This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
G'day, Nick, happy New Year. Regarding PM's query about naval involvement in the Bougainville counterattack, I've added a single sentence, which I was able to source to Gailey. Unfortunately, I can only view parts of Gailey's book on Google Books, so I couldn't read some of the Bougainville chapter. I wonder if you have access to the full source? Failing that, do you have Morison's work? He might mention something else. Unfortunately, I only took a small photocopy of the work when I borrowed it (due to the 10 percent rule), and my facsimile doesn't include the pages related to the counterattack. (I will try to get the book again when I go back to work so I can work on the Landings at Cape Torokina article some more, but unfortunately it takes about three weeks for the library to post it to me in Darwin). Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh ( talk) 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk) 04:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Hi Nick-D, I am trying to add a line around line 278 of the holocaust denial section that deals with the provenance of the Diary of Anne Frank. In late 2015, the Anne Frank Fund amended the claim of authorship to include Otto Frank as a co-author. He was previously listed as an editor. This appears to vindicate some of the criticisms of the heritage of the book and changes the valence of the article. There are many excellent sources, such as http://time.com/4113855/anne-frank-diary-co-author/. There is another article in the New York Times, but I did not cite that as it is behind a paywall.
Merely saying that the addition, "misses the point" makes it seem like the contributors to the Holocaust Denial article are agenda driven and are not concerned with facts. Is this the case? Why 3 reversions in a row despite complying with all of your complaints along the way (when any reasons for revision were given).
Thanks for looking into this.
The concept that this is a copyright tactic only is delegitimized by the fact that it has been successful in extending the copyright on the diary. I cite section 101 of the US copyright law: A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.
Are you suggesting that the Anne Frank Fund is lying and intentionally misleading the world just to get a few dollars? Are they really so unconcerned with their reputation? It seems like there is but the one ideological story line and facts are naught but a nuisance to you. How about if we change it to a less editorialized citation that does not suggest an elaborate ruse, but rather warns at the consequences of assigning authorship to Otto Frank: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/15/newser-anne-frank-copyright/75825098/
Nick, see here for an editor changing "World War II" to "WWII". Am I correct in assuming that "World War I" and "World War II" should always be spelled out in the text? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Got another question: In Collins-class submarine replacement project, "program" is used throughout. Is this normal Australian English usage, or should it be the Commonwealth norm of "programme"? Or is it both? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with swords | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the A-Class Medal with Swords for your excellent work bringing South China Sea raid, Bougainville counterattack, and New Britain campaign up to A-Class status. Great job! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick. Some months ago Dweller made a list of featured articles to appear on the main page. Among them was Guadalcanal Campaign, and next month marks the 75th anniversary of the successful conclusion of that battle. I am going through it to fix cites and do any other cleanup needed. Any suggestions by you for improvement of the article would be welcome. Best wishes, Kablammo ( talk) 02:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, would you be interested in reviewing my FAC Margaret (singer). Regards. ArturSik ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
You blocked 2001:8003:54da:e600:b43a:fd47:86df:5f0 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) just a bit ago but you may wish to expand the block to the whole subnet 2001:8003:54da:e600::/64. They've been changing ips a lot. (Just saw you semi protected the page so that might be enough) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, are you able to help with the next stage of the following please? See: Template:Did you know nominations/Mintaro, South Australia
I haven't submitted a DYK for over 5 years and a little confused with the process.
Thanks, Spy007au ( talk) 17:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Happy New Year!! User OJOM has tried the patience of many people with his distinct reluctance to collaborate, and wish to replicate the French Wikipedia's military articles exactly, including a mass of Frenchwiki in-text links, sometimes ignoring existing English wiki article, and idiosyncratic translations (formation=formation, not training; interarm=interarm, not combined arms; chasse = hunter, not fighter, in the case of Air Force fighter units). These make his articles very difficult to read at times, but his unwillingness to cooperation has been marked as far back as 2015. I am considering administrator action, but would like to see whether another admin finds the problems as severe as I do. Can you take a look please at User talk:OJOM, at the bottom, and give me your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Re: [1] Sarmadkhosa seems to be reverting stuff at random. [2] Posted a warning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
He's requested an unblock on his user talk page - I don't see any previous warnings for vandalism? Am I missing something? I'm confused - let me know. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your work on today's featured article, Australian Defence Force -- this was a great undertaking when you first brought it to A-Class and FA, but to update and improve it many years later for a well-deserved appearance on the front page on Australia Day is really inspiring -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Nick-D,
In October 2017, I nominated German destroyer Z39 for FA, but it was not promoted because lacked context in a lot of places. After the close of the nomination, I added a lot of context to it, going from 11 kb and 1800 words to 18kb and 3000 words. I believe I have added all the context needed. Would you be willing to check if you feel it would be able to pass an FAC, and mentor me if so, or advise me on how to improve it if not? Thanks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, just letting you know I've nominated Battle of Cape Gloucester for a peer review. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Cape Gloucester/archive1. I'm hoping to take it to GA a bit later (maybe March or April depending on whether I have to go away in late Februrary for work). If you were able to take a look sometime and give me some feedback, or add something to the article, that would be fantastic. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m gonna work on this tomorrow, along with the timeline for the bugle. It’s been a very long two weeks, and though I’m not proud of it I really needed a day or two down time to get back on my feet. 2600:1011:B052:12E2:FD9C:B4B7:FBDC:405D ( talk) 06:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, just following up on your recent update -- maybe I missed something but have any RSs said where 3SQN's Hornets have gone, e.g. to swell the other squadrons' complements, or earmarked for Canada...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Australian Defence Force: "A total of 995 Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles were in service with most order." Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Dzungar_genocide
Abattoir666 ( talk) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, special thanks for the edits to the Harmonie German Club. JennyOz ( talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to submit the article Sinking of the RMS Lusitania for FA review, but since it is my first time, I saw your name listed on the FA mentoring page and I thought you might be interested. I just read the Feature Article guidelines and it seems good to me. L293D ( ✉) 17:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Convention is debatable. I refer you to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page as well as Talk: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you has shown that you have no knowledge of this role, the House of Rep and the Senate has equal power as stated in the Australian Constitution including the power to block supply, how can the government and the PM survive without supply from Parliament is beyond me here is your source: Powers practice reference. Do whatever you want but I'll fix your nonsense. Minhle ( talk) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue surrounding the ground for which the PM is appointed has been settled, by convention, the GG must appoint the the one who is likely to command confidence in the House of Rep. However, the issue I tried to edit is something different, they are grounds that PM will not continue to be PM, according to the Governor-General official website, updated on 2017, far more recent than the source that Nick-D is referred to which is
1/From the Solicitor-General and not the Governor-General and recently from the Parliamentarian crisis, view of the Solicitor General has been proven wrong so many time
2/It's in 2010
My source from Governor-General website which said little about ground that PM is appointed but stated this as part of the Governor-General reserved power according to convention Governor General Role:
There are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include:
The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;
The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;
The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and
The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister."
Hence, it's reasonable to say that the ground for which the PM is no longer PM is that he no longer enjoy the confidence in the Australian Parliament, given that there's other ground for example when his party removed him as leader but as we already stated that "almost always and according to convention, the PM is the leader of majority in Parliament... There's no need to repeat this part. Minhle ( talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Greetings Nick, since you were the one that dealt with it in the past, I think that User:thewolfchild is actually the blocked user TheFearGod that created a bunch of socks. My reasonings:
Anyway, I just thought I would let you know in case you might have an interest and someone suggested I file an SPI but I don't really know how and I suspect that any CU results would be stale after this long. Cheers! 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 ( talk) 14:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m waiting for you to respond on the Western Allied Invasion of Germany talkpage. -- Roddy the roadkill ( talk) 05:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I took a quick peek, I need to will check and get back to you. The Zaloga book is available in the NYPL, I will check out today. I did notice that Overmans was cited incorrectly, I will fix this. Stay tuned-- Woogie10w ( talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)-- Woogie10w ( talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
well done with /info/en/?search=Western_Australian_emergency_of_March_1944 - a very good comparison against the 1942 scare article now - JarrahTree 08:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, could you take look at Special:Contributions/AlifARMM4A? All the contributions appear to hoaxes or juvenile made-up additions. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks For your help to complete Picture and Sources of Australian Army Equipment. This page need more Updated Tables, Cheears. 124.82.24.147 ( talk) 10:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick, Again I Would like to say thanks for a help to arrange these Equipment and sorry, this is my new wiki account cause i need to start arrange the table equipment other Europeon Countries. AirWave 800S1 ( talk) 13:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
Hi Nick! I noticed you reverted my "Decisive" label on the article. I thought "Decisive" means a highly significant victory, that devastates the opponent, and the victor either wins by a huge margin, or succeeds on dramatically changing the course of the war. The Battle of Midway qualifies as the latter, but I felt that, since only 13 were killed among the Americans and Austrailians, and over 2,000 Japanese were killed, it prevented a major landing action, and that the Japanese abandoned Lae after that attack, that it would qualify. Let me know. :) The Legacy ( talk) 09:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I don't think he should appear on the ANU page, but it seems that removing him just causes some other editor to put him back. Maybe give it a few weeks? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, If You have a Time. Please Help me To Arrange Table for The Equipment of the Pakistan Army as One of Pakistani User is Trying to Revent saying Im Vandalism. What he Didn't Understand is Im trying to Clear the Picture, Sources, Arrangement Tables and More. Cause AFAIK, Some Tables are not Quiet Understand. BTW, Can you help me to find LMT MARS-L's Picture. AirWave 800S1 ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, this looks like another Fonte sock, as it's editing some of the same pages as the previous sock. Can you block without an SPI, and/or do think we should do an SPI for sleepers? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick! I see that you have removed Operation Cajun Fury from the Wikipedia:List of Hoaxes page because you said it was not a hoax. The article was recently deleted for likely being a hoax (and if true, lacking notability), so if you know any sources that reference it, you might want to bring back that page. swissarmysalad
I have repeatedly said "I'll look for it" about many quotes. Sometimes they are easy to find, but sometimes not. But you have my word I will look. I do hope you'll be patient with me. I am seriously hoping this FAC takes its time and results in many positive changes. For example, your comments have already spurred me to add facts about Wavell that need to be added. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
( ←) Churchill is hard to read, because he went off on colorful and vehement tirades that regrettably sound extremely like unmitigated and unalloyed racist fury to modern ears. And perhaps they were; I don't know. I do remember, however, one source said that Churchill declined international relief aid because he was afraid that the US, Canada etc. would deduct ships used for relief from the total used to support the war effort, rather than adding new ships for relief purposes... but I hope you'll understand.. you are just now entering this forum. I've been here for 2 years and I've been wall-of-texted and/or insulted by furies from all 3 sides of the spectrum (British nationalists, Indian nationalists, and tinfoil hat parade marshals). I am very sensitive to the fact that whatever we say can and will be screamed at (on the bright side, it's not as bad as Arab-Israeli stuff). I.... will consider this. I will think about how to say something... in my experience, nutjobs and wild-eyed nationalists berserkers often read only the WP:LEDE rather than the full article; the lede is a landmine. But I will think. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been here for 2 years and I've been wall-of-texted and/or insulted by furies from all 3 sides of the spectrum (British nationalists, Indian nationalists, and tinfoil hat parade marshals).No, Lingzhi, you're the one who has been attacking people who challenge you. SarahSV (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold here - I think you have done the right thing. A follow up was on my to-do list but you beat me too it; the SPI backlog seems to be ever-increasing at present. In the unlikely event of any fall-out please ping me. Ben Mac Dui 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I know the answer to this, but you'd probably be able to explain it better than I could, assuming it deserves a response. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorta working on the Wavell thing in User:Lingzhi/sandbox. Meanwhile, there's good info about "Army to the rescue" in India Need Not Starve! pp. 125ff. If you're interested, you could point out what seems important to you, but be careful because 1) the article is already long. Brevity is the soul of... shorter articles, and 2) that book looks like it's WP:PRIMARY and looks very informal and anecdotal, so we'd have to be careful if we used it. I will look for more. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/WestJet_Encore/archive1
Thank you very much for your comments about WestJet Encore. The mainline WestJet Airlines is the second largest airline in Canada but still small, nothing like Qantas. In fact, Qantas' rubbish is treasure at WestJet. WestJet bought 4 old Boeing 767's from Qantas. WestJet Encore is even scrappier. New planes but all small.
I have seen some airline articles that are shameless promotion. I am trying to make WestJet Encore as FA then tackle a much larger and complex project, that of a major airline. That project might take more than a year or two to become FA. Vanguard10 ( talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I've searched quite a lot of routes and have found a few odd WestJet Encore routes that don't involve a hub or focus city. Most WestJet Encore routes are just boring small cities to hubs, like Calgary. Any suggestions on how or if it should be included?
So the airline obviously is trying to find 2 cites where there are a few people who regularly travel between the cities. Point-to-point, they say. Some airlines only fly hub routes. Vanguard10 ( talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AAnsh666&type=revision&diff=836606425&oldid=836604655
I see that you made a comment on the Requested Move of Talk:2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs. As you can see in the link, Administrator Ansh666 even refused a barnstar that I awarded with the edit summary of "I do not wish to be involved in this matter any more".
I have made sufficient comments that I do not believe any further comments from me are needed there. If you want to eventually close the matter with a decision, please do so. If not, I hope someone in Wikipedia with a good reputation will do so. Vanguard10 ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I thought you must ght be best to handle the warnings for Special:Contributions/AustralianNationalFlagAssociation. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Nick: Thank you for your outstanding and closely-reasoned comments. I believe almost all of them have been addressed, certainly all of the major ones. Perhaps all that's left are your suggestions to move the military buildup section, and remove all the footnotes. I don't think either of those is possible. The military buildup continued through '45 or so, but its crucial effects were felt years earlier. And as for footnotes, well, there are many FAs with footnotes. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
I nominated the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article for FA status here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. I saw on the Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC page that you have an interest in history, so I believe the subject of this article may interest you. This building played a huge yet mostly unknown role in the early years of the automotive industry in the United States. Any input that you would be willing to provide on its review page would be helpful, but what will help the most is confirming whether it meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
oh migosh - UWA lost thngs in a similar situation some years ago, and all those years when I was doing things in Java - one whole archive was in a basement - all lost in floods :( JarrahTree 07:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
That is a lot of books to lose - I have had things to do with trying to rescue (even though when I was doing library studies training in the deep deep past never got to the units to do with disaster management) after fires, and mould from crazy storage locations - when university librarians allow basement locations - they should be required to have industrial strength drainage systems on assumption that uwa and anu arent the only culprits - there are nerve wracking stories about the brisbane river and the library storage next to it JarrahTree 07:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it your intention at this stage to abide by the third opinion and state your case? I must say for someone with moderator privileges on wikipedia you didn't seem to pay this process much respect and some of your edits seem less than constructive to me.
Aussieflagfan ( talk) 09:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. A while ago you kindly assessed Vespasian's Camp giving it a B class. [ Here.] You then upgraded to B everything except MilHist, [ here]. I assume that this was an oversight? (In which case I am pleased that it is not just me...) Any chance that you could upgrade it for the contest? Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
What was this article a copyvio of? I just need to know so that I can request revision deletion. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 12:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the talk page of WW1 Casualties, Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 2#Iran Losses. An anny IP is claiming that Persia lost 2 million in WW1 based on Iranian sources. You may want to contribute to the discussion.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
London Hall was blocked by you without warning through the edits were sourced with WP:RS at least partially like Washington Post .All his edits were sourced if they you felt they were not WP:RS you should have notified him once.There is no BLP violation the issue is only about quality of sources.Please unblock for now.Further Iranian lobbying in USA is not a hoax Parsi lost a court case on this issue.Thanks. 2402:3A80:45C:E320:ED63:3836:2276:4419 ( talk) 07:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye out at that article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Nivk-D, I hope you're well. Re. the above—I kind of missed out on this when it would have been useful (recent first-FACtimer!—but, I wondered if you'd mind having a look at a couple of articles and seeing what you think might be best to run with next?
If you're interested, I was thinking perhaps a baron, a parliament, a spy, or—?
None of the, except the parliament, have been PR'd yet (and that isn't particularly active, respecting those that have taken part, of course). Any suggestions which if any to take forward, if not, why not, any advice much appreciated, if not, no problem. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
In relation to my most recent edits you have reverted at the above mentioned article instead of going ahead and asking for a third opinion couldn't we just agree to let them stand? Like what's your problem with that content anyway? I've supplied verifiable references. It's NPOV. So if we could resolve this dispute by means of negotiation I was going to say that's about all I can see to do to help in relation to wikipedia's vexillology related articles at the moment anyway. Surely there's no conflict in that I've actually sighted all these sources. I'm just the man wikipedia is looking for. Aussieflagfan ( talk) 09:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
How about we just merge what can be merged to the Centenary flags section of the Flag of Australia article? And what can I say. If the plan is to continue the tour around Australia and it consistently gets headlines like the ones it has been receiving. Maybe we can hive all this off to a dedicated article on the subject another day? I'd have to say though more folks already know about this flag than have seen those rival Australian flags designs that are featured on wikipedia. Actually in relation to basically all of them to have been proposed to date 24 million Australians have never seen them and probably never will... Aussieflagfan ( talk) 11:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I don't think this my edit was necessarily an improvement, but I disagree with your edit summary: I do not compare Bismark with Essex class battleships, I write that Bismark was the best German battleship, which made its sinking a serious German loss.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Vultee Vengeance in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 3, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Nick can you take a look at User:SOKO Super Galeb - I see two possible issues of concern one obviously the name too close the SOKO Super Galeb aircraft. Secondly I suspect this may be a sock of User:HMAS onslow running under as an Australian who is creating Military & Air Force articles which were similar attempts by HMAS onslow [3] [4] - I'd start an investigation just not sure where to begin - Best regards FOX 52 ( talk) 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It would have been so good to catch up with local editors - your edits on commons show you were(?) in Perth - please if you go through again - please let us know - we have a few things we would have liked to show you!!! JarrahTree 11:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently listed Fawad Khan in FA candidates. I'll an honor for me if you consider reviewing it. Amirk94391 ( talk) 04:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know I raised some easily comments and concerns about these at FAC. They mostly require commentary to address, unless the commentary brings up a research completeness issue. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk) 06:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Middayexpress socks are editing on the IP 84.81.77.172 , some evidence, usage of MOS policy on this article [5] [6] The Ip is also making edits as advised by Middayexpress about redirects the talk page [7] [8] 151.254.8.165 ( talk) 02:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with swords | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Western Australian emergency of March 1944, and Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945). MilHistBot ( talk) 03:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC) |
Same with much of white Australian history really. The NSWSHR varies as much as anything else - some are excellent (and they generally acknowledge indigenous history more than most) while some are terrible - I've heavily edited some that were much worse than the Braidwood article. I've been trying to catch language like that but must have missed that one - thanks heaps for catching and fixing it. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 08:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Nick! Just stopping by to say hi. It’s been roughly 6 years but I’m back at editing (though mostly ships ATM). I wanted to reach out to you because I’ve been combing over many of the articles I edited back between 2009-2011 and got to GA-status and I noticed that there had been attempts to get WWII to FA-status while I was away. Those efforts failed, but I recall you saying in the last FAC it went through that you were interested in trying to promote the article in the future if you had a group of editors who were behind such a monumental effort. If you’re still interested, I would definitely be willing to work with you to clear up whatever remaining issues exist to get WWII to A-class, and then FAC in due time.
— White Shadows Let’s Talk 04:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Nick
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet
Would you mind reviewing this closure. I don't believe this was a candidate for a non-admin closure but in particular he missed the recommendations by AlanScotWalker concerning closure. W C M email 12:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I have an article, Razing of Friesoythe, the apple of my eye, which I wish to submit for FAC. The instructions state "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". On the list of possible mentors was your name - an easy decision. So can I persuade you to take two paces forward and help me get this article through the FA process? If so, do you have any thoughts, suggestions or instructions before I formally submit it. Assuming that you think that it is submittable.
I should warn that this is the first Wikipedia article I wrote, the first article I submitted for B class assessment (at the time that seemed a heady ambition for it), my first GA, my first (and still highest viewing) DYK, and the only article I have submitted for peer review or ACR. So objective I ain't. That said, it got a thorough going over at ACR and views seemed positive.
So, what do you think? Gog the Mild ( talk) 00:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
It is with great pleasure that I award this barnstar jointly and severally to auntieruth, AustralianRupert, Kees08, Nick-D, Peacemaker67 and Zawed. It has been earned partly for helping to nurse Razing of Friesoythe through ACR. I was awed and humbled by the amount of attention, effort, detail and support the six assessors brought to the task. But mostly it has been earned by your doing the same thing for many, many other articles week after week, month after month. Assessors sans peur et sans reproche. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC) |
For blocking the sock. Can you keep an eye on my talk page, in case the harassment continues? A several-hour semi would be appreciated if she returns. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D,
I had a Facebook conversation the other day with a retired editor with lots of experience with Featured articles. This editor had helped me with the Good article review of Harry Yount, and the article reached that goal in 2013. This editor expressed the opinion that this could be a Featured article, so I am asking if you would be willing to assist me with that process. Thanks for your consideration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
See Ahunt's talk page, where an IP hopping troll is causing havoc. This is the IP that Sarek blocked earlier. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Howdy. Not sure whatcha did, but the result was Gillard, Abbott & Turnbull being knocked out of the living former PMs section. GoodDay ( talk) 22:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree to your deletion request for now. It might be that another wikipedian proposes an article on the same subject in the future which I will feel free to contribute or not contribute to. Aussieflagfan ( talk) 07:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Deprecated. Use ... instead
. An example is article_text
which is now page_title
.page_age
.Nick, when you get back, could you look at Talk:Operation Linebacker II#Editwar? The issues should be self-explanatory. I'm trying to find a source, but it may take me awhile as I'm not that familiar with quality sources on the subject. If you aren't either, do you know of some other editors who might be? Thanks. (Yeah, I know I didn't handle my initial response well at all.) - BilCat ( talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
I responded to your comments a while ago, but I expect that you've been distracted of late. I know that I have been!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
2 versions of the message deleted as they could have been misconstrued, about the 44 scare monolith. Have left a general introduction to the issues as I see them at the WA noticeboard. Hope it goes well. I gotta get something more specific to the photo than the 43 anti aircraft emplacement. JarrahTree 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 14 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
Kges1901 (
talk) 10:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
I find it quite excruciating to watch ga/fa discussions where I have worked with the archival material (1942 and 1944), and am aware of the nuances of meanings for journalists and military officials of the time (1940s were a different age) - and the perceptions that this latter time and context have so little appreciation to nuances of then. Arrgghh. I think I should stay away from the discussion. JarrahTree 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Letting you know that a sockpuppet by the name of Ah_Ger_K that you added a sockpuppet block message to in September removed your block message today, which appears to be against WP policy. I've reverted that edit. If I am in error and did not understand the situation correctly, feel free to correct my edit. Zinnober9 ( talk) 03:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
needs attention [9] - not exactly the most civil editor that I have seen JarrahTree 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nick, User:Cowanb has been adding links to a website he apparently has connections with to a bunch of aircraft articles. See here for an example. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You reverted an edit that I made to History wars. Anyone seriously studying the history wars will be interested in seeing some primary source documents. Moreover, some historians (e.g. Keith Windschuttle) have claimed that other historians have willfully misrepresented primary sources. The wikilink that my edit provided, to Historical Records of Australia, comprises tens of thousands of pages of primary source documents (a large majority of which are online). Thus, anyone who wants to check the claims of misrepresentation, or who is seriously studying the history wars, will find the wikilink helpful. Hence, I ask you to undo the revert. FlagrantUsername ( talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
G'day Nick, thanks for your tweak on Rescue and Communication Squadron RAAF. I wonder if you wouldn't also mind taking a look at RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
I'm back. I feel better. I've just asked how to approach an article at the tea house. I apologize for anything that was rude/abusive. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 18:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi the articles that were edited by Kuru666 are regularly being targeted by what I am sure are socks. I wonder if there is anything that can be done? Cheers. Dom from Paris ( talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Erin/archive1. See if they're satisfactory.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick, would the source used in this diff be considered reliable? It reads more like an armchair editorial. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I was wondering if you would be keen to take the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article to ACR? From mid-next week, I have a bit of time off from work before the December posting period, so was thinking it might be a good diversion. I have access to some of the sources, but not all (for instance not Charlton, or Bradley), so was hoping that you might have them. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've selected the above as TFA on 26 December 2018. Any questions, please let me know.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, do you think this should be archived as the 70th anniversary of the end of the war has long passed? Kges1901 ( talk) 00:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the arrival of the Spitfire VIIIs to this wing was long-delayed and long-planned, but there's no mention of what marks of Spitfire the Second World War wing was originally equipped with, which is probably important. Could this be added? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick, Can you please see User_talk:Llammakey#Page_moves and advise whether you can mediate as the matter, removing "the" from ship name pages is currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Proposed_amendment? If you cannot can you advise who might be able to assist. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 04:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
The WikiChevrons | ||
For being the only editor to have published a non World War I-related Op-Ed between June 2014 and November 2018 you are also awarded this WikiChevrons and the thanks of those who were undoubtedly happy to see that some people actually remembered what the Op-Ed section was actually for :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Hi Nick, I wonder if you would be interested in mentoring me with a possible FA nomination. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just was approved as GA several years ago and it's been stable ever since. I have always been too timid to seek FA reviews, but my personal situation has changed and here I am. Might you be able to have a look and give me some advice? SteveStrummer ( talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I am going to wait and see like I was told Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thank you for showing me how to be a good member of Wikipedia I'm still trying to get the hang of it.
|
This is to let you know that the Operation Pamphlet article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 24, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
Please see Talk:Gibraltar. It seems an editor has decided to return and is raising again disputes from 8 years ago. To be honest it comes across to me as trolling. The main problem I saw with this editor's previous editing history is that eventually we discovered that they did not have access to any of the sources they were quoting. Instead they were relying on sourcing via google snippets and in some cases the source they claimed supported their edit did not. Another problem is their revert warring, they've just rolled back 8 years citing WP:BRD as there was a "consensus" 8 years ago.
I am keeping my replies to a minimum but wondered if you had any advice on responding to this editor. W C M email 13:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
W C M email 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
mess JarrahTree 10:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Is continuing to make disruptive edits even after you blocked them. Could you revoke their talk page access? Sakura Cartelet Talk 00:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
If you have time, would you please look at Mathew Golsteyn?
After a tweet from the POTUS, I figured Golsteyn was a topic that merited a standalone article. My intention, as always, is to keep my contributions fair, and free of bias. Of course, the more controversial a topic is, the harder it is satisfy everyone an article is balanced.
If what I wrote contains hidden bias I figured the best thing to do was invite the input of an intelligent and informed person who I know has a different perspective than mine.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 19:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
However, lots of contributors like to take related topics, and merge multiple related topics into omnibus articles. Our reader's freedom to traverse the wikipedia's content is seriously impaired, following excessive merging. When Donald Trump's tweets on Golsteyn, and the controversy over stripping Golsteyn of his Silver Star, and how Golsteyn's online footprint triggered an investigation in Swenson, and how Duncan Hunter supported Golsteyn, are all shoehorned into the article on the Battle of Marjah, readers don't get to traverse our content as freely. When Golsteyn has his own article, on which links to the other topics he is related to, readers can click on the links they think might be interesting, and, if, after reading a sentence or two, or a paragraph or two, they decide they aren't interested, they can hit the back button, and read something else. But all the Golsteyn content is merged into another article, they can't go to a related article, because they are all mashed together. If they get to other topics within the article that covers multiple topics, by scrolling, or searching, they can't return to where they were, in the other, related, article, with the back button, because everything has been all mashed together.
You said Trump's tweet was "obviously a comment on the alleged killing." Someone could just as easily say it was an obvious instance of Unlawful Command Influence. I suggest that the meaning of Trump's tweet is not clear. The BBC reporting on it explicitly said the meaning wasn't clear.
WRT to his Silver Star, you ignore a key point. Silver Star's may be relatively common, compared with a Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor, but the Army stripping someone of a medal, that is exceptional. Please don't ignore this point.
G'day Nick, I'm not usually into this Xmas wishes stuff, but I really wanted to say thanks for all your work on The Bugle this year. It is an critical thread in the tapestry of the project. Thanks very much, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Would you be willing to do me a favour and have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/archive1 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Buzz Aldrin? I'm trying to get the Apollo 11 articles ready for the July 2019 anniversary, and time is short. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2018 Military Historian of the Year | ||
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Nick-D,can you make both page Royal Malaysian Air Force and Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force as a semi-protection page since it was always edit by unknown users with no source and they also change the information as they wish.I've already watch that page constantly and it seem hard to stop this matter.Hope you can make consideration about this.Thank you. Kistara ( talk) 03:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
G'day, Nick, happy New Year. Regarding PM's query about naval involvement in the Bougainville counterattack, I've added a single sentence, which I was able to source to Gailey. Unfortunately, I can only view parts of Gailey's book on Google Books, so I couldn't read some of the Bougainville chapter. I wonder if you have access to the full source? Failing that, do you have Morison's work? He might mention something else. Unfortunately, I only took a small photocopy of the work when I borrowed it (due to the 10 percent rule), and my facsimile doesn't include the pages related to the counterattack. (I will try to get the book again when I go back to work so I can work on the Landings at Cape Torokina article some more, but unfortunately it takes about three weeks for the library to post it to me in Darwin). Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh ( talk) 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk) 04:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Hi Nick-D, I am trying to add a line around line 278 of the holocaust denial section that deals with the provenance of the Diary of Anne Frank. In late 2015, the Anne Frank Fund amended the claim of authorship to include Otto Frank as a co-author. He was previously listed as an editor. This appears to vindicate some of the criticisms of the heritage of the book and changes the valence of the article. There are many excellent sources, such as http://time.com/4113855/anne-frank-diary-co-author/. There is another article in the New York Times, but I did not cite that as it is behind a paywall.
Merely saying that the addition, "misses the point" makes it seem like the contributors to the Holocaust Denial article are agenda driven and are not concerned with facts. Is this the case? Why 3 reversions in a row despite complying with all of your complaints along the way (when any reasons for revision were given).
Thanks for looking into this.
The concept that this is a copyright tactic only is delegitimized by the fact that it has been successful in extending the copyright on the diary. I cite section 101 of the US copyright law: A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.
Are you suggesting that the Anne Frank Fund is lying and intentionally misleading the world just to get a few dollars? Are they really so unconcerned with their reputation? It seems like there is but the one ideological story line and facts are naught but a nuisance to you. How about if we change it to a less editorialized citation that does not suggest an elaborate ruse, but rather warns at the consequences of assigning authorship to Otto Frank: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/15/newser-anne-frank-copyright/75825098/
Nick, see here for an editor changing "World War II" to "WWII". Am I correct in assuming that "World War I" and "World War II" should always be spelled out in the text? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Got another question: In Collins-class submarine replacement project, "program" is used throughout. Is this normal Australian English usage, or should it be the Commonwealth norm of "programme"? Or is it both? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with swords | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the A-Class Medal with Swords for your excellent work bringing South China Sea raid, Bougainville counterattack, and New Britain campaign up to A-Class status. Great job! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick. Some months ago Dweller made a list of featured articles to appear on the main page. Among them was Guadalcanal Campaign, and next month marks the 75th anniversary of the successful conclusion of that battle. I am going through it to fix cites and do any other cleanup needed. Any suggestions by you for improvement of the article would be welcome. Best wishes, Kablammo ( talk) 02:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, would you be interested in reviewing my FAC Margaret (singer). Regards. ArturSik ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
You blocked 2001:8003:54da:e600:b43a:fd47:86df:5f0 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) just a bit ago but you may wish to expand the block to the whole subnet 2001:8003:54da:e600::/64. They've been changing ips a lot. (Just saw you semi protected the page so that might be enough) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, are you able to help with the next stage of the following please? See: Template:Did you know nominations/Mintaro, South Australia
I haven't submitted a DYK for over 5 years and a little confused with the process.
Thanks, Spy007au ( talk) 17:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Happy New Year!! User OJOM has tried the patience of many people with his distinct reluctance to collaborate, and wish to replicate the French Wikipedia's military articles exactly, including a mass of Frenchwiki in-text links, sometimes ignoring existing English wiki article, and idiosyncratic translations (formation=formation, not training; interarm=interarm, not combined arms; chasse = hunter, not fighter, in the case of Air Force fighter units). These make his articles very difficult to read at times, but his unwillingness to cooperation has been marked as far back as 2015. I am considering administrator action, but would like to see whether another admin finds the problems as severe as I do. Can you take a look please at User talk:OJOM, at the bottom, and give me your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Re: [1] Sarmadkhosa seems to be reverting stuff at random. [2] Posted a warning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
He's requested an unblock on his user talk page - I don't see any previous warnings for vandalism? Am I missing something? I'm confused - let me know. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your work on today's featured article, Australian Defence Force -- this was a great undertaking when you first brought it to A-Class and FA, but to update and improve it many years later for a well-deserved appearance on the front page on Australia Day is really inspiring -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Nick-D,
In October 2017, I nominated German destroyer Z39 for FA, but it was not promoted because lacked context in a lot of places. After the close of the nomination, I added a lot of context to it, going from 11 kb and 1800 words to 18kb and 3000 words. I believe I have added all the context needed. Would you be willing to check if you feel it would be able to pass an FAC, and mentor me if so, or advise me on how to improve it if not? Thanks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, just letting you know I've nominated Battle of Cape Gloucester for a peer review. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Cape Gloucester/archive1. I'm hoping to take it to GA a bit later (maybe March or April depending on whether I have to go away in late Februrary for work). If you were able to take a look sometime and give me some feedback, or add something to the article, that would be fantastic. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m gonna work on this tomorrow, along with the timeline for the bugle. It’s been a very long two weeks, and though I’m not proud of it I really needed a day or two down time to get back on my feet. 2600:1011:B052:12E2:FD9C:B4B7:FBDC:405D ( talk) 06:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, just following up on your recent update -- maybe I missed something but have any RSs said where 3SQN's Hornets have gone, e.g. to swell the other squadrons' complements, or earmarked for Canada...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Australian Defence Force: "A total of 995 Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles were in service with most order." Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Dzungar_genocide
Abattoir666 ( talk) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, special thanks for the edits to the Harmonie German Club. JennyOz ( talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to submit the article Sinking of the RMS Lusitania for FA review, but since it is my first time, I saw your name listed on the FA mentoring page and I thought you might be interested. I just read the Feature Article guidelines and it seems good to me. L293D ( ✉) 17:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Convention is debatable. I refer you to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page as well as Talk: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you has shown that you have no knowledge of this role, the House of Rep and the Senate has equal power as stated in the Australian Constitution including the power to block supply, how can the government and the PM survive without supply from Parliament is beyond me here is your source: Powers practice reference. Do whatever you want but I'll fix your nonsense. Minhle ( talk) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue surrounding the ground for which the PM is appointed has been settled, by convention, the GG must appoint the the one who is likely to command confidence in the House of Rep. However, the issue I tried to edit is something different, they are grounds that PM will not continue to be PM, according to the Governor-General official website, updated on 2017, far more recent than the source that Nick-D is referred to which is
1/From the Solicitor-General and not the Governor-General and recently from the Parliamentarian crisis, view of the Solicitor General has been proven wrong so many time
2/It's in 2010
My source from Governor-General website which said little about ground that PM is appointed but stated this as part of the Governor-General reserved power according to convention Governor General Role:
There are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include:
The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;
The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;
The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and
The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister."
Hence, it's reasonable to say that the ground for which the PM is no longer PM is that he no longer enjoy the confidence in the Australian Parliament, given that there's other ground for example when his party removed him as leader but as we already stated that "almost always and according to convention, the PM is the leader of majority in Parliament... There's no need to repeat this part. Minhle ( talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Greetings Nick, since you were the one that dealt with it in the past, I think that User:thewolfchild is actually the blocked user TheFearGod that created a bunch of socks. My reasonings:
Anyway, I just thought I would let you know in case you might have an interest and someone suggested I file an SPI but I don't really know how and I suspect that any CU results would be stale after this long. Cheers! 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 ( talk) 14:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m waiting for you to respond on the Western Allied Invasion of Germany talkpage. -- Roddy the roadkill ( talk) 05:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I took a quick peek, I need to will check and get back to you. The Zaloga book is available in the NYPL, I will check out today. I did notice that Overmans was cited incorrectly, I will fix this. Stay tuned-- Woogie10w ( talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)-- Woogie10w ( talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
well done with /info/en/?search=Western_Australian_emergency_of_March_1944 - a very good comparison against the 1942 scare article now - JarrahTree 08:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, could you take look at Special:Contributions/AlifARMM4A? All the contributions appear to hoaxes or juvenile made-up additions. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks For your help to complete Picture and Sources of Australian Army Equipment. This page need more Updated Tables, Cheears. 124.82.24.147 ( talk) 10:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick, Again I Would like to say thanks for a help to arrange these Equipment and sorry, this is my new wiki account cause i need to start arrange the table equipment other Europeon Countries. AirWave 800S1 ( talk) 13:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
Hi Nick! I noticed you reverted my "Decisive" label on the article. I thought "Decisive" means a highly significant victory, that devastates the opponent, and the victor either wins by a huge margin, or succeeds on dramatically changing the course of the war. The Battle of Midway qualifies as the latter, but I felt that, since only 13 were killed among the Americans and Austrailians, and over 2,000 Japanese were killed, it prevented a major landing action, and that the Japanese abandoned Lae after that attack, that it would qualify. Let me know. :) The Legacy ( talk) 09:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I don't think he should appear on the ANU page, but it seems that removing him just causes some other editor to put him back. Maybe give it a few weeks? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, If You have a Time. Please Help me To Arrange Table for The Equipment of the Pakistan Army as One of Pakistani User is Trying to Revent saying Im Vandalism. What he Didn't Understand is Im trying to Clear the Picture, Sources, Arrangement Tables and More. Cause AFAIK, Some Tables are not Quiet Understand. BTW, Can you help me to find LMT MARS-L's Picture. AirWave 800S1 ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, this looks like another Fonte sock, as it's editing some of the same pages as the previous sock. Can you block without an SPI, and/or do think we should do an SPI for sleepers? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick! I see that you have removed Operation Cajun Fury from the Wikipedia:List of Hoaxes page because you said it was not a hoax. The article was recently deleted for likely being a hoax (and if true, lacking notability), so if you know any sources that reference it, you might want to bring back that page. swissarmysalad
I have repeatedly said "I'll look for it" about many quotes. Sometimes they are easy to find, but sometimes not. But you have my word I will look. I do hope you'll be patient with me. I am seriously hoping this FAC takes its time and results in many positive changes. For example, your comments have already spurred me to add facts about Wavell that need to be added. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
( ←) Churchill is hard to read, because he went off on colorful and vehement tirades that regrettably sound extremely like unmitigated and unalloyed racist fury to modern ears. And perhaps they were; I don't know. I do remember, however, one source said that Churchill declined international relief aid because he was afraid that the US, Canada etc. would deduct ships used for relief from the total used to support the war effort, rather than adding new ships for relief purposes... but I hope you'll understand.. you are just now entering this forum. I've been here for 2 years and I've been wall-of-texted and/or insulted by furies from all 3 sides of the spectrum (British nationalists, Indian nationalists, and tinfoil hat parade marshals). I am very sensitive to the fact that whatever we say can and will be screamed at (on the bright side, it's not as bad as Arab-Israeli stuff). I.... will consider this. I will think about how to say something... in my experience, nutjobs and wild-eyed nationalists berserkers often read only the WP:LEDE rather than the full article; the lede is a landmine. But I will think. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been here for 2 years and I've been wall-of-texted and/or insulted by furies from all 3 sides of the spectrum (British nationalists, Indian nationalists, and tinfoil hat parade marshals).No, Lingzhi, you're the one who has been attacking people who challenge you. SarahSV (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold here - I think you have done the right thing. A follow up was on my to-do list but you beat me too it; the SPI backlog seems to be ever-increasing at present. In the unlikely event of any fall-out please ping me. Ben Mac Dui 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I know the answer to this, but you'd probably be able to explain it better than I could, assuming it deserves a response. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorta working on the Wavell thing in User:Lingzhi/sandbox. Meanwhile, there's good info about "Army to the rescue" in India Need Not Starve! pp. 125ff. If you're interested, you could point out what seems important to you, but be careful because 1) the article is already long. Brevity is the soul of... shorter articles, and 2) that book looks like it's WP:PRIMARY and looks very informal and anecdotal, so we'd have to be careful if we used it. I will look for more. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/WestJet_Encore/archive1
Thank you very much for your comments about WestJet Encore. The mainline WestJet Airlines is the second largest airline in Canada but still small, nothing like Qantas. In fact, Qantas' rubbish is treasure at WestJet. WestJet bought 4 old Boeing 767's from Qantas. WestJet Encore is even scrappier. New planes but all small.
I have seen some airline articles that are shameless promotion. I am trying to make WestJet Encore as FA then tackle a much larger and complex project, that of a major airline. That project might take more than a year or two to become FA. Vanguard10 ( talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I've searched quite a lot of routes and have found a few odd WestJet Encore routes that don't involve a hub or focus city. Most WestJet Encore routes are just boring small cities to hubs, like Calgary. Any suggestions on how or if it should be included?
So the airline obviously is trying to find 2 cites where there are a few people who regularly travel between the cities. Point-to-point, they say. Some airlines only fly hub routes. Vanguard10 ( talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AAnsh666&type=revision&diff=836606425&oldid=836604655
I see that you made a comment on the Requested Move of Talk:2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs. As you can see in the link, Administrator Ansh666 even refused a barnstar that I awarded with the edit summary of "I do not wish to be involved in this matter any more".
I have made sufficient comments that I do not believe any further comments from me are needed there. If you want to eventually close the matter with a decision, please do so. If not, I hope someone in Wikipedia with a good reputation will do so. Vanguard10 ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I thought you must ght be best to handle the warnings for Special:Contributions/AustralianNationalFlagAssociation. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Nick: Thank you for your outstanding and closely-reasoned comments. I believe almost all of them have been addressed, certainly all of the major ones. Perhaps all that's left are your suggestions to move the military buildup section, and remove all the footnotes. I don't think either of those is possible. The military buildup continued through '45 or so, but its crucial effects were felt years earlier. And as for footnotes, well, there are many FAs with footnotes. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
I nominated the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article for FA status here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. I saw on the Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC page that you have an interest in history, so I believe the subject of this article may interest you. This building played a huge yet mostly unknown role in the early years of the automotive industry in the United States. Any input that you would be willing to provide on its review page would be helpful, but what will help the most is confirming whether it meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
oh migosh - UWA lost thngs in a similar situation some years ago, and all those years when I was doing things in Java - one whole archive was in a basement - all lost in floods :( JarrahTree 07:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
That is a lot of books to lose - I have had things to do with trying to rescue (even though when I was doing library studies training in the deep deep past never got to the units to do with disaster management) after fires, and mould from crazy storage locations - when university librarians allow basement locations - they should be required to have industrial strength drainage systems on assumption that uwa and anu arent the only culprits - there are nerve wracking stories about the brisbane river and the library storage next to it JarrahTree 07:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it your intention at this stage to abide by the third opinion and state your case? I must say for someone with moderator privileges on wikipedia you didn't seem to pay this process much respect and some of your edits seem less than constructive to me.
Aussieflagfan ( talk) 09:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. A while ago you kindly assessed Vespasian's Camp giving it a B class. [ Here.] You then upgraded to B everything except MilHist, [ here]. I assume that this was an oversight? (In which case I am pleased that it is not just me...) Any chance that you could upgrade it for the contest? Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
What was this article a copyvio of? I just need to know so that I can request revision deletion. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 12:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the talk page of WW1 Casualties, Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 2#Iran Losses. An anny IP is claiming that Persia lost 2 million in WW1 based on Iranian sources. You may want to contribute to the discussion.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
London Hall was blocked by you without warning through the edits were sourced with WP:RS at least partially like Washington Post .All his edits were sourced if they you felt they were not WP:RS you should have notified him once.There is no BLP violation the issue is only about quality of sources.Please unblock for now.Further Iranian lobbying in USA is not a hoax Parsi lost a court case on this issue.Thanks. 2402:3A80:45C:E320:ED63:3836:2276:4419 ( talk) 07:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye out at that article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Nivk-D, I hope you're well. Re. the above—I kind of missed out on this when it would have been useful (recent first-FACtimer!—but, I wondered if you'd mind having a look at a couple of articles and seeing what you think might be best to run with next?
If you're interested, I was thinking perhaps a baron, a parliament, a spy, or—?
None of the, except the parliament, have been PR'd yet (and that isn't particularly active, respecting those that have taken part, of course). Any suggestions which if any to take forward, if not, why not, any advice much appreciated, if not, no problem. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
In relation to my most recent edits you have reverted at the above mentioned article instead of going ahead and asking for a third opinion couldn't we just agree to let them stand? Like what's your problem with that content anyway? I've supplied verifiable references. It's NPOV. So if we could resolve this dispute by means of negotiation I was going to say that's about all I can see to do to help in relation to wikipedia's vexillology related articles at the moment anyway. Surely there's no conflict in that I've actually sighted all these sources. I'm just the man wikipedia is looking for. Aussieflagfan ( talk) 09:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
How about we just merge what can be merged to the Centenary flags section of the Flag of Australia article? And what can I say. If the plan is to continue the tour around Australia and it consistently gets headlines like the ones it has been receiving. Maybe we can hive all this off to a dedicated article on the subject another day? I'd have to say though more folks already know about this flag than have seen those rival Australian flags designs that are featured on wikipedia. Actually in relation to basically all of them to have been proposed to date 24 million Australians have never seen them and probably never will... Aussieflagfan ( talk) 11:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I don't think this my edit was necessarily an improvement, but I disagree with your edit summary: I do not compare Bismark with Essex class battleships, I write that Bismark was the best German battleship, which made its sinking a serious German loss.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Vultee Vengeance in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 3, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Nick can you take a look at User:SOKO Super Galeb - I see two possible issues of concern one obviously the name too close the SOKO Super Galeb aircraft. Secondly I suspect this may be a sock of User:HMAS onslow running under as an Australian who is creating Military & Air Force articles which were similar attempts by HMAS onslow [3] [4] - I'd start an investigation just not sure where to begin - Best regards FOX 52 ( talk) 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It would have been so good to catch up with local editors - your edits on commons show you were(?) in Perth - please if you go through again - please let us know - we have a few things we would have liked to show you!!! JarrahTree 11:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently listed Fawad Khan in FA candidates. I'll an honor for me if you consider reviewing it. Amirk94391 ( talk) 04:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know I raised some easily comments and concerns about these at FAC. They mostly require commentary to address, unless the commentary brings up a research completeness issue. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
AustralianRupert (
talk) 06:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Middayexpress socks are editing on the IP 84.81.77.172 , some evidence, usage of MOS policy on this article [5] [6] The Ip is also making edits as advised by Middayexpress about redirects the talk page [7] [8] 151.254.8.165 ( talk) 02:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with swords | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Western Australian emergency of March 1944, and Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945). MilHistBot ( talk) 03:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC) |
Same with much of white Australian history really. The NSWSHR varies as much as anything else - some are excellent (and they generally acknowledge indigenous history more than most) while some are terrible - I've heavily edited some that were much worse than the Braidwood article. I've been trying to catch language like that but must have missed that one - thanks heaps for catching and fixing it. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 08:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Nick! Just stopping by to say hi. It’s been roughly 6 years but I’m back at editing (though mostly ships ATM). I wanted to reach out to you because I’ve been combing over many of the articles I edited back between 2009-2011 and got to GA-status and I noticed that there had been attempts to get WWII to FA-status while I was away. Those efforts failed, but I recall you saying in the last FAC it went through that you were interested in trying to promote the article in the future if you had a group of editors who were behind such a monumental effort. If you’re still interested, I would definitely be willing to work with you to clear up whatever remaining issues exist to get WWII to A-class, and then FAC in due time.
— White Shadows Let’s Talk 04:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Nick
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet
Would you mind reviewing this closure. I don't believe this was a candidate for a non-admin closure but in particular he missed the recommendations by AlanScotWalker concerning closure. W C M email 12:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I have an article, Razing of Friesoythe, the apple of my eye, which I wish to submit for FAC. The instructions state "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". On the list of possible mentors was your name - an easy decision. So can I persuade you to take two paces forward and help me get this article through the FA process? If so, do you have any thoughts, suggestions or instructions before I formally submit it. Assuming that you think that it is submittable.
I should warn that this is the first Wikipedia article I wrote, the first article I submitted for B class assessment (at the time that seemed a heady ambition for it), my first GA, my first (and still highest viewing) DYK, and the only article I have submitted for peer review or ACR. So objective I ain't. That said, it got a thorough going over at ACR and views seemed positive.
So, what do you think? Gog the Mild ( talk) 00:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
It is with great pleasure that I award this barnstar jointly and severally to auntieruth, AustralianRupert, Kees08, Nick-D, Peacemaker67 and Zawed. It has been earned partly for helping to nurse Razing of Friesoythe through ACR. I was awed and humbled by the amount of attention, effort, detail and support the six assessors brought to the task. But mostly it has been earned by your doing the same thing for many, many other articles week after week, month after month. Assessors sans peur et sans reproche. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC) |
For blocking the sock. Can you keep an eye on my talk page, in case the harassment continues? A several-hour semi would be appreciated if she returns. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D,
I had a Facebook conversation the other day with a retired editor with lots of experience with Featured articles. This editor had helped me with the Good article review of Harry Yount, and the article reached that goal in 2013. This editor expressed the opinion that this could be a Featured article, so I am asking if you would be willing to assist me with that process. Thanks for your consideration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
See Ahunt's talk page, where an IP hopping troll is causing havoc. This is the IP that Sarek blocked earlier. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Howdy. Not sure whatcha did, but the result was Gillard, Abbott & Turnbull being knocked out of the living former PMs section. GoodDay ( talk) 22:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree to your deletion request for now. It might be that another wikipedian proposes an article on the same subject in the future which I will feel free to contribute or not contribute to. Aussieflagfan ( talk) 07:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Deprecated. Use ... instead
. An example is article_text
which is now page_title
.page_age
.Nick, when you get back, could you look at Talk:Operation Linebacker II#Editwar? The issues should be self-explanatory. I'm trying to find a source, but it may take me awhile as I'm not that familiar with quality sources on the subject. If you aren't either, do you know of some other editors who might be? Thanks. (Yeah, I know I didn't handle my initial response well at all.) - BilCat ( talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
I responded to your comments a while ago, but I expect that you've been distracted of late. I know that I have been!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
2 versions of the message deleted as they could have been misconstrued, about the 44 scare monolith. Have left a general introduction to the issues as I see them at the WA noticeboard. Hope it goes well. I gotta get something more specific to the photo than the 43 anti aircraft emplacement. JarrahTree 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 14 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes.
Kges1901 (
talk) 10:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
I find it quite excruciating to watch ga/fa discussions where I have worked with the archival material (1942 and 1944), and am aware of the nuances of meanings for journalists and military officials of the time (1940s were a different age) - and the perceptions that this latter time and context have so little appreciation to nuances of then. Arrgghh. I think I should stay away from the discussion. JarrahTree 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Letting you know that a sockpuppet by the name of Ah_Ger_K that you added a sockpuppet block message to in September removed your block message today, which appears to be against WP policy. I've reverted that edit. If I am in error and did not understand the situation correctly, feel free to correct my edit. Zinnober9 ( talk) 03:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
needs attention [9] - not exactly the most civil editor that I have seen JarrahTree 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nick, User:Cowanb has been adding links to a website he apparently has connections with to a bunch of aircraft articles. See here for an example. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You reverted an edit that I made to History wars. Anyone seriously studying the history wars will be interested in seeing some primary source documents. Moreover, some historians (e.g. Keith Windschuttle) have claimed that other historians have willfully misrepresented primary sources. The wikilink that my edit provided, to Historical Records of Australia, comprises tens of thousands of pages of primary source documents (a large majority of which are online). Thus, anyone who wants to check the claims of misrepresentation, or who is seriously studying the history wars, will find the wikilink helpful. Hence, I ask you to undo the revert. FlagrantUsername ( talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
G'day Nick, thanks for your tweak on Rescue and Communication Squadron RAAF. I wonder if you wouldn't also mind taking a look at RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
I'm back. I feel better. I've just asked how to approach an article at the tea house. I apologize for anything that was rude/abusive. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 18:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi the articles that were edited by Kuru666 are regularly being targeted by what I am sure are socks. I wonder if there is anything that can be done? Cheers. Dom from Paris ( talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Erin/archive1. See if they're satisfactory.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick, would the source used in this diff be considered reliable? It reads more like an armchair editorial. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I was wondering if you would be keen to take the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article to ACR? From mid-next week, I have a bit of time off from work before the December posting period, so was thinking it might be a good diversion. I have access to some of the sources, but not all (for instance not Charlton, or Bradley), so was hoping that you might have them. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've selected the above as TFA on 26 December 2018. Any questions, please let me know.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, do you think this should be archived as the 70th anniversary of the end of the war has long passed? Kges1901 ( talk) 00:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the arrival of the Spitfire VIIIs to this wing was long-delayed and long-planned, but there's no mention of what marks of Spitfire the Second World War wing was originally equipped with, which is probably important. Could this be added? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick, Can you please see User_talk:Llammakey#Page_moves and advise whether you can mediate as the matter, removing "the" from ship name pages is currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Proposed_amendment? If you cannot can you advise who might be able to assist. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 04:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
The WikiChevrons | ||
For being the only editor to have published a non World War I-related Op-Ed between June 2014 and November 2018 you are also awarded this WikiChevrons and the thanks of those who were undoubtedly happy to see that some people actually remembered what the Op-Ed section was actually for :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Hi Nick, I wonder if you would be interested in mentoring me with a possible FA nomination. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just was approved as GA several years ago and it's been stable ever since. I have always been too timid to seek FA reviews, but my personal situation has changed and here I am. Might you be able to have a look and give me some advice? SteveStrummer ( talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I am going to wait and see like I was told Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thank you for showing me how to be a good member of Wikipedia I'm still trying to get the hang of it.
|
This is to let you know that the Operation Pamphlet article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 24, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
Please see Talk:Gibraltar. It seems an editor has decided to return and is raising again disputes from 8 years ago. To be honest it comes across to me as trolling. The main problem I saw with this editor's previous editing history is that eventually we discovered that they did not have access to any of the sources they were quoting. Instead they were relying on sourcing via google snippets and in some cases the source they claimed supported their edit did not. Another problem is their revert warring, they've just rolled back 8 years citing WP:BRD as there was a "consensus" 8 years ago.
I am keeping my replies to a minimum but wondered if you had any advice on responding to this editor. W C M email 13:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
W C M email 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
mess JarrahTree 10:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Is continuing to make disruptive edits even after you blocked them. Could you revoke their talk page access? Sakura Cartelet Talk 00:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
If you have time, would you please look at Mathew Golsteyn?
After a tweet from the POTUS, I figured Golsteyn was a topic that merited a standalone article. My intention, as always, is to keep my contributions fair, and free of bias. Of course, the more controversial a topic is, the harder it is satisfy everyone an article is balanced.
If what I wrote contains hidden bias I figured the best thing to do was invite the input of an intelligent and informed person who I know has a different perspective than mine.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 19:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
However, lots of contributors like to take related topics, and merge multiple related topics into omnibus articles. Our reader's freedom to traverse the wikipedia's content is seriously impaired, following excessive merging. When Donald Trump's tweets on Golsteyn, and the controversy over stripping Golsteyn of his Silver Star, and how Golsteyn's online footprint triggered an investigation in Swenson, and how Duncan Hunter supported Golsteyn, are all shoehorned into the article on the Battle of Marjah, readers don't get to traverse our content as freely. When Golsteyn has his own article, on which links to the other topics he is related to, readers can click on the links they think might be interesting, and, if, after reading a sentence or two, or a paragraph or two, they decide they aren't interested, they can hit the back button, and read something else. But all the Golsteyn content is merged into another article, they can't go to a related article, because they are all mashed together. If they get to other topics within the article that covers multiple topics, by scrolling, or searching, they can't return to where they were, in the other, related, article, with the back button, because everything has been all mashed together.
You said Trump's tweet was "obviously a comment on the alleged killing." Someone could just as easily say it was an obvious instance of Unlawful Command Influence. I suggest that the meaning of Trump's tweet is not clear. The BBC reporting on it explicitly said the meaning wasn't clear.
WRT to his Silver Star, you ignore a key point. Silver Star's may be relatively common, compared with a Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor, but the Army stripping someone of a medal, that is exceptional. Please don't ignore this point.
G'day Nick, I'm not usually into this Xmas wishes stuff, but I really wanted to say thanks for all your work on The Bugle this year. It is an critical thread in the tapestry of the project. Thanks very much, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Would you be willing to do me a favour and have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/archive1 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Buzz Aldrin? I'm trying to get the Apollo 11 articles ready for the July 2019 anniversary, and time is short. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2018 Military Historian of the Year | ||
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Nick-D,can you make both page Royal Malaysian Air Force and Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force as a semi-protection page since it was always edit by unknown users with no source and they also change the information as they wish.I've already watch that page constantly and it seem hard to stop this matter.Hope you can make consideration about this.Thank you. Kistara ( talk) 03:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)