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. |
Repositioned myself as weak keep at afd. Article still needs help though. TomStar81 ( Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Nick, your autoblock when you blocked doltna probably had rather a lot of collateral, I've determined that the user is a rather over-enthusiatic colleague, and I htin I should be able to sort out the editting. It was well-intentioned, but could have been done better. David Underdown ( talk) 11:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, thanks for your info on the AWNB. I take this to mean that on eg. Battle of the Coral Sea, I should replace the {{flagicon|Australia|naval}} to be something like UK|naval. Is that right? Slac speak up! 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just replaced the subheadings as they made zero substantive change to the article (no text change at all, in fact) and substantially added to the ease with which a large summary article can be navigated. Such as at the similar article Cold War. I examined the Talk sections and saw no such prior discussions of merely adding more subheadings.
I would like to think that such non-substantive changes could be made to the article without some sort of automatic revert. If there is an actual problem with merely adding subheadings (again, zero substantive change to the article), I would of course be more than willing to discuss it, but none has been raised so far, including in the above paragraph. I'm not sure what such a complaint would be as the article is substantially easier to navigate with subheadings on the various topics, but again, I would be more than willing to discuss it. Mosedschurte ( talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about my unilateral rewriting of the Background and Black Armband Debate sections. I had the same concerns myself about a renewed bout of edit-warring. But we've been locked in a stalemate with Likebox for months over the Genocide debate section and nothing seemed to be happening to improve other parts of the article. So I took the chance that if I removed some of the excessive quoting and rewrote some of the badly disjointed sections in as balanced and neutral a tone as I could manage (and I've kept tweaking it to try and make it more NPOV), others might bypass the Genocide debate section for a while and do something constructive with the article. So far no-one seems to be protesting that I've 'ruined' the sections that I've rewritten. I'd be happier if others would join in and do some NPOV rewrites on other parts of the article, where it's needed, or at least make some suggestions on the talk page but, otherwise and so far, it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Perhaps my cunning plan is working?? Webley442 ( talk) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Following the closure of the ACR, I wanted to come here and post a few comments on the above, but got a little preoccupied with other things. ;-) That said, I have now completed a review of this excellent article and have come up with the following suggestions/pointers/comments:
I hope these are of some help. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be interested in history wars. There is a major problem with this page, that the fringe theories of Windschuttle and quadrant, which have next to no academic support, are being presented as if they were majority opinions (or even opinions worthy of respect). Fixing this is difficult, since another administrator (PBS) has taken the position that introducing mainstream sources is not allowed. This leads to severe editing problems. There is no "nice" way to fix this. What is absolutely required is another person (other than myself) willing to take a hostile position. Hopefully you are willing to be jerk number 2. Likebox ( talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nick, all athletes on the Australian WBC Roster or have been in a previous World Baseball Classic pass WP:ATHLETE due to them playing at the highest level of amateur sport. Also Brendan Wise competes in the Eastern League currently which is a fully professional tier of Major League Baseball. However, I have added a couple of secondary sources to prove notability and can provide more if Wise's notability is still under a cloud. All the best! JRA_ Westy Qld2 Talk 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed here that you removed the 'resolved' tag that was added but then put it back. I am wondering, has it been? Perhaps they have been done (I don't know how to track which admins are doing work on the buildup) but I am not sure if it was resolved properly. Also, the person who backed it up in the first place has made promises to fill it up again by doing the same thing to my contributions, so I would expect this to be a potentially ongoing problem. I think solving the root of the problem (seal leak, as opposed to bail buckets) would be a more useful resolution. Since Bettia initiated the topic, it would be good to hear the reply as to the progress. It's somewhat concerning that the one causing the issue was also the one to state (prematurely IMO) that the issue was resolved, especially since, as long as this is allowed to continue, it would be an ongoing problem as these would just keep getting tagged for undeserved speedy deletions. Even so, I can agree with the idea of collecting the conversation into a single area. Tyciol ( talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain why this was deleted? This is a highly recognized resource of primary government documents used by scholars all over the world. Also, is this the correct place to ask about these changes? Historic Government Publications from World War II, hosted by Southern Methodist University, contains 343 informational pamphlets, government reports, instructions, regulations, declarations, speeches, and propaganda materials distributed by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) during the Second World War. Thanks!--signed Digitaldomain ( talk • contribs)
Dear Nick-D. Since you initiated a discussion about some recent changes in the WWII article could you please comment on my recent post there
[1]?
Regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 10:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the VC was either a race or a competition. Hence, I wasn't aware that one "won" one. Please educate me. Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, postscript to Convoy GP55 FAC, did you have any plans to turn that red link blue? If not, I might have a go sometime - does he have an entry in the Oxford Companion though? I notice he's missing from ADB... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict. Are you Australian by any chance? This would make for a serious conflict of interest case against you if true. Koalorka ( talk) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Have to disagree with your grounds for reverting my change, was in the process of writing my reasons in more detail and some suggestions for the talk page when I noticed you had reverted me, so I thought I'd discuss it with you before posting it.
Firstly much of what is there about the Black War is uncited and has been for a long time but more importantly, the article does have a clear scope, ie its title specifies it quite clearly as a list of massacres and it is almost entirely about specific incidents. As such it can be very useful as a starting point for understanding the extent of mass killings, as a reference to specific incidents, and also for bringing in the debate over whether the evidence for particular incidents is credible. (I'm aware that there are a couple of exceptions in the article eg the Wiradjuri Wars which I would argue should be revised by listing specific incidents involved in the various 'wars' and in the description of those incidents linking to the article on the various 'wars' involved.)
I agree with specific battles being included especially as there is grounds for sometimes calling a battle a massacre. If we include the Black War there, however, it carries an automatic implication that the Black War, and every individual incident in it, was a massacre, ie the indiscriminate killing of helpless human beings, whereas most historians agree that the Tasmanian Aborigines were anything but helpless, they were effective fighters and initiated many attacks on settlers. If we restrict the 'List' article to what the title says it is about and leave the Black War to the standalone article, we make it a lot easier to clarify the issues peculiar to each of the individual articles. The Black War is simply too broad a topic for the 'List' article. Webley442 ( talk) 05:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've done some work with the article based on your ACR suggestions. When you get a moment, can you check back and strike the addressed points? I could use an update on what still needs work and whats been addressed, as well as any new concerns you have. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since you're active admin, could you look at this request Template_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Request_for_replacement and edit it? Since editing the template is only allowed for admins, so I need your help. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I have added references to the Background and Aftermath sections of Battle of Kujin. I am looking at expanding the Battle section as I came across some more information. Also loking to expand Australian battles and commanders in Korean War. Regards -- Newm30 ( talk) 09:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, you may be interested in my comments here [2] - Nick Thorne talk 23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Nick. I've got a query about HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156), and am requesting the opinion of a wiser head.
At the end of June, 131.236.160.101 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added content to the article reflecting the frigate's deployment to the Gulf for anti-piracy operations. About a month later, I came across the article and removed some of this information, specifically relating to 'Ivan M. Ingham', the commanding officer of Toowoomba for this deployment, on the justification that "only COs who have a major impact on the history of the ship should be mentioned in articles". Over the course of the past few days, the IP user undid my edit, I re-did it and repeated my reason for doing so, and the IP user undid it again. He/she/it added a line to the article that Commander Ingham is the first CO of an Australian warship to "conduct UN sanctioned anti-piracy operations", which I do not think is sufficient justification for inclusion as Cmdr Ingham is doing exactly what any other officer put in his position would be doing.
However, instead of reverting back to 'my' version, I've come to you for a third opinion on the matter. What do you think? -- saberwyn 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this? Is it feasible? YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I notice you moved this page to
2nd Support Group (Royal Navy) and I wondered why; theres nothing on the talk page about it and the move log just says ”common unit name”.
Is it? Are there any other units called 2 SG? ( though I’d be prepared to argue Walkers group was the most famous)
I’m not desperately bothered, I'm just wondering what to call the next one: We don’t differentiate as a rule, do we, unless there’s more than one?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D
I put a modified version of this section on the article's talk page. I am waiting for your ok to introduce it into the main article.
Regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, I understand the language used in the link to the talk page you removed may have been a little broad (e.g. calling for contributions) - however I think some reference to the work in progress talk page at this point could be relevant.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gov2Taskforce&oldid=309346451
All of the suggestions listed on the talk page are external links to the original suggestions. These are valid submissions to the Taskforce and are an important part of the overall information about the Taskforce.
I'm assuming you removed this content in line with point 4 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought ? Or perhaps is there some other wikipedia policy relevant here?
BTW: I'm not trying to argue this point with you...just trying to clearly understand why this was "not appropriate". I see these suggestions to the taskforce as documentary historical references that should soon be promoted to the main article. But obviously I'd like to do this in line with wikipedia policy and in an appropriate way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmanson ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I have added additonal references to Battle of Yongju and was wondering whether it is now a B Class article? Kind Regards -- Newm30 ( talk) 06:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thnaks, but no thanks. I wouldn't use it enough to justify it. -- saberwyn 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Nick-D. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:History wars further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.-- OMCV ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Nick-D. During an A-Class review you stated that the Arrow (missile) is a "good article". May I ask your GAReview for this article? Flayer ( talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The Featured Article Medal | ||
For your outstanding contributions to three or more featured articles I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
I wish to apologize. When I saw that you had posted on the page, and discovered the page locked so that I was unable to reply, I jumped to conclusions and made a wrong assumption, without checking the log (which I didn't even know I could access). I don't want any animosity between us or with any of the admins. I realize due to the actions of Dr. Steel's fanbase in previous years, there is no love lost between the parties involved; therefore I am trying to remain amiable and compliant with whatever the admins wish here, and try to put a "new face" on things. But in this case I assumed and made an ass of myself, as they say. Anyway, when you get to be my age, you know when to admit you were wrong. :) Again, my apologies. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Nick, following on from your ACR comment, I've added a tidbit on the progression of the Air Force technology-wise during the war - when you have a chance could you see if this is what you had in mind? I'm planning to submit for FAC after Joe Hewitt completes so any thoughts would of course be useful. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | ||
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Nick-D has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Black project working group, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, could you do me a favour please. I don't actually own a copy of Freedman's Vol II, could you cite the fact that I added here please. I'm gonna be taking the article to GA soon! cheers Ryan4314 ( talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nick, in the past you expressed an interest in whether the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" should be used in the Gazelle article [3] I have now raised the matter in the article A-class review if you are interested. Ryan4314 ( talk) 10:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
From the academy page on coordinatorship:
Glad to see you caught it. Though I have a good feeling that you'll be reelected this term, I still wish you good luck with the elections. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
That's three years to the day (give or take a few hours) since joining the site that I've kept a clean block log. The trout's in the post, and I hope it seriously stinks by the time it gets down under. Seriously, no worries, I'm glad you caught it :) EyeSerene talk 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"10:09, 8 September 2009 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked Nick-D (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Block evasion)" -- This was good :)). You just made me laugh continuosly for about 2 mins. :)) -- Eurocopter ( talk) 10:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945), there are a few things that, to me, seem inconsistent, and I was wondering if you might be able to explain them to me?
So, in summary:
Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You might as well have an award for it. Thank you for the entertainment. :) Durova 314 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for adding this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military; I was looking for something like this list earlier, when I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but I was too clueless to notice the link on the right side of the page. Now I see it. Best,-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 23:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
... shakes head. -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Want your opinion on this. There are 15 odd separate non-combat companies listed at Category:Numbered companies of the United States Army. Now that the 722nd's been deleted, should I do a mass AfD on all of them? Or do you think some are notable? Appreciate your thoughts. Buckshot06( prof) 09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick. You reverted my addition to the aforementioned article commenting 'uncited, appears to be personal opinion'. Perhaps we can discuss specifically the problem you see so the text can be integrated in a mutually acceptable way? -- Wranadu2 ( talk) 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section I added and found some suitable references that dispute the superiority of the Type 45. Hopefully this time it's acceptable to stay! -- Wranadu2 ( talk) 11:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Normal Wikipedians have to go through a series of warnings before a block is instated. You should not block users after only two counts of vandalism just because you have the ability to. -- GSK ( talk ● evidence) 12:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider redirecting this article to
Operation Slipper or
Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.
Ikip (
talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel your pain, Nick. I'm looking for sources for Operation Ironclad, the Battle of Madagascar, and there's no book devoted to it; I'm having to find bits in dozens of books. Would the USAAF official histories not have a few pages or a chapter on the bombing? Skinny87 ( talk) 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
On 19 March 1945, American carrier aircraft attacked the remainder of the Japanese Navy at Kure. Damage was light due in part to the base being defended by veteran Japanese fighter instructors flying Kawanishi N1K "Shiden" or "George" fighters.[29] Led by the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, Minoru Genda, the appearance of these fighters, which were even or superior in performance to America's main fighter, the F6F Hellcat,[29] surprised the attackers, and several American aircraft were destroyed.[30]
Hi, I wonder if you can help me. There are some good images of Murray Robson on the War Memorial site [4] but I don't seem to be able to put them on Wikipedia. Would you be able to do it for me? It looks to be one of your areas of interest. Is there a page that explains simply how to upload pictures - I was once able to do it but seem to have lost the knack. Thanks Castlemate ( talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, I had a look, but they don't seem to even start to tell me how to do it. Castlemate ( talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at the ongoing edit war at the Allies of World War II An Admin needs to get involved Thanks-- Woogie10w ( talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd ask that you reconsider your assessment of this article as you down checked it for information which simply isn't available for the vast majority of Soviet aircraft of the 1950s and 60s. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your deletion to Matthew Locke's article page, please see the discussion page on that article for more info. Cheers JFonseka ( talk) 13:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.
Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?
All the best for the new elections!
AshLin ( talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Have a nice one, Nick. Anywhere nice? Skinny87 ( talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, you might be interested in the discussion here. - Nick Thorne talk 05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nick,
I wanted to look through WWII talk page archive and found archices ##31, 32 are missing. Do you have any idea what happened?
Regards,--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. -- TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Nick. I was thinking about it the other day, and I was absolutely horrified to remember that I do not award you anything—nor thank you properly—for all of the effort you put into the Tom Derrick article. I feel so very ashamed that all of this escaped my mind, and must have had you thinking all of your efforts went unrecognised. In truth, this is not the case. I cannot thank you enough for everything you put into that article, and without you it would by no means be as good as it is today. Again, I am so extremely sorry that your efforts went unrecognised, but I do wish to—very belatedly—present you with a little something as a thanks and token of my appreciation:
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For his excellent, esteemed and far reaching efforts in the provision of references, sources, information and guidance to the Tom Derrick article prior to, during, and through its accession to the Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article processes, I am very pleased to present Nick-D with the Guidance Barnstar as a thanks and token of my appreciation. Thank you very much. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, nice work blocking yourself, lol. A question I have for you is whether the Battle of Chuan-Ni referred to in the requested articles of WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force, is actually supposed to be the Battle of Chuam-ni. I cannot find any information on the Battle of Chuan-Ni. I believe that User:Anotherclown may be the person who added the Battle of Chuan-Ni? I have left same message on Anotherclown's talk page. Kind Regards Newm30 ( talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Im going to create the article again, with so many references, what do i need to do to convince you. If you live in melbourne, play soccer and know soccer then you wouldnt delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoccerOnly ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Nick, are you able to do hist merges? Tata Advanced Systems Limited was cut-and-pasted to Tata Advanced Systems today. If you aren't able to do it, I can post at the Holding Pen. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, wondering whether I can get your valued comment on Talk:Battle of Hat Dich regarding moving of article. See previous comments left by me. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 02:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, just wondering if you have Patsy Adam-Smith's Australian Women at War close at hand. I paid a quick visit to the Mitchell Library to see what there was on Mary Bell (Commandant Women's Air Training Corps who lost out to Clare Stevenson as Director WAAAF) for my next article, and then clean forgot to check the index for her while I was reading other interesting stuff. If you have it on you, so to speak, could you check if Bell's in there? If it's not convenient, don't worry, I can probably get along to the Mitchell again by Friday. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You want tips? How about straight from a guy that has done exactly what your wanting to ban more quickly with less effort? If you don't want to ruin your rep on Wikipedia then try one of Encyclopedia Dramatica's articles of vandalizing Wikipedia to look at their methods. FunnyDuckIsFunny ( talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You asked if I was intending to write more of these articles; the answer is yes. Is there one in particular you're interested in?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal | ||
For prolific work on Take Ichi convoy, Convoy GP55 and Operation Teardrop, promoted to A-Class between April and October 2009, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Cla, if you have time, would you be able to have a look at the Battle of Morotai article and let me know if you have any suggestions on how it could be further improved (or just add them yourself, of course!). I'm thinking of nominating this for FA status this weekend. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed your comment on creating a seperate article on this subject. Am willing to take the first step and set this article up however i have never created an article that wasnt focused on a military operation of some sort.
Is there any particular templates/infoboxes one would need to use and would a title of British Armoured Divisions during the Second World War surfice?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I saw you had been investigating Top Guns IPs and sockpuppets. Could you please check 89.216.232.188 ( talk · contribs)? He made just one edit [5], but that was to reinstate the OR of LiquidOcelot24, another Top Gun sock [6]. Thanks in advance. -- Raoulduke47 ( talk) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Just notice that you have moved List of surviving Sabres to avoid confusion with swords. The title was did not mention F-86 as it is intended to cover not only American, but Australian and Canadian Sabres which are not F-86s. Raised it at project for some opinions Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Surviving_F-86s Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D. I've left a question for you at the David Shankbone AfD. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Happened to see your note on Bryce's talk. He may know better, but I'd have thoguht the mostly likely palce to find anythign would be his service record, but unfortunately, it appears his WWI record has been merged with his WWII record, so hasn't yet been digitised. David Underdown ( talk) 11:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there!
Thanks for assessing that article. The book I used, while indeed Egyptian, also relies on Israeli sources. However I'll see what I can do. Cheers. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why did you revert my edit? You said it was uncited. It wasn't. The number 836 that I put for the number of US dead was based on the icasualties.org site that is being used as reference number one in the article. The reference clearly states that 836 US soldiers died, check out the reference if you don't belive me. All of my updates were according to that site. The number of wounded Americans that I updated was per reference number two used in the article. Check it also out if you don't belive me. Also I fixed a mathematical error previous ediotrs made in the total number of dead in the table that breaks down per nationality the dead. What is uncited here? You wanted an explanation, I gave it to you, are we ok now? UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just going through my watchlist and I noticed heavy IP vandalism has resumed on the article. I thought you had done a three-month semi-protect on it after my RFP request but I saw that the three months was applied to moving the page, with only a week to the article itself. Was this intended? Nate • ( chatter) 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
So Why 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hassocks5489 ( talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain your deletion of Billabong Koala Park, it is a wildlife park/zoo and is within the scope of WP:ZOO. It did not meet A7 criteria. [11] website might help you. I would have appreciated it if i was notified of the delete. Zoo Pro 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking action on the use of the word "Paki" (message I had left on the Admin board). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 ( talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Any chances of finding some sources for this article? Buckshot06( prof) 02:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I see you uploaded the photo of Roland Griffiths-Marsh parachuting. I've just made a stub for him but I'm not a military historian so would appreciate your input. Cheers Jasper33 ( talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, interested in your opinion here... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You might remember me from the Emu War page, which segues nicely into the matter at hand - I think that in the spirit of our current fund drive banner, which in fact contains no link and serves solely as a statement, we should create a people's movement or perhaps a guerilla uprising: sanctioned with the task of maintaining this great Encyclopedia in the face of the dark world leaders who presumably seek to crush and abolish our beloved Wiki. We shall fight from the underground, valiant and steadfast, securing the freedom and longevity of our aforementioned beloved Wiki, and all shall remember our cry of... freedom! WIKIPEDIA FOREVER
We must create a project page and begin recruiting memembers at once! We already have a banner, a slogan, a core. We just need a secret place of meeting and perhaps a {{humor}} tag and the movement begins!
Your fellow in Wikipreservation, Some guy ( talk) 07:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
why was that unhelpful?
the captions use it...and 'The 1047 was inferior in its armor protection' and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagschip ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, thank you. :-) Conway's has no mention of a 1921 bill, however, and Google Books isn't showing me any preview with the book you added. Would you care to expand the rest of the article with info from that book when I'm done adding everything from Conway's? — Ed (talk • contribs) Many thanks, 07:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The record shows that in August you deleted an article on a Ryan Bell under WP:CSD#G6. I would appreciate your assistance in locating the discussion as to why the earlier article was deleted. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that you're going to work on the BC Australia. Just wanted to let you know that I'm working on the Indefatigable-class article and can help with technical specs, etc. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 07:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your concerns at the above FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 13:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, having finally got through what I think is probably my magnum opus here, I'll naturally be taking it through A/FA review shortly. Still have some tidying of image licensing, MOS and all text to do over next day or so, so if you have a chance I'd welcome any comments as a sort of stealth peer review (no obligation!). Be interested particularly in whether you feel I've hit the mark contextually on the 1TAF, Confrontation and Vietnam episodes, if you think there's too much anecdotal stuff in the Early Career section, and how the Legacy section flows. Obviously I think I've pretty well got it after much redrafting and rearranging of info but an extra pair of eyes... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just to see there wasn't any misunderstanding. In the World War II casualties, I added the total range of 22,054,000 to 25,854,000 deaths in the Soviet Union just based on the numbers in the table, 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 soldiers, 12,254,000 to 14,154,000 civilians and 1,000,000 Holocaust victims. Unless I'm missing something? Regards -- Nirvana77 ( talk) 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Asked here:
Thought it would be best to let you know Lenbrazil ( talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Concerning this article, please see here, i.e. the specific topic is the title of at least one book. Thank you. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As a major contributor to Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, HMAS Sydney (D48) (formerly "HMAS Sydney (1934)") and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, I am asking for your opinion on my expansion/improvement of these three articles. Before I start the climb towards a possible FA nomination, I was hoping you could have a look at the articles' current conditions and make a few observations (either here, on my talk page, or on the relevant article's talk page).
For transperancy, this expansion was prompted by a desire to get the articles looking solid before they appeared in "On This Day" (the entry for the battle was scrubbed a couple of days ago in favour of another WWII event). The article for Kormoran is not yet complete: content relating to the post-war searches and rediscovery needs to be expanded and cited, and will be updated in the next few days. -- saberwyn 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please erase that as soon you note it down Lenbrazil ( talk) 10:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
http://picturedigger.com/ims/album.php?u_id=452xeY1W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbrazil ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I give up Spain. Majority decision.
You warned me over quoting opponent's name, unfair. We two previously agreed to discuss dispute with each other on the discussion page, quoting meant no offense, just to show whose PoVs I was counterproving.
It's your right to oppose my PoVs. But opposition while claiming not to go though opponent's PoVs is too arrogant. If you think my PoVs are unworthy to read, then don't bother responding. Nor will I welcome so.
Hope we won't have any more words. Vulturedroid ( talk) 13:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, it's my pleasure! A pair more to come.-- Outisnn ( talk) 11:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have engaged a procedure for amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.
I construe the process to require me to notify you; but of course, you are not required to do anything. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Already saw it :) Timeshift ( talk) 07:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am sure Timeshift9 has a thick enough skin. -- Surturz ( talk) 11:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
First you say the ETS wasn't the issue with the leadership motion, now you are pushing the ETS-leadership in the lead. What gives?? -- Surturz ( talk) 11:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, yes you are right about Task Force 74.1 being a covering force. It only covered the landing for the first day and then returned to Milne Bay, where it then with Task Force 74.2 covered the landing as part of the Battle of Cape Gloucester on December 26, 1943. I have also done some research and found the following also participated: USS PC-1119, PT 110, PT 138, SC-747, LST-453, and First Resupply Eschleon LCT consisting of LCT's 88, 378, 380, 382, 384, 386 and 387 with escort force of Apc 21, YMS 50 and SC 743. USS APc-21 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 17 December 1943, USS APc-15 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 27 December 1943. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources=
Regards Newm30 ( talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was something from jokesters like this guy. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 ( talk) 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know I have expanded Operation Chronicle, let me know what you think. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 01:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Turnbull's "bullshit" quote really isn't notable. His support of the ETS is already covered in the Abbott article. It might be notable in Turnbull's own article. -- Surturz ( talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I was out of line here, having been off for so long I panicked and posted here when the post really did not need to be made here. I have apologized to the users at ANI and, and to Damwiki1. I signed on briefly to leave the messages. Thanks your for the critical response, I appreciate it. I am off again until Wednesday, then I should be back for the rest of the month. Stay safe, Nick. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of RQ-170 Sentinel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors involved in the WP:SCHOOLS debate. I just figured you'd have an opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 07:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh surprise surprise. Not quite one of wikipedia's finest - in my humble opinion. -- Merbabu ( talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
sure looks like the alex bot lives - but the project manually created new page update looks like a thing of the past -
Re SMU Santa Maria 1, Cirebon, Jawa Barat - I would have tried possible translation if there was any attempt at providing mention of a notable alumni (it is ironic they claim they have had em - but no specific individual is mentioned) - or some aspect of the schools role in javanese indonesian history or whatever - but my rushed read suggest not of that domain Satu Suro 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan I restored the deleted sections from page history. Can we discuss WP:NPOV issue about Australian troops and WP:RS issue about a reference. Whether you are POV or acted wrong by lack of knowledge, all editor's opinion matters. And if you provide the RS objecting parties original quotes, I will add them, instead removing all paragraphs, to balance the section for better NPOV. Kasaalan ( talk) 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, do you know what the process is for removing inappropriate user pages? I'm thinking of User:DFR(RAAF), which is a copy of the deleted Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, and may be inapproprite as advertising. -- saberwyn 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
In the edit comments of your removal of a sentence from the Battle of Okinawa, you said that the claim wasn't made in the source. By my reading, it is made almost verbatim.
rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women.
Hohum ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, would you mind revieing this edit, and the [ similar edits on F-15- and F-18-related articles by User:Hcobb? I'm not sure he isn't just having a knee-jerk reaction to information that is not certain one way or the other, and it seems he is calling the publication unriliable based on one story. Anyway, I figue you should have a more informed veiw of the sources reliability. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick
You're correct in saying the problem with translating from WP ID is the lack of sources used on wikipedia Indonesia. I don't believe anything should be added to wikipedia without a RS, and that includes translating from WP ID. I hadn't really given much thought to basing notability on the existence of RS. But, the existence or otherwise of RS is only one of a number of factors to consider when establishing notability.
Not sure if any of that helps. -- Merbabu ( talk) 07:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
As for my opinion - as I say at the milhist talkpage - the issue is whether WP N over-rides WP RS - If it doesthey should be stubs without bulk of uncitable crap which we get regularly.
The other very big problem is the amazing capacity and urge on the part of established and IP editors to make lists on WP Indonesia en - of names of things - with no backup of RS or cites or anything. The project is littered with WP UNDUE lists - with not a link or cite in sight. It makes the project look like the product of paranoid new order era officials too frightened to make a statement about anything - so a list of names of things is better than nothing - bollocks Satu Suro 07:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, would you mind looking at Langley Flying School? The problem should be evident from reading the history and talk pages. I'm supposed to be going to bed, so it'll be awhile before I can respond. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nick-D, i have been researching the East African Campaign of World War One and noticed that today someone created around 10 stubs about real battles that are all identicle and contain bogus information. Battle of Kibata (1917), Battle of Kibata (1916), Battle of Matamondo, Battle of Mkalamo, Battle of Kahe, Battle of Mpotona, Battle of Narungombe and about a half dozen more. It looks like they were all created by User:Starzynka. They all should probably be deleted as they all contain the same information and besides the names are completely bogus.. XavierGreen ( talk) 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but why would you red link these battles if they were non existent? If they never happened who was the fool who red linked them in the template?. The last editor of the template, Xavier is to blame. It is very poor editing on his part that he didn't remove the "hoax" links. Try assuming good faith on my part. Starzynka ( talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. But if the battles actually happened tagging them for deletion is pointless. Please quickly correct the errors and I hope they will develop into good articles. Starzynka ( talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nick, I just noticed that you commented on the wikiquette page and I was wondering if you could please look at my post about User Chhe. Thanks so much, Malke 2010 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words! What do you think of a separate article for the F-111C "Pig"? Do you think there's enough material out there to justify having it on it's own page? - BilCat ( talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I see the SEA taskforce tag for the template appears to not work - as it was a field of operation of its own - and is considered the actual source of the use of the phrase SEA as well - I have started a sub cat of mil hist of asia - which I consider an abomination of a category - I hope you support such a move - the cat tagging and management in milhist stinks - looks like no one has thought about it for years - cheers Satu Suro 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well who is the whatto of category trees in the project - or is it a default to nothing issue - theyre all interested in battles ? :) Satu Suro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I also get rather nervous when I see things like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Asia - is that really a viable item? I wonder whether someone needs to have a close look at items like that and have a good think.... Satu Suro 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I think the Asia category in milhist should be disassembled as a priority - see what I have done for SEA Satu Suro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
OK I bit the bullet - so to speak - I would be very interested in your opinion as to whether it was the right way to go - please feel free to criticise the way I have gone if it seems the wrong way to do it - I am hoping for some intelligent debate to follow on from the proposals for deletion Satu Suro 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawn the Afd and Cfd before it even got under way - I remain totally unconvinced that the issue will be resolved - it is a case of wait and see Satu Suro 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at my investigation of this article and, as an additional admin, take any measures you see fit? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you help with this? [14]. This editor seems out of control. There's no reasoning with him. The threads have been archived by Jade Falcon. Please, this man needs a break from editing. Malke 2010 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You proposed deletion on an article that I wrote quite a bit (prod). This is a similar article that is most deserving of your wrath. Consider removing your prod from the 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan and moving that prod to this one International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament JB50000 ( talk) 04:12, 31 December 2009 (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. |
Repositioned myself as weak keep at afd. Article still needs help though. TomStar81 ( Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Nick, your autoblock when you blocked doltna probably had rather a lot of collateral, I've determined that the user is a rather over-enthusiatic colleague, and I htin I should be able to sort out the editting. It was well-intentioned, but could have been done better. David Underdown ( talk) 11:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, thanks for your info on the AWNB. I take this to mean that on eg. Battle of the Coral Sea, I should replace the {{flagicon|Australia|naval}} to be something like UK|naval. Is that right? Slac speak up! 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just replaced the subheadings as they made zero substantive change to the article (no text change at all, in fact) and substantially added to the ease with which a large summary article can be navigated. Such as at the similar article Cold War. I examined the Talk sections and saw no such prior discussions of merely adding more subheadings.
I would like to think that such non-substantive changes could be made to the article without some sort of automatic revert. If there is an actual problem with merely adding subheadings (again, zero substantive change to the article), I would of course be more than willing to discuss it, but none has been raised so far, including in the above paragraph. I'm not sure what such a complaint would be as the article is substantially easier to navigate with subheadings on the various topics, but again, I would be more than willing to discuss it. Mosedschurte ( talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about my unilateral rewriting of the Background and Black Armband Debate sections. I had the same concerns myself about a renewed bout of edit-warring. But we've been locked in a stalemate with Likebox for months over the Genocide debate section and nothing seemed to be happening to improve other parts of the article. So I took the chance that if I removed some of the excessive quoting and rewrote some of the badly disjointed sections in as balanced and neutral a tone as I could manage (and I've kept tweaking it to try and make it more NPOV), others might bypass the Genocide debate section for a while and do something constructive with the article. So far no-one seems to be protesting that I've 'ruined' the sections that I've rewritten. I'd be happier if others would join in and do some NPOV rewrites on other parts of the article, where it's needed, or at least make some suggestions on the talk page but, otherwise and so far, it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Perhaps my cunning plan is working?? Webley442 ( talk) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Following the closure of the ACR, I wanted to come here and post a few comments on the above, but got a little preoccupied with other things. ;-) That said, I have now completed a review of this excellent article and have come up with the following suggestions/pointers/comments:
I hope these are of some help. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be interested in history wars. There is a major problem with this page, that the fringe theories of Windschuttle and quadrant, which have next to no academic support, are being presented as if they were majority opinions (or even opinions worthy of respect). Fixing this is difficult, since another administrator (PBS) has taken the position that introducing mainstream sources is not allowed. This leads to severe editing problems. There is no "nice" way to fix this. What is absolutely required is another person (other than myself) willing to take a hostile position. Hopefully you are willing to be jerk number 2. Likebox ( talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nick, all athletes on the Australian WBC Roster or have been in a previous World Baseball Classic pass WP:ATHLETE due to them playing at the highest level of amateur sport. Also Brendan Wise competes in the Eastern League currently which is a fully professional tier of Major League Baseball. However, I have added a couple of secondary sources to prove notability and can provide more if Wise's notability is still under a cloud. All the best! JRA_ Westy Qld2 Talk 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed here that you removed the 'resolved' tag that was added but then put it back. I am wondering, has it been? Perhaps they have been done (I don't know how to track which admins are doing work on the buildup) but I am not sure if it was resolved properly. Also, the person who backed it up in the first place has made promises to fill it up again by doing the same thing to my contributions, so I would expect this to be a potentially ongoing problem. I think solving the root of the problem (seal leak, as opposed to bail buckets) would be a more useful resolution. Since Bettia initiated the topic, it would be good to hear the reply as to the progress. It's somewhat concerning that the one causing the issue was also the one to state (prematurely IMO) that the issue was resolved, especially since, as long as this is allowed to continue, it would be an ongoing problem as these would just keep getting tagged for undeserved speedy deletions. Even so, I can agree with the idea of collecting the conversation into a single area. Tyciol ( talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain why this was deleted? This is a highly recognized resource of primary government documents used by scholars all over the world. Also, is this the correct place to ask about these changes? Historic Government Publications from World War II, hosted by Southern Methodist University, contains 343 informational pamphlets, government reports, instructions, regulations, declarations, speeches, and propaganda materials distributed by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) during the Second World War. Thanks!--signed Digitaldomain ( talk • contribs)
Dear Nick-D. Since you initiated a discussion about some recent changes in the WWII article could you please comment on my recent post there
[1]?
Regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 10:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the VC was either a race or a competition. Hence, I wasn't aware that one "won" one. Please educate me. Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, postscript to Convoy GP55 FAC, did you have any plans to turn that red link blue? If not, I might have a go sometime - does he have an entry in the Oxford Companion though? I notice he's missing from ADB... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict. Are you Australian by any chance? This would make for a serious conflict of interest case against you if true. Koalorka ( talk) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Have to disagree with your grounds for reverting my change, was in the process of writing my reasons in more detail and some suggestions for the talk page when I noticed you had reverted me, so I thought I'd discuss it with you before posting it.
Firstly much of what is there about the Black War is uncited and has been for a long time but more importantly, the article does have a clear scope, ie its title specifies it quite clearly as a list of massacres and it is almost entirely about specific incidents. As such it can be very useful as a starting point for understanding the extent of mass killings, as a reference to specific incidents, and also for bringing in the debate over whether the evidence for particular incidents is credible. (I'm aware that there are a couple of exceptions in the article eg the Wiradjuri Wars which I would argue should be revised by listing specific incidents involved in the various 'wars' and in the description of those incidents linking to the article on the various 'wars' involved.)
I agree with specific battles being included especially as there is grounds for sometimes calling a battle a massacre. If we include the Black War there, however, it carries an automatic implication that the Black War, and every individual incident in it, was a massacre, ie the indiscriminate killing of helpless human beings, whereas most historians agree that the Tasmanian Aborigines were anything but helpless, they were effective fighters and initiated many attacks on settlers. If we restrict the 'List' article to what the title says it is about and leave the Black War to the standalone article, we make it a lot easier to clarify the issues peculiar to each of the individual articles. The Black War is simply too broad a topic for the 'List' article. Webley442 ( talk) 05:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've done some work with the article based on your ACR suggestions. When you get a moment, can you check back and strike the addressed points? I could use an update on what still needs work and whats been addressed, as well as any new concerns you have. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since you're active admin, could you look at this request Template_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Request_for_replacement and edit it? Since editing the template is only allowed for admins, so I need your help. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I have added references to the Background and Aftermath sections of Battle of Kujin. I am looking at expanding the Battle section as I came across some more information. Also loking to expand Australian battles and commanders in Korean War. Regards -- Newm30 ( talk) 09:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, you may be interested in my comments here [2] - Nick Thorne talk 23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Nick. I've got a query about HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156), and am requesting the opinion of a wiser head.
At the end of June, 131.236.160.101 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added content to the article reflecting the frigate's deployment to the Gulf for anti-piracy operations. About a month later, I came across the article and removed some of this information, specifically relating to 'Ivan M. Ingham', the commanding officer of Toowoomba for this deployment, on the justification that "only COs who have a major impact on the history of the ship should be mentioned in articles". Over the course of the past few days, the IP user undid my edit, I re-did it and repeated my reason for doing so, and the IP user undid it again. He/she/it added a line to the article that Commander Ingham is the first CO of an Australian warship to "conduct UN sanctioned anti-piracy operations", which I do not think is sufficient justification for inclusion as Cmdr Ingham is doing exactly what any other officer put in his position would be doing.
However, instead of reverting back to 'my' version, I've come to you for a third opinion on the matter. What do you think? -- saberwyn 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this? Is it feasible? YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I notice you moved this page to
2nd Support Group (Royal Navy) and I wondered why; theres nothing on the talk page about it and the move log just says ”common unit name”.
Is it? Are there any other units called 2 SG? ( though I’d be prepared to argue Walkers group was the most famous)
I’m not desperately bothered, I'm just wondering what to call the next one: We don’t differentiate as a rule, do we, unless there’s more than one?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D
I put a modified version of this section on the article's talk page. I am waiting for your ok to introduce it into the main article.
Regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, I understand the language used in the link to the talk page you removed may have been a little broad (e.g. calling for contributions) - however I think some reference to the work in progress talk page at this point could be relevant.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gov2Taskforce&oldid=309346451
All of the suggestions listed on the talk page are external links to the original suggestions. These are valid submissions to the Taskforce and are an important part of the overall information about the Taskforce.
I'm assuming you removed this content in line with point 4 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought ? Or perhaps is there some other wikipedia policy relevant here?
BTW: I'm not trying to argue this point with you...just trying to clearly understand why this was "not appropriate". I see these suggestions to the taskforce as documentary historical references that should soon be promoted to the main article. But obviously I'd like to do this in line with wikipedia policy and in an appropriate way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmanson ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I have added additonal references to Battle of Yongju and was wondering whether it is now a B Class article? Kind Regards -- Newm30 ( talk) 06:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thnaks, but no thanks. I wouldn't use it enough to justify it. -- saberwyn 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Nick-D. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:History wars further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.-- OMCV ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Nick-D. During an A-Class review you stated that the Arrow (missile) is a "good article". May I ask your GAReview for this article? Flayer ( talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The Featured Article Medal | ||
For your outstanding contributions to three or more featured articles I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
I wish to apologize. When I saw that you had posted on the page, and discovered the page locked so that I was unable to reply, I jumped to conclusions and made a wrong assumption, without checking the log (which I didn't even know I could access). I don't want any animosity between us or with any of the admins. I realize due to the actions of Dr. Steel's fanbase in previous years, there is no love lost between the parties involved; therefore I am trying to remain amiable and compliant with whatever the admins wish here, and try to put a "new face" on things. But in this case I assumed and made an ass of myself, as they say. Anyway, when you get to be my age, you know when to admit you were wrong. :) Again, my apologies. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Nick, following on from your ACR comment, I've added a tidbit on the progression of the Air Force technology-wise during the war - when you have a chance could you see if this is what you had in mind? I'm planning to submit for FAC after Joe Hewitt completes so any thoughts would of course be useful. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | ||
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Nick-D has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Black project working group, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, could you do me a favour please. I don't actually own a copy of Freedman's Vol II, could you cite the fact that I added here please. I'm gonna be taking the article to GA soon! cheers Ryan4314 ( talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nick, in the past you expressed an interest in whether the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" should be used in the Gazelle article [3] I have now raised the matter in the article A-class review if you are interested. Ryan4314 ( talk) 10:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
From the academy page on coordinatorship:
Glad to see you caught it. Though I have a good feeling that you'll be reelected this term, I still wish you good luck with the elections. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
That's three years to the day (give or take a few hours) since joining the site that I've kept a clean block log. The trout's in the post, and I hope it seriously stinks by the time it gets down under. Seriously, no worries, I'm glad you caught it :) EyeSerene talk 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"10:09, 8 September 2009 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked Nick-D (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Block evasion)" -- This was good :)). You just made me laugh continuosly for about 2 mins. :)) -- Eurocopter ( talk) 10:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945), there are a few things that, to me, seem inconsistent, and I was wondering if you might be able to explain them to me?
So, in summary:
Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You might as well have an award for it. Thank you for the entertainment. :) Durova 314 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for adding this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military; I was looking for something like this list earlier, when I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but I was too clueless to notice the link on the right side of the page. Now I see it. Best,-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 23:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
... shakes head. -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Want your opinion on this. There are 15 odd separate non-combat companies listed at Category:Numbered companies of the United States Army. Now that the 722nd's been deleted, should I do a mass AfD on all of them? Or do you think some are notable? Appreciate your thoughts. Buckshot06( prof) 09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick. You reverted my addition to the aforementioned article commenting 'uncited, appears to be personal opinion'. Perhaps we can discuss specifically the problem you see so the text can be integrated in a mutually acceptable way? -- Wranadu2 ( talk) 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section I added and found some suitable references that dispute the superiority of the Type 45. Hopefully this time it's acceptable to stay! -- Wranadu2 ( talk) 11:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Normal Wikipedians have to go through a series of warnings before a block is instated. You should not block users after only two counts of vandalism just because you have the ability to. -- GSK ( talk ● evidence) 12:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider redirecting this article to
Operation Slipper or
Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.
Ikip (
talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel your pain, Nick. I'm looking for sources for Operation Ironclad, the Battle of Madagascar, and there's no book devoted to it; I'm having to find bits in dozens of books. Would the USAAF official histories not have a few pages or a chapter on the bombing? Skinny87 ( talk) 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
On 19 March 1945, American carrier aircraft attacked the remainder of the Japanese Navy at Kure. Damage was light due in part to the base being defended by veteran Japanese fighter instructors flying Kawanishi N1K "Shiden" or "George" fighters.[29] Led by the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, Minoru Genda, the appearance of these fighters, which were even or superior in performance to America's main fighter, the F6F Hellcat,[29] surprised the attackers, and several American aircraft were destroyed.[30]
Hi, I wonder if you can help me. There are some good images of Murray Robson on the War Memorial site [4] but I don't seem to be able to put them on Wikipedia. Would you be able to do it for me? It looks to be one of your areas of interest. Is there a page that explains simply how to upload pictures - I was once able to do it but seem to have lost the knack. Thanks Castlemate ( talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, I had a look, but they don't seem to even start to tell me how to do it. Castlemate ( talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at the ongoing edit war at the Allies of World War II An Admin needs to get involved Thanks-- Woogie10w ( talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd ask that you reconsider your assessment of this article as you down checked it for information which simply isn't available for the vast majority of Soviet aircraft of the 1950s and 60s. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your deletion to Matthew Locke's article page, please see the discussion page on that article for more info. Cheers JFonseka ( talk) 13:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.
Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?
All the best for the new elections!
AshLin ( talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Have a nice one, Nick. Anywhere nice? Skinny87 ( talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, you might be interested in the discussion here. - Nick Thorne talk 05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nick,
I wanted to look through WWII talk page archive and found archices ##31, 32 are missing. Do you have any idea what happened?
Regards,--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. -- TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Nick. I was thinking about it the other day, and I was absolutely horrified to remember that I do not award you anything—nor thank you properly—for all of the effort you put into the Tom Derrick article. I feel so very ashamed that all of this escaped my mind, and must have had you thinking all of your efforts went unrecognised. In truth, this is not the case. I cannot thank you enough for everything you put into that article, and without you it would by no means be as good as it is today. Again, I am so extremely sorry that your efforts went unrecognised, but I do wish to—very belatedly—present you with a little something as a thanks and token of my appreciation:
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For his excellent, esteemed and far reaching efforts in the provision of references, sources, information and guidance to the Tom Derrick article prior to, during, and through its accession to the Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article processes, I am very pleased to present Nick-D with the Guidance Barnstar as a thanks and token of my appreciation. Thank you very much. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Nick, nice work blocking yourself, lol. A question I have for you is whether the Battle of Chuan-Ni referred to in the requested articles of WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force, is actually supposed to be the Battle of Chuam-ni. I cannot find any information on the Battle of Chuan-Ni. I believe that User:Anotherclown may be the person who added the Battle of Chuan-Ni? I have left same message on Anotherclown's talk page. Kind Regards Newm30 ( talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Im going to create the article again, with so many references, what do i need to do to convince you. If you live in melbourne, play soccer and know soccer then you wouldnt delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoccerOnly ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Nick, are you able to do hist merges? Tata Advanced Systems Limited was cut-and-pasted to Tata Advanced Systems today. If you aren't able to do it, I can post at the Holding Pen. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, wondering whether I can get your valued comment on Talk:Battle of Hat Dich regarding moving of article. See previous comments left by me. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 02:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, just wondering if you have Patsy Adam-Smith's Australian Women at War close at hand. I paid a quick visit to the Mitchell Library to see what there was on Mary Bell (Commandant Women's Air Training Corps who lost out to Clare Stevenson as Director WAAAF) for my next article, and then clean forgot to check the index for her while I was reading other interesting stuff. If you have it on you, so to speak, could you check if Bell's in there? If it's not convenient, don't worry, I can probably get along to the Mitchell again by Friday. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You want tips? How about straight from a guy that has done exactly what your wanting to ban more quickly with less effort? If you don't want to ruin your rep on Wikipedia then try one of Encyclopedia Dramatica's articles of vandalizing Wikipedia to look at their methods. FunnyDuckIsFunny ( talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You asked if I was intending to write more of these articles; the answer is yes. Is there one in particular you're interested in?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal | ||
For prolific work on Take Ichi convoy, Convoy GP55 and Operation Teardrop, promoted to A-Class between April and October 2009, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Cla, if you have time, would you be able to have a look at the Battle of Morotai article and let me know if you have any suggestions on how it could be further improved (or just add them yourself, of course!). I'm thinking of nominating this for FA status this weekend. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed your comment on creating a seperate article on this subject. Am willing to take the first step and set this article up however i have never created an article that wasnt focused on a military operation of some sort.
Is there any particular templates/infoboxes one would need to use and would a title of British Armoured Divisions during the Second World War surfice?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I saw you had been investigating Top Guns IPs and sockpuppets. Could you please check 89.216.232.188 ( talk · contribs)? He made just one edit [5], but that was to reinstate the OR of LiquidOcelot24, another Top Gun sock [6]. Thanks in advance. -- Raoulduke47 ( talk) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Just notice that you have moved List of surviving Sabres to avoid confusion with swords. The title was did not mention F-86 as it is intended to cover not only American, but Australian and Canadian Sabres which are not F-86s. Raised it at project for some opinions Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Surviving_F-86s Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D. I've left a question for you at the David Shankbone AfD. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Happened to see your note on Bryce's talk. He may know better, but I'd have thoguht the mostly likely palce to find anythign would be his service record, but unfortunately, it appears his WWI record has been merged with his WWII record, so hasn't yet been digitised. David Underdown ( talk) 11:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there!
Thanks for assessing that article. The book I used, while indeed Egyptian, also relies on Israeli sources. However I'll see what I can do. Cheers. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why did you revert my edit? You said it was uncited. It wasn't. The number 836 that I put for the number of US dead was based on the icasualties.org site that is being used as reference number one in the article. The reference clearly states that 836 US soldiers died, check out the reference if you don't belive me. All of my updates were according to that site. The number of wounded Americans that I updated was per reference number two used in the article. Check it also out if you don't belive me. Also I fixed a mathematical error previous ediotrs made in the total number of dead in the table that breaks down per nationality the dead. What is uncited here? You wanted an explanation, I gave it to you, are we ok now? UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just going through my watchlist and I noticed heavy IP vandalism has resumed on the article. I thought you had done a three-month semi-protect on it after my RFP request but I saw that the three months was applied to moving the page, with only a week to the article itself. Was this intended? Nate • ( chatter) 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
So Why 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hassocks5489 ( talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain your deletion of Billabong Koala Park, it is a wildlife park/zoo and is within the scope of WP:ZOO. It did not meet A7 criteria. [11] website might help you. I would have appreciated it if i was notified of the delete. Zoo Pro 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking action on the use of the word "Paki" (message I had left on the Admin board). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 ( talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Any chances of finding some sources for this article? Buckshot06( prof) 02:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I see you uploaded the photo of Roland Griffiths-Marsh parachuting. I've just made a stub for him but I'm not a military historian so would appreciate your input. Cheers Jasper33 ( talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, interested in your opinion here... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You might remember me from the Emu War page, which segues nicely into the matter at hand - I think that in the spirit of our current fund drive banner, which in fact contains no link and serves solely as a statement, we should create a people's movement or perhaps a guerilla uprising: sanctioned with the task of maintaining this great Encyclopedia in the face of the dark world leaders who presumably seek to crush and abolish our beloved Wiki. We shall fight from the underground, valiant and steadfast, securing the freedom and longevity of our aforementioned beloved Wiki, and all shall remember our cry of... freedom! WIKIPEDIA FOREVER
We must create a project page and begin recruiting memembers at once! We already have a banner, a slogan, a core. We just need a secret place of meeting and perhaps a {{humor}} tag and the movement begins!
Your fellow in Wikipreservation, Some guy ( talk) 07:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
why was that unhelpful?
the captions use it...and 'The 1047 was inferior in its armor protection' and more —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagschip ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, thank you. :-) Conway's has no mention of a 1921 bill, however, and Google Books isn't showing me any preview with the book you added. Would you care to expand the rest of the article with info from that book when I'm done adding everything from Conway's? — Ed (talk • contribs) Many thanks, 07:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The record shows that in August you deleted an article on a Ryan Bell under WP:CSD#G6. I would appreciate your assistance in locating the discussion as to why the earlier article was deleted. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that you're going to work on the BC Australia. Just wanted to let you know that I'm working on the Indefatigable-class article and can help with technical specs, etc. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 07:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your concerns at the above FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 13:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, having finally got through what I think is probably my magnum opus here, I'll naturally be taking it through A/FA review shortly. Still have some tidying of image licensing, MOS and all text to do over next day or so, so if you have a chance I'd welcome any comments as a sort of stealth peer review (no obligation!). Be interested particularly in whether you feel I've hit the mark contextually on the 1TAF, Confrontation and Vietnam episodes, if you think there's too much anecdotal stuff in the Early Career section, and how the Legacy section flows. Obviously I think I've pretty well got it after much redrafting and rearranging of info but an extra pair of eyes... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just to see there wasn't any misunderstanding. In the World War II casualties, I added the total range of 22,054,000 to 25,854,000 deaths in the Soviet Union just based on the numbers in the table, 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 soldiers, 12,254,000 to 14,154,000 civilians and 1,000,000 Holocaust victims. Unless I'm missing something? Regards -- Nirvana77 ( talk) 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Asked here:
Thought it would be best to let you know Lenbrazil ( talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Concerning this article, please see here, i.e. the specific topic is the title of at least one book. Thank you. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As a major contributor to Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, HMAS Sydney (D48) (formerly "HMAS Sydney (1934)") and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, I am asking for your opinion on my expansion/improvement of these three articles. Before I start the climb towards a possible FA nomination, I was hoping you could have a look at the articles' current conditions and make a few observations (either here, on my talk page, or on the relevant article's talk page).
For transperancy, this expansion was prompted by a desire to get the articles looking solid before they appeared in "On This Day" (the entry for the battle was scrubbed a couple of days ago in favour of another WWII event). The article for Kormoran is not yet complete: content relating to the post-war searches and rediscovery needs to be expanded and cited, and will be updated in the next few days. -- saberwyn 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please erase that as soon you note it down Lenbrazil ( talk) 10:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
http://picturedigger.com/ims/album.php?u_id=452xeY1W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbrazil ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I give up Spain. Majority decision.
You warned me over quoting opponent's name, unfair. We two previously agreed to discuss dispute with each other on the discussion page, quoting meant no offense, just to show whose PoVs I was counterproving.
It's your right to oppose my PoVs. But opposition while claiming not to go though opponent's PoVs is too arrogant. If you think my PoVs are unworthy to read, then don't bother responding. Nor will I welcome so.
Hope we won't have any more words. Vulturedroid ( talk) 13:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, it's my pleasure! A pair more to come.-- Outisnn ( talk) 11:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have engaged a procedure for amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.
I construe the process to require me to notify you; but of course, you are not required to do anything. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Already saw it :) Timeshift ( talk) 07:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am sure Timeshift9 has a thick enough skin. -- Surturz ( talk) 11:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
First you say the ETS wasn't the issue with the leadership motion, now you are pushing the ETS-leadership in the lead. What gives?? -- Surturz ( talk) 11:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nick, yes you are right about Task Force 74.1 being a covering force. It only covered the landing for the first day and then returned to Milne Bay, where it then with Task Force 74.2 covered the landing as part of the Battle of Cape Gloucester on December 26, 1943. I have also done some research and found the following also participated: USS PC-1119, PT 110, PT 138, SC-747, LST-453, and First Resupply Eschleon LCT consisting of LCT's 88, 378, 380, 382, 384, 386 and 387 with escort force of Apc 21, YMS 50 and SC 743. USS APc-21 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 17 December 1943, USS APc-15 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 27 December 1943. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources=
Regards Newm30 ( talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was something from jokesters like this guy. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 ( talk) 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know I have expanded Operation Chronicle, let me know what you think. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 01:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Turnbull's "bullshit" quote really isn't notable. His support of the ETS is already covered in the Abbott article. It might be notable in Turnbull's own article. -- Surturz ( talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I was out of line here, having been off for so long I panicked and posted here when the post really did not need to be made here. I have apologized to the users at ANI and, and to Damwiki1. I signed on briefly to leave the messages. Thanks your for the critical response, I appreciate it. I am off again until Wednesday, then I should be back for the rest of the month. Stay safe, Nick. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of RQ-170 Sentinel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors involved in the WP:SCHOOLS debate. I just figured you'd have an opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 07:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh surprise surprise. Not quite one of wikipedia's finest - in my humble opinion. -- Merbabu ( talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
sure looks like the alex bot lives - but the project manually created new page update looks like a thing of the past -
Re SMU Santa Maria 1, Cirebon, Jawa Barat - I would have tried possible translation if there was any attempt at providing mention of a notable alumni (it is ironic they claim they have had em - but no specific individual is mentioned) - or some aspect of the schools role in javanese indonesian history or whatever - but my rushed read suggest not of that domain Satu Suro 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan I restored the deleted sections from page history. Can we discuss WP:NPOV issue about Australian troops and WP:RS issue about a reference. Whether you are POV or acted wrong by lack of knowledge, all editor's opinion matters. And if you provide the RS objecting parties original quotes, I will add them, instead removing all paragraphs, to balance the section for better NPOV. Kasaalan ( talk) 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, do you know what the process is for removing inappropriate user pages? I'm thinking of User:DFR(RAAF), which is a copy of the deleted Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, and may be inapproprite as advertising. -- saberwyn 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
In the edit comments of your removal of a sentence from the Battle of Okinawa, you said that the claim wasn't made in the source. By my reading, it is made almost verbatim.
rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women.
Hohum ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, would you mind revieing this edit, and the [ similar edits on F-15- and F-18-related articles by User:Hcobb? I'm not sure he isn't just having a knee-jerk reaction to information that is not certain one way or the other, and it seems he is calling the publication unriliable based on one story. Anyway, I figue you should have a more informed veiw of the sources reliability. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick
You're correct in saying the problem with translating from WP ID is the lack of sources used on wikipedia Indonesia. I don't believe anything should be added to wikipedia without a RS, and that includes translating from WP ID. I hadn't really given much thought to basing notability on the existence of RS. But, the existence or otherwise of RS is only one of a number of factors to consider when establishing notability.
Not sure if any of that helps. -- Merbabu ( talk) 07:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
As for my opinion - as I say at the milhist talkpage - the issue is whether WP N over-rides WP RS - If it doesthey should be stubs without bulk of uncitable crap which we get regularly.
The other very big problem is the amazing capacity and urge on the part of established and IP editors to make lists on WP Indonesia en - of names of things - with no backup of RS or cites or anything. The project is littered with WP UNDUE lists - with not a link or cite in sight. It makes the project look like the product of paranoid new order era officials too frightened to make a statement about anything - so a list of names of things is better than nothing - bollocks Satu Suro 07:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, would you mind looking at Langley Flying School? The problem should be evident from reading the history and talk pages. I'm supposed to be going to bed, so it'll be awhile before I can respond. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nick-D, i have been researching the East African Campaign of World War One and noticed that today someone created around 10 stubs about real battles that are all identicle and contain bogus information. Battle of Kibata (1917), Battle of Kibata (1916), Battle of Matamondo, Battle of Mkalamo, Battle of Kahe, Battle of Mpotona, Battle of Narungombe and about a half dozen more. It looks like they were all created by User:Starzynka. They all should probably be deleted as they all contain the same information and besides the names are completely bogus.. XavierGreen ( talk) 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but why would you red link these battles if they were non existent? If they never happened who was the fool who red linked them in the template?. The last editor of the template, Xavier is to blame. It is very poor editing on his part that he didn't remove the "hoax" links. Try assuming good faith on my part. Starzynka ( talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. But if the battles actually happened tagging them for deletion is pointless. Please quickly correct the errors and I hope they will develop into good articles. Starzynka ( talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nick, I just noticed that you commented on the wikiquette page and I was wondering if you could please look at my post about User Chhe. Thanks so much, Malke 2010 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words! What do you think of a separate article for the F-111C "Pig"? Do you think there's enough material out there to justify having it on it's own page? - BilCat ( talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I see the SEA taskforce tag for the template appears to not work - as it was a field of operation of its own - and is considered the actual source of the use of the phrase SEA as well - I have started a sub cat of mil hist of asia - which I consider an abomination of a category - I hope you support such a move - the cat tagging and management in milhist stinks - looks like no one has thought about it for years - cheers Satu Suro 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well who is the whatto of category trees in the project - or is it a default to nothing issue - theyre all interested in battles ? :) Satu Suro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I also get rather nervous when I see things like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Asia - is that really a viable item? I wonder whether someone needs to have a close look at items like that and have a good think.... Satu Suro 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I think the Asia category in milhist should be disassembled as a priority - see what I have done for SEA Satu Suro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
OK I bit the bullet - so to speak - I would be very interested in your opinion as to whether it was the right way to go - please feel free to criticise the way I have gone if it seems the wrong way to do it - I am hoping for some intelligent debate to follow on from the proposals for deletion Satu Suro 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawn the Afd and Cfd before it even got under way - I remain totally unconvinced that the issue will be resolved - it is a case of wait and see Satu Suro 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at my investigation of this article and, as an additional admin, take any measures you see fit? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you help with this? [14]. This editor seems out of control. There's no reasoning with him. The threads have been archived by Jade Falcon. Please, this man needs a break from editing. Malke 2010 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You proposed deletion on an article that I wrote quite a bit (prod). This is a similar article that is most deserving of your wrath. Consider removing your prod from the 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan and moving that prod to this one International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament JB50000 ( talk) 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)