're now in the Tasmanian Championships. I'm more than happy to do the hard work and chase up sources and stuff, I was just hoping that you'd be able to unlock access to this and I could utilise what used to exist as a template for a newer, fresher page? If so, that would be really helpful. Cheers! - J man708 ( talk) 10:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure - happy to do so. I've posted the contents of the article at User:J man708/Nelson Eastern Suburbs FC. I'm not sure if state-level Australian soccer teams are notable, but I imagine that you'll establish this as part of developing the article, and good luck with it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap, I only just noticed this. It didn't notify me that you replied... Weird...

But yeah, thanks dude! All of the teams involved in the National Premier Leagues have been deemed notable, as have quite a lot of teams in lower leagues, generally dependent on a number of factors and stuff. I might create it and then link it for the guys at the Australian Football Taskforce to either green light, edit or purge. -- J man708 ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Nick-D, I've done a really basic upgrade of the page. Seeing as how you can decide if a page is worthy of being deleted, I just thought I'd also get your opinion on it, as it stands at the moment? -- J man708 ( talk) 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide references to independent reliable sources about the club? (eg, articles in the Mercury, ABC stories, etc). These are needed to demonstrate that this is actually a notable club. Nick-D ( talk) 07:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still working on it. It will be a lot easier once the season kicks off in March to gain these sources. =) -- J man708 ( talk) 07:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is actually a notable club, references should be available right now. A search on the Hobart Mercury [1] and ABC [2] websites produces no references at all, and a Google search doesn't produce anything that looks useful. References are needed I'm afraid. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		For completing 9 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nick-D ( talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On 26 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Labuan, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that almost all of the buildings on Labuan island were destroyed by the bombardment which preceded its invasion by Australian forces during the Battle of North Borneo in June 1945? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Labuan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Battle of Labuan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Labuan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Happy editing! -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

You left a redundant message on my talkpage. And I just wanted to let you know that the only reason I readded that what you removed was because you didn't explain it properly as to why you removed the other two sources. I did not understand "don't need 3 refs for a simple statement". Your recent reason as to why you removed it again made perfect sense. So I did not add it again. Also, please do not leave silly messages like you did. There is no real reason to tell me you removed it again. It is not really necessary to do so. Please carry on with your business and have a good day...

-- PilotJaguar1996 ( talk) 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ PilotJaguar1996: I was explaining my edit as a courtesy so you didn't revert it again... It's actually considered good practice, and your condescending note here is itself rather silly. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

On 5 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No. 300 Group RAF, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 300 Group of the British Royal Air Force was formed in Australia in 1944, and many of the personnel in one of its squadrons were Australian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 300 Group RAF. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nick, I have to say I'm becoming increasingly concerned at the way our minds are synching -- no sooner do I begin reading Ulysses S. Grant with a view to commenting than I find you've completed a review yourself...! No matter, it's bound to have saved me some work, and I might be able to focus more on his political than his military career. If you're in a reviewing mood, though, be happy to get your thoughts on the Les Holden FAC, as you weren't able to get to the ACR... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Will do. I was feeling guilty for not commenting on the Grant ACR despite being a (low grade) US Civil War nerd! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 20:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a noticeboard to ask for advice on notability?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilde Vernet y Sáez

By my interpretation of policy this person would never be considered notable, she is only known because of who her father is, its a stub and an orphan. W C M _email 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a notability noticeboard. WP:BLPN would be relevant if this person was living, and WP:RSN is relevant if there are questions around the reliability of sources used to support claims of notability, but the convention is generally to take instances of contested notability to AFD as you've done here. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, you may recall my enjoyment of editing was rather curtailed last year by what I would characterise as one editor stalking my edits. At what point is it clear that WP:HOUND is taking place, when the same editor turns up at each and every edit I make eg [3], [4], [5]? W C M _email 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the threshold of WP:HOUND is to be honest, but I note that there's a discussion on the Self-determination talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 07:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[6] of the four pages I've edited of late, he has turned up at all 4. Even if you're Bulgarian you're accused of British POV editing? W C M _email 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Central Readiness Force" is the special operations command of japanese SF units combined of: Special Forces Group, 1st Helicopter Brigade, 1st Airborne Brigade, 101st NBC Protection Unit. It is similar to U.S Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

The "1st Helicopter Brigade" is the special aviation unit supporting special operation units of CRF. It is similar to U.S 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment .

The "Central Readiness Regiment" is a regiment ground combat unit of CRF, the main mission of which is to carry out operations on battlefields abroad as an advance force. As of now it is deployed in (DAPE base) in Djibouti, Horn of Africa, first overseas permanent military base of JSDF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keijhae ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:V, please provide references to English language sources to support these assertions. Nick-D ( talk) 05:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Japanese Special Forces Group, 1st Helicopter Brigade, 1st Airborne Brigade and 101st NBC Protection Unit is under the command of "Central Readiness Force", which is the joint special operations command of JGSDF. (ref: Japan Ministry of Defence, GSDF Central Readiness Force, Japan Defence Focus, accessed February 2015.) Keijhae ( talk) 05:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet Time states that it's mainly a conventional unit. This book says the same thing. It seems that the CRF includes some special forces units, but the entire formation shouldn't be considered to be special forces as it's really an advance guard-type unit. Nick-D ( talk) 05:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is the writer opinion, but we must considered that the Central Readiness Force command the special operations units of JGSDF. It is the 1st joint special operations command of JGSDF which command special forces units in it. Only the japanese pacifist constitution article 9 limits the role of its forces, but not its capabilities. Anyway, the Central Readiness Regiment of CRF are already deployed in DAPE base in Djibouti, Horn of Africa since 2011, the first overseas permanent full pledged military base of JSDF. Keijhae ( talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide references to reliable sources written in English to support your position. I have searched for references concerning the status of the CRF, and the above is the result. Nick-D ( talk) 05:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also continue this discussion at Talk:List of military special forces units#List of Military Special Forces Units (Japan). Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 05:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II 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 Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther ( talk) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Jonas Vinther: Thanks Jonas. As I'm considering developing this article to A-class status, I'd appreciate it if you could post a detailed review. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think the historic Newspoll released this morning warrants a mention in the article? Timeshift ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so - there's lots of news stories directly connecting it with the spill which can be used to support this. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 05:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to add it? Thanks for your expansions on the article thus far. Timeshift ( talk) 05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You might want to respond to accusations/POV tag here. Timeshift ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK what is going on. Longstanding AUSPOL convention is that opinion pieces are not WP:RS. Using an opinion piece to reference a pundit's opinion is WP:OR. You should find an WP:RS quoting the pundit's opinion to establish that the opinion is actually important. Or do you really want people quoting Andrew Bolt articles everywhere? -- Surturz ( talk) 06:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've given those op-eds only as examples of the analysis journalists are putting forward, with them being used to cite their authors' views and nothing else. This is permitted under WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."). I don't think that anyone would judge that the statement in the article doesn't reflect what those journalists are writing - which is generally explicitly stated in the titles of the articles! If you're aware of any prominent journalists or political scientists who are putting forward different analysis, please add it (Annabel Crabb comes close here). I agree completely with your removal of op-eds which were being used as references for statements of fact. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that I deliberately picked op-eds by the major commentators here given that their views are generally considered to carry more weight. Nick-D ( talk) 06:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, keep your WP:ATTACK piece. The other day you agreed that if the vote failed the article should be deleted [7] and here you are today puffing it up with bad scholarship. Disappointing. -- Surturz ( talk) 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it WP:ATTACK? As I said, if there is different analysis going please add it: I haven't seen this anywhere (even The Australian's commentators are saying that Abbott is in bad trouble). And in that comment I said that I'd be supportive of deleting the article if the challenge " fizzles out entirely", which obviously isn't what happened today given that about 40% of the Liberal Party MPs voted in favour of the motion to spill the leadership, and commentators are saying that there's more to come. From being a Labor (and Gillard) supporter during the Gillard era I appreciate that this isn't a fun time for Liberal Party supporters, and I hope that my editing is even handed. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther ( talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[8] Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? I suspect not ;) (and have reverted accordingly). Very much citation needed! Nick-D ( talk) 09:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course this was a joke ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Phew - I actually wondered if I needed to rush to WP:BN to report that your account had been compromised ;) I was also very tempted to leave that in the article! Nick-D ( talk) 07:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You asked for a detailed review and therefore I did my very best. But still, I was unable to find any serious flaws or any suggestions for improvement—other than the small edits I made along the way. I hope your still satisfied. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think there's any reason, based on this user's recent contributions, why he shouldn't be blocked for disruptive editing? JUst asking you for a second opinion. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait why should I be blocked? I went to your talk page and asked for you to look at a problem, but you did not answer. - YMB29 ( talk) 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into this later today Nick-D ( talk) 07:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding of what I did, see Buckshot06's talk page. [9] - YMB29 ( talk) 07:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just spot checked a source for the contentious material:

• [10] This is an accurate quote from the book review, but is only referring to Beevor and not criticising the statistics more generally as was implied. Indeed, immediately above this quote the Bird writes that "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped" and "The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher" without stating that these figures are incorrect or not feasible - the issue they raise is that it's difficult to verify any particulate figure rather than the scale of the rapes being greatly exaggerated. As such, the statement added to the article misrepresents the source. More generally, book reviews are not suitable sources for statements such as these given that they're an assessment of the book rather than being a piece of research or analysis.
• [11] this is also unacceptable for similar reasons to reasons above: Bird actually wrote that "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, 100,000 in greater Berlin" without questioning this, and called the statistics in general "unverifiable" rather than this figure as was wrongly attributed to them. I can see no good faith way this mistake could have been made: it's an obvious distortion of the source.

The tendentious conduct on talk pages and ANI is also entirely unacceptable, and not in line with the conduct of a good faith editor. @ Buckshot06:, I'd support a block. Nick-D ( talk) 09:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If Bird writes "perhaps," then he obviously is not sure. He is criticizing all the statistics Beevor is using (which come from a German doctor). How could this be a distortion?

Anyway, I am not the one who introduced this text originally (see this diff [12]), and it was in the articles for a long time with no one objecting.

As for tendentious conduct, what exactly have I said that leads you to say that? - YMB29 ( talk) 14:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, see this old discussion. [13] - YMB29 ( talk) 14:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D, same issue as with Bird occurred with a book by Geoffrey Roberts. See this discussion. Here is the source in gbooks [14]. So Bird isn't the only source which YMB29 misrepresented. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, the text sourced to Bird is not a misrepresentation, and was not even originally added by me. It was added by Paul Siebert, a respected user.

As for Roberts, see my response [15]. You accused me of something I did not do.

Anyway, I removed the disputed sentence, [16] so I don't know why you are still complaining and accusing me. - YMB29 ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Even with the disputed sentence removed, you are still cherry picking info out of that text in a way which misrepresents the source. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The text is directly supported by the quote provided... If you want to discuss this, use the article's talk page. No point in arguing about content dispute on an admin's talk page. - YMB29 ( talk) 16:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

From comparing this with the source, it's also clear to me that the source is being misrepresented. Roberts does indeed state that it's difficult to judge how many rapes took place and argues that estimates have been exaggerated to partially exonerate Germany. However, he also states that "hundreds of thousands of rapes in Germany" took place (and endorses the views of historian who estimates that the number may have been as high as 2 million), with this being much higher than the number which would be "normal" [his word] for a force of this size, and the focus of his analysis is what lead to such conduct. I can see no good reason for omitting this when discussing his analysis. This earlier edit was much worse - saying only that "Roberts concludes that, given the scale of the conlfict and the size of the territory involved, probably tens of thousands of rapes were normal for such a conquering force as the Red Army" deliberately misrepresents his argument that the Red Army's conduct was much worse than "normal" conduct for such a force. Again, I can't see any way that this could have been the result of a good faith mistake, especially given the agenda being advanced. I have blocked YMB29 for a week. Nick-D ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, was not aware. Thankyou - and after all that time I took to try and explain etc !! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D Thank you for your swift action in this. From my knowledge of the dispute, I'm glad that you stood up and made the right decision to put a stop to the WP:TE. GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 21:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D ( talk) 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[17] Gaba has been editing in contravention of his topic ban and it is basically the same as before. [18] The topic ban violation has already been reported and I was pinged about it. I really don't want to get dragged back into the drama boards again, so I would rather not comment. Is that a sensible thing to do?

Also per WP:DENY should that edit be reverted? Regards, W C M _email 10:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty clear-cut topic ban violation to me, so I'd suggest not getting involved in the AN thread as there's simply no need. I'd suggest waiting until after that discussion ends in a conclusion that the edit was a topic ban violation to revert it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, can I also ask what you would suggest for an editor who is filibustering a discussion in talk? I suppose the next thing would be an RFC but every time thats been tried in the past the same editor has managed to deter outside input with the tried and trusted tactic of generating walls of text. W C M _email 11:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to a hypothetical like that. An RfC is an option and can certainly work well (especially when it's one person annoying many), but often disruptive people who hide behind walls of text are best dealt with by an admin who's willing to take the matter on and consider the underlying behaviour. Nick-D ( talk) 21:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at the talk page discussion at Talk:Self-determination and make a suggestion as to how to resolve this? Langus has made a wiki career out of fighting tooth and nail to assert the Argentine claim of an expulsion event in 1833 and against the inclusion of any reference to the fact that historians describe it as untrue. The discussion like so many before it has now gone full circle, from him trying to deny that's what Argentine claims, to claiming I've never provided sources again. I mean how do you deal with an editor who simply denies that what is in front of them even exists? W C M _email 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have time to read through that in detail and I definitely don't have any expertise on the issues or sources to assess the situation properly. From skimming it, it would appear that Langus is currently in a minority of one in the discussion if that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I was just hoping you could explain the revert you did on SkyCity Auckland as I'm a bit confused. Who's engaged in block evasion? To my eyes, there seems to be some useful material there which has got cut. Thanks! Ballofstring ( talk) 01:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, AndrewRobust ( talk · contribs) appears to be the latest incarnation of Offender9000 ( talk · contribs). As I noted at User talk:AndrewRobust#Blocked the material they were adding contained serious (and rather obvious) misrepresentations of sources (which is a common tactic Offender9000 uses to push their agenda), so I don't think that the material is useful unless it's carefully checked/corrected. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah right. That makes sense. I'll go through it carefully and see if there's anything worth keeping. Thanks! Ballofstring ( talk) 02:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest very carefully reviewing the material before any of it is added - Offender has a habit of making things up to slur people and organisations he doesn't like, and you'd be the one held responsible if any of it was inadvertently re-added. The references themselves look useful, but the Wikipedia article text should be considered inaccurate until proven otherwise! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I question why you did not take advantage of the WP:ARBEE DS and issue a topic ban, rather than raising the block-level to indefinite. Would that not've been the more effective approach? RGloucester — ☎ 06:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, That's a good point, and thanks for raising it. My concern is that an editor who misrepresents references on one topic to push their view is likely to do so on other topics, so a block is more appropriate. The discussion at ANI is also heading towards a topic ban. There is a case for also applying the discretionary sanctions though. Nick-D ( talk) 06:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. I am writing because I suspect that self-described "Guatemalan history buff" Nerdoguate might be the latest Horhey420 sockpuppet. Although there may not be enough evidence to be conclusive, in looking over their contributions it is obvious that they edited prior to creating the account. The massive size of edits like this is also a red flag, particularly considering (as with Horhey) the citations are formatted in several different ways due to the obvious copying-and-pasting. It might be wise to examine this accounts' actions more closely in the future. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, The behavioural evidence isn't conclusive. It appears that Nerdoguate is copying large amounts of material from one article to another (which seems unhelpful), but there isn't the explicit POV associated with Horhey420's editing, and some other of their common characteristics are missing. I agree that this person doesn't seem to have been a genuinely new editor though. Asking for a checkuser to look for technical evidence via WP:SPI may turn up something, and would probably be justified. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 00:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick - have added note about archaic spelling. regards Richard Bruce Bradford ( talk) 07:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I thought it might be something like that. Nice work with these articles. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that you recently blocked LupinoJacky, I guess for his behaviour on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reporting_Illegitimate_Reversions and related articles. Now QTeuta tried to start the whole discussion all over again (the case is closed by now). He got already the interest from another user, culminating in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LupinoJacky/Archive. But there are to much coincidences on the way.

Could you take a look at this? Please, pretty please?

Thanks in advance. The Banner  talk 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There could potentially be off-Wiki collusion (for want of a better word) going on, but I think that these are different people: there are significant differences in their editing style and Checkuser didn't find technical evidence for a connection. Nick-D ( talk) 07:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A former soldier is adding edits that are not supported by references. So far the info he provides is of little or no value, imo. Thought I would let you know. Don Brunett ( talk) 20:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

Nick I took it upon myself to remove the information. I felt it was written with personal motive and it did not add any value to the article. You can look and determine if I was in error. Thanks. Don Brunett ( talk) 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

Hi Don, I agree with removing this - such minor details clearly aren't appropriate. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I will, just as soon as I figure out whats wring with my machine (shes an old xp model that turned seven a few months back, but shes been having problems the last few days and I'm growing concerned that it may be something serious. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks Tom. That's not good news about your computer - when mine have gone that way it's been expensive to fix, at best. Do you think that you'll be able to finish the article by this weekend? Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I got her fixed. A few days of running long term diagnostics and some helpful suggestions from the IT reference desk here got the machine back in the game. I lament on the sorry state of Windows 8, if it wasn;t for the fact that I share the mass opinion that this abortion Microsoft called an OS never should have made it past the the "thinking about thinking about it" stage I'd have a two year old tower right now instead of a 7.25 year old tower. I've even entertained the idea of copyrighting the phrase "I Hate 8" or "I H8 Eight" too, just to see if I could make more money on the perceived flop by selling anti-Win8 merchandise than Microsoft has made off there sales of the system :)

...Anyway... The Op-Ed and Timeline are up and ready for publication save but for the spit and polish inherent to any piece of writing. Aside from that we should be ready to publish when you are, unless you wanted to expand on the end of the year awards we did to encourage increased participation in the months to come, in which case we'd need throw in a paragraph or two to that effect in the bugle, or perhaps create a one time page to announce the editors and the awards they received for FA content in 2014. TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A new user, Suneditor, has just popped up and is editing the same articles as our friend User:Keijhae. Making the same reverts too. Is it possible to request a checkuser? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there do appear to be quite a lot of similarities in editing styles across those two accounts, so asking for a checkuser to look into it would be justified. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was, how do I do it? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Fill in the form at WP:SPI (which is pretty user-friendly). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Great minds think alike! I just came to the same conclusion independently, and filed the case at WP:SPI. Feel free to comment there if you think I missed anything or got anything wrong.

Buckshot06, do you use any editing tools or plugins like Twinkle? Some of these can offer a simpler interface that fills in some of the boring SPI paperwork on your behalf. (Personally, I've customised my browser & wikipedia profile so much that I've lost track of which tool is doing what, but I'm pretty sure that it's Twinkle that makes SPI, ARV etc. easier). If you need a hand with any other sockpuppet investigations in future, just shout, as I get a perverse pleasure out of the research. bobrayner ( talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bob Nick-D ( talk) 10:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Gday Nick, User:Thandieu123 has made recent edits at Battle of Hòa Bình and a number of other pages that were the usual / similar haunts of User:MiG29VN and his socks, which makes me believe they are one and the same. This edit in particular at Hoa Binh changing "French Union Victory" to "Viet Minh strategic victory" here [19] is almost identical to that made by User:113.186.112.119 here [20] who is blocked as a MiG29VN sock. Pls also consider Thandieu123's interest in both Eastern Front (e.g Operation Bagration), weaponry (e.g. 5.56×45mm NATO), and Vietnam War topics which is a very similar editing pattern to MiG29VN and all his socks. His addition of "U.S. body count" to Operation Allen Brook with this edit [21] and the edit warring after it was disputed is also similar to the usual editing pattern of the MiG29VN socks which fixate on body count. If you could pls look at this when you get a chance that would be appreciated. To be clear I think a block of Thandieu123 as a sockpuppet is needed. Given that they are a logged in user as opposed to an IP is a different process req'd (i.e. sock puppet investigation and check user)? I imagine I will be able to dig up more evidence if its req'd so pls let me know. Regards. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear report - I've just blocked that account Nick-D ( talk) 02:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Nick. User:Chimtuhu looks like the latest sockpuppet of MiG29VN to me. Their latest edits are:

• Battle of Đồng Hới, Battle of Dak To, Battle of Ia Drang, Battle of Hamburger Hill and Battle of Dien Bien Phu most or all of which are articles that either been disrupted by User:MiG29VN or their various socks in the past.
• An example to show the similarity is here, with User:Chimtuhu adding this [22] at Battle of Dak To, which is very similar to the edit I removed here as part of one of the previous sockpuppet investigations [23] (particularly the part "...The U.S. estimates were almost exclusively gathered by indirect means: sensor readings...")
• In addition several of User:Chimtuhu's other edits involve the insertion of OR linking US claims of NVA/VC body counts and much smaller numbers of wpns captured as being evidence of those claims being inflated (almost certainly a true generalization during the conflict but not supported by the specific sources given for the operations in question), including here [24] at Battle of Hamburger Hill (which seems to have already been reverted by another editor).
• Lastly this edit [25] at Battle of Ia Drang shows the continued inserting of terms like "U.S. reported" and "estimated" which these sockpuppets all share - pls refer to the sockpuppet investigation dated 13 Dec 14 here for examples of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive.

If you have some time can you pls have a look at this one too and let me know what you think / take block action if justified? Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition User:Thienhung1 seems to have appeared today magically at Battle of Hamburger Hill and Battle of Dak To making the same edits as User:Chimtuhu. Diffs here [26] and here [27]. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) ‎

Thanks for the clear report - I agree with your assessment, and have just blocked both accounts. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your assistance. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. RE: [28] I think in the future it would be more constructive to either consult with the person who added the POV tag, or explicitly obtain talkpage consensus before removing a POV tag. That said, I am much happier with the text at Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 so I'm happy to let the tag removal stand. There is a polite way and an impolite way to resolve POV disputes, and you (uncharacteristically) chose the latter this time round. Peace. -- Surturz ( talk) 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't intend to be rude. My understanding is that the current view is that tags relating to resolved or stale discussions should be removed ASAP, and that discussion had been over for about 5 days. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I filed for a block review over at ANI in regards to the block of User:Thewolfchild. Caden ^cool 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've responded there. Nick-D ( talk) 23:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I read your reply and I found it rather strange and odd to see you refer to me as a "she" when you very well know I'm male. Caden ^cool 00:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Until reading this post I was not aware what your gender is (virtually all of my interactions with you have been you complaining about various blocks I imposed, so I don't know you at all). That's why I referred to you as "he or she", though on reflection I should have used a gender-neutral term such as "they". Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I thought I'd check this with an admin, and as WCM's mentor I thought you might be a good choice. Would you mind reviewing this, in reference to this Commons deletion request? Thanks, Kahastok talk 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, What exactly would you like me to review here? That Commons discussion looks like the usual confused debate which occurs in their contested deletion discussions over this kind of thing, and I don't fancy reading all the way through it looking for trouble. The message at the top of Discasto's user page doesn't seem helpful (it's obvious canvassing given the non-neutral wording), but I can't do much about it. Nick-D ( talk) 06:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clearer. It was the user page on en.wiki I was asking about, but if there's not much to be done about it then there's not much to be done about it. Thanks for looking. Kahastok talk 07:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Kahastok: I should have also been clearer: there's not much that I can do about the user page given that I'm WP:INVOLVED due to my relationship with WCM. However, you may want to post at WP:ANI asking other admins to look into it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah - OK. Thanks. I've posted it to ANI. Kahastok talk 07:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the thing on the top? Says "about a week"... I think your speedy close was a little abrupt. It's OK, I have listed at [[WT:MILHIST], but I think you were a bit trigger happy to close it, when I have never seen you before. That gives you the same right as I do... we all come here voluntarily, and I thank you for it, but that was a bit trigger happy I think... I said so on the forum but it is better I say to you personally. I will probably get in trouble for this, now. Si Trew ( talk) 04:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Simon, I speedy closed that discussion as RfD simply wasn't an appropriate forum for it. There was no likelihood that the Warfare page was going to be deleted, the nominator hadn't made a clear proposal for people to respond to (they didn't seem to want the redirect deleted, which suggests that they picked something other than the optimum venue for the discussion), and a general discussion of where to best redirect what is presumably a high-traffic link belongs in a more prominent location. This is entirely consistent with the fourth and fifth points of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD given that Warfare is undoubtedly a valid redirect to something or other, and no admin was ever going to delete it, and RfD isn't the best place to discuss where redirects should point to. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 05:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Never seen you swear on the wiki before, hope everything is OK. W C M _email 09:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just got home from a busy business trip to find that a complete loser had attempted to racially abuse me by replacing the content of my user page with the n word. Not cool. Nick-D ( talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not nice but just remember that usually stems from feelings of gross inadequacy in themselves ie small dick syndrome. W C M _email 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the mark of a healthy, sensible person with any social skills at all. Nick-D ( talk) 10:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this Nick - second what Wee Curry Monster says... Buckshot06 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Our company recently had an article written for us by a third party called writersforhire. I show the draft was deleted by you on February 5, 2015. Our company is the Living Scriptures. Reading the article that was submitted we are confused as to why this draft was deleted. What do we need to do to get this fixed?

Hello, What you are describing is a clear violation of the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please be mindful that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a business directory. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello nick, can you ban the user Alaney2k also known as nirgensburg/grisuu_29 on youtube which was deleted yesterday, and this account will be on the ban community. 2600:1006:B10D:2F12:1D33:9AC3:5F5A:2325 ( talk) 03:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with Alaney2k ( talk · contribs)'s editing, and you've raised no specific concerns. Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, (@ Gadfium:, as they may be interested)
FYI, see the edit (their 11th edit btw) here, at Australia–New Zealand relationsby 'new' editor Blancmagne ( talk · contribs). Possibly long indeffed LTA account DavidYork71? - 220 of ^Borg 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I see that Euryalus beat me to blocking this account. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Tony1 suggested I could create an article on Rowley Richards. I would just like a second opinion on whether he is notable. (Richards, not Tony). Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be guessing that the SMH obituary was written by a relative (actually, she seems to be a SMH regular, with a focus on obits). The obituary in the SMH provides sufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO (I generally think that a detailed obit in a major newspaper gets someone across this line). There's also some useful-looking coverage of Ricards in Trove (for example, [29], [30], [31], [32], etc). His post-war career seems to be his main claim to fame. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. Hawkeye, I came to you because you're a prolific and high-quality write on Australian MilHist. Richards' two books might also help with notability. I see a video interview of him appears on the federal Dept of Veterans Affairs; he appeared on the ABC's 7.30 report in 2011. The War Memporial has put up pdfs of his war diaries: copyright status would be interesting, but either way they're possible info sources for an article. Cheers. Tony (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's perhaps one of the most iconic quotes about Australia and its economy to come out of the 20th century. It still generates discussion today, all you have to do is paste it into Google. That's what's "so what". Is it more to do with you not wanting any kind of quote that tarnishes or smears Australia's reputation or credibility on Wikipedia? Because I think it should be there. Ashton 29 ( talk) 09:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The material you were adding to those very high level articles was just what the Singaporean PM said. It's not really very useful to readers (and this comment didn't really have that much of an effect - Australia was already reforming its economy, and ended up implementing pretty much the same set of reforms as all the big English speaking countries did). Nick-D ( talk) 07:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks Buckshot06 does seemingly not have a suggest wording, so I propose we implement yours as the majority is already in favor of that. Thoughts? Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 23:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree - it can be tweaked later. Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D:

I have been asked to do a new article for the above title, which you deleted on 5 February. This will be a Paid Edit, and of course I will follow all the rules and guidelines and declare that I'm being recompensed. Can you resurrect the piece and put it in a Sandbox somewhere so I can see what had been done before? Thanks so much. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not: I am strongly opposed to paid editing, and don't think that what you describe is consistent with WP:NOPAY, especially considering that this is a much-spammed article which I protected from being recreated in February after discovering that I was the third admin to delete it due to concerns over copyright violations, notability and promotional content. Nick-D ( talk) 06:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. How do I appeal your decision? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 06:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's all right. I don't have to look at the deleted page since I will be starting from scratch anyway, with new information and sources. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 06:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Convoy of Hope. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

For your comments at ANI. W C M _email 11:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, the accusation of being a cyberwarfare operative is a bit fruitcake barmy don't you think? W C M _email 17:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You know we've discussed wikihounding regarding Langus previously, don't you think its a tad obsessive that he has followed my contributions so slavishly that he found a comment in a talk page on an obscure topic on a completely different wikipedia. W C M _email 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been known to look into some editors' contributions on other Wikis to see if there's a pattern (especially in cases where people have been blocked/banned from here, but continued the disruption on Wikis with lower standards or weaker enforcement mechanisms). But I wouldn't raise them at ANI without a very good reason for doing so, which obviously wasn't the case here. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Swords for your great work on Operation Goodwood (naval), Peter Raw, and Battle of Labuan. Well done! Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Nick-D ( talk) 01:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

On 9 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kaname Harada, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Japanese World War II flying ace Kaname Harada has been an anti-war activist since 1991? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kaname Harada. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Gday Nick. Recently I came across Draft:Queensland University Active Citizens Air Force Squadron. I've been attempting to assist a new / inexperienced editor with getting this one up to standard, and in the process I came to realize that the editor that submitted it hasn't had much luck with the system to date (the draft has bounced around since 2013). There are of cse quite a number of issues with the article which I will try and work through but I was wondering if you might assist in another way. Specifically the editor's username is "QUSRAAFCAF" which is contrary to our username guidelines. He was blocked a little while ago as a result and has now submitted a request to change his username - here: Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple - so that he can continue to work on the article. Unfortunately there isn't much detail in the renaming request he submitted so I'm just a little concerned that a volunteer that comes across his request without some background knowledge might not understand what he requires and decline. As an Admin are you able to action such requests? If so would it be possible to ask you to have a look at his request and if you agree that its all above board make the required change for him? The background can be found at User talk:QUSRAAFCAF. Unfortunately its a bit of a saga and I was hoping to try to not chase off a new user that might be able to contribute something of value (he has also contributed some interesting images to Commons which I hope are legit...). Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like their user name change has been actioned. I don't think that admins can change user names; I think that only bureaucrats and similar have the necessary user rights. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Nick. Yes I think its sorted now, I was perhaps unduly concerned. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all. Strange things can happen with even routine requests, so it's well worth providing new editors with assistance in managing their way through Wikipedia's processes. Nick-D ( talk) 01:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. This one might interest you - User talk:AWMOfficialRecords. I seem to recall a little while back you were involved in a project to engage with the AWM, was that right? I wonder if this might be a useful lead. Of cse I understand why the account was block (i.e. due to our username policy) but I wonder if this bloke might be salvaged as a contributor somehow? Anyway just thought I'd mention it to you whilst I was here. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I might ping the email address they postd this weekend. By my reading of their talk page, they could edit in their "official" capacity if they created one or more non-shared accounts and identified that they worked at the AWM where necessary to meet WP:COI. However, the rules around public servants engaging online might rule this out at their end depending on what the AWM's internal internet use and communications policies are. Nick-D ( talk) 23:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) It seems a shame to me to stop them contributing over the rule regarding organisational accounts when they have all the original information and seem to want to help out. Nick's proposal seems reasonable to me and I would hope the AWM goes for it. I'm sorry to see that, judging from the talk page linked to above, the curator seems to have been rather put off contributing. —   Cliftonian  (talk)  00:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the rule against organisational accounts does cause problems in situations like this. As I understand it, it's required by the legal policies which underpin Wikipedia (as edits have to be attributable and "owned" by a particular person) and also prevents organisations intimidating other editors (inadvertently or by design). However, it goes against the ethos of institutions like archives, libraries and museums where all the staff work to share materials for other people to use, and don't consider it appropriate to attribute such actions to just themselves: I've seen this kind of issue occur a few times now. Nick-D ( talk) 01:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I just sent this account an email explaining the above, and providing the name of the person I and a couple of others had been in contact with at the AWM (who was very helpful) Nick-D ( talk) 01:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts Nick. He sounds to me like he could be an real asset to the project if we can assist him to get involved and to navigate our bureaucracy / policies. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. —   Cliftonian  (talk)  02:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please join in with an opinion regarding a new edit conflict. Cheers, and have a nice weekend, Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 12:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Gday Nick. In my enthusiasm last week I created Queensland University Squadron as a redirect to RAAF University Squadrons. Unfortunately (for me) I'm now of the opinion that Draft:Queensland University Active Citizens Air Force Squadron is now ready to be moved in to mainspace but I can't move it over the redirect. I've requested deletion of the redirect but I'm not having any luck with getting someone to blow it away. Just wondering if you had the time to have a look at my request and action if you agree with my assertion that it is non-controversial. Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Hey AC, I've deleted the redirect and moved the draft article to Queensland University Active Citizens Air Force Squadron. If you'd like it at the shorter title, feel free to move it again. Best, Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 13:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Gday Ed. Thank you very much for your assistance. Nick - pls disregard this is sorted now. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also from me Ed Nick-D ( talk) 08:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This this article deserves a bit of watching. As the last talkpage note said, too much about unreadable sections of the army, and equipment, and not enough about its history, human rights abuses etc. Please keep an eye, because the equipment fanboy division will be back pretty quickly, I very much guess... Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes out. Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, any chance you could protect the above article which is under attack at the moment? Regards Denisarona ( talk) 11:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Denisarona ( talk) 11:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. You are massively in breach of WP:3RR here though, and I seriously considered also blocking you for this. Please use the article talk page and WP:AN3 rather than edit warring. Nick-D ( talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't consider that I was edit warring, having advised the IPs to use the article's talk page to resolve any problems that they had with the existing content. I also considered that what I was doing was protecting the article (using my obviously mistaken interpretation of WP:3RRNO). Until very recently I spent most of my time on Wikipedia counteracting vandalism. But in the last 2 months comments from a (now retired) admin and now you have convinced me to re-consider my participation in this wonderful project. Thank you. Denisarona ( talk) 12:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that the IP editor's changes constituted the clear vandalism which criterion 4 of WP:3RRNO specifies. I hope that you keep editing. Reports of edit warring lodged at WP:AN3 (especially very clear edit warring as was the case here), generally receive a quick response if you see something like this again. Nick-D ( talk) 12:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You recently deleted an article for a food industry executive (Thomas F. Olin, Jr.) on the basis that the person was not notable. Apparently, we are getting mixed signals here, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink have been soliciting articles regarding chief/top executives of large national food corporations. Is it possible that you are not aware of this or perhaps there is a certain threshold of corporate size that 'qualifies' the company or the person for an article? Archway Cookies was the third largest cookie company in the United States, with retail brand sales exceeding $300,000,000 per year. Please compare to similar executive article listings: James Jenness-Kellog, John A. Bryant, Paul C. P. McIlhenny-Tobasco sauce. C. Joseph Genster-Diet drinks. John F. Grundhofer-BJs Restaurants, Michael W. Rice-Utz Foods, Thomas A. Garrett-Arbys, Sally J. Smith-Buffalo Wild Wings, Edmund A. Gann-Seafood, James B. Adamson, Dan Bane-Trader Joes, Lee Bickmore-Nabisco, Salli Setta-Red Lobster, Bernard D. Rubin-Tootsie Roll, Robert Holland (executive)-Ben & Jerry's ... and many other executives of varying importance and notoriety ... /info/en/?search=Category:American_chief_executives_of_food_industry_companies

Who are you referring to by "we"? This article didn't include anything which constituted a claim of notability, or references which looked at all likely to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D ( talk) 22:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The 'mixed signals' statement could have been couched in the third-person, I guess. I think that Wikiproject-Food was making the assertion that Chief Executive Officers of the largest food corporations in America are by their very nature, notable. If you perused the articles from the Wikipedia list of 'American Chief Executives of Food Industry Companies', their notability consists of the highest position they held (in most cases Chairman or CEO), the size of the company they managed, and perhaps the college they attended. There seems to be a disparity between the standards for these executives who already have established Wikipedia articles and the subject of this discussion. It appears that such a deletion decision is ad-hoc, potentially capricious, and is dependent on the personal opinion of a particular editor. In the case of Mr. Olin, his notability includes restructuring and doubling the size of the business in nine years, and building the third-largest cookie company in the United States (behind Nabisco and Keebler ... and outperforming Pepperidge Farm, Sunshine, Mothers, Stella-Doro, Little Debbie, etc.) as well as driving brand sales to more than a third of billion dollars annually. This performance certainly meets that of the majority of those executives with Wikipedia bios. The question is, then, how do we move this forward according to standards previously and consistently used for other CEOs and avoid editor arbitrariness? Thanks. FMIArchive ( talk) 00:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Can you please refer me to the relevant part of Wikiproject food? Also, who are you referring to with "we"? In regards to the article, please consult WP:BIO: it's not enough to assert that someone is important as Wikipedia's inclusion standards for people ultimately boil down to the availability of detailed coverage of them as a person. Nick-D ( talk) 01:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term 'we' was to assert that there were mixed signals between you and me, regarding the definition and interpretation of notability. It is clear that a person can be considered 'notable' by Wikipedia merely by being associated with a larger organization. Every NFL player who ever existed has a Wikipedia article (1,493 Green Bay Packers alone), even those who never played in a single NFL game (for example: Tony F. Elliott). They are considered notable for no other reason than they were on a team. Same for MLB baseball (three examples: Tim Lahey, Michael Antonini and Fred Van Dusen). Since there are many, many anonymous athletes who qualify for Wikipedia articles simply because they played (or not) on a particular sports team, notability takes on another context altogether, doesn't it? And why only sports? Can you explain this apparent double-standard with WP:BIO when it applies to Chief Executives of the largest and most elite corporations/brands in the country? Whether you know their names or not? Have they not also achieved the most elite status within their given industries? Not only are they notable for building brands that have become household names, but I would submit to you that their individual achievements are/were highly significant and impactful, not only within their given organization, but also to the public at large. Certainly more than an athlete who never played a game. Thus, based on this interpretation of notability, and the belief that notability standards should be applied evenly throughout all of Wikipedia, a top executive of a major national brand company should certainly qualify as notable.

More specifically, and pertaining to this particular article, I provided you with a list of hundreds of similar existing Wikipedia articles of corporate CEO-peers, with virtually identical background descriptions as the subject, and you have not been able to articulate why they qualified while this one does not. You mention lack of 'detailed coverage' of the subject. Of the dozen-plus references provided within the article, no less than six of them specifically featured (and/or profiled) the subject, including several trade journals, and newspapers (i.e. Battle Creek Enquirer, Ashland Times Gazette, Columbus Dispatch, Associated Press). At the same time, several of the hundreds of business executives with existing Wikipedia articles (link above, including those I listed earlier) have far fewer references (none in many cases). Why are WP:BIO standards not evenly applied in this case? Nick, maybe it might make sense to involve others who may be able to assist? Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink? FMIArchive ( talk) 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the reliable sources cited in User:FMIArchive/sandbox/Thomas F. Olin, Jr., only the first appears to be focused on Mr Olin (the articles and videos by him aren't useful for establishing notability). As for the comparisons you note, Wikipedia has lots of poor quality articles so unfortunately it can be misleading to compare prospective new articles with existing ones (please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the consensus view on this kind of thing). Nick-D ( talk) 10:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As you have stated above, you acknowledge that you have unilaterally decided to hold this article to a higher standard than other, virtually identical, articles that have been accepted by Wikipedia. If certain articles meet Wikipedia's standards while they do not seemingly meet your own, is it possible that your ideals, as you interpret them, are not consensus-driven? It may be possible that you generally do not think that businesspeople, such as this subject, are (or should be) notable, as you personally view it. However, there may be other editors more directly involved in the topic than you are, who may believe otherwise. This is why I have requested third-party involvement.

Based on your comments regarding references, I have reviewed them again. At the outset, lets at least agree that this article has far more references than the majority of those articles listed in the Wikipedia "American Chief Executives of Food Industry Companies" index. You probably have not read this article's references, so it would be difficult for you to know that references #1 and #2 are both specific to Mr. Olin. Reference #3 is a video presentation of Mr. Olin, speaking at the company's annual meeting and outlining his rationale and strategies for restructuring the corporation (essentially what enabled the company to double is size during his tenure; to more than $300,000,000 annually and establishing Archway as one of the largest cookie brands in the world) ... by the way, Wikipedia is rife with virtually millions of references presenting a person's own work on their own bio page, either in written, photographic or video form and it is frequently used to help establish that person's notability - everybody from Albert Einstein to Donald Trump to Barack Obama to Andrew Carnegie. Reference #4 is a newspaper interview discussing the company's performance as well as another profile of Mr. Olin. The next several references provide credible evidence of the results achieved by Mr. Olin during his tenure (including an Associated Press report and interview); this is often provided in good Wikipedia business bios to substantiate individual claims. Reference "Fat Free Fervor" contains both an interview and more profile information on Mr. Olin. The remaining references are 'fact-check' resources to corroborate personal activities (i.e. publications, board involvement, etc).

Would it be wise to present this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink to ascertain what the standards are for CEO listings and whether this proposed listing, or some form of it, conforms to them? Wouldn't this be the best way assure that we have a consensus and resolve this to everyone's satisfaction? Thanks. FMIArchive ( talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles aren't "accepted" on Wikipedia: this is a user-driven " Web 2.0" website, and stuff gets added without much oversight. Sometimes material which doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is spotted and deleted, and sometimes it isn't, so don't read anything into what is and isn't existent without considering the underlying policies ( WP:BIO here). Also, attempting to lecture me about Wikipedia's notability criteria when you obviously haven't actually read WP:BIO (otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that primary sources can be used to meet it) is impolite. If you'd like to raise this elsewhere, by all means do so. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:BIO policies and understand the position on primary sourcing. Nevertheless, primary sources are ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia. If a person has written an autobiography, it is almost certain to be included in Wikipedia references in his/her bio article. The same holds true for primary photographic/video sources as well. In the case of Mr. Olin, this is irrelevant because the majority of references are not from primary sources, but trade journals and newspapers. I did not attempt to lecture you in our discussion, but tried to make a logical case for inclusion. The objective was not to offend but to share with you how notability seems to be viewed in the context of large /major brand companies and their top executives. There are obviously distinct differences between your interpretation of this and others, as evidenced not only by the examples I provided, but the thousands of business executive bios that exist already within Wikipedia. It seems that in your opinion, virtually none of them should qualify as notable, and that somehow the majority of them slid through the cracks. As far as I understand it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink was established to help Wikipedia provide a more informative and comprehensive reference database on the subject of food and drink. Part of that ongoing effort is to include reference articles relating to important contemporary food brands, their companies, and the executives who shaped them. These executives are notable. They have created food and beverage brands that are part of our everyday lives. I understand that Wikipedia could potentially be abused by those attempting to use it as an online "Who's Who", and, Nick, I think that is where your concerns lie. A line should probably be drawn somewhere. But if Wikipedia can accommodate bios for all 1,439 Green Bay Packers (many of whom played only a game or two) then Wikipedia can certainly accommodate bios for the top executives of the largest food brands in the U.S. and/or the world.

In the case of Mr. Olin, he was a Co-Chief Executive Officer and President of one of the top three cookie brands (Archway Cookies) in the United States and manufacturer of the number one volume Oatmeal and Holiday cookie brands in the world. During his tenure with the company, he doubled brand sales and market share, and he increased retail brand sales to nearly a third of a billion dollars annually. This has been corroborated by third-party industry journals, as well as worldwide media. As I had provided previously, take the time to compare this with this list of existing Wikipedia food executive bios. /info/en/?search=Category:American_chief_executives_of_food_industry_companies

We both now seem to agree that this needs to move to another venue. I will send our discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and solicit their advice. Thanks. FMIArchive ( talk) 15:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick, not sure if you remember this discussion some years ago, which you contributed to. I've been slowly consolidating 'Military facilities' and 'Military bases' across a whole range of the subcategories. Now there is an opposed move of about three of the subcategories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Opposed_nominations. Would you kindly consider giving your views there? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Nick, could you do me a favour and move User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6 to Kinsella v. Krueger, a redirect, and delete User talk:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6. The move template says to do it myself, but I cannot. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, happy to do so, and I just made that change. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 12:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

( tps) Nick, you didn't delete their sandbox as requested. I think that was the point of asking an admin to do the move. Hawkeye7 could have moved it themselves, if they didn't mind leaving the empty sandbox with a redirect behind. @ Hawkeye7: please use WP:RM#TR next time; I'll add that to the message. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Hawkeye7 could also have needed assistance if the redirect page that was to be moved over was protected. Was that the case here? Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It was not protected; I cannot move a page from my user space over an existing redirect. It looks like Template:Db-move was required; but is is far from clear as to whether the admin processing it would actually move the page. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have issued as CSD7 on the talk page. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058: the admin tools were needed here as it was a move being made over a redirect. I missed the request to delete the user page as I was about the knock off for the evening. I imagine that Hawkeye asked me to do this as he'd seen me editing shortly before and I could quickly handle it. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I was just trying to understand the problem as Hawkeye had an issue with a template error message that I support. I'll assume that the issue was that this was a redirect which had been edited, as unedited redirects can be moved over by non-admins. The distinctions here are so subtle, and easy to overlook. Wbm1058 ( talk) 11:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that move! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries - happy to have been of assistance Nick-D ( talk) 10:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B explained the situation in the article of Adolf Hitler very clearly, taking out the "Austrian-born" from the sentence was probably pointless from the start, I apologize for the inconvenience. ( N0n3up ( talk) 15:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

Gday Nick. Would it be possible to request semi-protection for Landing at Anzac Cove pls? I've asked the IP that is making changes to discuss on the talkpage on a couple of occasions but haven't had any luck so far. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 06:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm WP:INVOLVED here given that I commented on this Nick-D ( talk) 10:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ack - yes fair point. No worries, I'll make a formal request. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gday again. Sorry in advance for the long post. As you have probably seen there have been a number of very similar edits made to the Battle of Singapore article that follow the line of highlighting reports of the poor performance of Australian forces during this battle (alleged or otherwise). Of course the information may be legitimate (even if I would say it is probably undue weight to include it in such detail and without probably historical analysis and comment, while the sources are also not of the highest quality and the referencing is of poor quality). Regardless, I think there may be some cause for concern here as it could be the work of one or a number of sock puppets. Without going in depth I think there is some evidence to support this concern (and more could be found if req’d).

Firstly, consider the IP recently making the edits at Battle of Singapore - User:121.44.135.48. According to Geolocate [33] this belongs to iiNet Limited and is located in Sydney, New South Wales. Now consider an IP that has recently been editing at Operation Compass - User:121.44.136.27. According to Geolocate [34] this also belongs to iiNet Limited and is located in Sydney, New South Wales. An established editor, User:100menonmars, recently admitted to being IP 121.44.136.27 here (they forgot to logon apparently), so given that the IPs are clearly the same person I'd say it is 100menonmars editing the Battle of Singapore article whilst logged out (at the least they have forgotten to log in again or for some reason it seems they do not want their identity to be known whilst making these edits).

Secondly, I am concerned that there may also be a connection between User:TimSala (who also recently made edits to Battle of Singapore) and User:100menonmars (who has apparently never edited the article - expect probably as an IP). Neither seem to have edited the same article (recently at least that I could see); however, one similarity I have noticed is that both have used a similar citation method on occasion (specifically being the inclusion of a question mark (?) next to a missing page number, presumably the result of a Google Book preview. Consider here [35] for User:100menonmars at Operation Compass and here [36] for User:TimSala at Battle of Singapore. This doesn’t seem like it is likely to be coincidental (and I’m fairly sure I can dig up other examples). At the very least it may be cause for a Check User.

Further to this the contributions of User:TimSala and IP User:121.44.135.48 are also similar in places, suggesting a connection between them, and reinforcing the possibility of a connection between User:100menonmars and User:TimSala by association. Consider TimSala inserted information about the defeatist attitude of Maxwell here [37], the two days later IP 121.44.135.48 makes this edit [38] with the edit summary “More on defeatist attitude of Maxwell.” Whilst it is possible that this is a coincidence, or a case of one editor’s work inspiring that of another to expand etc, I am dubious given the other similarities.

Lastly, my suspicion extends to User:Makesenseofit, who has also made edits to Battle of Singapore recently. Interestingly TimSala inserted the same SMH ref to a Peter Stanley article at Battle of Muar here [39] as Makesenseofit did at Battle of Singapore here [40]. Again possibility a case of one editor inspiring another but I doubt it.

Indeed these accounts, the IPs, 100menonmars, TimSala, and Makesenseofit seem to edit in some similar areas: for instance Battle of Greece, Battle of Singapore, Battle of Crete, Battle of Muar and a number of other North African campaign articles (although not so much TimSala admittedly) and they all seem to include similar information (i.e. to do with Australian military history, but more specifically information that might be seen to either be critical of the performance of Australian forces, or at least highlighting losses / failures). There is of cse some value in this, but I'd be very surprised if the isn't a connection between some or all of these accounts. TimSala has been around the longest (since Oct 10); however, pretty much stopped editing in 2013 and only resumed again in Apr 15, while 100menonmars and Makesenseofit were created in May 14 and Mar 15 respectively.

The pro Italian aspect to some of 100menonmars' edits at Greco-Italian War (and their temporary block in Feb 15) leads me to hold suspicions of possible connections to other editors working / disrupting work in that field but I really have no evidence of that at all (on taking a closer look some of the correspondence 100menonmars' talk page suggests they seem to be in contact by email so it is probably just a genuine shared interest there rather than the same editor – might be best to chalk this last one up to my natural over-suspicion). Anyway I’m interested in your take of my reasoning, and whether this should be pursued (and if so how) as I don't want to sling mud needlessly. I'm also fairly sick of WikiDrama but I'm concerned about possible motives here so I feel compelled to at least mention it. Thoughts? Anotherclown ( talk) 11:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Another similarity b/n 100menonmars and IP 121.44.135.48 (to draw the connect further) is in the inclusion of quotes within references. Pls see 100menonmars doing it here [41] at Operation Compass and IP 121.44.135.48 doing it here [42] at Battle of Singapore. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Anotherclown Ah glad you noticed that too. Didnt figure the poss SP angle but the edits seemed POV and lacking in WP:DUE to me. Sources didn't seem that stunning either. I dropped a note on the Milhist board about it early this am. Cheers all Irondome ( talk) 19:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I'd usually be happy to look into this, but I'm a bit unwell so I don't think I'll get up to it. It might be best to lodge a report at WP:SPI. I agree that these patterns of edits (which I've been seeing on my watchlist) look a bit odd, especially when considered together and taking the IPs into account. That said, the historiography on the 8th Division in Malaya and Singapore has been evolving over the last 10 years, so that should also be taken into consideration. Nick-D ( talk) 01:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunno really lads. The latest edits are beginning to make 8th Div sound worse than Yamashita's mob :/ Irondome ( talk) 01:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I have started an SPI here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimSala. I've only had limited involvement in this area so hopefully I haven't muffed it. P.S. Nick sorry to here you are unwell, all the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. A couple more at Battle of Ia Drang - User:113.190.46.130 and User:113.190.46.114. One was previously blocked but the block expired. Also another at Massacre at Huế - User:113.22.115.149. Would you pls be able to have a look at some point? The disruption seems low level and has so far mostly been detected and reverted so its not urgent at this stage. Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked those IPs. It might be worth tracking them somewhere to see if a range block is possible (though another admin would need to implement this as I'm not sure how they work exactly, and I'm terrified that I could cut a country off from Wikipedia or something!): I have a couple of tracking projects at User:Nick-D/sandbox as examples. Nick-D ( talk) 01:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance here - yes I'll get started on tracking these. Ack your concerns re the range block and cutting off an entire country (that would of cse be less than ideal and one imagines would result in considerable blowback...) Anotherclown ( talk) 12:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think the category on countries in the Southern Hemisphere is not very useful? I think it is very useful in geography. Thebuck093 ( talk) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D. Thanks for all the work you to do keep Wikipedia such an amazing community. I contributed to the CourseHorse page that looks like you deleted 2.25.15 (G11; unambiguous promotion). Intent here was not to be promotional and would like to help fit within guidelines. Could you please help me understand what changes would be needed to be made to make compliant? Thank you! -- Emf1111 ( talk) 20:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The article was written as an ad for this website, with all wording having a promotional tone. If you want to redevelop the article, please reflect on the fact that this is an encyclopaedia and articles should be written in a dispassionate way. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D

I need your urgent opinion on the recent talk entries: I will remove Bias / Opinion could you please jump in?

Myself, I've an overcoming feeling that such approach, is a bad way to try improve the article. It seems that User: Pensiveneko is engaging in multiple sites, with the commonly tenor to remove all the paragraphs and sentence who might not fit his POV in less than one week; See: 1, 2, 3.

Also Pensiveneko is name-calling serious and reputable publications of scholars into an inappropriate magnitude. Such behavior is unacceptable. Please have a look. Thank you. LikePancakes ( talk) 13:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I agree with you. Nick-D ( talk) 10:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'd really appreciate that. I hope some more fellows going to leave their sentiment and opinion. Bon voyage! Regards LikePancakes ( talk) 11:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You might want to also invite other editors to join the discussion via a post at WT:MILHIST. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your very generous assistance, I have filled a request on that site. Regards LikePancakes ( talk) 13:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D, I wanted to inform you that I've created an account and going to replace the ip-sign. Regards, Ben. LikePancakes ( talk) 14:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		For completing 8 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 09:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks a lot Nick-D ( talk) 04:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Dr. Stephen Bilbrey, DVM? You recently blocked its creator, DCL2015 ( talk · contribs · logs), after s/he created promotional bios on three other non-notable veterinarians from the same group. This last one is equally promotional, equally non-notable, and a total copyvio of the single cited source to boot. I would tag it for speedy, and/or blank it and tag it as copyvio, but it's already at AFD...and...my brain hurts. Maralia ( talk) 04:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maralia, I missed that's a copyvio (I'd not deleted this one only as it was at AfD). I've just deleted it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 05:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're probably already aware but the editor at Australia has a disturbingly high percentage of edits marked as minor (63.75%). He definitely needs "coaching" in what is a minor edit and what isn't. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point: I left a (templated) note about this on their talk page which hopefully they pay attention to. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

[43] IP editor insists on adding what I presume is his own website. Is that an exception from a 1RR limitation? W C M _email 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would be. Even reverting blatant vandalism could be seen as problematic given that some editors take a "bright line" view of 1RR. I see that the link has since been removed [44]. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Tomandjerry211 ( Let's have a chat) 23:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my inserting the Miller/Commager reference without putting any text in. I meant to do it earlier; I'll do it now.

GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D ( talk) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've penned a reply. I'd take a wait and see approach at the moment; if annals school does not reply in a way that suggests an openness to work with others then I would forward the matter to arbcom to ensure that the editor, the articles, and the subject material are all dealt with simultaneously. In this manner, any future attempt to deal with the articles without regards for the policies and guidelines here will result on immediate sanctions against the editor and protection for the articles. This will also demonstrate good faith by tossing a life line to or wayward editor, at which point he can either reel himself back from the abyss or hang himself with the rope. Since it will be his choice, it should spare us any longer term issue with editor resentment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for cleaning up my idiotic spelling errors. My brain isn't fully awake yet. Facepalm It seems the talk page from Talk:City of Canberra (Boeing 747-400) got lost somewhere in the move fiasco, because Talk:City of Canberra (aircraft) is blank. Could you find it? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, it looks like I accidentally deleted Talk:City of Canberra (aircraft) as part of tidying up. Fixed! One of the good things about having admin tools is that you can quickly hide the evidence of things like this - I've moved articles to strangely spelt names on a few occasions :) Nick-D ( talk) 11:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. After the goofs I made, I'm certainly not going to criticize your mistake! - BilCat ( talk) 11:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr.,

I had posted last month a comment about the 80th Infantry... I think that it was misunderstood and you answered in a very offensive way... I chose not to answer you but I found a work that can explain more what I am talking about... See 80th Division (United States) and you will understand what I had exactly meant... I think that the 80th Infantry Division of the United States has quite the same function as the 80th Infantry Division of the United Kingdom... However, you had not developed your work as the one for the US 80th Infantry Division... I advise you not to underestimate people and accept critics next time... If you could understand what a person says to you, do not offense him... However, I invite you to work more until you develop all works about UK Infantry Divisions...-- Csisc ( talk) 15:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? If you had actually made any real suggestions Nick would happily have engaged with you. For you to talk down to him like this is absolutely ridiculous. —   Cliftonian  (talk)  16:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian: I had advised him to give a list of honours received by the 80th Division and a list of famous heroes of the 80th Division like shown for the work about US 80th Infantry Division when the awards were cited as Awards: Medal of Honor-4; Distinguished Service Cross (United States)-34; Distinguished Service Medal (United States)-1; Silver Star-771; LM-12; DFC-5; SM-35; BSM-3,869, AM-123... I advised him to give an overview about the materials used by the division during the war like in Helmet insignias for the work about US 80th Infantry Division and this is quite missing in his work about 80th Infantry... I advised him to give a better overview about the origins of men involved in the division like in History and Units in the US work. However, I received violent answers. But, this is not a problem particularly for me... If you want it, I will be happy to join your project and help adjusting your works about Infantry Divisions... -- Csisc ( talk) 17:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that your comments were generally not at all relevant to the article, which is about a training unit which never left the UK or saw any combat and whose soldiers generally had little attachment to (as they rotated in for short periods of training only before being permanently posted elsewhere). The US 80th division saw extensive combat as an infantry division before becoming a training formation, and so its history is quite different and comments such as a request for the article on the UK division to discuss "its losses within the two operations", "how this division interfere in Battles" and "the racial and regional repartition of soldiers and the number of victim soldiers and injured people from the division" were ill-informed. This indicated that you hadn't read the article, which is extremely poor form for a peer review, especially as you then chalked it up as a point for yourself in the Wikicup. From the above, it appears that you still haven't bothered to read the article. Nick-D ( talk) 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If the 80th Infantry Division had not left UK, this does not mean that it has not participated to any combat... The Division can participate in combats in the UK (Operation Overload was held in France)... Seeing all the work, the 80th Infantry Division participated to two operations which are Operation Bodyguard and the protection of Bowerham Barracks, Lancaster, Lancashire and Shropshire... I think that the 80th Infantry Division could get injuries in such operations although they are considered as minor actions... The order of battles proves that the division had faced The Korps several times... As for the work about Divisional History, the work had more interest to what other divisions had done during the World War and not exactly for what 80th Division had faced... As for the constitution of the Division, minor information are given about how the division had been created and how the Army gathered people to form the Division (During the Second World War, the divisions of the British Army were divided between "Higher Establishment" and "Lower Establishment" formations. The former were intended for deployment overseas and combat, whereas the latter were strictly for home defence in a static role. During the winter of 1942–43, three infantry divisions were placed on the "Lower Establishment" and renamed "Reserve Divisions". On 1 January 1943, these three were supplemented by the raising of a new reserve division, the 80th Infantry, placed under the command of Major-General L. H. Cox. The four reserve divisions were used as training units.... This can be found for the work about US 80th Division)... I recognize that the US 80th Division had been more cited and described and worked more than the UK 80th Division. But, this does not mean that the work about the 80th Division cannot be ameliorated... However, I am sorry for not being clear... It will cite parts from the PR works in the next peer reviews to explain all facts so that the comments would be more efficient... -- Csisc ( talk) 09:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The 80th Division did not participate in any combat, as that was not its role. I don't see how an entirely fictional division which was made-up for deception purposes could suffer any injuries given that no one at all was a member of it. The article explains both things, but you seem to be unable to comprehend them. Nick-D ( talk) 09:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It was very important for me to talk with you... I know that Infantry Divisions interfere after the battles to save injured people or recuperate some important things... But, it is known in general that Infantry Divisions could face Korps Army during their limited operations... I ask if this 80th Division was prepared to be ready to participate in defensive batttles or not as the division could be attacked by the Korps during a saving operation... However, it seems to me that UK Divisions are quite different from US Divisions... I will try to learn more about UK Divisions... Thank you very much. -- Csisc ( talk) 10:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a request for help Nick, an IP editor has been making changes to the Consolidated B-24 Liberator and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress articles. They insert and change text without providing new citations and although they make an effort to communicate on the talk page, they refuse to sign edits and also comment on old threads. They appear not to understand how wikipedia works, I have reverted the recent changes they made on the articles as they are getting into a mess where the text does not relate to the current references. I would have protected the articles but could be seen as involved so I am looking for some outside eyes to have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've just protected both articles for a week to allow for dispute resolution here. Please let me know if the matter is resolved before the protection automatically expires, and I'll lift it (or this can be requested via WP:RFPP). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate your help. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick, North American B-25 Mitchell is another article this user is attempting to "improve". Could you look into protecting it also? If you could read the talk pages of these articles and Michael's talk page, both the top and bottom of the pages, it might be enlightening. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bill, There isn't any edit warring, etc, going on in the article or all that much discussion on the talk page, so there aren't grounds to protect it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Any recommendations on steps to take in dealing with this user? Michael has tried talking with him, but the IP has resorted to personal attacks, and is a very bad case of "I didn't hear that". Could you recommend an uninvolved MILHIST editor who might be able to try to mentor the user? He seems to be an older man quite set in his ways, and we just aren't reaching him. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, and will follow up either later today or over the weekend. I think that there might be a bit of scope for more patience on both sides of the argument though to be honest. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't ignoring you as an option, but wasn't trying to volunteer you either. I just wasn't sure if he'd view you as a neutral at this point or not. Good luck, and hopefully you can help him. Thanks again. - BilCat ( talk) 08:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It's probably easiest if I follow up given that I'm at least partially familiar with the situation. And it will help me earn a large admin bonus this year! Nick-D ( talk) 08:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Anything you can do Nick would be appreciated, as you know I stopped trying to talk to this guy as he just will not listen but I think the level of personal attack like this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:North_American_B-25_Mitchell&oldid=663710050 is probably actionable, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, Consolidated B-24 Liberator and North American B-25 Mitchell articles, the recent revisions were at first being treated as legitimate AGF edits. I initially tried to correct grammar and spelling but noted that wholesale changes were being made that tended to challenge authoritative and long-standing reference sources. The edit commentary at times referred to out-of-date or inaccurate references being "corrected". After awhile, I noticed that major changes were not accompanied by verifiable sources and the persistent use of poorly written, grammatically incorrect submissions were rife with minor spelling errors, an indication that the editor may not be a native English speaker. All this aside, on the appropriate talk pages, bouts of "wiki-lawyering" and a series of combative and hostile assertions that the editors revising the latest submissions were vandals, was even more troubling. Does this type of activity warrant some other type of intervention, as I see that the articles have had some protection applied? FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bzuk, I'm looking into it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The North American B-25 Mitchell article was left unprotected and it appears to be the only place where the disruptive edits continue. I really don't care about the content edits, except that most of the time the writing needs attention, it's the comments on the talk page that really are a concern. I'm done with trying to help here. Adding polite expressions of don't be "incivil" make no difference. An admin needs to look at this type of behaviour. 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just posted a final warning to the editor. The child molester comment is about as unacceptable as you get. Nick-D ( talk) 09:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it may help. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 11:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to the Ip-hopping and using new user ids to continue to restore sections that have been challenged. Ignoring the call to go to talk is also continuing. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See Boeing B-29 Superfortress. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've protected it as well. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 04:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This MOD is now extending to the North American P-51 Mustang. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Only briefly so far, thankfully. I've watchlisted the article Nick-D ( talk) 23:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different, yet the same: Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express. Note the mess he's made of formatting in the Lead section. - BilCat ( talk) 23:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the C-87 article, the IP was giving the choice (refer my talk page) to co-operate and stop being disruptive and end personal attacks. They then made a personal attack against User:Nigel Ish. If they were a user or stable IP they would have been blocked for this behaviour but that is difficult to do for a hopper. As the user clearly not here to build an encyclopedia I am closing and archiving all discussions started by the IP. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It looks like this guy doesn't get a new IP everytime they log on, so I'm going to start blocking their IPs. Nick-D ( talk) 11:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks it did look like the IP was changing daily but they have had the same one now for a few days. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I have been retained by The Writers for Hire to once again attempt to write an article about the above person for Wikipedia. (Articles about him have been deleted twice.) Before I took the contract, I looked at the sources about him, and I found that he may indeed be "significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." I don't know the exact failings of the previous two articles, but I'm looking at one or two sources in which he has been interviewed in depth by a neutral reporter and also some multiple independent sources concerning him in combination. I will not use any refs that are not on target. I'm thinking the piece will be short, but in my opinion the fellow is Notable: He's founded a process in bodybuilding that has gained independent attention that doesn't rely on press releases. I'd like you to unsalt the old article so I can look at it, and then I'd like to go ahead and write up a new version for vetting, comments and assistance away from Article space. I hope you can respond favorably. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 04:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't provide any assistance at all to paid editors as a matter of principle, and creating an article for pay is a violation of WP:NOPAY. I note that you have violated this already with the Fletchers Solicitors article (though you did declare your COI). You should stop this practice immediately. Nick-D ( talk) 08:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That link took me to a WP:Guideline, which is not WP:Policy. There is really nothing to "violate" because one cannot violate something that is simply a guide. But I think you have already made up your mind, so I won't bother you further. I was just giving you a chance to help improve the encyclopedia with what, to me, looks like an acceptable article. One would not know, of course, unless one actually looks at the finished piece. As for Fletchers Solicitors, I am not sure what that firm of English lawyers has to do with an American bodybuilder. In puzzlement, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you object to my beginning an article at this draft page? Yours, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you really are that ill-informed about the community's attitude towards paid editing (to the extent of dismissing the deletion of your previous venture by trying to play word games), you really shouldn't be engaging in it. Nick-D ( talk) 07:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "previous venture" you are talking about. Anyway, my note above was in response to this notice: "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator . . . ." I believe the content will be similar, but I am unsure because I can't examine the previously deleted pages. Anyway, I have fulfilled my duty with this thread. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So, you don't want to take credit for the spam article on Fletchers Solicitors you created on 24 April for pay (as you declared on the talk page on 2 May)? Classy. Nick-D ( talk) 08:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Berardi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 00:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Re this:

1. Since they've included Bougainville as part of the New Guinea campaign, and the Fiji Battalion served there, shouldn't Fiji be listed?
2. Didn't HMS Newfoundland participate in the Aitape-Wewak campaign?

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been reverted. I thought that Bougainville is generally considered part of the Solomon Islands Campaign (which is how US histories treat it)? Regarding the UK, I'm not sure that that the involvement of a handful of UK warships ( HMS Ariadne (M65) was also involved) really warrants listing the country in the infobox. But edit warring and arguing over infoboxes really bugs me, so no dramas. Nick-D ( talk) 08:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why I didn't revert. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 11:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For this. I know I'm about 32 months late, but I really appreciate the thought. Best, EyeSerene ^talk 20:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It was very well deserved :) Nick-D ( talk) 08:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No email has come through. I presume that you're referring to my speedy deletion of the El Hasswa Group article you created though? I deleted it as the article didn't include any claims of notability or references which demonstrated notability, and so didn't meet the relevant notability criteria WP:CORP. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick,

Spotted this today, do you remember Alex79818, the guy with a load of sleeper accounts. He created loads, made a few edits, then come back and start a campaign of disruption on Falklands topics using them (a number he created more than 2 years ahead of time). This contribution profile seems vaguely familiar [45]. W C M _email 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that account is being used for garden variety copyright violations (which I'll leave to the admins who know more about this than I do - I have no idea if currency can be copyrighted anywhere, and whether the Argentine government asserts copyright over its currency if this is possible), but I don't see anything else that's problematic? Nick-D ( talk) 23:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You may remember the disruptive and POVpushing editor that I've encountered on Somali topics, Middayexpress. He's continuing his POVpushing in all sorts of places, and I'm really exasperated. There's lots of evidence about what he does - talkpages full of it. Could I just simply block him? You may remember the RfC was indecisive, but the other alternative is Arbcom. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that you'd be WP:INVOLVED, as am I. An ANI post concisely setting out the disruption might do the trick (and, despite ANI's many flaws, is guaranteed to be a less awful experiance than ArbCom). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Now re-reading the definition of involved, I agree with you. I will try AN/I. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - BilCat ( talk) 09:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Thank you for your helpful comments at the JC's Girls FAC. I have altered the article accordingly and have responded in the discussion. If I have not addressed your concerns to your satisfaction, I would be glad to engage with any further comments you are willing to provide.

Neelix ( talk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

AC Sentinel

No worries mate. I want to put the images up of the dual 25 pounder howitzers and the 2 images I found of the AC4 from queensland up. I was contemplating the repurposed images of the chassis but I'll have a think about it. I suspect there are more chassis out there and possibly some full tanks in private hands. Some of the tanks were sold off and not repurposed. I pretty sure I saw one in Victoria in some private collection. RAAR Razorback ( talk) 09:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for your contributions. Nick-D ( talk) 09:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick, there is a user who is adding accused sexual offenders to city articles, as per this diff and this one. These people have no WP articles, and the only source being given is a published arrest record. This seems improper to me, but I don't know how to best handle this issue beyond removing it over and over. Any advice?

Talk page stalker, thats a clear BLP violation, I would go straight to ANI asking for the offending entries to be revdel and the articles semi-protected. Happy to help if you need it. Regards, W C M _email 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, any help would be much appreciated. - BilCat ( talk) 21:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP has struck again. I'm against 3RR if an unsympathetic admin catches me reverting again. - BilCat ( talk) 21:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

BilCat, removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WCM, Bill and Neil. As Neil notes, a lot of Wikipedia's usual rules don't apply to clear BLP violations, with there also being a presumption in favour of removing such material in borderline cases. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D: I'm suggesting here that you voluntarily cease responding to requests for any action or assistance made of you by editors whom you deem to be or whom you suspect of being WP:Paid editors. I do this on the basis that you have stated not only that "I am strongly opposed to paid editors" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nick-D&oldid=654599088#Convoy_of_Hope) but also that "I don't provide any assistance at all to paid editors as a matter of principle" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nick-D&direction=next&oldid=663202270#John_Berardi). Also I note your administrative actions and remarks at User_talk:Cecibell in which you seemed to ignore the principle of good faith with User:Cecibell and in which you made several remarks which a reasonable reader could interpret as prejudice against an editor who affirmed that she was working as a contractor for someone else, calling her articles "spammy," "blatant advertising" and "not serious attempts at developing encyclopaedic articles," even though a good share of her offerings were checked and were retained as valid for inclusion in the encyclopedia. For example: Sandra Maas, Liquid Blue and Daniel Milstein (there are others). You stated that the articles were "written in advertising speak and generally covered topics of questionable notability, so I don't intend to restore them." You also stated that the articles were "blatant spam," and it looks to me like you were referring to all of them, even those that are maintained in Wikipedia to this day, so I don't believe you actually made a reasoned decision about each and every one of them but simply rejected them all without considering each of them individually. If you did, I apologize in advance and I will withdraw my remark. There is a list of Cecibell's articles at this link, so you can check them all to see if they actually are all, as you said, "blatant spam." We all realise that the appearance of prejudicial administrative action is just as important in blackening Wikipedia's reputation as is actual prejudice itself. I seriously question your ability to be impartial in this domain, and I suspect that you will agree with me because you are a knowledgeable and longtime editor. Of course you know that there are hundreds of other WP administrators that can take over from you if you voluntarily cease any action in this sphere. I myself am a contracted editor, but I am not charging anybody for this post. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile, With all respect, given the very clear results of the DRV of the Fletchers Solicitors article you were paid to create at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 21, I don't think that you're in any position at all to tell other editors that they're misapplying WP:COI and the other relevant policies and guidelines. Quite the opposite in fact. You should reflect on the fact that there's a clear consensus that this article on what you contend to be a notable firm and written in neutral language has been judged by other editors to have been spam. You may also wish to reflect on what this experience tells you about how this kind of paid editing is regarded by the Wikipedia community, especially given your comments above dismissing WP:NOPAY as somehow not being binding. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. I am not sure how your referring to my edits has anything to do with whether or not you feel you can fairly judge articles that are written by paid editors. Can you explain? Yours, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 02:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I reckon that I have a pretty good track record in applying the policies related to WP:COI and WP:ORG in assessing speedy deletions and AfDs (for instance, my block of Cecibell was endorsed by two other admins), though as the box at the top of the page notes I have no delusions of perfection in this field or any others. I also think that you are not in a position to be telling others that they are making mistakes in this regards, and am somewhat surprised by your audacity in doing so. Nick-D ( talk) 07:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A long running issue involving User:Middayexpress may be just about coming to a culmination. Nick I'd like to ask you to visit this page and give us your thoughts. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

While the targets and victims were Japanese, the entire article is from the perspective of the American flight crews and the Americans behind the planning of it. The article even uses "United States" before "Japan" is even listed, and the word "American" appears far more than the word "Japanese." I don't want to get into an edit war, so could you please reconsider your position? The article is titled "Atomic Bombings of" which were planned, carried out, and subsequently recorded by the Americans.

When fiddling with measurements, do not attempt conversions yourself. This creates a mismatch between the text and the cited source. Use the flip parameter on the convert template {{convert|7|km|order=flip}} → 4.3 miles (7 km). Also note that in the United States Imperial measurements are not universally used. In particular, fissile material is always measured in grams, and not troy ounces as you might expect. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A notion that the atomic bombings were a primarily American affair is pretty indefensible IMO. This discussion would best be conducted on the article's talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I get a sanity check. He attacks Luis Vernet, citation bombing it, I add a load of cites. He nitpicks and tries to disqualify them, so I move them around to make 100% they apply to the sentence in question, he is now simply revert warrring to remove all the newly added cites in the guise of WP:BRD. Even for Langus this is seemingly bizarre behaviour. W C M _email 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason to be using sources which are something other than 100% reliable sources here? I'd suggest that you stick to clear-cut reliable sources, though I appreciate that the early history of the Falkland Islands is a pretty obscure topic. Nick-D ( talk) 07:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The cites he is removing are WP:RS, Cawkell and Shuttleworth. He is trying to have Cawkell judged as unreliable and just removes Shuttleworth. Other than he might not like what they have to say, there is no reason to remove either. The other site is simply a convenient reference for none controversial facts, though its loathed by Argentine nationalist who have been trying to shut it down for years with cyber attacks. W C M _email 11:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that references are treated very critically in this subject area, it seems sensible to only use clear-cut reliable sources to head off avoidable disputes. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Nick, that doesn't address the fact he is removing reliable sources by reason of criticism by speculation. Cawkell is a reliable source, his latest, oh the book must have been sponsored by the British Government, as the foreword was written by Rex Hunt, so it can't be reliable. W C M _email 19:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the website. Nick-D ( talk) 10:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Which I'd replace with Cawkell, only when I do so I get reverted, as he has decided its "unreliable". W C M _email 21:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

[46] I have another one, an editor describing everyone who disagrees with him as "armchair generals", has by his own WP:OR and WP:SYN decided that the British were concerned about the surface threat more than the air threat. He is citing two sentences out of context from one book and claiming the cite supports the change he is making and throwing out the considered analysis of Lawrence Freedman in the Official History of the Falklands War. The actual cite he used stressed the concern over the air threat and the lack of AEW, 180° away from the edit he has made. Cross-posted at WT:MILHIST. W C M _email 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page after checking the reference provided. Nick-D ( talk) 23:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Good man, why are you deleting legitimate discussion on the B-24 talk page? Moreover, you continue to support milborneone's actions which a)are based on unsubstaniated misconceptions of events that did not occure; or b) caused by he and others multiple reverting of edits without citation request nor talk discussions. you emphasize consensus building then promote irresponsible reverts and deletions that make consensus building impossible. I don t sense you have the accuracy of the articles forefront in your mind when taking the actions you have.

You are blocked from editing Wikipedia for your prolonged disruptive editing, and especially your frequent personal attacks on other editors and failure to provide references for material you added which other editors have asked to be referenced. I looked into your conduct independently. As such, you don't get a say on the content of articles and are wasting your time here. 10:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I think the MA60 affair in Tonga is definitely worth including but I was wondering if it would be best to make a new section called 'Operational Difficulties' or words to that extent. There have been a fair share of problems in Nepal as well, and Fuji banned the plane...

That's a good idea. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Nick, I'm having a bit of tiff with Brianboulton, the TFA coord, over an article of mine that they scheduled. I have other plans, but he refuses to reschedule (I'm not sure when we lost the traditional TFA deference to article writers, but it is what it is). Would you have any articles that you want to run instead? It's for July 2nd. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 03:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As it just so happens I do - Air raids on Japan would do the trick. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion, which I will act on. It is not the case that I was "refusing" to reschedule. I was reluctant, for the reasons given on The Ed's talkpage, but I did ask him to suggest an alternative. Deference to article writers is important, but it can't be the only factor in selecting TFAs – we have also to ensure that TFAs broadly represent the range of available FAs, and there are more MilHist articles than in any other category. Brianboulton ( talk) 09:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"from mid-1943": There is a growing hazy awareness among Americans that this can mean "from mid-1943 on", but "from" usually means other things in AmEng and many Americans miss your meaning entirely. What's the most comfortable work-around for you? I typically pick "from mid-1943 on", "from mid-1943 onwards", "starting in mid-1943", or "from mid-1943 to X" where X is the end date. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"from March 1945" could become "in March 1945", since the context suggests continuation after that date. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed "however" to "nevertheless", but I'm not really happy with saying "nevertheless" unless it's clearer what that modifies. I think the thing that's being contrasted is an unspoken "a decision that saved an estimated two million lives". (I'm guessing here, I remember estimates that a million American lives might have been spared, and I assume more Japanese lives than that, but I have no idea if a consensus on a number has developed.) - Dank ( push to talk) 01:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dank, the "nevertheless" looks good. I have to confess to being a bit flummoxed by the "froms"; "in March" doesn't have the same meaning I think given that it's not explicit that these kinds of attacks continued (when they actually continued to escalate until the end of the war). I've made a tweak. Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, there were 3 froms and I got the wrong one ... I've changed "expanded from November 1944" (which generally will be read in AmEng as "expanded from the ones in November 1944") to "expanded in November 1944" ... it's clear in AmEng that the expansion would continue past November, but if that's not clear in AusEng, then we should change it again. Also, I added "a decision that saved many lives" per my comment above ... if there's something like a consensus on a number of lives or a range of numbers, that would be even better. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Implying that the bombing "saved many lives" is highly controversial, with the article noting that this is disputed. I don't think that many historians would also agree with a statement that the Japanese Government's decision to surrender in August 1945 saved lives - the consensus seems to be that the Government should have admitted defeat by 1944 at the latest (and really never have started the war). That the war ended in August 1945 was obviously better than any later date, but the phrasing you'd included was a bit simplistic. Nick-D ( talk) 10:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a historian here; I'm dealing with an issue of clarity in prose. "however" or "nevertheless" has to contrast two things. The second thing is the devastation of the bombing; the first thing is unspoken but assumed ... what is it that's being assumed? That the bombing brought an end to the war, which avoided further devastation and loss of life? Is it something else? I believe I get your point that "a decision" could be misread; sorry about that. Would it be inaccurate to say that an invasion of Japan would have been costly for both sides, or that the cessation of hostilities saved lives? - Dank ( push to talk) 11:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What's being assumed is that the Japanese decision to surrender was basically a good thing, which I think is uncontroversial. The question over whether the bombing led to a net saving of lives (to use an ugly phrase I've just made up!) remains intensely controversial, especially as several other factors contributed to the Japanese Government's decision to surrender - eg, the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria and the impact of the US Navy's blockade of the country. Nick-D ( talk) 12:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is one historical point I want to bring in here (not because I'm a historian, but because everyone's an armchair historian): the ethical question you're raising is as old as time. Some militaries in WWII caused less havoc than others, but as far as I'm aware, it wasn't out of lack of enthusiasm for causing destruction. In the TFA column (not the lead text, necessarily), I'd prefer something that gives a little more context, along the lines of: The civilian death toll during World War II revived longstanding ethical questions over advancing war aims by inflicting widespread civilian casualties, including the casualties resulting from the American air raids and nuclear attacks on Japan. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the current wording does the trick, and accurately represents what's in the relevant sections of the article. Nick-D ( talk) 10:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Without more context, "morality" doesn't work for me; "controversial" is strong enough. I made the edit. Thanks, I wish we had more articles like this one for TFA. - Dank ( push to talk) 10:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, now that I reread it ... "Air raids on Japan by the Allies in World War II caused extensive destruction and killed between 241,000 and 900,000 people." That makes perfect sense to a historian; you're giving the range of estimates, but I don't think the wide range is going to work for a broader readership ... they're going to wonder what we're trying to say, or if we have any idea at all how many were killed. Reading the article, I see that the USSBS doesn't have much faith in their own estimate of 900k, and it's not often cited. Can we narrow the range? - Dank ( push to talk) 01:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe with something using the text that "The most commonly cited estimate of Japanese casualties from the raids is 333,000 killed and 473,000 wounded"? As the table in the article shows though, the estimates used are all over the place and there isn't consensus. Nick-D ( talk) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much, that works. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank - your change looks really good. Nick-D ( talk) 01:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks really good today! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I'm pretty sure the the editor named S0mewhat Damaged05 on United States and state terrorism is a sock-puppet of Horhey. The type of info he has added about El Salvador and Phoenix program is virtually identical to what Horhey and his sock-puppets added. Stumink ( talk) 18:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty clearly them. I've blocked the account, and thanks for notifying me. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Stumink ( talk) 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Hope you're doing well. I am currently engaged in a lengthy dispute resolution process over at No Gun Ri Massacre, which has seen a very heated debate between Cjhanley and WeldNeck which has seethed for years.

Part of it revolves around a sourcing dispute, namely, the credibility of the U.S. No Gun Ri Review Report, the initial AP reports (particularly the credibility of certain eyewitnesses), and of historian Robert Bateman. In general, the page has been a battleground, with frequent personal attacks, accusations of POV, bold edits against consensus, and so on, although it has calmed down as of late. It is important to note that Cjhanley is in fact one of the AP reporters who initially broke the No Gun Ri story, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize; also, WeldNeck has accused him of a conflict of interest. Both editors have compiled extensive lists of their grievances, and have dragged one another to ANI: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] WeldNeck also attacked Cjhanley as a sock: [60]. Neither editor is blameless, to say the least.

For some time, I, along with Timothyjosephwood, Wikimedes, and Irondome have attempted to mediate, and we have successfully imposed an unofficial "freeze" on editing the page without prior proposals. While the situation is not urgent, I would appreciate any help an experienced editor such as yourself could offer. If you are interested, I can also provide some sources to provide background, although some can also be found on the page's external links category.

Thanks very much,

GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 22:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D, I am pleased to contact you and ask your help as an admin in recreating the page "Young Living Essential Oils" that was deleted back in August 2011 ( /info/en/?search=Young_Living_Essen... ). A warning said that only an admin can recreate this page for some reason (protection). Would you please take a look at the draft of Young Living Essential Oils that I created ( /info/en/?search=User:Attedread/san... ) and tell me if this is OK. When this is the case, I would be most happy that you recreate this page now. Thank you for your cooperation. Attedread ( talk) 02:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. I presume that you're referring to User:Attedread/sandbox/YL1, which is obvious spam. What is your relationship with this company? Nick-D ( talk) 03:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience about the link. I discovered about Young Living on the Wikia Speedy Deletion here: http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Young_Living . As I am interested in this area, I decided to give it a second life. Would you please explain to me how I can improve the current draft if you believe that it is not up to standard. Thanks for your advice. Attedread ( talk) 22:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You trawl obscure Wikia websites looking for articles on obscure companies which have been speedy deleted (several years ago in this instance), and then draft spammy articles about them? Sorry, but that sounds highly unlikely. I note that you didn't answer my question about your relationship with this company. Nick-D ( talk) 22:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

We already have an article on Young Living - though as I noted on the talk page, whether the company meets our notability guidelines is open to debate. Either way, we can't have two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Nick-D ( talk) 00:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Kbog is continuing to insist on forcing his edit into Falklands War again. I have tried to explain that the definitive conclusions he is making aren't supported by the source he is using and he is cherry picking to support his own conclusions. Instead of taking that on board he is trying to use weasel wording instead to force a poorly worded statement that doesn't reflect the weight or range of views in the source. See also Talk:Falklands War#British planning concerns for the battle, lot of passive-aggressive nonsense and twisting what I've said to him. Worse, we have this where he insists I'm not allowed to edit unless I answer him in talk. Really my patience is wearing thin and I would appreciate if you could have a word and try to explain where he is going wrong.

Regards, W C M _email 08:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a go at drafting something better, drawing on the British official history which I see this editor still hasn't consulted. Nick-D ( talk) 08:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have access to the official history. If you can further improve the article that would be good. K. Bog 16:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

[61] Source is an article published in the Buenos Aires Herald [62], the other source Cawkell was published in 2001, 6 years before Peter Pepper and Dr Graham Pascoe published their paper. I have two editors edit warring to remove sources for opinions they don't like, their reasons are unrelated to the reliability of the source and are solely about the facts presented in the source. See also File:The_Times_-_Argentine_Capture_of_the_Falkland_Islands_1821.jpg and talk where the same two editors fought to keep and have since used a faked newspaper article on es.wikipedia. W C M _email 08:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If that edit doesn't reflect the RfC consensus and a new talk page consensus hasn't emerged, I'd guess that it should be reverted. I don't know much about this topic. Nick-D ( talk) 08:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What I think is at the root of it, is that Langus knows I'm on a self-imposed 1RR limit and is just waiting to spring another ANI report if the pair can bait me into breaking it. I see another editor has reverted in the mean time but longer term what is the best way of dealing with them when they're constantly removing sources to justify removing material? W C M _email 09:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you raise it at a central noticeboard? (a Wikiproject for content matters, or one of the drama boards for conduct matters) Nick-D ( talk) 10:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to put something together, which I would welcome some help in drafting. My focus has always been content editing and I really hate the drama boards. My experience there is not very helpful, it is usually accompanied by a smoke screen from Langus of a whole host of unfounded allegations. Seemingly these are supported by diffs but when you look further the diffs don't support the claim made. Trouble is very rarely are they even looked at. Its then simply dismissed as a content dispute and he walks away laughing. W C M _email 10:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it always seems to be you vs them. I'd suggest the Wikiproject route first as having more editors involved would be the best situation. Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See you've got your hands full with the Battle of Kursk, so hopefully this won't take up too much of your I've started an RFC on that article to try and get outside input. I thought about the Falkland Islands task force but there is few members these days. Would appreciate you taking a peek and let me know what you think of Langus' comments and his attempt to refactor it by overwriting my original post. Regards, W C M _email 22:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Zekenyan wrote that The current ban (on User:Middayexpress) is not effective. I propose the current topic ban be amended to "East African related articles" and include User:AcidSnow and I agree with him. Furthermore I agree with what other users wrote on Middayexpress's external canvassing. But IMHO we have to add even User:26oo and User:Vituzzu (who is a Mafioso probably related/involved in "Operation Martese" [63]), in order to make the ban REALLY effective (as stated above at "POVpusher at Somalia articles"). FYI please go to [64] and click on Manmer2015 ....sincerely, B.

Thanks for that link Nick-D ( talk) 01:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

At long last, I've been able to respond to your comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Oslyabya. Whenever you get a chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts as to how well they satisfy.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll follow up tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Have a great year Nick, I really appreciate the support and patience you have shown to me. Cheers mate! Irondome ( talk) 00:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - same to you Nick-D ( talk) 00:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Nick. If you recall you protected Battle of Hòa Bình a little while back. Unfortunately the sockpuppet seems to have returned (or at least I believe its a sockpuppet). He is currently using the IP 117.5.102.229, although these edits are obviously very similar to those made by IP 113.190.46.130, who is a sockpuppet of MiG29VN (specifically changing the result from "French Union victory" to "Viet Minh victory" and adding "unknown" to the casualties section here [65]). Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive this bloke has used IPs in the 117 range before and a geolocate [66] shows the new IP is from Hanoi just like all the others. Per WP:DUCK I'm requesting a block on the new IP, or at the very least page protection so he is forced to discuss on the talkpage (I've asked several times now). Is this something you would pls be able to assist with? If more evidence is needed I'll dig it up of course. Kind regards. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, that does seem to be the same person. I've blocked the IP address, and will protect the article if they come back. Please let me know if you spot them elsewhere. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance again. Sorry to have to drag you into these things. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all - I'm happy to help Nick-D ( talk) 10:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Anotherclown: as they've already returned under another IP I've semi-protected the article for 3 months (I note that the previous protection I instituted ran out yesterday - this person was obviously waiting for the protection to be lifted, which seems rather tiresome. 11:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - same to you! Nick-D ( talk) 04:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, how does this get progressed? Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest that you propose some wording to be included in WP:MILMOS and invite people to discuss and endorse it. Given the time of year, participation in the discussion might be a bit subdued though. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 04:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing from the message on his talk page, subsequently removed, that Martinvl is contacting other editors to suggest edits in contravention of his block. Is that something I should be bringing up at WP:AN or best leave it? W C M _email 21:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW this is the message in question. Kahastok talk 21:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly looks like an attempt to ask people to be meatpuppets for them, which is generally considered to pretty serious - especially as Martinvl has a history of misusing their continued access to the email functionality. I'd suggest that you post on one of the admins' boards asking for uninvolved admins to consider removing their access to email and/or their talk page. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, done. [67] it elicited the usual response from Martin that false allegations are being raised. If you have a moment I would appreciate if you would comment on previous emails you've received from Martin. W C M _email 13:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

G'day Nick, My apologies for the noobness. I'm currently undertaking some research for an article I am writing about the flags used at the miners rebellion in Ballarat. I normally start at Wikipedia and then branch off from there. Finding that there used to be a page on the Eureka Union Jack, and that you removed it. I was most disheartened as there seem to be very little of this subject to go off. Will you be reinstating it any time soon, or is it gone for good? It would be a great shame for information to be lost. Many kind regards. Grimnar85 ( talk) 01:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)grimnar85

What a coincidence. The article is available on Wikipedia mirrors if you Google the following: "eureka Jack" flag. Nick-D ( talk) 07:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi nick,Im stan,Can you help me please to Unprotection RMAF And List of aircraft of the Malaysian armed forces.Please,We need to update the RMAF.F-5 Tiger II has been retired and Mikoyan Mig-29N Fulcrum also has been retired.Can you Unprotection please. Stan Mcharrison ( talk) 11:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please post references to reliable sources which support this at Talk:List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces? Unfortunately due to regular vandalism (people adding fantasy aircraft mainly) the page needs to remain protected. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 06:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is They think that F-5 Was in service but The end of the year the F-5 Was been retired.Heres the Sorces. http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=5217.And Please just I Want to edit the Aircraft Malaysia armed forces.This is Inportant,And MIG-29 Also Reitred ok.Just shut down Protection.I will Look around About The Aircraft. Stan Mcharrison ( talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nick, this user is more than likely the indef blocked User:Fonte de regaz. See User_talk:MilborneOne/Archive_24#Socks_and_Malaysian-oriented_vandalism for info on this. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 14:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, I've just blocked this account. The frequency of this kind of conduct concerning articles on the militaries of developing countries is pretty depressing. Nick-D ( talk) 10:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote another review for The Bugle. This time I wrote about Lothar Machtan's controversial book The Hidden Hitler. It's currently placed at my sandbox. I would appreciate if you would glance over it and maybe do some small copy edits if you see the need for it, and upload it to the review page. Cheers and Happy New Year. :) Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 17:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure about the introduction to User:Jonas Vinther/sandbox - it seems a bit confrontational (I don't think that many people would think about Hitler's sexuality, or even be very bothered by whatever it was these days). Could you please replace it with something more straightforward? (eg, "In 2001 Basic Books published the controversial work The Hidden Hitler by Lothar Machtan." Also, does the book discuss Hitler's military service or record as commander of the German military in depth? Nick-D ( talk) 10:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have done my best to edit the review according your points, Nick-D. What ya think now? Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 01:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That looks OK. This is at the very edge of the inclusion criteria though IMO given that it's not strongly military-related, but might be useful as a warning for editors considering the book as a reference. Nick-D ( talk) 23:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I notice that User:MuZemike seems to be on a Wikibreak, and because of your prior involvement I would like to request your assistance with the conversation I just started on their User talk page in User talk:MuZemike#Big Tree (chief), Big Tree (war chief), Maman-ti, User:Scarfaced Charley, User:Giorgio Traverso Coda. I will also be leaving a similar note at User talk:Moonriddengirl. — BarrelProof ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nick I used that photo because that particular ODA was the very first to go into enemy territory. Task Force 1-41 was the first heavy element into enemy territory. That ODA performed recon for 1-41 in particular. In all there were 10 ODAs. How about reinstating the photo and I will reword it?

OK, please go ahead and sorry about the misunderstanding. Nick-D ( talk) 21:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, don't expect other editors to write good prose for you - do it yourself - Yes, there are limits to every-one's patience, aren't there.
Happy New Year! Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are limits ;) . Same to you Nick-D ( talk) 07:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all the hard work you two are doing on this. But are you confident in going ahead without any reverts - has any action taken place? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. Nick-D ( talk) 08:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 7 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks Ian Nick-D ( talk) 12:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. In regard to the reversion of my recent minor edits, I'd like to say that I believe it legitimate to indicate that Cook was the first "known" European to chart the east Australian coast, due to the significant possibility that others may have done so earlier (see Theory of the Portugese discovery of Australia. I also wish to point to the fact that several other articles on Wikipedia make reference to a place being first "known" to have been discovered by European (insert name here). I look forward to your responce. Aardwolf A380 ( talk) 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This debate (to the minor extent to which it exists from what I've seen) is simply not relevant to the topic of that article, which is about the fighting which took place after the British colonists landed in Australia. I don't think that we should be adding what appear to be largely hypothetical claims into articles on unrelated topics. Nick-D ( talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks :) 
Aardwolf A380 (
talk) 11:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick! User EyeTruth has involved me in another Administrator's discussion. I mentioned your name at the Adminstrator's Edit Warring page. You don't have to come by, and you don't have to say anything. I did mention your name there though and I wanted to make sure you were made aware. It's just an FYI. Thanks. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 03:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Nick-D ( talk) 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I closed this report as no violation since I couldn't think of anything reasonable to do, but your comments would still be welcome. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I came to notify you, but Gunbirddriver already did. I will add that I've started a discussion on the Prokhorovka talkpage. You're welcomed to check it out, thanks. Part of the dispute is very similar to the blitzkrieg one. Sources say xxxxx, but Gunbirddriver disagrees, believing that there must be other sources that say otherwise. Hopefully, he will provide those soon. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to look into this tomorrow. I still have the Glanz and House book on the Battle of Kursk if a third party checking sources would be helpful here. Nick-D ( talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nick - I've been reading the article on Christmas Island, and I came across a sentence that sounds odd to me. It's the second sentence in the section Christmas Island#Japanese invasion:

• A naval gun was installed under a British officer and four NCOs and 27 Indian soldiers.

I know that the sentence might sound perfectly ordinary to a military person, but to a non-military reader it sounds a little odd. Perhaps a few words could be added after "under"? "Under the command of", or something like that? CorinneSD ( talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How about "A naval gun manned by a British officer, four NCOs and 27 Indian soldiers"? Nick-D ( talk) 10:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My book was recently purged from Wikipedia. The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Planning has been chucked down the memory hole. Of course there were legitimate reasons for its deletion. I asked Wikipedia to explain and they kindly responded:

"I've just removed the material referenced to the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy as it does not appear to be a reliable source. The book's publisher Alora Publishing looks like a publisher of WP:FRINGE-type works judging from what it chooses to highlight on its website, and I could not find any reviews of the book in reliable sources, and many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites. The author's website is also not typical of that of a neutral historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Worldcat shows it owned by 1319 libraries, a very substantial number. This of course does not mean it is an authority, but it might appear to be of considerable interest. Google Scholar shows it has been cited 16 times, as follows: [6]. DGG (David Goodman) ( talk ) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (I wrote this is response to an OTRS query asking about the removal of the book)."

According to Nick the book is not a reliable source. But he seems to think it was published by Alora Publishing, a publisher of “fringe-type” works. I tried to find Alora Publishing but was not successful. I contacted my publisher and he thought that Nick’s comments may have been a joke. Nick claims that he could not find any reviews of my book in reliable sources. I guess Publishers’ Weekly and Choice magazine (by the American Library Association, for academic libraries) are not considered reliable. Perhaps it was wrong of the BBC to contact me for an interview in Things We Forgot to Remember. My blog is not and has never claimed to be the work of a neutral historian.

Nick raises one troubling point about my book: “many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites.” I do not have any control over who references my work. In my research I have run across a great deal of anti-Semitism. This is unfortunate because it is a distraction and it is used to discredit anyone looking for the truth. Many of the key people involved with the Morgenthau Plan were Jewish, however, one of its strongest critics, Victor Gollancz, was also a Jew. I am not aware of any extremist claims in my book although its conclusions are outrageous. We live in interesting times and some even think the Little Sisters of the Poor are extremists.

The bottom line is: Who is more credible? Check the Algora Publishing website. If you believe it is “fringe” you will agree with Nick. If you check it out and wonder what Nick is talking about then you will know why Wikipedia has a bad reputation for veracity. 108.19.156.56 ( talk) 22:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Amazon.com, Google books, Barnsandnoble.com and Algora Publishing's website all say that the book was published by Algora Publishing. I made a typo in my post, which is irrelevant in any circumstances, and particularly here as I also linked to the firm's website. I note that the Algora Publishing website has an odd note in its link to the BBC interview saying that "Note that even this program on the whole continues to deflect responsibility for the genocide"; a publisher which calls the Allied occupation of Germany a "genocide" is highly unlikely to have the standards of fact checking and professionalism needed for its books to qualify as reliable sources. Nick-D ( talk) 08:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that the publisher's website also refers to the Allied occupation of Germany as a "twentieth century holocaust"... Nick-D ( talk) 12:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nick, You have inspired me to write a third edition on the Morgenthau Plan. If you like I will send you a copy of the second edition. You can read it and send me your corrections. If I find them valid I will incorporate them in the third edition and give you the credit. I can not speak for Algora Publishing but I used the term “holocaust” because one of its definitions is: “any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.” I know that Ukrainians got a lot of grief for using that term to describe their famine and eventually switched to using the term Holodomor. Unfortunately this word has not made it into Dictionary.com. If you can suggest another term for reckless destruction of life I would be glad to use it. A writer’s credibility is everything. That is why throughout my work I try not to exaggerate. If I quote a source that appears to exaggerate I let the reader know. I intentionally used the term holocaust because there was an intentional and reckless destruction of life as a result of policies devised by our progressive and oft times Communist bureaucrats. That is a fact Jack. Even the negative review on Amazon does not contest my facts but claims I wrote the book for an “odious cause.” I wrote the book to reveal an uncomfortable truth. In my research I ran into quite a bit of anti-Semitism. I have tried to make it clear that I do not espouse these ideas. The malicious comments made by anti-Semites are used to discredit people like me who are sincerely looking for the truth. 108.19.156.56 ( talk) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with the book, but I don't think that it's going to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I'm pleased to hear that you're not an anti-Semite (I never suggested that you were), and I imagine that you must find it annoying to see your book being quoted by extremists. Nick-D ( talk) 03:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please lock the page again. Thanks. Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eugen, can you please clarify your concern here? The high volume of unreferenced IP edits looks worrying, but I can't see anything which looks outright wrong. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have enogh time to revert IP vandalism. That is frustrating. You think I have nothing else better to do? Look at history page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Coverage_of_Google_Street_View&action=history - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 07:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Eugen Simion 14: can you please tell me which edits you consider to be vandalism? It isn't clear to me given that the referencing for that article is pretty crap, and I also don't have unlimited amounts of Wiki-time to sort through them, especially as you apparently have spotted actionable problems. Help me out here please. Nick-D ( talk) 07:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing or vandalism - [68] , [69] and more others. It's not a great idea to keep this article unprotected. Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 09:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, that sounds sensible, done. I didn't realise that the protection only finished a few days ago! I've set the duration to indefinite. Nick-D ( talk) 10:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 10:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey Nick, I'm here in my WMF role. Would you be interested in adapting Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2015/Review essay for an external audience and republishing it on the Wikimedia blog? :-) Pieces that explore the background and difficulties behind writing Wikipedia articles are something I've been pushing for more of. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 08:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. Do you have a suggested deadline for me? ;) Any advice on how to adapt the article for that audience would also be great (for instance, am I right in thinking that you'd be interested in more on how the article was written, and bit less on how it was researched?). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm flexible and don't know your schedule. Is Monday doable?

First, they're going to have little to no specialist knowledge of WWII and these battles, so you're going to have to add more context. Second, I don't think I'd take out much on your researching. One of the point I'm trying to get across to the world, something you may have noticed in the Texas Revolution piece I recently did, is just how far some Wikipedia editors have to go to write these articles—even on a topic like WWII that you'd think is well-covered. Third, more links would be nice, both to the books and maybe a link to the TFA for the 70th anniversary. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 20:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, what would you think of an alternate title starting with "You sunk my battleship: ... "? ;-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 20:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Ed Erhart (WMF): How does the draft at User:Nick-D/reviews look? I've suggested a more snappy title, and would prefer not to use ""You sunk my battleship" given that the main feature of these attacks was the the battleship wasn't sunk ;) Nick-D ( talk) 12:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot that it was the RAF that sunk Tirpitz. Point there. And here I was so excited for a title like that. ;-)

Could you also provide a paragraph or two to summarize what happened here? If I was someone who knew nothing about the topic, I'd wonder why Tirpitz was in a fjord, why the British would want to sink it, and what your three articles are specifically about. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Ed Erhart (WMF): I've just added some introductory history - how does it look? (I suspect that it might be on the long side). I'm happy to leave it up to you to draft the tweets - I've tried doing this at work, and have been told that my tweets are much too boring to be published by my staff! Nick-D ( talk) 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Nick, as you've probably seen, I've been in and out of that page for a little bit. I'm happy with it now, but I'm going to have a collleague go through it as well to make sure all the milhist bits are comprehensible. Other than that, we have it scheduled to go out tomorrow (US time) but that will likely slip by a day or two depending on our other posts—we have five scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, at least two of which are time sensitive. I'll keep you up to date if those plans change! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the update Ed - that sounds good Nick-D ( talk) 09:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Last question: are you okay with the blog running under your real name? I thought it was on your user page, but it's not there now. That's the last hurdle! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine Nick-D ( talk) 08:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And it's published! :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 18:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, it looks really good Nick-D ( talk) 23:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement you made of my contributions, in both the Bugle post and the blog article. I'm glad I could take some small part in the Tirpitz project. Cheers. Manxruler ( talk) 12:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contributions! Nick-D ( talk) 22:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also this coming out in a day or two: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/Blog. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed Nick-D ( talk) 12:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Cliffside Malibu I went to start an article on this subject because I've seen it pop up in a lot of celebrity rehab-related articles, and I noticed you had deleted a previous article about the topic for being blatant advertising. I just want you to be aware that I am working on this article, and that my goal is just to create a reference point for the topic because it has gained prominence enough that someone who is not a celebrity watcher has noticed. If you have any concerns, please let me know. Thanks! Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 18:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks for the note. The version I deleted was undisclosed and spammy paid editing, and your stub looks good to me. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nick, I'm diagreeing with misleading, unhelpful claims that other participants might be naïve enough to take on face value. Defending the research and efforts of a very serious proposer who has an intimate knowledge the workloads of both Bureaucrats and the Arbitration Committee, from comments based on conjecture is hardly akin to hectoring. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're over-reacting to criticism of your proposal. I disagree with your proposal, and you disagree with me. That's fair enough, and there's no need for you to go on to make absurd accusations such as this. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We're just offering the proposal as a service to a community who persistently bleat about disingenous admins but does nothing about it themselves. There are no bonus points for 'winning' a consensus and I do not understand why people have to make totally unfounded statements couched in criticism if they don't agree with a proposal. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your work in developing this proposal, but I think that you're mistaken with it and what it involves. I don't understand why you think that other editors have to endorse your views and analysis and are arguing with the opposers. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just uploaded this file. Is there anything you can suggest to avoid it being deleted? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The non-free use rational you've provided looks good to me, especially as NZ Crown Copyright allows pretty broad use. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 04:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi user:Nick-D Apologies if the image was unsuitable. I was only trying to illustrate the effect of the blitz on the civilian population, and daily life on the ground. Thanks. Jason.nlw ( talk) 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The article already has a couple of images of the Blitz/Battle of Britain, so I don't think that there's a need for a third, and I don't think that article was representative - accounts of the Blitz generally note how miserable the shelters were (especially for children) and that image portrays them in a positive light. Please raise this on the article's talk page though if you'd like to see it included to see what other editors say. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the user Dredernely, who commented about adding Pyrrhic victory to the World War II page is a sock of the indefinitely banned User:HarveyCarter. Calidum T| C 12:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, What leads you to that conclusion? (so that I can block the account given that this is their only edit). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the sock master has a history of frequenting WWII pages. Each account also uses the same signature. Calidum T| C 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the Royal New Zealand Air Force article. I can never tell if an IP is just throwing out numbers for no reason or are truly trying to make a good faith edit. No heart feelings of past debates, these things can get pretty heated, but with all good intentions - Cheers FOX 52 ( talk) 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind comments, and I appreciate your efforts as well. It is very hard to track changes to numbers in these articles. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose ( talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I appealed my topic ban ( diff). Taking in consideration that you supported my ban and/or was against its lifting I would like to inform you that I appealed my ban so you could again present your opinion. All the best.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[70] -I think that was my bad, I did a roll back on Manmountain08 who’d being changing sourced numbers. Didn't realize the total revert reintroduced wrong text- Sorry about that FOX 52 ( talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all. Nick-D ( talk) 22:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown ( talk) 05:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Gday Nick. I'm going through checking User:Citadel48's recent contributions (for obvious reasons) at the moment and found Wikipedia:1984 Severomorsk Disaster which he seems to have created then copy and pasted to Severomorsk Disaster (rather than moving it). I've made it a redirect but I wonder if a history merge is req'd (or some such Adminy thing)? Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest - I'm pretty clueless about history merges and the like. Nick-D ( talk) 07:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for looking all the same. Do you think its ok just with the redirect then? I don't imagine its a major issue. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it as a redirect. As I understand it, copy and pasting new articles from draft status into article space is OK as long as there's something linking them, even if it is as vague as an edit summary (which is what I usually do!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Anotherclown: G'day gents, history merges can be requested here: Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Gday - well it seems the original article location has been deleted with the summary "Recently created, implausible redirect" so I guess we will just have to accept the article history is a write off. I'm not really sure that was a good solution by whom ever did it but it is a solution a guess. Sorted - thanks gents. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my suggestion of the use 'unconfirmed' rather than fictitious. You reason was 'no they are fictitious'.

However if one is to read the article it speaks of actual projects that were known to be planed and some created so ficticiois is I believe a misleading term - what has happened is there is a confusion of terms here because indeed there are ficticiois elements: these are the 'theories' behind understanding why they created such known existing plans and projects not whether they did or not where evidence exists and is in museums in America and germany.

However any seriously insterested in history or historians of this area will know this, but being used by the genral public I think it is important not to encourage sudoscience where it is not.

Kind regards

Ben

Please read into it and you can see for yourself Benjahdrum ( talk) 08:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, they are fictitious. Nazi Germany did not operate UFOs or those other alleged weapons. Nick-D ( talk) 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your contributions and scrutiny to the betterment of military, Third Reich and World War II related articles, I award you this Barnstar. Kierzek ( talk) 17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D ( talk) 22:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nick. You previously blocked User:86.26.26.107 for one month as a result of the SPI here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AnnalesSchool/Archive#4_July_2015 - for being a sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:AnnalesSchool. Since the expiry of their block the IP has returned and is editing the in the same area they previously did (and as AnnalesSchool), indicating that it is the same person attempting to avoid their block by not logging in. For instance on 5 Aug - at Franco-Italian Armistice [71], 7 August Axis occupation of Greece [72], and 15 August Franco-Italian Armistice [73], Axis occupation of Greece [74] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history [75] [76]. As a result can you pls have a look and see whether a further block for the IP is warranted before this gets disruptive? Pls let me know if a complete report is necessary and I'll file one at SPI. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 20:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly them and I've blocked that account (for a much longer period this time seeing as the IP doesn't appear to be being shared). Thanks for the note. Nick-D ( talk) 22:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello nick, User talk:Adnan bogi whom you previously blocked for a week is still engaged in spamming. just wanted to this to your attention. thank you :) Nicky mathew ( talk) 19:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've just blocked that account. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick, are you able to remove my rollback rights? I have only once used it in anger and mostly I find that I have accidentally rolled back something when using my smart phone because I accidentally touched the rollback link. Usually because of a page redraw just as I'm trying to follow a diff link and the redraw puts the rollback link where the diff was a half second ago. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've just turned it off, and left a note in the log making it clear that it was on your request only in case you ever want it re-added. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. For normal vandalism reverts I prefer to leave an edit summary anyway so I don't imagine I'll be needing this unless I stop using my phone to edit, but thanks for leaving the door ajar.  :) ' Nick Thorne ^talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Nick as contributor to aviation pages, I wondered if you'd chime in on this discussion. I'm trying compromise on some parts of overhauled lists that I've done, or maybe I have it wrong - Regards FOX 52 ( talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the discussion (from memory), but my impression was that the consensus to not include flags in these tables was pretty strong. There's a general move against graphics in tables, infoboxes, etc at the moment. Nick-D ( talk) 10:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this discussion ring any bells in you? Cheers, Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 09:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I've never heard of that occurring. You might have luck searching the Trove resource of old Australian newspapers. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I just added a little bit to Operation Goodwood (naval). Could you have a look at my addition, and check if it looks okay? Manxruler ( talk) 12:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks good to me - thanks a lot Nick-D ( talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear. Happy to contribute. Manxruler ( talk) 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the troll edit, but he/she did us a favor. You'll see my edit summary probably, but when the article was created the word 'History' was left out of her academic title, so I've put it in with a source. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that change Doug. Nick-D ( talk) 10:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the name FuckfuckUaat violates policy. Rjensen ( talk) 11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit! I'm amazed that the name was allowable. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you wrote an article on the war, you might in interested in knowing that the big-budget TV series 1864 was absolutely horribly received. It had a production cost of 184 million Kroner, the most expensive TV series ever made in Denmark. The cast and historical accuracy was excellent, but the plot, editing and the way the series was presented was ... well, crap. Peace, Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did see an article in The Guardian saying that it had been very controversial in Denmark! I'm keeping an eye out for it, though the odds of it appearing in Australia aren't terribly high I fear ;) Nick-D ( talk) 22:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nick,

Hope you are alright. I am sorry for interrupting especially when you have already mentioned of being away due to vacations but I had a similar issue before and you helped me through it by your advice. I require your guidance in an issue I am facing currently. I had created an article called Awans of Pakistan [77] and as you may see in the link it outlined the history, origin and lineage of the Awans who currently reside in Pakistan. This article was referenced mostly by books and also by few websites as seen in the 'References' and 'Further reading' section headings. This article, however, was neither intended nor did it duplicate a previous article called Awan (tribe) which contains only "2 sentences" (one is lead section and second in history) apart from two statements by 2 different people.

However, an editor to the article Awan (tribe) has come up straight, removed references from Awans of Pakistan [78] and redirected it to Awan (tribe). Then he accused me of using 'fake references' in the article [79]. I did not understand his definition for 'fake references' but I could tell that he was acting as a puppet for an IP [80].

I reverted his edits twice and asked the editor to first discuss the matter as both the articles have separate content and context [81] but he would not listen and redirected again. I gave him a second warning to discuss it as Proposed Merger in detail but I had to explain the differences myself to him on his talk page [82]. I guess he was short of words and realized he did not have sufficient proof to explain his doing. Although, he used a brief explanation on the article's talk page [83] but unable to find a way out, he has placed a tag of sanctions on my talk page [84] to get things his way as he himself said on the article's talk page, "..but only in accordance with our policies".

I have never dealt with sanctions and I am very particular about following Wikipedia policies so I thought it better to first discuss this issue with you that what you think of the entire case. I even asked the editor that I can help him improve his article as his article already had tags and it is already in a poor state but he is bent upon his defensive approach [85]. So what can I possibly do in such a situation? My aim is only to improve the encyclopedic content and Awans of Pakistan was offering that but now the matter has been taken in another direction by the editor. I seek your advice in such a situation.

I will wait for your reply here as the matter seems sensitive. Thank you so much for your time.

Pixarh ( talk) 05:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to look into this, especially as I have no knowledge of the subject matter to draw on. If you have a question about the warning Sitush gave you, I'd suggest that you discuss it with them. More generally, Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is outlined at WP:DR and cases where you have strong reason to believe that someone is abusing multiple accounts should be reported at WP:SPI. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick, you're better acquainted than I am with the various shenanagans, sockpuppets etc that have surrounded the whole 'Philippine Commonwealth Army' issue on wikipedia. I think that this page is one of them - as far as I can tell it has no basis in fact. Can we do a mass delete with this and a number of the other dubious pages? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm honestly not sure. I think that there's some underlying basis of fact in these articles, but a series of editors over the years have tried to boost the 'Philippine Commonwealth Army' into a grossly grander affair than it ever actually was (with a common motive being to imply that it did most of the fighting in the liberation of the Philippines in 1944-45, and/or was an equal partner to the US Army during this campaign). The articles should be treated with great scepticism, but I don't think that they generally qualify as being pure and unredeemable hoaxes. I've deleted those created by various sock puppets in the past, and any remaining ones created by the most recent crop of sockpuppets should also go. Regarding the content of the articles, the lists of battles which have been obsessively added to various articles should go - I've never seen a source for this content, and in many cases the battles listed which actually took place were US vs Japan only affairs. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 19:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's some interesting footnotes that make me feel the same way as you - there's some wheat in the dross. Nonetheless, I have redirected and refashioned 6th Div into a division I know did exist, - 61st Division (Philippines). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have some more data now. This was the 6th Military District (Philippines), which MacArthur agreed could be reformed in a fashion to supervise the Philippine guerrillas, along with the others, like Wendell Fertig's 10th Military District. (See 61st Div article). But I also wanted your opinion on the deletion of the category Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. The U.S. official histories use the term Philippine Army, the Commanding General of the Philippine Army category is unbroken, and most of the Philippine Commonwealth Army material is full of falsehoods. Bringing it all into one line will deter, I hope, the serial fantasist. I spent years deleting imaginary armored and cavalry Philippine divisions from the 10th Division [86] etc articles!!

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit for an creditable 10 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Nick, I don't know if you're checking in, but Chris has scheduled one of yours for the 27th. I'm not really sure what to do with it ... can you compress it down to 1150 characters or less? (Btw, the first link needs to be to the article). If you're not around, no problem, we can schedule it another time. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @ Dank:, Thanks for the note. I'd appreciate it if this could be rescheduled as I'm not going to be around much until I get home in mid-November and can't commit to writing/proofing the blurb and answering questions about the article's content. Any time after, say, 20 November would be fine. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 18:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Pinging Chris. I know you prefer not to grant postponements, Chris ... I hope it makes a difference that you've got two people asking here, Nick and me. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'll see if there's another aviation article.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick, you recently did not agree my edit on Adolf Hitler page removing "socialist" next to the politician and (in a rude manner) you told me to read about it. Im sorry Nick but obviously you need to do some reading here. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) was a socialist from the left side of the political scene. Its only now that some people think that he was from "the right". Anyway, I don't want to write his biography on your page here. Educate yourself or read Mein Kamph maybe. Adolf Hitler was a socialist. Regards

To summarise national socialism simply as "socialism" at the top of the article about Hitler is disingenuous, extremely misleading and frankly offensive (as is your assertion that it's only "some people" who think he was right-wing). Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler says in Chapter II that the two main evils threatening the existence of the German people are the Jews and Marxism. —   Cliftonian  (talk)  15:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A claim that Hitler and/or the Nazi Party were socialist would need a very strong reference to be included anywhere, and you didn't provide this. As Cliftonian notes, it's also offensive given that some of the Nazis first victims were the leaders of Germany's socialist political parties, who were imprisoned or murdered en-mass within weeks of Hitler coming to power and the Nazis' persecution of socialists continued throughout their reign. Richard J. Evans' recent books on the Nazi's rise to power and rule provide detailed coverage of this topic, and are currently the standard English-language works if you would like to read more about it. Nick-D ( talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why the fact that Hitler was a socialist is offensive, I would say its rather an uncomfortable truth to some. I agree that it maybe misleading since Hitlers "socialism" led to terrible genocides but this does not made him a conservative politician, liberal etc. He was from the left side of the political scene as was Stalin, Mao, Che etc. I still don't understand why this fact is omitted. Regards GizzyCatBella ( talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and yes, I have read Mein Kamph". Here is one quote for you from his wonderful book - "The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself". I can give you many more. Regards. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 01:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing to Cliftonian.. yes, Hitler hated Jews and Marxists but what this has to do with him not being a socialist? GizzyCatBella ( talk) 01:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Check the International Workingmen's Association (the First International) or the Second International articles. Marxism and socialism are very closely identified, and one could probably say Marxism inspired socialism. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Flushout1999 has added a large amount of material to Robert Conquest that he has copied and pasted or closely paraphrased from other sources. Consider, for example, the section on Conquest's criticism of Ezra Pound, which includes text such as "[Conquest considered Pound] a poseur of the highest order, not to mention a lousy poet who garbled his own allusions to classical mythology and did so without any redeeming ingenuity or creativity. Also, [in Conquest's opinion], Pound’s notorious fascism and egoism only added to his artistic debit" which is copied directly from the cited article by Michael Weiss. None of the material in the section on Pound is original besides the opening sentence. Even the closing line ("Having in passing [attacked] Pound's claim to have rendered Latin classics into verse, Conquest concluded:[...]") is copied almost word for word from Christopher Hitchens, who also provides the following quotation from Conquest (meaning that Flushout1999 is also regurgitating Hitchens' arrangement of the facts). This is not an isolated incident. Most, if not all, of Flushout1999's additions are copyright violations, from "The IRD years" (which includes material like "In 1947–1949, the IRD started to collect materials on the issue of forced labor in Stalin’s Russia and decided to publish pamphlets and prepare news articles and bulletins on the forced labor camps. It had been decided that one or two names of Soviet camps should be hammered into the mind of the public, until these names were as clearly linked with Communist terror as the names “Auschwitz” and “Treblinka” were linked with Nazism. The Soviet camps chosen for the purpose was Karaganda and Vorkuta. Later, Kolyma in the Soviet Far East was added", which is all copied directly (including the grammatical issue with the plural camps) from Lennart Samuelson--and, yes, even the books cited, like Britain's Secret Propaganda War in this section, appear to provide not only the facts but Flushout1999's exact language) to the section on Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow ("The Harvest of Sorrow had a clear moral:[...]" and much else is taken straight from the LA Times). In the "Day of Dupes" section, which is nothing more than an attempt to quote everything Flushout1999 considers important from the article in question (there are no secondary sources to establish the significance of this article and thus why we need to copy so much of it), Flushout1999 did originally add one sentence of his own unsourced commentary ( "Implying that the latter was a good thing.") to Conquest's words ([Conquest wrote that one of the signatories] "has told us how he became interested in politics: on seeing a Right-wing policeman kick a Left-wing girl, he did not conclude, as most of us would have done, that it is a bad thing for a policeman to kick girls, but that it is a bad thing for Right-wingers to kick Left-wingers."), but after I pointed out that it was laughably POV he agreed to drop it. I know you don't have a lot of time right now, but if you could look into this matter and take appropriate action when you get the chance I would greatly appreciate it. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @ TheTimesAreAChanging:, I don't have time to look into this at the moment I'm afraid (though you've probably guessed it from the lack of response!), and I also have had the admin tools removed from my account while I'm travelling so I wouldn't be able to do anything about a problem here. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Brian scheduled this one, but I don't expect the summary itself will be a problem ... look at it and see if you agree. My summary is very close to your lead. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, I don't know if the article itself needs updating ... let me know. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Dank: the article needs considerable updates, so can you please pull this? I've been waiting for the next Australian Defence white paper to update it, which should be released in the next few weeks. Nick-D ( talk) 09:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Brian, please pull this. Nick is travelling until mid-November. This may be my bad; I had already asked Chris to pull one for Nick because he's travelling, and perhaps I should have mentioned that when your shift started to save you some trouble. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with it during my weekend scheduling stint. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. Brian, I'd like to store the summary I've done somewhere, but Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Australian Defence Force already exists ... where should I store it? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests2/Australian Defence Force might do the trick? Brianboulton ( talk) 14:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pulling this, and for prompting me about the need to update the article! Nick-D ( talk) 14:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

An IP has been adding a work by Stan Winer, South Africa and the Politics of Risk, [87] to the Further Reading list of History of South Africa Edward321 ( talk) 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Urgh. Thanks for letting me know. Nick-D ( talk) 09:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

	We couldn't have done it without you
	Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate Buckshot06 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Please reinstate my access to the admin tools, if you are going to be traveling a lot (or just want to work from Starbucks - :) ) I can advise you on how to be just as secure on some random WiFi hotspot as you are at home. I am an engineer who works with this sort of thing all the time. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, but I don't think that's necessary: I only made the request as I was travelling for two months and I'm all travelled out now! Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections. The recent development of that article had me worried. Mr Vinther's user boxes from May (since removed) show where his sympathies lie. Regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

He identifies as a Facist?! Nick-D ( talk) 03:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Very much looks like it. Robby.is.on ( talk) 03:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Nick-D ( talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder how many of the editors happily collaborating with him on historical articles relating to Nazi Germany ( Obenritter, Kierzek, …) are aware of those removed user boxes. Robby.is.on ( talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't until today. Nick-D ( talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with your sentiment. I also commented on Schutzstaffel talk page, following your entries. I encourage others to do the same. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not at all familiar with your editing, and haven't made any comments about it or yourself. I am familiar with Jonas' editing, and his self-identification as a fascist is really concerning to me in light of it. Nick-D ( talk) 05:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Again - my apologies for posting that here - it was really aimed at the person who sort of threw a "guilt by association" comment out there. Perhaps I should have left that story on his talk page...poor etiquette on my part. Honestly, I've never seen any evidence of Jonas being a fascist and it is not my intention to judge him based on that either. He's been fairly impartial and constructive with the editing I have seen so I can only judge him on that. He's young so maybe that was merely a phase. My son calls himself an "anarchist" but I am pretty sure he has no plans to overthrow the American government. Just sayin' Mate :-)

Removing my soliloquy as it was inappropriate of me to have posted it here. My sincere apologies.-- Obenritter ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not my intention to imply "guilt by association". Rather, my thoughts were along the lines of: if you knew, you might see his work in a very different light. Because having the read the discussion on User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS I felt that the article did not seem very honest in regards to how the SS is portrayed. Robby.is.on ( talk) 11:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D, I have worked many times with you and other regulars and it should be clear that I am only interested in the history of Nazi Germany & World War II in an objective sense. I will work with editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia articles for the betterment of the general reader which is what we are all are for in the end. The SS main article was far from finished and if I had been up, we all have to sleep sometime (not to mention, real life calls), I would NEVER have agreed to the sentiment written on the talk page that the article was ready for a copy edit run through or GA review. And cannot say I have been aware of anyone having a "Facist" user box. As I said recently on another board, "...the SS main article has been undergoing a major re-write, ce work and cite work of late. Anyone who wants to join in the effort is welcome". So certainly you gentlemen are welcome. I have also been waiting for BMK and Poeticbent to edit the article and do hope that Diannaa finds some time to edit there, as well. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'm super glad someone pinged me so I had the chance to, well, let's just say defend myself! Secondly, you speak of my as if I've done nothing but manipulate Nazi Germany-related articles for political purposes! I have brought or significantly helped bring Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday, Hedwig Potthast, MP 40, Julius Schaub, Stefanie Rabatsch, Operation Barbarossa, Erhard Heiden, Gregor Strasser, Leni Riefenstahl, Maria Limanskaya, Adolf Hitler's bodyguard, Battle of Kursk, Julius Schreck, Salon Kitty, Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders, Amber Room, Walther von Brauchitsch, Pact of Steel, Atlantic Wall, Horst Wessel and Ideology of the SS to GA-status, just to name those who are Nazi Germany-related. Please, Robby.is.on and Nick-D, list just ONE sentence or comment on any of those articles added by me that violates WP:NPOV. List ONE sentence or comment that shows I'm secretly a Nazi warrior recruited by Hitler to influence Wikipedia with fascist bias. I have also, very sucsessfully, collaborated and befriended many other editors ( Kierzek, Obenritter, Diannaa, Irondome, Gerda Arendt, GeneralizationsAreBad, EyeTruth). And if you think I don't edit anything other than Nazi Germany-related articles, I can tell I also brought or helped bring Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville, Sleight of hand, The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (film), Traum durch die Dämmerung, Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and Jeremi Wiśniowiecki to GA-status. Lastly, this and this are obvious WP:PA. Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone (eg, pushing for the inclusion of a quote in the Hitler article which misrepresents the motivations for the Holocaust as one recent but repeated example, not to mention creating a series of articles on Hitler, his cronies and related issues which had a disturbingly positive tone), and your self-identification as a fascist is horrible. From what I've seen, the editors who you claim to have "collaborated" with have largely been putting up with you and been trying to minimise the damage you've been causing, though they can obviously speak for themselves and I may be mistaken. Please don't post on my talk page again. Nick-D ( talk) 21:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You used that edit summary here, but in fact, you re-added detail, including the person's full name, which I would be careful about per WP:BLP and WP:RSBREAKING, nevermind the fact that there are >100 victims and i don't think it's appropriate to single out some by name. LjL ( talk) 19:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's odd: I actually removed two sentences about the lady, and there was no mention of two people at the time. I imagine that this is the fault of the combination of edit conflicts and the not-good Wikipedia mobile app I was using. Thanks for notifying me of this and I'll avoid using the app in frequently-edited articles in the future to avoid similar problems - I certainly agree that what ended up as my edit here made the article worse, though it was an improvement when I started making it! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 21:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I was unsure whether it had been a mistake or what. No harm done, it sparked a little discussion on the talk page and we reached consensus that names and surnames should be left out. LjL ( talk) 21:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Or mail call as our U.S colleagues say :) Irondome ( talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Head's up that there is a typo on #2. Didn't instead of did, just before ...99%. Simon Irondome ( talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

GAB ^Hello! 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D,

Since we both were engaged on the SS article, wanted to address some of my concerns here.

If you look at my edits, about 80% of them were to correct "Nazi apologia" - K.e.coffman edits

Some of the more egregious examples:

• Improper (if not deceptive) use of War of Extermination as source in the Arthur Nebe article

• Attempts at comparative Nazism and Stalinism studies as a way to justify Nazi autrocities and German war crimes: See Soviet POWs | Problems with "Contemporary mistreatment of German POWs" and German POWs | Ann Applebaum quote. Also see minor example in SS div. Adolf Hitler | Malmedy massacre, which the source referenced (Glantz | When Titans Clashed) did not even support

• Use of language to minimize responsibility - see my 'en masse' edits to the Waffen-SS page to replace "were involved in a massacre" to "committed a massacre"

• Writing from the Nazi POV - see "successful" anti-partisan raids, aka mass reprisals and outright murder of civilian population"

Etc., etc.

Is this something to look out for in Wikipedia? And what can be done about it? K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those kinds of subtle bias and omissions are a real problem, and I suspect will need to be the focus of the clean up efforts. Obvious bias generally gets quickly removed, but material which gives too much weight to one aspect, omits details or makes false comparisons is harder to detect and correct. Of course, this isn't just restricted to Wikipedia, with low-quality history books and documentaries often making the same errors. Nick-D ( talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of wisdom. I'll take this to heart less, and instead make the corrections where I can. ::Another example -- using perpetrator's own words to "refute" testimony against him (and that's in a case where he was convicted of the crime in a court of law). -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. A agree that the exterior picture of Wapping railway station that you replaced with the platform image is very similar to its current appearance but it is those details that matter. It is up to you but I think we should bring it back. Here is what I think:

• Keep the 2006 image noting the Underground branding and the previous location of the entrance so that its relevance is more clear.
• Use the platform image as well, but move it a bit. Maybe put this with content describing the narrow platforms so it illustrates how horribly narrow they really are.
• When they finally finish rebuilding that block behind the station (if they ever do finish the damn thing and stop blocking the road) take a new photo for use as the current image. That will make the two images rather more different.

What do you think? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, that all sounds sensible to me. I also uploaded another photo showing how narrow the platforms are, which might work better: File:Train at the northbound platform of Wapping station in November 2015.jpg. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nick, it looks like the socks are back on Sukhoi Superjet 100,with at least two users showing up to revert who created accounts on November 22. Looks like a really large sock/meat farm here attempting to game the system. Normally I don't ascribe to protecting "the right version", but given the bad faith by these socks, it seems necessary here. I don't understand.the sockmaster's opposition to the Featured image, but it it a very odd situation. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat ( talk) 12:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

what ever happened before with what you call socks there are a lot more editors who disagree with that picture! it is as simple as that! and there is nobody gaming the system it is just disagreeing with that picture!-- 35deyu4642 ( talk) 13:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're genuinely not a sock or meatpuppet of User:Gbgfbgfbgfb, or some other sockmaster, then you need to stop edit warring and discuss your objections to the photo on the article's talk page. Otherwise you'll be blocked for edit warring. - BilCat ( talk) 13:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Checkuser has confirmed that this user is a sock of Gbgfbgfbgfb. The socks have been blocked. - BilCat ( talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

More like a sockfarm. Dr. K. 23:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, apparently a very large farm at that! And quite persistent, with no qualms about lying about it either, as his/her screed above shows. Full protection may well be necessary before too long. - BilCat ( talk) 23:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are aggressive and also try to intimidate users on their talkpages. But I doubt we'll need full protection. I think it's game over for the sockfarm. Dr. K. 00:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked the latest account, and note that the other recent one was confirmed by a checkuser. Nick-D ( talk) 07:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nick. I had just informed the CU about this new sock. Your block of the latest sock came as a very welcome surprise. Take care. Dr. K. 07:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nick, can you at least leave a link to the OpenPAT project status on the page. Perhaps something like:

The OpenPAT project status is discussed here.

Thanks, - User:Npcomp ( talk) 07:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That can be done once the page protection ends. I was intervening to remove the copyright violation material, which it appears you added. Nick-D ( talk) 09:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Gday Nick. FYI Rupert has contacted Cuprum17 to confirm what he wishes to do with the review. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know Nick-D ( talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you are one of the administrators on English Wikipedia. Could you please remove (if you have the right to do so) my user page? Im not going to contribute on wikipedia anymore and I would be very grateful if you did it.

Thank you, Muta112 ( talk) 17:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, as I noticed this request and Nick does not appear to be here at the moment. —  Earwig  ^talk 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for actioning this request Earwig, and thanks for your contributions Muta112 Nick-D ( talk) 21:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Noticed this on the article I'm working on HIAG as well as other related articles: Nazi crime K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And in the Nuremberg trials article as well. I've just blocked this IP address - thanks for raising this. Nick-D ( talk) 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Pardon the ignorance of a newbie, but I have noticed a rash of changes by 141.215.74.46 . See /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/141.215.74.46 . None have an explanation and they all seem to be pro-Bulgarian or anti-Ottoman. It seemed a better idea to report this, rather than just revert them.

If I am handling this wrong - I probably am - I would be grateful if you could point me towards the correct procedure. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's obvious POV pushing (the comparison between their treatment of a Bulgarian victory and a defeat is rather stark). I've just protected the articles to stop this. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've been engaged in a discussion with another editor about his revert of my cuts on the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking article. Here's the discussion on my Talk page -- Mass removal of uncited or poorly cited material. Would you mind reviewing the discussion and providing your opinion on how to handle this appropriately? I'm a new editor so I would appreciate your guidance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'm going to take another go at the article in the near future, along the lines that you suggest. Would you recommend copy-pasting the discussion from my Talk page to the article's Talk page, to explain the edits? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's probably best to post a link to the talk page discussion on the article's page, and suggest on the talk page that discussion be continued at the article's page Nick-D ( talk) 06:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

global Fire power write, Indonesia have 5 Attack Helicopter that means Mi-35 FDHLWP ( talk) 10:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thank you again for your support on the SS Div. Wiking; the article is in less bad shape now :-)

As I was working on it, I've started compiling a list of dubious unsourced claims and non-NPOV language. I started it mostly for fun, but I ended up quite disturbed by what I was seeing across the Waffen-SS content. You can see the results here: Military History (WWII and Waffen-SS) content issues.

The problems are systemic and widespread. Is there something that perhaps can be done at the MilHist group level? Or is there a way to identify the most trafficked articles and address them first?

As an aside, I posted re: one of the sourcing issues on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard ( Patrick Agte on Jochen Peiper), but I'm not getting a response. Perhaps you could have a look? Not sure if my request here would qualify as 'tag teaming', so if you would rather not post there, that would be fine.

Thank again for your help. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest starting a discussion of the Waffen SS articles at WT:MILHIST asking for help cleaning them up. I've commented at WP:RSN, and agree with your analysis. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think your reply works better than a reply from me. Please tell me that didn't actually happen ... do you know if someone is actually mass-emailing everyone who had articles deleted in 2009, including for copyvio and promotionalism? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I see what happened ... the #ArbCom elections are now open! notice was pasted to every conceivable talk page, and it triggered this person's "email this user" function. What a pain. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that you're right, but I was contacted by someone a few months ago who claimed that they wanted to create an article on a topic I'd salted after seeing it listed as an article to create on some website, so there might be people trying to get spam articles recreated fir money who contacted this editor.... Nick-D ( talk) 06:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bzuk. I hope that you have a great Christmas as well. Nick-D ( talk) 04:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016. All the very best from your friends: Cliftonian, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. —   Cliftonian  (talk)  20:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Cliftonian. I hope that you and your family have a great Christmas Nick-D ( talk) 04:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Nick!! Hope you have a great holiday!! Buckshot06 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot - I hope you do as well Nick-D ( talk) 06:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a relaxing holiday and thank you all your work herein this past year. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 01:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Same to you Nick-D ( talk) 06:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Best wishes for 2016,

GAB ^Hello! 01:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[88] Nick, would appreciate a sanity check on this revert. Reading the source it doesn't support the edit made and there is a fairly strong POV slant. Regards, W C M _email 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not wrong WCM. PThe edit and subsequent ones seriously alter and misrepresent both actual events and the source. The editor has a highly nationalistic frame of reference that colors his edits, and he'll edit war to the death to keep them in. -- Drmargi ( talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a neutral edit to me. Nick-D ( talk) 22:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)