This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Nick. I just did a bit of wikifying on HMS Shearwater (L39), and it say this fictional vessel represents the HMS winger of the Flower class. However, Winger is not listed on the class template. Just so you know why the categories are that way if I have it wrong-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
G'day Nick. At the risk of being accused of "canvassing", I am interested in why you take the position you take on this article's AfD. The article is almost entirely based on simple facts - this book was published within such and such a timeline, focused on this topic, and containing this and that which might be of interest. The only argument, I would have thought, might be with whether a particular book should have been selected rather than another book. And I don't understand why you liken it to a personal blog or website. Anyone, anywhere around the world, would be apt to come up with a similiar list. Where is the personal input in that? I am seriously surprised and don't understand why you take this position - and it seems to me Wikipedia will be diminished by the rejection of articles like this. Please sort me out. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Have reverted self here in relation to the Darwin Sayonara - due to my obtsue side comments not directly related - and taken good note of the notability issue for books - thanks for your trouble in pointing it out at Xfd and on my talk - will be much more careful with my comments re the matters of N and books. cheers Satu Suro 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nick Dowling
In answer to your question as to why this article is notable, if you bothered to read the introduction you will see the words fully restored. As far as I’m aware this is rather unique to the UK. I don’t know of any other fully restored Nazi gun emplacement on UK sites. A lot of time and effort has been put into restoring this unique part of our recent history and it fully deserves its place on Wikipedia. I have removed your tag as it is really not justified. I would also point out to you that the whole point of putting the under construction tag on the page is for it to have a chance to stand on its merits as it progresses. A concept that appears to have gone over your Head!. I do not wish to appear to be rude to you, but it would have been a little more courteous of you to contact me with your concern rather than just tagging the page. stavros1 ♣
Oberiko's just been blocked after consensus he's taken months to achieve on World War II has been put in jeopardy with less involved and committed editors undoing his good work, though he breached 3RR in the process. This block removes the main person who's basically singlehandedly carrying the WP:MHSP effort. Would you mind looking into the situation and the WW2 edit history and then commenting on his talk page? Kind regards Buckshot06( prof) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just created this. Would you mind taking a quick look and leaving any suggestions for improvement on the talk page? Regards Buckshot06( prof) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. ("You learn something new every day!"). Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Three minutes to undo an edit, that is fast protection. Is it not useful to mention similar weight British and Korean vessels to get the idea across that not all flat tops are aircraft carriers? Even the Invincible class ships got the Harrier as an afterthought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.188 ( talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
we should renominate it for deletion and propose a transwiki and come up with a detailed rationale for deletion this time. Myheartinchile ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile ( talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I share your concerns. The editor in question has a long story of creating synthesis-like articles where selected quotes are used in cherry-picked way, obscure resources and information taken out of context are combined to portay Allies in the worst way possible. His stance on Allies was made public by him when he named countries fighting against Nazi Germany "a gang"([ thing, there were other more or less temporary changes in the Western frontiers, not just the Bakker Schutz land-grab by the Dutch but also grabbings by the rest of the gang.) Other contributions include claims that WW2 was started by mass murder of Germans by Poles which prompted Hitler to intervene [3], or comparing Polish nation to war criminal Maybe the Poles and Milosevic are in the same class... Frankly as you likely understand I am very concerned with those edits and the overall impression they make. Especially since warning given to him didn't work [4]
Best regards. -- Molobo ( talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Commented on the article's talk page. Feel free to disagree with me there or at my talk. What do you believe should happen to the article? Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Check out this link [14]. This should tell you how many people have look at the portal for each month, thats if you haven't seen this web page before. Cheers . Adam (talk) ( talk) 03:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Any idea why this was deleted last year?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this new article is mostly a duplicate of Iraq War order of battle, USAFCENT, and United States Central Command, and I'm thinking of listing it for deletion. What do you think? Buckshot06( prof) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Mrg is now adding Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars to every major branch article - artillery, cavalry, jagers etc, far too high level categorisation (apart from it's appalling grammar). I've reverted a couple but he's reinstated the cat; what do you advise me to do? Regards Buckshot06( prof) 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
To Nick, for all the help with peer reviewing 11th Airborne Division and his helpful comments! Skinny87 ( talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, I'm a bit new to the upgraded WP standards since 2005 or so. What made you decide to remove the Tank links as 'un-needed'? Dhatfield ( talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really have the time to participate in that long winded discussion. Sorry. I took the advice here to "BE BOLD" and make the changes as an outside party without prior participation. If you liked the wording, I suggest you bring it up to the folks who are editwarring over it. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion - I was not aware of that board. However it does appear to be a sounding board for stressed people rather than somewhere to escalate and have action taken over an issue of non-consensus. Or have I missed something? FYI, the guidline I followed on content forks indicates that the approach should be AfD. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Blair refs aren't EZ to track down; it'd take reading it again... The info is in there, here & there; for now, I'll tag the fns "passim", k? Trekphiler ( talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
May require second opinion to mine-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.249.89.156, as he is consistently removing content from military pages. You may wish to keep an eye on him preparatory to a possible block. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nick, you may, or may not, wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Block_of_Mrg3105. Buckshot06( prof) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Nick, just wondering what you'd recommend re. a pic copyright issue. The one in question is of Richard Williams in the intro of the Chief of the Air Staff (Australia) article (which also appears in his article). The only source I'm aware of is the RAAF's official site and unfortunately the pic is undated and I think, judging by his appearance, it's after 1955 so not a natural for PD-Australia, unless I've missed something. I was going to leave requesting permission from the Commomwealth as a last resort - thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I would like to enquire if I would be able to join the Australian military history task force? If so, do I just add my name to the list? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've just added my name. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nick-D, you are a member of Wikiproject Military History, and I would like to notify you that a new Wiki has been made for Military History. If you are interested in participating in this project, please follow the following link. http://www.militaryhistorywiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line Review Me!
Well, if you're dealing with a known individual and his sockpuppets, there's no need to go through the entire warning routine with each new account; it's perfectly acceptable to just block them on sight.
Does that help? Or did I totally misunderstand your question? Kirill ( prof) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
1. I hadn't consciously taken in the museum's chnage of address. If we can find a consistent pattern in the way they have changed, it would be a good job for a bot.
2. Thanks, I had been thinking about DYK, although I'm not sure which factoid to use: the well-decorated Wellington crew, the lucky Halifax pilot or...?
3. I will have a look at it.
Cheers, Grant | Talk 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Great! You've just made the re-edit I was trying to craft in my head, the term certainly should be mentioned. Buckshot06( prof) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the note. also Talk:Griffith_Law_School#Merge_proposal Michellecrisp ( talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the period March-May 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 02:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
Appreciate your comments either way at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narodnoe_Opolcheniye#Requested_move. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 05:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you are one of the coordinators at the World War II task force, I think you should know that the World War II Portal is now featured. Beware ofdog 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Nick. I would like to register a complaint against a user. He/she is registered to IP address: 68.89.176.172. I see that you had blocked him/her previously. Anyhow, he/she keeps making unwarranted (or unreferenced) changes to the Wiki entry on Dance-pop. I realize that any and all Wiki articles are open to additions, subtractions etc., but this person keeps adding Soulja Boy, who ISN'T technically dance-pop. I wouldn't have a problem if he'd come into the talk page and discuss it; I added a talk subject to the Dance-pop page for duscussion, but he/she never responds, they just keep adding it. What should I do about this person? They seem to have vandalized a LOT of articles! Again -- this is the user 68.89.176.172
Thanks. Mirror Ball(Mirror Ball 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC))
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey again Nick. Thanks for your rapid reply to my other query. I see that someone that goes by Mumble45 person has again added Soulja Boy to Dance-pop. Also -- he has apparently had some conflicts with other Wiki users for making unsourced additions to the entry on Soulja Boy. This may or may not be the same person, as when I went to this "profile", this person had not apparent information and Wiki can't confirm his existence. Thanks again. (Mirror Ball 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)) Mirror Ball
Mumble45 has been going around making a LOT of unsourced changes, lol. See Mumble45. (Mirror Ball 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC))
Hi Nick, it recently came to my attention that the article on Air Commodore Sir Hughie Edwards had failed to obtain B class status due to a lack of references. I have since added the much needed references, as well as additional information to the article, and I was wondering if you could please indulge me and assess the article as a third party, and ascertain whether it has yet acquired a B class rating. Please do not feel obligated to assess the article, you may, of course, say no if you wish. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
To Nick Dowling, for kindly assessing an article and upgrading it to B-class status on my request. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for the support! | ||
Nick-D, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
Quality review there, Nick! Well done, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 08:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I need some advice re some what i consider really atrocious indonesian military articles - please let me know when i can provide you some links - I would be interested in your opinion - if you are at all interested - please let me know and ill fish them out over the weekend - cheers Satu Suro 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, in reply to your message on my talk page:
Thank you for notifying me of your intentions, Nick. Please, just to make sure there are again no misunderstandings, I did not insert that paragraph into the Japan article, not that I would expect you to have preconceptions or act rashly before investigating the full history of events... however it might be good if you also chose to inform User:IrishHaremOtaku, since he would seem to be the one directly affected in that article.
As to what Schrijvers wrote, yes I see now that you are right in that it was not made by Schrijvers, but you were wrong to remove it. That quote on rape which states it "was a general practice against Japanese women" should instead be attributed to Dr. Xavier Guillaume, Department of Political Science, University of Geneva.
As to dehumanization, the context they are mentioned in clearly shows that the rapes were affected by dehumanization. (bold by me)
From the page numbers used above you'd see that the rapes are mentioned in connection to the rest of the dehumanization atrocities. Further, according to the review Schrijvers also mentions the following on dehumanization in earlier pages:
-- Stor stark7 Speak 11:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I'm back again with another request. Like before, feel free to say no if you want, I won't hold it against you, lol. I was wondering if you would please assess the article on Albert Jacka for me; I have gone through and added additional information and references. If you do decide to assess the article, and do approve it for B-class status, could you please also remove the "No references or sources" tag on the article. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you start a stub for the Kiev class aircraft carrier Novorossiysk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.173.158 ( talk) 11:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick; have you seen my comment at Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II? Regards, Grant | Talk 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have some IP editors constantly reverting my edits on List of battles by casualties. Can an admin do something about it? I would prefer to discuss matters on the talk page and agree to a solution, but it is very hard with an IP. Wandalstouring ( talk) 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I don't seem to have a decision on my proposal for categorisation of battles by conflict and country as briefly discussed here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposed category: Operations and Battles by Country and Conflict. I am only new to this whole WikiProject concept. Where to from here?
Thanks Glenn Sisson ( talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nick, I see that you removed a map pertaining to proposed occupation zones and looking through the history, this was done twice. The first time you said it was misleading - which it would only be if people are unable to read the caption of the map which clearly stated it was a map of proposed zones that were abandoned upon the surrender of Japan; now if people can't read the caption they probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place and if they choose not to read the caption or the relevant article information then that's their problem and they're just lazy. The second time you removed it you said it was "uncited in the article" and that "there's no explanation of whether it was ever accepted". However in the very section you removed it from, the second paragraph clearly states:
So how is it that the map is uncited in the article when the article clearly refers to wartime plans to divide Japan for occupation purposes like Germany? And if the plan was abandoned then it couldn't have been accepted in the end could it? Most articles don't even directly cite maps anyway (I can't remember the last article I saw that had anything like "see Fig. 1" or "see map"). And if it is citations for the map itself, why not ask the author of the map him/herself? Surely they should know where they got it from and if you look at the other similar map that the first one was linked to ( Image:Divide-and-rule_plan_of_Japan.png) there is mention by the Japanese author of that map of a reference based on a "plan in the American National Archives", so surely that must constitute a reference. The author and yourself seem interested in military history, so I'm sure you would find things to discuss pertaining to the map(s). 72.27.75.66 ( talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I'm going to assume you didn't mean to imply that I was trying to do the wrong thing but I just want to make it clear that I wasn't. Truth is, the whole adding an image process confused me (it's been a while), and I had no idea what to select. I didn't try to hide anything - I had comments about the US one being wrong, and I provided the source for the other images. I made sure it was OK here [15] but I don't know how they are supposed to be tagged (as may be evident from previous comments on my talk page but I logged in less frequently then and they were deleted before I could do anything).
-- Carbonrodney ( talk) 11:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. But you're just as guilty as I am - we both had plenty of opportunity to fix it, and both didn't.
Hang on, what am I on about? You did fix it. OK, you're less guilty than I am.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind checking the last few edits at Talk: Manchurian SOO? Mrg3105 has both insulted me, by calling me a yesman, and then removed the whole straw poll section without consultation with anyone. I know you're involved, but I would very much appreciate it if you would at least warn him. Regards Buckshot06( prof) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You should know better than to suggest renaming a historical event with a made-up title, and that Buckshot06 will vote for anything that is opposite to what I say. In any case, I'm sure you are familiar with the outcome of that consensus. polling is not a substitute for discussion, and discussion is no substitute for sources.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:66.4.209.194 has again the pleasure of reverting my edits on List of battles by casualties after the semi-protection expired. My one-sided ceasefire of edits during the protection and offer to talk were to no avail. Is there any other posibility to get through to this editor? Wandalstouring ( talk) 11:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you deleted the Taranto link here. Some editors here would obviously disagree with you. Perhaps a comment there? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You voted for Howard Government as an Australian collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks Matilda talk 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
You are an admin, with an interest area in military history... If you have time, I was hoping you could provide a third opinion on HK MP5 - specifically whether one of the images I uploaded should be included in the article. At the moment it is a bit of a revert war, and I have made the last edit I will make (an attempt to compromise) before the issue is resolved. Cheers,
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For some particularly fine content contribution, as well as working on the minor things that help make articles great I humbly award you this barnstar. Rumiton ( talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) |
Hi. You voted for Howard Government for Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It was selected on Sunday, so please help to improve it if you can. Thanks for your support. -- Scott Davis Talk 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, is this what you agreed with Molobo ( talk · contribs)? -- Stor stark7 Speak 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently you commented on the state of the article HMS Ark Royal (91), during its A-class review. Among those comments was an assertation that the early part of the article could do with a copyedit. Would you be able to take a look at User:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking, where I'm working on this chunk of article, and offer your opinion on its improvement (or lack thereof?) -- saberwyn 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick, could you take a look at this diff, and my comments on the talk page? We have a new user who has been heavily editing carrier-related articles in the past day or so, and he seems to have a "broad" view of what constitutes an LPH to include any helicopter carrier ever built, or any carrier which carried mostly helicopters at some point in its career. Would you mind double-checking me? Feel free to slap me with your new fish if I need it! Thanks. Btw, some USN supercarriers have been used recently as primarily helicopter platforms, off Afghanistan and Lousiana, IIRC. I certainly hope we don't have to add those to the list! - BillCJ ( talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I think he is misreading LPH as a "take-of and landing platform" for helicopters, rather than as a "Landing" as in amphibious operations. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the criticism. While others were editing it for GA-Class, I never noticed that some did those two sentence paragraphs as I had a hands-off approach since I wrote most of it. In response to what you said, the real only thing that could be considered criticism for the unit were the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I couldn't find anything out there that could be considered a negative. Should I create a page for the "federally recognized" thing? I tried to address the issues that you put down, these being numbers 1, 3-7, and 9-13. Well I look forward to any help and advice that you can bring. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Tenmei, I have noticed that you frequently change other editors' posts on talk pages by bolding or changing the colour of some or all of their message. The talk page guidelines states that making these kind of changes is unacceptable behaviour. Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
First thanks very much for your actions in regard to Mrg´s block. I have felt a bit alone sometimes in reacting to his bizarre edits, so I felt very appreciative of your action in response to his incivility, insults, etc.
However, there are still some remaining issues with the things he`s done. One can put a tag on an article that it´s disputed etc, but here Mrg3105´s categorisations, carried to their logical conclusion, would have a category saying type of military forces in War X for every war in history added to the bottom of the infantry, cavalry, and artillery articles. How do I register that I do not agree with the categorisation without the slow revert war that has been occurring (he 's now readding them a fifth time.) How may I get this considered in a fair way? (This also applies to the WW2 category issue of course).
Roger D. seems to be quite busy, and has not responded to the note I left on his talk page. Would appreciate guidance on how I should proceed. Buckshot06( prof) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I'm sorry to be a pain in the butt and pester you again, but in regard to images in the Australian War Memorial online database, does it basically mean that any image in the collection that was published, taken, printed, etcetera, before 1 January 1955 is now free of copyright and eligible to be used on Wikipedia? I ask primarily due to the fact that I would like to place the image of Leon Goldsworthy (ID 081383) on his page, in an attempt to enhance the article's quality. This image was published during World War II, so is at least 62 years old. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 12:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick, I'm sorry but I'm completely lost with this whole Wikipedia thing - and I apologise in advance if I'm talking on the wrong page (I've tried clicking your name line but it doesn't seem to take me back to your comments about my OTVA post). I'm a retired corporate affairs executive who simply responded to a request from a veterans organisation (OTVA), with which I'm familiar, to explain their role in life for the benefit of researchers, historians and other interested individuals and/or groups worldwide. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, nor even much more than a complete novice - but I hope that won't be held against me to detract from the validity of the OTVA post. Your comment back in March 2008 (sorry, I've had other priorities since then), that the three references quoted for OTVA don't appear to be independent, is well wide of the mark. The three references quoted were <Transit, the official staff magazine of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission> <OTC Annual Reports> <OTC archives>. OTC (an antecedent of Telstra) was a commercial organisation charged with carriage of Australia's international telecommunications (ie into, out of and through Australia) from 1946 to 1992. OTVA, on the other hand, is a non-commercial organisation comprised of veterans from OTC, C&W, AWA and other telecommunications organisations worldwide. There is no official and certainly no commercial link between OTC and OTVA - indeed, OTVA once sought sponsorship from OTC and was rebuffed (ditto with Telstra after OTC ceased to exist). Notwithstanding, OTC still recognised the existence and value of OTVA and hence mentioned them in their official staff magazine from time to time, as well as in their annual reports (always in a non-official sense) - hence my quoting them as independent references. I'm not sure how things work on Wikipedia, nor do I have the time to find out, I'm afraid, (the end is closer than the beginning for me now, and I have many other things to do which rank much higher in my personal priorities than continuing to argue the case for OTVA on Wikipedia, despite the value that is seen in this entry by archivists and historians). So can I suggest that unless you can provide evidence to support your claim that OTC is not independent of OTVA (which I, and I daresay every member of OTC and OTVA would hotly dispute), then you please remove your comments at the top of the OTVA page (as Cuyler did before you, after also questioning many things about the post but then having the good grace to acknowledge that it was all "style" stuff and fixing it himself). Cheers Linhmartin ( talk) 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Nick. I note your comment about staff magazines but would point out that Transit (one of the references I quoted for OTVA) was awarded the Gold Serif in 1995 by the Public Relations Institute of Australia for "excellence in communication". In other words, it was adjudged the most professionally written, edited and produced corporate magazine in Australia that year. How do I know? I was the managing editor then and had been for 11 years previously (we'd gained many awards of merit, but 1995 was the first time we made it to the very top of the tree). There is no question that the references I quoted are independent of OTVA, and I'm surprised you question the independence of something like an annual report from the then government's most successful business enterprise (the annual reports were required to be tabled in Parliament each year and thus were required to meet more stringent publication and content criteria than most books published on the open market); however, I will ask the members to find other references, which I know are contained in independently published works such as Invisible Bridges (Rod Masterton), Taming the Tyrant (Edgar Harcourt), and others. Had I been prepared for the amount of scrutiny from Wikipedia administrators that the OTVA post has been subjected to, I daresay I would have gone the extra mile to incorporate these references in the original post. But I honestly thought everyone was familiar with the completely separate roles of OTC and OTVA (given the well publicised merger of OTC and Telecom 16 years ago) and was just trying to help out the OTVA guys without making a major project out of it. And now the big question, of course: how do I remove the tag? Linhmartin ( talk) 08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
"Disagree" -- that single word from BillCJ's doomed my request for mediation, but it need not be the last word.
I have re-submitted the request as the somewhat modified Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2 -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.
Changes include expressly incorporating Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer along with Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Also, the number of named parties is smaller. Another potentially helpful improvement -- first on the list of issues to be mediated is:
I'm much more concerned about getting this process started than I care about what or who comes first. I hope you join me in this concern.
I hope you will again assent to this request for mediation.
By sharing a copy of this notification with those who had not decided what to do about the first request for mediation, I am fulfilling my responsibilities as the filing party; and at the same time, I open a door to the possibility that one or more may yet decide to do more than watchlist this page. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
How do I propose a new Task Force? Out ( talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The
July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I just though I'd let you know that I was looking at the copyright section on the Australian War Memorial website, and it states that any photograph in their collection taken before 1 May 1969 is now free of copyright and in the public domain; there may be, of course, a few exceptions though. See [24]. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am working on a Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom requiring references to the conscription of young people, and am in need of some source documents re changes in practices in the periods before and after the war. Could you possibly point me in the right direction, please ? SJB ( talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, will do. SJB ( talk) 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nick, thanks for keeping my informed about the DDH mess and our loquacious adversary. I am going on Wikibreak for the time being. Could you please look at Talk:Mistral class amphibious assault ship#Image of a French Amphibious excercice, and see if my opinion is off base? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As I told you I would do, I have lodged a request for arbitration so that we can re-commence the process of requesting mediation.
Once your concerns about my words and actions are addressed, then I would assume that the perceived barrier which blocks mediation will no longer trouble us.
Specifically, I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of your complaints at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling. -- Tenmei ( talk) 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been nominated again despite a clear keep only a very short time ago. As such I am informing those who last voted for it to get this AfD kicked off. The reasons all seem to consist of invalid arguments like "silly smut" and "don't like it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Phallic_Building_contest_(2nd_nomination)#Most_Phallic_Building_contest JJJ999 ( talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we did a little overview of the WP:MILHIST project in our last episode, and I was wondering; would you like to do a sort of mini-interview over skype or similar for the friday episode? It wouldn't be very long, maybe 5 minutes maximum. Ironho lds 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
thank you for reading Operation Soberania and adding the criteria checklist:
I dont request a Peer review. Not now.
I need your help with the Referencing/citation and Coverage/accuracy issues. Which (disputed) statements are not referenced?.
I dont think that a table with Ch/Ar Military-Data would improve the accuracy of the article because the operation was called off and there are a table with the defense budget. That is enough. What do you think about?
Thanks in advance, -- Keysanger ( talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got my sources from peole who have seved in the unit who transfered into 4 RAR from a number of UK units including the Royal Marines and the Parchute Regiment. The informed me that the units make up and roles where very much the same as these units rather then SASR and your classical SF-type units like the SASR or SAS. You have provided sound references so I concur with its addition but if you look at the Special Operations section on Wiki you'll see there is cause for it inclussion onto the Spec Ops page ( Archangel1 ( talk) 10:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
I suggest you spend the time constucting a Wiki page for this item as articles without a Wiki page are of no use on this site. You ref may be solid but without an article, you are not contibuting. So as to warn of any possible edit-war, let me remind you of: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule ( Archangel1 ( talk) 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
Which comment is that? ( Archangel1 ( talk) 12:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
I'm sorry you feel like that as it was NOT a personal attack. I was mealy pointing out that rather then continually pointing out a certain issue, sometimes it's better (and quicker) to rectify the issue ( Archangel1 ( talk) 12:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
I see you've moved that page to the correct name as per the Talk page. I was thinking about doing the same thing myself. I've spent the day working on the article and (I think) improved it enormously. However, I'm just wondering what thoughts you have with regards to getting this assessed as a GA/A. I've only been doing the Wikipedia thing for a short time, so I'm not really sure what level this article's at. Lawrencema ( talk) 08:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the rv at The Economist, I now think you are right to have done so. If you are interested in this, you might want to mark other popular publications that have substantial business coverage such as The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Pdbailey ( talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the references for this article, all the data has been compiled from within the Wiki itself, the first time I refer to each ship I Wiki-link it. How do you think I should explain this in the article? Obviously it is a work in progress at the moment, I plan to do the non-US carriers next and then finish with the US ones. I have not worried about linking to it anywhere else just yet because it is incomplete, I thought I would wait until I have done the first run through before worrying about that, ditto for categorisation. Also I am not sure about the format of the page, if you have any suggestion I would be interested. Nick Thorne talk 00:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nick,
What campaign to you believe the Sio to Madang/Alexishafen drive during World War II in 1944 belongs to? I believe it belongs in the Huon Peninsula campaign. Same for Landing at Saidor. All other drives north of Alexishafen to Wewak obviously belong in the Aitape-Wewak campaign. Your thoughts??? -- Newm30 ( talk) 06:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why the article says Australian Submarine Corporation is former name? If the name is changed, then what is the new name? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 10:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nick Dowling, I come here to seek your input on Tenmei ( talk · contribs)'s behaviors. Thanks-- Caspian blue ( talk) 01:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nick, could you redact Taemyr's highly inappropriate comment and links at the ANI? [26] I've heard and learned that publicizing block logs of other people and linking the page to make WP:POINT is a "personal attack" from ill-faith. If I were reported for disruption instead of Tenmei, that block log is necessarily addressed by admins but this is not the case and I strongly feel offense at his contradictory attack. I requested him to retract it because even though I'm deeply hurt by Taemyr behavior, I don't know I could be allowed to remove it myself. He also made some comments to you [27], and the report is also going nowhere with Tenmei's lengthy and unreable rambling. The AfD has nothing to do with my contributions and I did not expect to have this hard time to deal wit the users. Taemyr seems to be off right now, so could you do this? Thanks. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Raymond_Hoser&action=history - please, it seems to be a dont care for the rules reverter - please accept my apologies if you are in the middle of something else - but noticed you are on Satu Suro 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Nick, I've responded to some of the comments you made on the ACR for 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. Cheers. Cam ( Chat) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
In this picture it mentions that the soldiers depicted are from "Air Force A platoon". Just a slight correction to that. I know at least 4 of the guys in the picture and they are in 2RAR. Now to collect a 6 pack from each of them... :D User:Pretender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.52.79 ( talk) 14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Wafulz ( talk) 22:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What preparatory steps would you advise me to do, in order to practice for a run at being an administrator at some point? Can you point me to others' hint pages etc? Buckshot06( prof) 10:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I have raised this question previosly on discussion pages, forgive me for repeating it here but I didn't seem to get any answer. Below is an example as this issue obviously applies to all discussions:
I have been reading the discussion about the name of the article (and subsequent category) Battle of Gallipoli and they seem to have come to a decision that it should be called the Gallipoli Campaign or similar. At what point and who should action the decision and make the necessary changes?
I have proposed to change the way operations are categorised here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Operations versus Battles and got some support but no real clear decision, so I just started working on it. Hope this is OK. Glenn Sisson ( talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I missed the content in Up Top when I was researching the article... I remember skimming through the book but not finding much material that hadn't been found elsewhere. Good to see that even after FA, an article can still be improved.
Regarding the edits, I'd like to make a couple of nit-picks
First, on the paragraph regarding the possible deployment of Skyhawk crew with a USMC squadron while Melbourne was being refitted. I personally think that the info is a little too detailed for something that only tangentially involves the carrier, and would be better served in an associated squadron article (I assume 805 Squadron RAN), with a summarised version in Melbourne's article. I'll leave it as-is for now, but would like to hear your thoughts.
Second, regarding the Navy stonewalling of the use of Melbourne to help clear Australian forces from Vietnam... could you check the source and see if there are any particular reasons given for the Navy's stance on the matter?
Thanks muchly in advance. -- saberwyn 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the vote, Nick. I should have realized last night, what with no-one else having voted, but I was suffering from jet-lag and just thought I'd beaten everyone else to it. I'll read more carefully next time... Skinny87 ( talk) 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you take an eye on List of battles by casualties and do whatever is needed. The edit war is about to start again. However, now it is some wikipedians who think unsourced material has a right to stay and even gave me a warning. Wandalstouring ( talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I -- Dt23 am the one who sent a warning against Wandalstouring because of his horrendous actions on that page. list of battles by death toll Is a high traffic page and ( User talk:Wandalstouring) has deleted months possibly even years worth of work on false acusations that the "entire" article is not sourced correctly. Thats why I call upon you to protect the page at least another 24 hours. ( User:Wandalstouring) has carried out acts of vandalism and others upon that fatefull page. We the people of Wikipedia do not deserve such acts upon us. Thats why I believe not only should the page be protected longer but ( Wandalstouring) severly punished for his months of unchecked vandalism.-- Dt23 ( talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Somebody's been busy! I've given it a once over, made a few slight organisational changes, upgraded it to B-class, and tried to begin a lead section. Hope you approve. Are you planning to run with this in the general A/FA direction? -- saberwyn 09:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
In recognition of your help improving Military history articles through the Military history review process in June, July and August 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
Nick, just FYI, did you see this discussion? It arose when a sharp-eyed editor found that a couple of AWM images no longer include the 'clear' legend, but are rather labelled 'status to be assessed'. I was checking further on all the ones used in the Morotai Mutiny article, as a prelude to nominating it for FA, and all of them are 'to be assessed'. Doesn't matter in most cases we've been using AWM images because they're pre-1955 and can just take PD-Australia, but something to be aware of. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine - at least it would be one consistent format. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It's newsworth, has evoked a response from both sides of the house in Australia and also matches some critism from the USA - all in the references. I've specifically made reference to the peoples positions as per you suggestion on the talk page. Please discuss any further changes on the talk page 121.79.19.4 ( talk) 11:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are too modest. The organisation of the project is quite impressive. It is my experience that the people who need convincing are those most immediately involved.
In the long term this storm in a teacup will resolve itself: with more notice I expect the project would have created a drive to concentrate on improving requested articles. I don't object to referencing, in an ideal future every article will be complete in all ways. I do object to an over-emphasis which exists at present in so far as it impacts others efforts. I don't agree with the assesment system, but I have always taken the view that someone loves it and created it for a purpose, so best to let them run a grade system as they want. But that is not what is happening here. Arguably, the history project should follow the set rules and campaign for them to be changed rather than arbitrarily following different ones. Sandpiper ( talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, we got the star, Nick - many thanks for your constant support of and helpful additions to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nick Dowling, you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I'm working on M3 Amphibious Rig, a new article. M3 Amphibious Rig should be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Can you please create the talkpage of M3 Amphibious Rig? I don't know which tag to use. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 08:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick and thanks for deleting the above article. One point I will raise however: I am not certain I would have used G4 to delete the article. There hasn't actually been a discussion as such about the article previously, it had previously been speedy deleted. The current incarnation had been speedy tagged, the tag removed by the author and the tagging editor, after reconsideration decided not to apply the tag again. Because of this, I thought an AfD would be more appropriate than speedy deletion.
Given the contributing editors sorry history and the potential BLP issues in the article (although I suspect a hoax), a quick deletion is by no means a bad thing. I thought it worthwhile however to let you know my reasoning behind my decision to list at AfD. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Milhist Coordinator elections | ||
Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards,
Cam (
Chat) 00:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France |
Congratulations on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from February 2008 to September 2008, please accept this barnstar.-- TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hi mate, you might recall a while back I left a message re. obtaining permission to use photos appearing on Defence websites that were not clearly covered by PD-Australia. I decided to formally seek permission to use some of the pics of former RAAF Chiefs of Staff that appeared to be post-1955, and have received a reply in the affirmative. However now that I've again checked the requirements for uploading a file from someone else who's given permission to use their images, Defence's conditions don't seem to comply with the 'free licence' clause and, to be fair, I didn't specify a free licence when I requested permission from them. I've put the e-mail I received (which includes my templated request) plus a pic of the fax giving an undertaking to comply with their conditions, on my user page. Be interested in your thoughts on whether this would cut the mustard here as it is, or whether we'd need to go back and try to get them to release the pics under a free licence unencumbered by special conditions such as permission being required for reuse, no derivative works, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, Nick - managed to convince DoD to drop the need for faxed agreement, see what you think when you get a chance Image:Richard Williams.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I trust it was a good one :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. As you are an administrator, im reaching out to you to try to stop an possible edit war on the Operation Overlord article. User Wokelly are removing sourced and reliable numbers from the info box, which is vandalism in my opinion. We need a third perspective at this, you can read our inputs in the discussion section in the Operation Overlord article. Regards -- Nirvana77 ( talk) 13:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar, Nick. To be honest, it had just got to a point where Something Needed To Be Done.
If you have a moment, by the way, could you take a look at WP:MHCOORD and see whether you can add your 2/100s on some of the stagnating matters? Thanks, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Firstly, thanks for the peer review comments, they helped in pushing the article up a notch. I was wondering if you could proofread the Kokoda Trail section again. You may have already read it, but I'm just trying to make sure the explanation of the events leading up to the Battle of Isurava was satisfactory. \ / ( ⁂) 00:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I am interjecting here on the request of Backslash Forwardslash, and according to the 2/14 Battalion's page at the Australian War Memorial located here, the 2/14th was part of the 21st Brigade. Hope this helps clarify some things! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on C-class articles on WP:INDIA. Much appreciated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thought you might b einterested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weller/First_Into_Nagasaki - cheers Satu Suro 11:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at the edits that user:JK Golden and I have made to this page and Unorganized World War II Divisions (United States) and giving us a third opinion? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06( prof) 08:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I came across Fredric H. Leigh and was wondering if there was notability there I'm not seeing? I looked up his different awards and nothing is coming off as something unique. I came to you as I saw you're one of the top dogs of the MILHIST project. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I added the second category to Tobruk because it appears that the vast majority of RAN ships are in both Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy and the relevant subcategories. As a counter-example, HMAS Anzac (FFH 150) is in the main cat, the subcat for Australian frigates, the sub-subcat for Australian frigates in active service, and the sub-subcat for Anzac class frigates.
To be totally honest, I don't know what to think of the RAN ship categories. There is an incredible amount of overlap between the main cat and the subcats, and in many cases the subcats are small, overlapping each other, and containing even smaller sub-subcats that either repeat their 'one-level-higher' brethren, or contain too few articles to (in my mind) be worth bothering with a category. For much larger navies, (as an example, the RN and the USN) the subcategory system is an effective way to categorise the articles on the hundreds of ships active at any given time and/or the thousands of ships that have seved in that navy. The RAN, however, is annoyingly not large enough to benefit from the current category tree, but is borderline not small enough for just the main cat.
Long story short, do what you think is necessary for Tobruk, but do you have any thoughts on the overall matter? -- saberwyn 09:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ive knocked together a quick category structure at User:Saberwyn/The_Grand_RAN#Category_tree, and would like your opinion. Basically, Category:Naval ships of Australia will be our "top" category. Below this will be three categories:
There is also a table listing all the type/role subcats I feel we need. It contains the two basic formulations: "Category:Foo of the Royal Australian Navy" and "Category:Foo of Australia", the main subcat for each of these, and any inclusion notes. There is also a list of "odd categories out" for type/role, and brief notes on what I think should be done with their contents.
Do you have any comments or suggestions at this stage? I'm probably going to give it a week or so before I raise the issue at WP:Milhist/Aus, WP:Ships, and possibly elsewhere (where exactly yet I do not know).
Do you have any suggestions or comments at this stage
It would be helpful to have some input on the following discussions, some of which you may have missed:
Very many thanks :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K. thanks, I will. -- Jacurek ( talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I was just wondering if it would be o.k. to upload this picture [ [31]] from 1944 Warsaw Uprising into WW2 article. The reason I think it would be nice to have the picture there is that the Uprising was one of the biggest battles of the war but it is the least known. If you have no objection perhaps you could do it the way (size etc.) you think is appropriate. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K. thanks I will.--
Jacurek (
talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, I have added a selection of requested pages to that page. -- Zaher1988 ( talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ping! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Nick, an IP user just created the AP-3C Orion page. it's short, but what is thee is actually decent. I know that the Canadian CP-140 uses an ASW suite based on the S-3, so it is a fundamentally different aircraft asside from the airframe. However, no other national variants have separate pages. Do you think there is enough potential content to warrant keeping the AP-3C separate from the main P-3 page? I'm just seeking input at this point. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and I understand your point. I'll probably be bringing it up at WT:AIR in a day or so. If you want to participate in any discussion there, you are of course welcome. - BillCJ ( talk) 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you as long as there's the content to support it, and I am inclined to keep it. I just want to get some input from other editors too. That way if some over-eager AFD wonk decides their opinon is best, we have some project consensus on it already, both specific and general. And more editors to work on teh article! - BillCJ ( talk) 08:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick
There's an ongoing edit war on Battle of Yarmouk that needs a cold shower to be stopped. Can you do something about it? Wandalstouring ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Spotted an edit by Vladimir ryunin94 ( talk · contribs) leading me to believe he could be the same IP vandal who keeps adding nonsense to the Philippine military articles. Somewhat OT: I know that it doesn't take much time to revert all the nonsense that's added, but what would it take to get Philippine Army, Philippine Navy, Philippine Marine Corps, Philippine Air Force and Armed Forces of the Philippines permanently semi-protected? I read the rules and I think at least some of these articles would qualify. -- Edward Sandstig ( talk) 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
As you can side in talk and in the talk archive, and in the edit history of the associated pages, there is a group of active editors in this page, that includes myself. The current intro is largely a result of a consensus I initiated, and these are cosmetic changes, not of narrative content, but overwhelming concerns of article size and organization that are seriously reducing how useful this article is to our readers. And article we know is high traffic at this moment. I think delivering quality product is very important, and we need to be bold.
The user space suggestion is good and I will take it into account next time - now I am already deep into this process and I would hate to just revert in the midst of it.
I am snowball confident that while there might be some reverts, the bulk of active editors are in agreement with the re-structuring, and after one day with just one response, and a positive one at that, I feel being bold beats waiting. Plus, I have some time. Of course, if you feel strongly about this, lets discuss it further. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 07:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be okay to add this photo into the Sydney Harbour Defences article. I think it ok :-Adam ( talk) 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
Thank you for keeping an eye on USS Nevada (BB-36) while it was on the main page on December 7th. Your efforts were very appreciated. :) Cheers! — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC) |
I am summing up the numbers based on AP reports that come every day on the fighting in the islands, I don't think I can put references because in that case I would have to put over 50 references. But, maybe we can put in the bottom of the infobox something like Source: (and then put a link to AFP, AP and other news sources.). Editors have done the same thing over at the 2006 Somali war timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 ( talk) 07:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion of the regional articles as they do fail WP:GROUP and it was probably a few needless stubs I created. However, the amateur baseball teams speedy deleted for the Greater Brisbane League I created a while ago was probably not warranted. As with reliable sources (which in fairness, was probably not provided) passes notability in WP:GROUP and WP:ATHLETE There is no professional league as of the collapse of the ABL and the International Baseball League of Australia, this is the top tier of baseball in Australia. However, I apologise in wasting your time getting these articles speedy deleted - JRA WestyQld2 ( talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your straightforward answer, it's a lot better than getting a response similar to You have been here long enough that you don't need a lesson from me about WP:N, WP:RS and the other panoply of initialisms we use here. Anyway. I have a Alamanac book on Australian Major League baseball that if I properly reference along with Quest Community Newspapers weekly articles the teams should pass primary notability criteria, much like amateur college teams such as the New England Collegiate Baseball League. If you could somewhere dump all that info I might merge it into a larger article somewhere down the track. Much appreciated - JRA WestyQld2 ( talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Nick, I have never had the pleasure of inter-acting with you before and as our first inter-action I would like to present to you the following news which you may want to recommend be mentioned in the next edition of "The Bugle" newsletter:
My DYK hook for the article Captain Ivan Castro drew 71,300 page views while it was featured on the Main Page on December 8, 2008. That's an all-time DYK record for most page views! The list of all-time top DYK page views can be seen here, and the Castro article is now #1: Wikipedia:DYKBEST#All-time best of DYK. Not bad, right? Tony the Marine ( talk) 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick
I would like to draw your attention my POV and the many facts that you deleted. Whilst I conceed there were/are POV's there are large portions of facts deleted. I was in the CES during that time hence your POV deletions, I accept that much. The facts you deleted am questioning here? Some restoration of the information and facts is warranted. There is a distinction between my POV and the other information, I grant you that. I welcome your input Nick regards Zippomk2 ( talk) 11:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(upforced image size. That's a great new photo) - Yes, it is a good photo, isn't it.
Sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "upforced image size". Which image are you referring to that you "upforced"? What does "upforce" mean? Thanks in advance,
Pdfpdf (
talk) 08:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, If the edit comments are to limited for you, I will get some Talk page data up for you to follow the logic, I am still setting that up for you. I will get back to you when I have that up. Best Regards Vufors ( talk) 09:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick Do you know if pictures stored at the Australian War Memorial or its website are automatically owned by the AWM and PD under criterion E of PD-Australia. I didn't think that this was the case, but User:Abraham, B.S. thinks that I should be able to use them on Military career of Keith Miller - discussion User_talk:YellowMonkey#Military_career_of_Keith_Miller_photographs. These photos include photos taken in the UK, in the 1940s, where a 70 years after death rule applies, but he is suggesting that an AWM stored photo falls under PD-Aus even though all of these photos were taken in the UK. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I've tried to add more data and external references to establish notability to the article Indoor Obstacle Course Test. If you still feel it is deficient, could you give me more specific guidance on what it is missing? I'm still fairly new at contributing, and I want to make this one right. Thanks. -- Ahodges7 ( talk) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just added a few pic to this article I thought you may have a slight interest . Adam ( talk) 09:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I see on the talk page of User:Juzhong that you have blocked him for personal attacks recently, but why is it that I cannot find a record of this in the logs? In any case, he's making personal attacks yet again and maybe he really should be blocked this time. [34] Calling someone "scum" in a deletion discussion is totally unacceptable. JBsupreme ( talk) 10:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Nick, we've come to a general consensus for a rough article layout for World War I. The discussion update is located here. Since you were the one who started this subect, I figured you'd want to possible comment on the possible organization. Cam ( Chat) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Nick. I just did a bit of wikifying on HMS Shearwater (L39), and it say this fictional vessel represents the HMS winger of the Flower class. However, Winger is not listed on the class template. Just so you know why the categories are that way if I have it wrong-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
G'day Nick. At the risk of being accused of "canvassing", I am interested in why you take the position you take on this article's AfD. The article is almost entirely based on simple facts - this book was published within such and such a timeline, focused on this topic, and containing this and that which might be of interest. The only argument, I would have thought, might be with whether a particular book should have been selected rather than another book. And I don't understand why you liken it to a personal blog or website. Anyone, anywhere around the world, would be apt to come up with a similiar list. Where is the personal input in that? I am seriously surprised and don't understand why you take this position - and it seems to me Wikipedia will be diminished by the rejection of articles like this. Please sort me out. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Have reverted self here in relation to the Darwin Sayonara - due to my obtsue side comments not directly related - and taken good note of the notability issue for books - thanks for your trouble in pointing it out at Xfd and on my talk - will be much more careful with my comments re the matters of N and books. cheers Satu Suro 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nick Dowling
In answer to your question as to why this article is notable, if you bothered to read the introduction you will see the words fully restored. As far as I’m aware this is rather unique to the UK. I don’t know of any other fully restored Nazi gun emplacement on UK sites. A lot of time and effort has been put into restoring this unique part of our recent history and it fully deserves its place on Wikipedia. I have removed your tag as it is really not justified. I would also point out to you that the whole point of putting the under construction tag on the page is for it to have a chance to stand on its merits as it progresses. A concept that appears to have gone over your Head!. I do not wish to appear to be rude to you, but it would have been a little more courteous of you to contact me with your concern rather than just tagging the page. stavros1 ♣
Oberiko's just been blocked after consensus he's taken months to achieve on World War II has been put in jeopardy with less involved and committed editors undoing his good work, though he breached 3RR in the process. This block removes the main person who's basically singlehandedly carrying the WP:MHSP effort. Would you mind looking into the situation and the WW2 edit history and then commenting on his talk page? Kind regards Buckshot06( prof) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just created this. Would you mind taking a quick look and leaving any suggestions for improvement on the talk page? Regards Buckshot06( prof) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. ("You learn something new every day!"). Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Three minutes to undo an edit, that is fast protection. Is it not useful to mention similar weight British and Korean vessels to get the idea across that not all flat tops are aircraft carriers? Even the Invincible class ships got the Harrier as an afterthought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.188 ( talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
we should renominate it for deletion and propose a transwiki and come up with a detailed rationale for deletion this time. Myheartinchile ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile ( talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I share your concerns. The editor in question has a long story of creating synthesis-like articles where selected quotes are used in cherry-picked way, obscure resources and information taken out of context are combined to portay Allies in the worst way possible. His stance on Allies was made public by him when he named countries fighting against Nazi Germany "a gang"([ thing, there were other more or less temporary changes in the Western frontiers, not just the Bakker Schutz land-grab by the Dutch but also grabbings by the rest of the gang.) Other contributions include claims that WW2 was started by mass murder of Germans by Poles which prompted Hitler to intervene [3], or comparing Polish nation to war criminal Maybe the Poles and Milosevic are in the same class... Frankly as you likely understand I am very concerned with those edits and the overall impression they make. Especially since warning given to him didn't work [4]
Best regards. -- Molobo ( talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Commented on the article's talk page. Feel free to disagree with me there or at my talk. What do you believe should happen to the article? Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Check out this link [14]. This should tell you how many people have look at the portal for each month, thats if you haven't seen this web page before. Cheers . Adam (talk) ( talk) 03:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Any idea why this was deleted last year?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this new article is mostly a duplicate of Iraq War order of battle, USAFCENT, and United States Central Command, and I'm thinking of listing it for deletion. What do you think? Buckshot06( prof) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Mrg is now adding Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars to every major branch article - artillery, cavalry, jagers etc, far too high level categorisation (apart from it's appalling grammar). I've reverted a couple but he's reinstated the cat; what do you advise me to do? Regards Buckshot06( prof) 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
To Nick, for all the help with peer reviewing 11th Airborne Division and his helpful comments! Skinny87 ( talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, I'm a bit new to the upgraded WP standards since 2005 or so. What made you decide to remove the Tank links as 'un-needed'? Dhatfield ( talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really have the time to participate in that long winded discussion. Sorry. I took the advice here to "BE BOLD" and make the changes as an outside party without prior participation. If you liked the wording, I suggest you bring it up to the folks who are editwarring over it. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion - I was not aware of that board. However it does appear to be a sounding board for stressed people rather than somewhere to escalate and have action taken over an issue of non-consensus. Or have I missed something? FYI, the guidline I followed on content forks indicates that the approach should be AfD. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Blair refs aren't EZ to track down; it'd take reading it again... The info is in there, here & there; for now, I'll tag the fns "passim", k? Trekphiler ( talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
May require second opinion to mine-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.249.89.156, as he is consistently removing content from military pages. You may wish to keep an eye on him preparatory to a possible block. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nick, you may, or may not, wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Block_of_Mrg3105. Buckshot06( prof) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Nick, just wondering what you'd recommend re. a pic copyright issue. The one in question is of Richard Williams in the intro of the Chief of the Air Staff (Australia) article (which also appears in his article). The only source I'm aware of is the RAAF's official site and unfortunately the pic is undated and I think, judging by his appearance, it's after 1955 so not a natural for PD-Australia, unless I've missed something. I was going to leave requesting permission from the Commomwealth as a last resort - thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I would like to enquire if I would be able to join the Australian military history task force? If so, do I just add my name to the list? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've just added my name. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nick-D, you are a member of Wikiproject Military History, and I would like to notify you that a new Wiki has been made for Military History. If you are interested in participating in this project, please follow the following link. http://www.militaryhistorywiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line Review Me!
Well, if you're dealing with a known individual and his sockpuppets, there's no need to go through the entire warning routine with each new account; it's perfectly acceptable to just block them on sight.
Does that help? Or did I totally misunderstand your question? Kirill ( prof) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
1. I hadn't consciously taken in the museum's chnage of address. If we can find a consistent pattern in the way they have changed, it would be a good job for a bot.
2. Thanks, I had been thinking about DYK, although I'm not sure which factoid to use: the well-decorated Wellington crew, the lucky Halifax pilot or...?
3. I will have a look at it.
Cheers, Grant | Talk 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Great! You've just made the re-edit I was trying to craft in my head, the term certainly should be mentioned. Buckshot06( prof) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the note. also Talk:Griffith_Law_School#Merge_proposal Michellecrisp ( talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the period March-May 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 02:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
Appreciate your comments either way at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narodnoe_Opolcheniye#Requested_move. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 05:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you are one of the coordinators at the World War II task force, I think you should know that the World War II Portal is now featured. Beware ofdog 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Nick. I would like to register a complaint against a user. He/she is registered to IP address: 68.89.176.172. I see that you had blocked him/her previously. Anyhow, he/she keeps making unwarranted (or unreferenced) changes to the Wiki entry on Dance-pop. I realize that any and all Wiki articles are open to additions, subtractions etc., but this person keeps adding Soulja Boy, who ISN'T technically dance-pop. I wouldn't have a problem if he'd come into the talk page and discuss it; I added a talk subject to the Dance-pop page for duscussion, but he/she never responds, they just keep adding it. What should I do about this person? They seem to have vandalized a LOT of articles! Again -- this is the user 68.89.176.172
Thanks. Mirror Ball(Mirror Ball 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC))
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey again Nick. Thanks for your rapid reply to my other query. I see that someone that goes by Mumble45 person has again added Soulja Boy to Dance-pop. Also -- he has apparently had some conflicts with other Wiki users for making unsourced additions to the entry on Soulja Boy. This may or may not be the same person, as when I went to this "profile", this person had not apparent information and Wiki can't confirm his existence. Thanks again. (Mirror Ball 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)) Mirror Ball
Mumble45 has been going around making a LOT of unsourced changes, lol. See Mumble45. (Mirror Ball 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC))
Hi Nick, it recently came to my attention that the article on Air Commodore Sir Hughie Edwards had failed to obtain B class status due to a lack of references. I have since added the much needed references, as well as additional information to the article, and I was wondering if you could please indulge me and assess the article as a third party, and ascertain whether it has yet acquired a B class rating. Please do not feel obligated to assess the article, you may, of course, say no if you wish. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
To Nick Dowling, for kindly assessing an article and upgrading it to B-class status on my request. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for the support! | ||
Nick-D, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
Quality review there, Nick! Well done, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 08:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I need some advice re some what i consider really atrocious indonesian military articles - please let me know when i can provide you some links - I would be interested in your opinion - if you are at all interested - please let me know and ill fish them out over the weekend - cheers Satu Suro 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, in reply to your message on my talk page:
Thank you for notifying me of your intentions, Nick. Please, just to make sure there are again no misunderstandings, I did not insert that paragraph into the Japan article, not that I would expect you to have preconceptions or act rashly before investigating the full history of events... however it might be good if you also chose to inform User:IrishHaremOtaku, since he would seem to be the one directly affected in that article.
As to what Schrijvers wrote, yes I see now that you are right in that it was not made by Schrijvers, but you were wrong to remove it. That quote on rape which states it "was a general practice against Japanese women" should instead be attributed to Dr. Xavier Guillaume, Department of Political Science, University of Geneva.
As to dehumanization, the context they are mentioned in clearly shows that the rapes were affected by dehumanization. (bold by me)
From the page numbers used above you'd see that the rapes are mentioned in connection to the rest of the dehumanization atrocities. Further, according to the review Schrijvers also mentions the following on dehumanization in earlier pages:
-- Stor stark7 Speak 11:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I'm back again with another request. Like before, feel free to say no if you want, I won't hold it against you, lol. I was wondering if you would please assess the article on Albert Jacka for me; I have gone through and added additional information and references. If you do decide to assess the article, and do approve it for B-class status, could you please also remove the "No references or sources" tag on the article. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you start a stub for the Kiev class aircraft carrier Novorossiysk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.173.158 ( talk) 11:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick; have you seen my comment at Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II? Regards, Grant | Talk 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have some IP editors constantly reverting my edits on List of battles by casualties. Can an admin do something about it? I would prefer to discuss matters on the talk page and agree to a solution, but it is very hard with an IP. Wandalstouring ( talk) 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I don't seem to have a decision on my proposal for categorisation of battles by conflict and country as briefly discussed here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposed category: Operations and Battles by Country and Conflict. I am only new to this whole WikiProject concept. Where to from here?
Thanks Glenn Sisson ( talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nick, I see that you removed a map pertaining to proposed occupation zones and looking through the history, this was done twice. The first time you said it was misleading - which it would only be if people are unable to read the caption of the map which clearly stated it was a map of proposed zones that were abandoned upon the surrender of Japan; now if people can't read the caption they probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place and if they choose not to read the caption or the relevant article information then that's their problem and they're just lazy. The second time you removed it you said it was "uncited in the article" and that "there's no explanation of whether it was ever accepted". However in the very section you removed it from, the second paragraph clearly states:
So how is it that the map is uncited in the article when the article clearly refers to wartime plans to divide Japan for occupation purposes like Germany? And if the plan was abandoned then it couldn't have been accepted in the end could it? Most articles don't even directly cite maps anyway (I can't remember the last article I saw that had anything like "see Fig. 1" or "see map"). And if it is citations for the map itself, why not ask the author of the map him/herself? Surely they should know where they got it from and if you look at the other similar map that the first one was linked to ( Image:Divide-and-rule_plan_of_Japan.png) there is mention by the Japanese author of that map of a reference based on a "plan in the American National Archives", so surely that must constitute a reference. The author and yourself seem interested in military history, so I'm sure you would find things to discuss pertaining to the map(s). 72.27.75.66 ( talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I'm going to assume you didn't mean to imply that I was trying to do the wrong thing but I just want to make it clear that I wasn't. Truth is, the whole adding an image process confused me (it's been a while), and I had no idea what to select. I didn't try to hide anything - I had comments about the US one being wrong, and I provided the source for the other images. I made sure it was OK here [15] but I don't know how they are supposed to be tagged (as may be evident from previous comments on my talk page but I logged in less frequently then and they were deleted before I could do anything).
-- Carbonrodney ( talk) 11:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. But you're just as guilty as I am - we both had plenty of opportunity to fix it, and both didn't.
Hang on, what am I on about? You did fix it. OK, you're less guilty than I am.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind checking the last few edits at Talk: Manchurian SOO? Mrg3105 has both insulted me, by calling me a yesman, and then removed the whole straw poll section without consultation with anyone. I know you're involved, but I would very much appreciate it if you would at least warn him. Regards Buckshot06( prof) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You should know better than to suggest renaming a historical event with a made-up title, and that Buckshot06 will vote for anything that is opposite to what I say. In any case, I'm sure you are familiar with the outcome of that consensus. polling is not a substitute for discussion, and discussion is no substitute for sources.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:66.4.209.194 has again the pleasure of reverting my edits on List of battles by casualties after the semi-protection expired. My one-sided ceasefire of edits during the protection and offer to talk were to no avail. Is there any other posibility to get through to this editor? Wandalstouring ( talk) 11:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you deleted the Taranto link here. Some editors here would obviously disagree with you. Perhaps a comment there? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You voted for Howard Government as an Australian collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks Matilda talk 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
You are an admin, with an interest area in military history... If you have time, I was hoping you could provide a third opinion on HK MP5 - specifically whether one of the images I uploaded should be included in the article. At the moment it is a bit of a revert war, and I have made the last edit I will make (an attempt to compromise) before the issue is resolved. Cheers,
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For some particularly fine content contribution, as well as working on the minor things that help make articles great I humbly award you this barnstar. Rumiton ( talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) |
Hi. You voted for Howard Government for Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It was selected on Sunday, so please help to improve it if you can. Thanks for your support. -- Scott Davis Talk 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, is this what you agreed with Molobo ( talk · contribs)? -- Stor stark7 Speak 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently you commented on the state of the article HMS Ark Royal (91), during its A-class review. Among those comments was an assertation that the early part of the article could do with a copyedit. Would you be able to take a look at User:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking, where I'm working on this chunk of article, and offer your opinion on its improvement (or lack thereof?) -- saberwyn 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick, could you take a look at this diff, and my comments on the talk page? We have a new user who has been heavily editing carrier-related articles in the past day or so, and he seems to have a "broad" view of what constitutes an LPH to include any helicopter carrier ever built, or any carrier which carried mostly helicopters at some point in its career. Would you mind double-checking me? Feel free to slap me with your new fish if I need it! Thanks. Btw, some USN supercarriers have been used recently as primarily helicopter platforms, off Afghanistan and Lousiana, IIRC. I certainly hope we don't have to add those to the list! - BillCJ ( talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I think he is misreading LPH as a "take-of and landing platform" for helicopters, rather than as a "Landing" as in amphibious operations. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the criticism. While others were editing it for GA-Class, I never noticed that some did those two sentence paragraphs as I had a hands-off approach since I wrote most of it. In response to what you said, the real only thing that could be considered criticism for the unit were the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I couldn't find anything out there that could be considered a negative. Should I create a page for the "federally recognized" thing? I tried to address the issues that you put down, these being numbers 1, 3-7, and 9-13. Well I look forward to any help and advice that you can bring. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Tenmei, I have noticed that you frequently change other editors' posts on talk pages by bolding or changing the colour of some or all of their message. The talk page guidelines states that making these kind of changes is unacceptable behaviour. Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
First thanks very much for your actions in regard to Mrg´s block. I have felt a bit alone sometimes in reacting to his bizarre edits, so I felt very appreciative of your action in response to his incivility, insults, etc.
However, there are still some remaining issues with the things he`s done. One can put a tag on an article that it´s disputed etc, but here Mrg3105´s categorisations, carried to their logical conclusion, would have a category saying type of military forces in War X for every war in history added to the bottom of the infantry, cavalry, and artillery articles. How do I register that I do not agree with the categorisation without the slow revert war that has been occurring (he 's now readding them a fifth time.) How may I get this considered in a fair way? (This also applies to the WW2 category issue of course).
Roger D. seems to be quite busy, and has not responded to the note I left on his talk page. Would appreciate guidance on how I should proceed. Buckshot06( prof) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I'm sorry to be a pain in the butt and pester you again, but in regard to images in the Australian War Memorial online database, does it basically mean that any image in the collection that was published, taken, printed, etcetera, before 1 January 1955 is now free of copyright and eligible to be used on Wikipedia? I ask primarily due to the fact that I would like to place the image of Leon Goldsworthy (ID 081383) on his page, in an attempt to enhance the article's quality. This image was published during World War II, so is at least 62 years old. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 12:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick, I'm sorry but I'm completely lost with this whole Wikipedia thing - and I apologise in advance if I'm talking on the wrong page (I've tried clicking your name line but it doesn't seem to take me back to your comments about my OTVA post). I'm a retired corporate affairs executive who simply responded to a request from a veterans organisation (OTVA), with which I'm familiar, to explain their role in life for the benefit of researchers, historians and other interested individuals and/or groups worldwide. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, nor even much more than a complete novice - but I hope that won't be held against me to detract from the validity of the OTVA post. Your comment back in March 2008 (sorry, I've had other priorities since then), that the three references quoted for OTVA don't appear to be independent, is well wide of the mark. The three references quoted were <Transit, the official staff magazine of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission> <OTC Annual Reports> <OTC archives>. OTC (an antecedent of Telstra) was a commercial organisation charged with carriage of Australia's international telecommunications (ie into, out of and through Australia) from 1946 to 1992. OTVA, on the other hand, is a non-commercial organisation comprised of veterans from OTC, C&W, AWA and other telecommunications organisations worldwide. There is no official and certainly no commercial link between OTC and OTVA - indeed, OTVA once sought sponsorship from OTC and was rebuffed (ditto with Telstra after OTC ceased to exist). Notwithstanding, OTC still recognised the existence and value of OTVA and hence mentioned them in their official staff magazine from time to time, as well as in their annual reports (always in a non-official sense) - hence my quoting them as independent references. I'm not sure how things work on Wikipedia, nor do I have the time to find out, I'm afraid, (the end is closer than the beginning for me now, and I have many other things to do which rank much higher in my personal priorities than continuing to argue the case for OTVA on Wikipedia, despite the value that is seen in this entry by archivists and historians). So can I suggest that unless you can provide evidence to support your claim that OTC is not independent of OTVA (which I, and I daresay every member of OTC and OTVA would hotly dispute), then you please remove your comments at the top of the OTVA page (as Cuyler did before you, after also questioning many things about the post but then having the good grace to acknowledge that it was all "style" stuff and fixing it himself). Cheers Linhmartin ( talk) 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Nick. I note your comment about staff magazines but would point out that Transit (one of the references I quoted for OTVA) was awarded the Gold Serif in 1995 by the Public Relations Institute of Australia for "excellence in communication". In other words, it was adjudged the most professionally written, edited and produced corporate magazine in Australia that year. How do I know? I was the managing editor then and had been for 11 years previously (we'd gained many awards of merit, but 1995 was the first time we made it to the very top of the tree). There is no question that the references I quoted are independent of OTVA, and I'm surprised you question the independence of something like an annual report from the then government's most successful business enterprise (the annual reports were required to be tabled in Parliament each year and thus were required to meet more stringent publication and content criteria than most books published on the open market); however, I will ask the members to find other references, which I know are contained in independently published works such as Invisible Bridges (Rod Masterton), Taming the Tyrant (Edgar Harcourt), and others. Had I been prepared for the amount of scrutiny from Wikipedia administrators that the OTVA post has been subjected to, I daresay I would have gone the extra mile to incorporate these references in the original post. But I honestly thought everyone was familiar with the completely separate roles of OTC and OTVA (given the well publicised merger of OTC and Telecom 16 years ago) and was just trying to help out the OTVA guys without making a major project out of it. And now the big question, of course: how do I remove the tag? Linhmartin ( talk) 08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
"Disagree" -- that single word from BillCJ's doomed my request for mediation, but it need not be the last word.
I have re-submitted the request as the somewhat modified Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2 -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.
Changes include expressly incorporating Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer along with Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Also, the number of named parties is smaller. Another potentially helpful improvement -- first on the list of issues to be mediated is:
I'm much more concerned about getting this process started than I care about what or who comes first. I hope you join me in this concern.
I hope you will again assent to this request for mediation.
By sharing a copy of this notification with those who had not decided what to do about the first request for mediation, I am fulfilling my responsibilities as the filing party; and at the same time, I open a door to the possibility that one or more may yet decide to do more than watchlist this page. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
How do I propose a new Task Force? Out ( talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The
July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I just though I'd let you know that I was looking at the copyright section on the Australian War Memorial website, and it states that any photograph in their collection taken before 1 May 1969 is now free of copyright and in the public domain; there may be, of course, a few exceptions though. See [24]. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am working on a Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom requiring references to the conscription of young people, and am in need of some source documents re changes in practices in the periods before and after the war. Could you possibly point me in the right direction, please ? SJB ( talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, will do. SJB ( talk) 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nick, thanks for keeping my informed about the DDH mess and our loquacious adversary. I am going on Wikibreak for the time being. Could you please look at Talk:Mistral class amphibious assault ship#Image of a French Amphibious excercice, and see if my opinion is off base? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As I told you I would do, I have lodged a request for arbitration so that we can re-commence the process of requesting mediation.
Once your concerns about my words and actions are addressed, then I would assume that the perceived barrier which blocks mediation will no longer trouble us.
Specifically, I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of your complaints at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling. -- Tenmei ( talk) 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been nominated again despite a clear keep only a very short time ago. As such I am informing those who last voted for it to get this AfD kicked off. The reasons all seem to consist of invalid arguments like "silly smut" and "don't like it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Phallic_Building_contest_(2nd_nomination)#Most_Phallic_Building_contest JJJ999 ( talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we did a little overview of the WP:MILHIST project in our last episode, and I was wondering; would you like to do a sort of mini-interview over skype or similar for the friday episode? It wouldn't be very long, maybe 5 minutes maximum. Ironho lds 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
thank you for reading Operation Soberania and adding the criteria checklist:
I dont request a Peer review. Not now.
I need your help with the Referencing/citation and Coverage/accuracy issues. Which (disputed) statements are not referenced?.
I dont think that a table with Ch/Ar Military-Data would improve the accuracy of the article because the operation was called off and there are a table with the defense budget. That is enough. What do you think about?
Thanks in advance, -- Keysanger ( talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got my sources from peole who have seved in the unit who transfered into 4 RAR from a number of UK units including the Royal Marines and the Parchute Regiment. The informed me that the units make up and roles where very much the same as these units rather then SASR and your classical SF-type units like the SASR or SAS. You have provided sound references so I concur with its addition but if you look at the Special Operations section on Wiki you'll see there is cause for it inclussion onto the Spec Ops page ( Archangel1 ( talk) 10:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
I suggest you spend the time constucting a Wiki page for this item as articles without a Wiki page are of no use on this site. You ref may be solid but without an article, you are not contibuting. So as to warn of any possible edit-war, let me remind you of: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule ( Archangel1 ( talk) 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
Which comment is that? ( Archangel1 ( talk) 12:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
I'm sorry you feel like that as it was NOT a personal attack. I was mealy pointing out that rather then continually pointing out a certain issue, sometimes it's better (and quicker) to rectify the issue ( Archangel1 ( talk) 12:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
I see you've moved that page to the correct name as per the Talk page. I was thinking about doing the same thing myself. I've spent the day working on the article and (I think) improved it enormously. However, I'm just wondering what thoughts you have with regards to getting this assessed as a GA/A. I've only been doing the Wikipedia thing for a short time, so I'm not really sure what level this article's at. Lawrencema ( talk) 08:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the rv at The Economist, I now think you are right to have done so. If you are interested in this, you might want to mark other popular publications that have substantial business coverage such as The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Pdbailey ( talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the references for this article, all the data has been compiled from within the Wiki itself, the first time I refer to each ship I Wiki-link it. How do you think I should explain this in the article? Obviously it is a work in progress at the moment, I plan to do the non-US carriers next and then finish with the US ones. I have not worried about linking to it anywhere else just yet because it is incomplete, I thought I would wait until I have done the first run through before worrying about that, ditto for categorisation. Also I am not sure about the format of the page, if you have any suggestion I would be interested. Nick Thorne talk 00:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nick,
What campaign to you believe the Sio to Madang/Alexishafen drive during World War II in 1944 belongs to? I believe it belongs in the Huon Peninsula campaign. Same for Landing at Saidor. All other drives north of Alexishafen to Wewak obviously belong in the Aitape-Wewak campaign. Your thoughts??? -- Newm30 ( talk) 06:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why the article says Australian Submarine Corporation is former name? If the name is changed, then what is the new name? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 10:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nick Dowling, I come here to seek your input on Tenmei ( talk · contribs)'s behaviors. Thanks-- Caspian blue ( talk) 01:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nick, could you redact Taemyr's highly inappropriate comment and links at the ANI? [26] I've heard and learned that publicizing block logs of other people and linking the page to make WP:POINT is a "personal attack" from ill-faith. If I were reported for disruption instead of Tenmei, that block log is necessarily addressed by admins but this is not the case and I strongly feel offense at his contradictory attack. I requested him to retract it because even though I'm deeply hurt by Taemyr behavior, I don't know I could be allowed to remove it myself. He also made some comments to you [27], and the report is also going nowhere with Tenmei's lengthy and unreable rambling. The AfD has nothing to do with my contributions and I did not expect to have this hard time to deal wit the users. Taemyr seems to be off right now, so could you do this? Thanks. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Raymond_Hoser&action=history - please, it seems to be a dont care for the rules reverter - please accept my apologies if you are in the middle of something else - but noticed you are on Satu Suro 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Nick, I've responded to some of the comments you made on the ACR for 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. Cheers. Cam ( Chat) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
In this picture it mentions that the soldiers depicted are from "Air Force A platoon". Just a slight correction to that. I know at least 4 of the guys in the picture and they are in 2RAR. Now to collect a 6 pack from each of them... :D User:Pretender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.52.79 ( talk) 14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Wafulz ( talk) 22:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What preparatory steps would you advise me to do, in order to practice for a run at being an administrator at some point? Can you point me to others' hint pages etc? Buckshot06( prof) 10:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I have raised this question previosly on discussion pages, forgive me for repeating it here but I didn't seem to get any answer. Below is an example as this issue obviously applies to all discussions:
I have been reading the discussion about the name of the article (and subsequent category) Battle of Gallipoli and they seem to have come to a decision that it should be called the Gallipoli Campaign or similar. At what point and who should action the decision and make the necessary changes?
I have proposed to change the way operations are categorised here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Operations versus Battles and got some support but no real clear decision, so I just started working on it. Hope this is OK. Glenn Sisson ( talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I missed the content in Up Top when I was researching the article... I remember skimming through the book but not finding much material that hadn't been found elsewhere. Good to see that even after FA, an article can still be improved.
Regarding the edits, I'd like to make a couple of nit-picks
First, on the paragraph regarding the possible deployment of Skyhawk crew with a USMC squadron while Melbourne was being refitted. I personally think that the info is a little too detailed for something that only tangentially involves the carrier, and would be better served in an associated squadron article (I assume 805 Squadron RAN), with a summarised version in Melbourne's article. I'll leave it as-is for now, but would like to hear your thoughts.
Second, regarding the Navy stonewalling of the use of Melbourne to help clear Australian forces from Vietnam... could you check the source and see if there are any particular reasons given for the Navy's stance on the matter?
Thanks muchly in advance. -- saberwyn 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the vote, Nick. I should have realized last night, what with no-one else having voted, but I was suffering from jet-lag and just thought I'd beaten everyone else to it. I'll read more carefully next time... Skinny87 ( talk) 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you take an eye on List of battles by casualties and do whatever is needed. The edit war is about to start again. However, now it is some wikipedians who think unsourced material has a right to stay and even gave me a warning. Wandalstouring ( talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I -- Dt23 am the one who sent a warning against Wandalstouring because of his horrendous actions on that page. list of battles by death toll Is a high traffic page and ( User talk:Wandalstouring) has deleted months possibly even years worth of work on false acusations that the "entire" article is not sourced correctly. Thats why I call upon you to protect the page at least another 24 hours. ( User:Wandalstouring) has carried out acts of vandalism and others upon that fatefull page. We the people of Wikipedia do not deserve such acts upon us. Thats why I believe not only should the page be protected longer but ( Wandalstouring) severly punished for his months of unchecked vandalism.-- Dt23 ( talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Somebody's been busy! I've given it a once over, made a few slight organisational changes, upgraded it to B-class, and tried to begin a lead section. Hope you approve. Are you planning to run with this in the general A/FA direction? -- saberwyn 09:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
In recognition of your help improving Military history articles through the Military history review process in June, July and August 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
Nick, just FYI, did you see this discussion? It arose when a sharp-eyed editor found that a couple of AWM images no longer include the 'clear' legend, but are rather labelled 'status to be assessed'. I was checking further on all the ones used in the Morotai Mutiny article, as a prelude to nominating it for FA, and all of them are 'to be assessed'. Doesn't matter in most cases we've been using AWM images because they're pre-1955 and can just take PD-Australia, but something to be aware of. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine - at least it would be one consistent format. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It's newsworth, has evoked a response from both sides of the house in Australia and also matches some critism from the USA - all in the references. I've specifically made reference to the peoples positions as per you suggestion on the talk page. Please discuss any further changes on the talk page 121.79.19.4 ( talk) 11:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are too modest. The organisation of the project is quite impressive. It is my experience that the people who need convincing are those most immediately involved.
In the long term this storm in a teacup will resolve itself: with more notice I expect the project would have created a drive to concentrate on improving requested articles. I don't object to referencing, in an ideal future every article will be complete in all ways. I do object to an over-emphasis which exists at present in so far as it impacts others efforts. I don't agree with the assesment system, but I have always taken the view that someone loves it and created it for a purpose, so best to let them run a grade system as they want. But that is not what is happening here. Arguably, the history project should follow the set rules and campaign for them to be changed rather than arbitrarily following different ones. Sandpiper ( talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, we got the star, Nick - many thanks for your constant support of and helpful additions to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nick Dowling, you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I'm working on M3 Amphibious Rig, a new article. M3 Amphibious Rig should be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Can you please create the talkpage of M3 Amphibious Rig? I don't know which tag to use. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 08:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick and thanks for deleting the above article. One point I will raise however: I am not certain I would have used G4 to delete the article. There hasn't actually been a discussion as such about the article previously, it had previously been speedy deleted. The current incarnation had been speedy tagged, the tag removed by the author and the tagging editor, after reconsideration decided not to apply the tag again. Because of this, I thought an AfD would be more appropriate than speedy deletion.
Given the contributing editors sorry history and the potential BLP issues in the article (although I suspect a hoax), a quick deletion is by no means a bad thing. I thought it worthwhile however to let you know my reasoning behind my decision to list at AfD. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Milhist Coordinator elections | ||
Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards,
Cam (
Chat) 00:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France |
Congratulations on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from February 2008 to September 2008, please accept this barnstar.-- TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hi mate, you might recall a while back I left a message re. obtaining permission to use photos appearing on Defence websites that were not clearly covered by PD-Australia. I decided to formally seek permission to use some of the pics of former RAAF Chiefs of Staff that appeared to be post-1955, and have received a reply in the affirmative. However now that I've again checked the requirements for uploading a file from someone else who's given permission to use their images, Defence's conditions don't seem to comply with the 'free licence' clause and, to be fair, I didn't specify a free licence when I requested permission from them. I've put the e-mail I received (which includes my templated request) plus a pic of the fax giving an undertaking to comply with their conditions, on my user page. Be interested in your thoughts on whether this would cut the mustard here as it is, or whether we'd need to go back and try to get them to release the pics under a free licence unencumbered by special conditions such as permission being required for reuse, no derivative works, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, Nick - managed to convince DoD to drop the need for faxed agreement, see what you think when you get a chance Image:Richard Williams.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I trust it was a good one :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. As you are an administrator, im reaching out to you to try to stop an possible edit war on the Operation Overlord article. User Wokelly are removing sourced and reliable numbers from the info box, which is vandalism in my opinion. We need a third perspective at this, you can read our inputs in the discussion section in the Operation Overlord article. Regards -- Nirvana77 ( talk) 13:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar, Nick. To be honest, it had just got to a point where Something Needed To Be Done.
If you have a moment, by the way, could you take a look at WP:MHCOORD and see whether you can add your 2/100s on some of the stagnating matters? Thanks, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Firstly, thanks for the peer review comments, they helped in pushing the article up a notch. I was wondering if you could proofread the Kokoda Trail section again. You may have already read it, but I'm just trying to make sure the explanation of the events leading up to the Battle of Isurava was satisfactory. \ / ( ⁂) 00:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I am interjecting here on the request of Backslash Forwardslash, and according to the 2/14 Battalion's page at the Australian War Memorial located here, the 2/14th was part of the 21st Brigade. Hope this helps clarify some things! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on C-class articles on WP:INDIA. Much appreciated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thought you might b einterested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weller/First_Into_Nagasaki - cheers Satu Suro 11:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at the edits that user:JK Golden and I have made to this page and Unorganized World War II Divisions (United States) and giving us a third opinion? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06( prof) 08:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I came across Fredric H. Leigh and was wondering if there was notability there I'm not seeing? I looked up his different awards and nothing is coming off as something unique. I came to you as I saw you're one of the top dogs of the MILHIST project. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I added the second category to Tobruk because it appears that the vast majority of RAN ships are in both Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy and the relevant subcategories. As a counter-example, HMAS Anzac (FFH 150) is in the main cat, the subcat for Australian frigates, the sub-subcat for Australian frigates in active service, and the sub-subcat for Anzac class frigates.
To be totally honest, I don't know what to think of the RAN ship categories. There is an incredible amount of overlap between the main cat and the subcats, and in many cases the subcats are small, overlapping each other, and containing even smaller sub-subcats that either repeat their 'one-level-higher' brethren, or contain too few articles to (in my mind) be worth bothering with a category. For much larger navies, (as an example, the RN and the USN) the subcategory system is an effective way to categorise the articles on the hundreds of ships active at any given time and/or the thousands of ships that have seved in that navy. The RAN, however, is annoyingly not large enough to benefit from the current category tree, but is borderline not small enough for just the main cat.
Long story short, do what you think is necessary for Tobruk, but do you have any thoughts on the overall matter? -- saberwyn 09:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ive knocked together a quick category structure at User:Saberwyn/The_Grand_RAN#Category_tree, and would like your opinion. Basically, Category:Naval ships of Australia will be our "top" category. Below this will be three categories:
There is also a table listing all the type/role subcats I feel we need. It contains the two basic formulations: "Category:Foo of the Royal Australian Navy" and "Category:Foo of Australia", the main subcat for each of these, and any inclusion notes. There is also a list of "odd categories out" for type/role, and brief notes on what I think should be done with their contents.
Do you have any comments or suggestions at this stage? I'm probably going to give it a week or so before I raise the issue at WP:Milhist/Aus, WP:Ships, and possibly elsewhere (where exactly yet I do not know).
Do you have any suggestions or comments at this stage
It would be helpful to have some input on the following discussions, some of which you may have missed:
Very many thanks :) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K. thanks, I will. -- Jacurek ( talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I was just wondering if it would be o.k. to upload this picture [ [31]] from 1944 Warsaw Uprising into WW2 article. The reason I think it would be nice to have the picture there is that the Uprising was one of the biggest battles of the war but it is the least known. If you have no objection perhaps you could do it the way (size etc.) you think is appropriate. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K. thanks I will.--
Jacurek (
talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, I have added a selection of requested pages to that page. -- Zaher1988 ( talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ping! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Nick, an IP user just created the AP-3C Orion page. it's short, but what is thee is actually decent. I know that the Canadian CP-140 uses an ASW suite based on the S-3, so it is a fundamentally different aircraft asside from the airframe. However, no other national variants have separate pages. Do you think there is enough potential content to warrant keeping the AP-3C separate from the main P-3 page? I'm just seeking input at this point. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and I understand your point. I'll probably be bringing it up at WT:AIR in a day or so. If you want to participate in any discussion there, you are of course welcome. - BillCJ ( talk) 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you as long as there's the content to support it, and I am inclined to keep it. I just want to get some input from other editors too. That way if some over-eager AFD wonk decides their opinon is best, we have some project consensus on it already, both specific and general. And more editors to work on teh article! - BillCJ ( talk) 08:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick
There's an ongoing edit war on Battle of Yarmouk that needs a cold shower to be stopped. Can you do something about it? Wandalstouring ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Spotted an edit by Vladimir ryunin94 ( talk · contribs) leading me to believe he could be the same IP vandal who keeps adding nonsense to the Philippine military articles. Somewhat OT: I know that it doesn't take much time to revert all the nonsense that's added, but what would it take to get Philippine Army, Philippine Navy, Philippine Marine Corps, Philippine Air Force and Armed Forces of the Philippines permanently semi-protected? I read the rules and I think at least some of these articles would qualify. -- Edward Sandstig ( talk) 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
As you can side in talk and in the talk archive, and in the edit history of the associated pages, there is a group of active editors in this page, that includes myself. The current intro is largely a result of a consensus I initiated, and these are cosmetic changes, not of narrative content, but overwhelming concerns of article size and organization that are seriously reducing how useful this article is to our readers. And article we know is high traffic at this moment. I think delivering quality product is very important, and we need to be bold.
The user space suggestion is good and I will take it into account next time - now I am already deep into this process and I would hate to just revert in the midst of it.
I am snowball confident that while there might be some reverts, the bulk of active editors are in agreement with the re-structuring, and after one day with just one response, and a positive one at that, I feel being bold beats waiting. Plus, I have some time. Of course, if you feel strongly about this, lets discuss it further. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 07:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be okay to add this photo into the Sydney Harbour Defences article. I think it ok :-Adam ( talk) 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
Thank you for keeping an eye on USS Nevada (BB-36) while it was on the main page on December 7th. Your efforts were very appreciated. :) Cheers! — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC) |
I am summing up the numbers based on AP reports that come every day on the fighting in the islands, I don't think I can put references because in that case I would have to put over 50 references. But, maybe we can put in the bottom of the infobox something like Source: (and then put a link to AFP, AP and other news sources.). Editors have done the same thing over at the 2006 Somali war timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 ( talk) 07:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion of the regional articles as they do fail WP:GROUP and it was probably a few needless stubs I created. However, the amateur baseball teams speedy deleted for the Greater Brisbane League I created a while ago was probably not warranted. As with reliable sources (which in fairness, was probably not provided) passes notability in WP:GROUP and WP:ATHLETE There is no professional league as of the collapse of the ABL and the International Baseball League of Australia, this is the top tier of baseball in Australia. However, I apologise in wasting your time getting these articles speedy deleted - JRA WestyQld2 ( talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your straightforward answer, it's a lot better than getting a response similar to You have been here long enough that you don't need a lesson from me about WP:N, WP:RS and the other panoply of initialisms we use here. Anyway. I have a Alamanac book on Australian Major League baseball that if I properly reference along with Quest Community Newspapers weekly articles the teams should pass primary notability criteria, much like amateur college teams such as the New England Collegiate Baseball League. If you could somewhere dump all that info I might merge it into a larger article somewhere down the track. Much appreciated - JRA WestyQld2 ( talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Nick, I have never had the pleasure of inter-acting with you before and as our first inter-action I would like to present to you the following news which you may want to recommend be mentioned in the next edition of "The Bugle" newsletter:
My DYK hook for the article Captain Ivan Castro drew 71,300 page views while it was featured on the Main Page on December 8, 2008. That's an all-time DYK record for most page views! The list of all-time top DYK page views can be seen here, and the Castro article is now #1: Wikipedia:DYKBEST#All-time best of DYK. Not bad, right? Tony the Marine ( talk) 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick
I would like to draw your attention my POV and the many facts that you deleted. Whilst I conceed there were/are POV's there are large portions of facts deleted. I was in the CES during that time hence your POV deletions, I accept that much. The facts you deleted am questioning here? Some restoration of the information and facts is warranted. There is a distinction between my POV and the other information, I grant you that. I welcome your input Nick regards Zippomk2 ( talk) 11:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(upforced image size. That's a great new photo) - Yes, it is a good photo, isn't it.
Sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "upforced image size". Which image are you referring to that you "upforced"? What does "upforce" mean? Thanks in advance,
Pdfpdf (
talk) 08:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, If the edit comments are to limited for you, I will get some Talk page data up for you to follow the logic, I am still setting that up for you. I will get back to you when I have that up. Best Regards Vufors ( talk) 09:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick Do you know if pictures stored at the Australian War Memorial or its website are automatically owned by the AWM and PD under criterion E of PD-Australia. I didn't think that this was the case, but User:Abraham, B.S. thinks that I should be able to use them on Military career of Keith Miller - discussion User_talk:YellowMonkey#Military_career_of_Keith_Miller_photographs. These photos include photos taken in the UK, in the 1940s, where a 70 years after death rule applies, but he is suggesting that an AWM stored photo falls under PD-Aus even though all of these photos were taken in the UK. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I've tried to add more data and external references to establish notability to the article Indoor Obstacle Course Test. If you still feel it is deficient, could you give me more specific guidance on what it is missing? I'm still fairly new at contributing, and I want to make this one right. Thanks. -- Ahodges7 ( talk) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just added a few pic to this article I thought you may have a slight interest . Adam ( talk) 09:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I see on the talk page of User:Juzhong that you have blocked him for personal attacks recently, but why is it that I cannot find a record of this in the logs? In any case, he's making personal attacks yet again and maybe he really should be blocked this time. [34] Calling someone "scum" in a deletion discussion is totally unacceptable. JBsupreme ( talk) 10:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Nick, we've come to a general consensus for a rough article layout for World War I. The discussion update is located here. Since you were the one who started this subect, I figured you'd want to possible comment on the possible organization. Cam ( Chat) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)