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.

Nick, have your comments been satisfactorily taken-care of? They are the only thing holding up the promotion of the article. - MBK ₀₀₄ 05:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're sufficiently addressed for me to not oppose the article's promotion, particularly given the shortage of sources. Nick-D ( talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion :) EyeSerene ^talk 07:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, nice work! — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D ( talk) 08:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a task group focusing on WW2 war crimes among the many task groups in military history and Second World War? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As suggested at WT:MILHIST, this would come within the scope of the World War II taskforce. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at the Ken Henry page and noticed your edit. The whole thing could do with an overhaul - it is like a political battle with bits of scuttlebutt published from mainly one newspaper, and then responded to point by point. It is full of political attacks that have been disproven or fallen over that still stand in dialogue with their factual responses. The result is a page that reads like a petty Q&A framed by someone who doesn't like the bloke (I notice that that similar IPs are doing most of the edits) with a negative point, then a response one after the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaster56 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. It seems that right-learning editors are seeking to bias the article. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at my new thread at talk WW2 Casualties-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 23:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the earlier discussion about this editors block. I've just been looking at his edits at [1] (and the rest of the talk page, particularly his 'blatant lie' one. I'm wondering if it's time to go deal with him again in some way, either directly or via ANI? Dougweller ( talk) 07:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but am not a suitable admin to follow up on this as my indef block of him was overturned (though all the previous blocks were upheld by several reviewing admins when they were appealed so can be used to demonstrate a pattern of not learning from previous blocks). I'd suggest that you contact Parsecboy ( talk · contribs) who is keeping an eye on the situation. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Dougweller ( talk) 09:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in, BTW I tried ANI for this user recently but as I was new to the whole thing I guess I didn't do it very well and got massacred. Got accused of being rude and uncivil myself (and of being Nick's 'buddy')... It was kind of funny in the end, fairly typical of wiki though I fear. Had to give up as I was way too busy with real life anyway. Anotherclown ( talk) 16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor and his friend do seem to be well on the way to a blocks judging from their recent responses to warnings from admins. For obvious reasons I'm keeping well out of it. Nick-D ( talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be somewhat of a new tactic on his part. Piss off as many admins as possible, making them directly involved in the incident - and therefore unable to issue a block because of COI. It's fairly entertaining reading, I must say. Cam ^{( Chat)} 04:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see the joy in claiming to be a victim at every opportunity myself. Nick-D ( talk) 07:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my remarks at

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Question 1 regarding primary sources

-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my remarks at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heated discussion and serious charges

-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifications. Nick-D ( talk) 07:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

neutral notification Collect ( talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Nick-D ( talk) 12:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For the hint about sources regarding sexual violence by Nazi German forces in WW2. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a cite. All good. Timeshift ( talk) 02:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You used this book by Stevens and Goldrick in the article HMS Princess Royal (1911) to support information about how the 1918 flu pandemic affected the ship. Does the book (p. 186) give any detail to the number or percentage of personnnel affected? -- saberwyn 02:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi saberwyn, No, it just says that she had so many personnel sick that she couldn't put to sea. I'm afraid that I don't own the book do can't check the exact wording. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found a local libary that carries a copy, so I'll do some digging. Thanks anyway. -- saberwyn 04:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked a copy in a bookshop today, and it doesn't have a number of percentage for Princess Royal. It has numbers for personnel affected in a couple of other battleships though (I can't remember which ones though). cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This [2] looks to be a self-admitted sock of a user that you recently blocked. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just blocked them. Nick-D ( talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot to tell you. Since you were off-line yesterday, sometime after I left you the above message, I also posted a note at WP:ANI#Block evasion. There has been some discussion there and at least one other user there User:Moonriddengirl, thinks that this guy may deserve another chance. I am not sure what exactly is appropriate procedurally in such cases (perhaps at least restoring talk page access on the master account so that he can make an unblock request from there), but you may want to look up and maybe comment in this AN/I thread. Nsk92 ( talk) 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I've just posted there. regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A page that I created about the organization DEGW was recently deleted because it's relevance was not properly cited. What are some good ways to go about proving an organization's relevance? Also, if I make substantial edits to the content, what is the review process for getting the page out of the locked pages list? Thanks for your help. -- Colbert2012 ( talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles about firms need to meet the notability criteria for organisations as explained at WP:ORG. In short, the key requirement is the availability of in-depth coverage of the topic from reputable sources which are independent of the organisation. If you'd like to get the page unlocked you can post at WP:AN or contact me. If you'd like I can recover a copy of the deleted material and place it in your user space, but you really shouldn't be working on an article concerning a firm you're a member of - this is a blatant conflict of interest and is unlikely to be in the firm's interest given the very real potential for embarrassment if this is reported in the general or specialised media. Nick-D ( talk) 07:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to work with you to figure out how to remove the DEGW page off the list of locked topics. I have reviewed the conflict of interest and notability policies and I realize that I am not the proper person to be editing this page. I will stop any further edits myself, however I don't want my mistakes to ruin the chances for the page to be created and developed by another person interested in the subject. Thanks for your ongoing help. Colbert2012 ( talk) 16:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The article was blocked from being recreated by Beeblebrox ( talk · contribs) as several versions of the article had been created over the past few years, all of which were rapidly deleted as the firm appears to not meet our notability guidelines for organisations ( WP:ORG). Given that there's no apparent evidence that the firm is notable and you don't intend to work on the article, I don't see any reason to remove the protection as there's no likelihood of a viable article appearing on it. Nick-D ( talk) 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! [3] They just keep coming and it still doesn't make sense... why are they so obsess with the air over Philippines that they find it a joke to be pulling such pranks given that school kid's summer vacation are generally over. Honestly, do you think it would help if you salt the article so that IPs and newly registered editors cannot edit it straight away. Might save us all the trouble? Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the level of vandalism isn't sufficient to justify semi-protection (though it is close). I'm not sure if it's one or several editors who like to pretend that the Philippines operate higher-end military hardware than is actually the case. There's a long term vandal with a history of making up fictional wars as well as hardware for the country. This kind of stuff seems to be a problem across articles relating to the Philippines, and I suspect that the average age of the editors isn't very high. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Close? Really? So do you think I could try pushing it up on WP:RfPP? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you'd like to. I don't think that semi-protection is ultimately justified at the moment, but other admins might. Moreovever, as I've semi-protected the article six times in the last two years, it would be healthy for another admin to review the situation. Nick-D ( talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BROKEN ENGLISH

Honestly Nick, I've had it up to my neck with this guy here (especially over him using his broken English to constantly meddle with airlines/aviation related articles), care to share your thoughts about the multiple accounts he just mentioned? Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I think that this might need to go to ANI so that multiple admins can comment on the situation - dealing with editors from a non-English speaking background who write in bad English can be a difficult topic. If the content of the edits is OK then one suggestion would be for them to post them on article talk pages and ask that other editors fix up the grammar and add the change to the article. On the matter of the potential multiple accounts, I've asked them to identify the other accounts (if the pattern of edits is clearly different they're in the clear, if not or they won't identify the accounts then it suggests that they've been blocked before under different accounts). Nick-D ( talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Nick, actually... if you've taken a look at his contribution history, you will noticed that his edits are not entirely helpful in a lot of instances, grammar and syntax problems being the most common culprit. Also, I recalled that he said something about his friend having another account which had been blocked prior to the episode when he was blocked for trolling on the talk pages of a few editor, including mine. For a new editor like him, I also noted that he seem to be very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia when he first started off and now that he said it very clearly that he and his room mates are sharing DSL connection, considering that he had confessed that they are room mates... what are the odds that they are one and the same? Thoughts? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more that if the underlying information in the edits is OK then alternative solutions should probably be tried before any kind of editing restrictions are introduced. I note that they're now saying that their roommate has/had "accounts" which is a bit of a worry. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again, Nick. → Armyofbotswana ( talk · contribs) ←, multiple instances of copyvio uploading of copyrighted image files, didn't even seem to stop after I had warned him for the last time. Thoughts? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've just blocked them as I note they've also had an article speedy deleted for being a copyright violation. Nick-D ( talk) 08:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick, do you know of a guideline or policy that states how long affter tagging an unreferenced item with a fact tagone ought to wait until removing the item? I'm having a dispute on Talk:Dominican Republic over the issue. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, There aren't any specific deadlines for non-BLP topics - WP:BURDEN states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.". My personal rule of thumb is to remove anything which is harmful to an individual or organisation or which is clearly nonsense immediately and allow about a month for everything else. Nick-D ( talk) 06:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll comment on the article talk page. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and trying get the discussion back on track. If you can't tell, I'm really frustrated by SamEV's treatment of me over the last couple of months on that page, acting like he's the only person trying to improve the article! Morenooso's attitude didn't help any either. That article could always use more sets of eyes to protect it from POVer and vandlas, but it's no good if the "owners" run off all the experienced editors! Anyway, I've moved on (mostly!) I do appreciate the help. Email may if you have any "constuctive" pointers. - BilCat ( talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries Bill. Nick-D ( talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Blablaaa and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this Kirill. I'll comment later today or tomorrow. Nick-D ( talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.

—  raeky T 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. New user AR10CO ( talk) is spamming a number of articles with links to his AR-10 forum. His edit history, seen here, consists entirely of spamming. At the AR-10 article alone, he has added his link five times in the last day. I have pointed him to WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM, and warned him a number of times now. ROG5728 ( talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This user seems to have heeded the level four warning I gave him yesterday. He has not spammed since that time, and I doubt any further action will be necessary. ROG5728 ( talk) 03:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that Rog. Let me know if the situation changes. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick - you mentioned you were writing an editorial for future publication. Is that likely to be ready for this issue or would you prefer to hold off a bit? (NB: newsletter development is now taking place at WT:MHNEWS) Cheers, EyeSerene ^talk 11:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much ready for submission (though comments, criticisms and changes to the draft would be very welcome). I'll fiddle with it and submit it later tonight or tomorrow. cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. EyeSerene ^talk 11:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the ideals of the sex party (have you seen the sex party vs family first Sunrise debate? if you haven't, look on my userpage) but i'm uncomfortable with their South Australian Senate candidate, Mr Virgo who is very young with no life experience... could have found better candidates. Timeshift ( talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't watched the debate yet, but have been meaning to do so. As a small 'l' liberal on most social issues, I was suprised to see that I agreed with most of the ASP's policies, and their website was interesting in that they clearly don't take themselves too seriously (which is a nice break from most single and limited issue parties). Nick-D ( talk) 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there could you see what you can do about the World war II Belligerent list as i and many others don't see it as correct to put the USSR and USA above the UK and France cheers. Davido488 ( talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, There isn't anything I can 'do' about the order of belligerents - this needs to be settled via a discussion involving all interested editors on the relevant talk page(s). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay well cheers anyway I'll see what I can do. Davido488 ( talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

461 sqn is there but as its RAF incarnation. During the war the Australian squadrons retained RAF titles, only reverting to RAAF after hostilities. The only squadron based in the UK to keep RAAF status was N0.10 Sqn RAAF because they were actually in the UK when hostilities commenced (collecting their Short Sunderlands). Petebutt ( talk) 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's correct - the Australian official history of the war and most other Australian works on the war war in Europe refers to Australia Article XV squadrons as RAAF units during the war. The Australian heavy bomber squadrons are normally identified as 'RAAF' in British histories of the bombing of Europe. Nick-D ( talk) 23:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am slowly expanding the War Crimes of the Wehrmacht article-the main Wehrmacht one also needs to be rewritten.Right now in my Sandbox I am getting together info about human experiments, but post-war views and myth of clean Wehrmacht will be expanded as well.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Without reading what you've written, given that this can be a controversial topic, I'd strongly suggest that you seek comments on the text before adding it to the article. Nick-D ( talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Change of policy - I'll try keeping everything in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

tb, but it's so short - would recommend you add the brief to the further reading at least. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

tb - I've reverted, b/c IISS is incorrect and approximate. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the matter with you? All my well-intenioned and significant changes were first raised on the WW2 discussion page under sections marked "flawed overview". You did not respond or participate in any way. Moxy, in his message to editors on his talk page, said "just go ahead and do it." As a senior editor he probably knows best. I have not described my signifcant changes as "minor". In the change diary which I presume you're referring to, I first described the significant changes, and then said additional multiple minor (grammatical etc) changes had also been made. Your unjustified obstructionism, which impedes progress towards improving the article, is now going to be declared a matter for mediation, and I will also report you for other transgressions. I'm fed up with your unhelpful and puerile attitude, and your constantly unjustified admin obstructionism. Communicat ( talk) 13:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My changes were also proposed in summary at the last posting at discussion section WW2 origins of Cold War. You didn't respond to that either, nor did anyone else. And since no objections were lodged, that indicates acceptance of the proposals. Communicat ( talk) 13:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since my above posting, I've taken the time and trouble to read all the wiki dispute resolution stuff etc, and see that in the first instance "The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page", so I'm opening a section there, where you're free to present your views if any. It that fails to produce satisfactory results, I'll call for mediation or whatever. In the meantime I'm restoring tag. At least one other disgruntled participant on the relevant talk page seems to share my views, though I've not worded them quite as stongly as he/she does. Communicat ( talk) 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your changes per the normal practice. Nick-D ( talk) 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not at all sure I like or agree with the edits Communicat attempted to make, I think I have a real problem with your blanket reversion of them with the comment "revert significant and POV changes to the article wrongly labeled 'minor' - please discuss the proposed changes first".

First, I do not believe the changes Communicat made were labeled minor. His (I'm assuming gender--I know) first edit was NOT marked minor and was summarized thusly: "Previous para 2 moved to Chronology section (repetitions/duplications); Para 3 reworked and replaces para 2; Para 3 reworked (corrections of fact; etc). Multiple minor edits."

His second edit was marked minor and, best I can tell, was indeed a minor edit (a spelling correction and a link), conforming to the guidelines of WP:MINOR.

In short, he appears to have followed the guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:EDIT; I don't think your treatment of him was fair.

Secondly, it's well and good to post a notice requesting editors discuss changes in advance of making them (personally, I think this is a good idea) but another editor choosing not to do so is not grounds to revert their work (see WP:NOTYOURS).

I think you should carefully examine Communicat's actions and your responses to them. There may be more history of which I'm unaware and, if that's the case, please let me know and I'll likely shut up—I know how much crap administrators have to wade through. If not, though, I think you should reëxamine the situation.

For the record, I don't know Communicat and never heard of him before yesterday. I'm not a sock of anyone else, and I'm certainly not a sixteen year old possessing infinite amounts of free time.

Thank you for looking into this. —  UncleBubba ^{(  T  @  C )} 15:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi UncleBubba, thanks for your message. Given the prominence of the article, there's a long-standing convention that all substantial changes to it should be discussed first so that there's agreement on the text before it's added - that wasn't done here, and my reversion was in line with both this convention and the common BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Communicat has a history of POV pushing (I'd suggest that you review his contributions and the comments made in response to his posts on various article talk pages) and seems to be trying to use the World War II article to push his views without gaining consensus. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 02:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you around - trust all is well Satu Suro 02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep :) Nick-D ( talk) 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oceania - just looms as a south oz ed is populating tassie ghost towns cat - it all goes back to former populated places in oceania ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_populated_places_in_Oceania just love it - someone has put oceania in a category as a continent - ah how i love wp logic) - can you ever remember the australia/nz status in oceania categories in the old days? I was intrigued to see at the main category oceania - no one has put oz or nz - so I put the projects in - it all brings out the asia stuff again which I think is implicitly wrong on wp but hey - I have a real life outside of here and its muchmore pressing these days. Just curious - thought with the way the oceania lack of an overarching co-ordinating project category - the john cleese factor is very possibly high (we're all individuals here) - but intrigued to think that the oz and nz werent assumed - although so many categories go back to oceania as a parent. Any thoughts would be appreciated - cheers Satu Suro 03:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing ever goes away on Wikipedia ;) (the debate over whether to include Australia's standing in soccer/association football is back yet again, for instance). Is there a centralised discussion on this? Nick-D ( talk) 07:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope - like the asia hangup that I have - just a bugbear on my part - I'll let it wait till I have a few clear days - sometime much later this year - to tackle even the idea, let alone anything else ;) Satu Suro 09:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

• You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

• This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
• This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please place the following in the article? I think this is what Bryce is saying he wants. Thanks, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

---

^{[3] [2] [4]}

---

I think the issue is now resolved. What do you think? Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what Abraham, B.S.'s response is. If he's happy and the edit war is over I'll lift the protection early. Incidentally, that from looking at the metadata that appears to be the photo I took of the medals ( File:Tom Derrick medals.JPG) - could you please credit me and use the same Creative Commons license I used - both are copyright requirements of reusing the image. Linking back to the original file on WikiCommons would also be nice though I don't think that this is a copyright requirement. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is also of my opinion that grass is green and that temperatures below zero are freezing. Should I get references for those as well? What I've written is based on the facts written on the wikipedia WW2 article itself. As the introduction is a brief summary, I thought it would be more concise the way I have put it. Thanks, Ecko1o1 ( talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion of this on the article's talk page. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I see you've just added Gillett's 'ANZ Warships 1946-' to your libarary. Can you do me a favour and check what page HMAS Australia (D84) appears on...I made some notes but forgot to put down if it was this book or the 'To 1945' book. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the main coverage of the ship is on page 59, though there's mentions of her on pages 5, 13 and 163. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nick, this anon IP → 71.111.129.147 ( talk · contribs) ← whom you had blocked previously is back at it again, this time he has been repeatedly inserting unsourced statement into the Shenyang J-6 article page. Think a longer block is needed? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 02:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Following his most recent two-week block, this IP has also continued with similar edits at firearm articles. In edits such as this one he adds unsourced statements, and in edits such as this one he removes text that cites a reliable source. Throughout the four months that he has been editing in this pattern (persistently inserting unsourced text, and randomly removing sourced text), he hasn't given any explanation for his edits. ROG5728 ( talk) 02:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave and Rog, I've just blocked them for another two weeks. As this is an IP account I can't really go beyond a month-long block, and prefer to block for a few weeks at a time given that it's flagged as being a potentially shared IP (though that doesn't seem to be the case judging from the consistent patterns of contributions). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick.

According to the sources I have seen, including E.R. Hooton's Eagle in flames; the fall of the Luftwaffe, and de Zeng and co's Luftwaffe Bomber Units: A reference source, the op is called "Unternehmen" not Operation. Dapi89 ( talk) 16:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it might be best to have this discussion on the article's talk page (though I should note that I'm going to be out of town for the next 3 days). Nick-D ( talk) 22:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not really too bothered, so don't expect a difficult discussion! We'll talk in three. Dapi89 ( talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

All I wanted is for someone to change the as of 2009 to as of 2010, I don't do major or even really minor editing, mostly grammer correcting and english editing. Also, I don't research ships, because of a battle I had in the past that made me no longer edit articles for major reasons. If you want to know more, just ask, but I don't want to go through another battle with a user on this website. That's why I put the update tag in.-- Lan Di ( talk) 01:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. There's a roundup of feedback about pending changes going on at Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closure. I saw a note of yours on one of the feedback pages about watchlist interruption. Is this still a problem? If so, can you describe it for me so that I can add it to a running list of issues? Ocaasi ( talk) 08:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick, could you (or a passing admin) take a look at User:122.49.154.40' s "contributions", especially his talk page comments? I've warned him, and he keeps coming. Oh, btw, he claims to be Aussie, but I doubt you'd claim him! Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As there hasn't been anything since your last warning I'll leave this for now (particularly as they may have a dynamic IP). However, do let me know if they come back and I'll repeat this behaviour and I'll block them. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, will do. - BilCat ( talk) 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nick, just wondering if you are involved with WP's aviation task force? If you are, could you please take a look at the above as an uninvolved third party/Admin? Otherwise, please disregard this message, thanks. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 08:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave, That looks like it's currently a content dispute at present given that there haven't been any recent edits over the disputed figures. I'm afraid that I don't have any sources on the seating capability of airliners, so I'm not in a good position to comment on the rights or wrongs of this case. Is any admin involvement necessary in your view though? Nick-D ( talk) 08:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, the official website has provided the figures but that bugga just won't take it as it is, and he has been in conflict with WP:NOR since day 1 of him meddling with this article. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 08:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, what do you mean by "bugga"? Scania N113 ( talk) 08:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wow... the first bloke has arrived, or maybe not! (PS:See what I mean?) -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 08:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is already a kind of libel. You did all the things that you told me not to. What a shame you are (PS: See whether people know who I am talking about). Scania N113 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

Nick,

I took a look at your page and thought you might be interested in an article I started and that USER:AustralianRupert enhanced. It is about Robert "Jock" McLaren, an Australian private with the 8th AI division at Singapore who escaped twice and finished the war as a Captain, mostly serving with the U.S.-led guerrilla forces in the Philippines. I have the hard-to-find book about him. It is these mostly unknown people and events in military history that fascinate me, hence my interest in USS PC-1264. McLaren was doubly interesting as my mother is Australian, her uncle was shot-up while with the 9th AI at Tobruk and I spent six months in the 5th grade in Gladesville, a town then outside Sydney, in 1956. Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 14:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Thomas. That's a very interesting article - I'd previously heard of Jock McLaren, but hadn't read anything about him. What an remarkable (and very lucky, all things considered) war he had. I've added a photo of him from the Australian War Memorial's image database to the article. Nick-D ( talk) 23:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed BlaBla's complaints. 1) The SS did not capture the objective thus it is self evident that it was not a victory for them. 2) The website does not credit a tactical victory to the Germans. 3) My University had just made available the German language version of the Official History of WWII. I read Frieser's work; he doesn't claim it to be a victory either. BlaBla is once again using his own opinion that higher losses of the enemy regardless of whether to not the objectives have been met = German tactical victory. The guy's mad. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was more interested in the fact that he seems to want to continue the same behavior which led to the indef block and the previous blocks I and other admins imposed. Nick-D ( talk) 11:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request has been filed by me today 23rd August naming you as involved party. Communicat ( talk) 16:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. Nick-D ( talk) 02:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A particularly snide and uncivil individual has decided he wants to start a problem on this article I've created. Can you keep an eye on the situation. The guy seems to be looking for trouble. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Request for mediation concerning World War II (overview article), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Nick, we have a user trying to enforce his will agaisnt consensuson the Aircraft carrier page per this diff. The same user tried to force his changes in April, per the discussion at Talk:Aircraft carrier#Table redux. He's been insulting both then and now, and has returned to force his changes again. Any help here would be apreciated. Note I haven't reverted him again. - BilCat ( talk) 05:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I reverted the change, before I saw Bill's edit above. BTW, I support Bill's request. Nick Thorne ^talk 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks Nick. It might be worth leaving his a message on their talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

He's now apologized on the article's talk page. Hopefully that's the end of that. - BilCat ( talk) 07:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya... Just saw that you set Australia to be full protected due to vandalism, but pending changes is already active on it and you posted a talk page msg about semi instead. Figured I'd drop you a note to see what's up. :P -- slakr^{\  talk /} 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Now fixed. Thanks a lot for the message. Nick-D ( talk) 11:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.   Roger Davies talk 10:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.   Roger Davies talk 10:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger Nick-D ( talk) 11:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Of a long standing hangup [4] I am hoping it eventuates Satu Suro 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks very much for picking up the copyright problem on in the news. After going back through the contribution history, it seems to be an ongoing problem. So just letting you know that a CCI has been filed here. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for following up on this. They're not the first editor I've blocked for copying and pasting text from news stories into articles on current events I'm afraid. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the 3RR rule, and have only made 3 reverts. However, you are wrong that I want to make the change, the initial change by Merbabu is here [5]. I simply reverted the change they made. I did not suggest the change myself. Apologies for any misunderstanding. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 11:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - sorry for getting that wrong. Please discuss this on the article talk page though rather than revert further. Nick-D ( talk) 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to revert further, but if you don't mind. I'll stay off for awhile. The other user and I have "clashed" several times over the past few days, Malay archipelago, New Guinea spring to mind. I tried to avoid over 3 reverts, and asked User:TFOWR to review my actions on his talk page (no response yet, but they're a busy admin). Before that there were a couple of minor reverts (now over) at Maritime Southeast Asia, Lesser Sunda Islands, Greater Sunda Islands.

Suffice to say I'm a bit worried this is going to turn into a personal battle, especially with his "suggestions" I'm stalking him across pages (which I'm not, he's just started a spate of editing articles I have on my watchlist), so I'd rather someone else give a third opinion or just to leave it for awhile. I dropped working on New Guinea for the time being. Hope you understand. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 11:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your first ever edit to East Timor was an unexplained revert of myself on the day after we "clashed" (as you put it). I think i can be forgiven for suspecting bad faith editing. Or, perhaps by some amazing coincidence you really do feel strongly that wikipedia should not say that "East Timor" is not the most common name? -- Merbabu ( talk) 11:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you that removing information (even if it's copyvio) from an article about current events should be accompanied with replacement of said information in an appropriate form if reasonable. Over on Battle of Mogadishu (2010), information regarding skirmishes has vanished, leaving the reader with a less than complete understanding of a major continent-wide crisis, and deprecating Wikipedia's record of said event. I understand why the information had to be removed, but why not replace it with something that leaves the reader better informed? Ronk01 talk 01:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronk, The copyvios in question were made on a very large scale and it's not practical to re-write the material in most cases as part of the clean up, particularly as I'm not familiar with the topic. Can you please help with this? If you'd also like to help with the copyvio cleanup, the investigation is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio - there are, unfortunately, lots of articles on recent warfare in Somalia which have been affected, and assistance from an editor familiar with this topic would be really great (and would limit the impact on articles on the subject). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was not aware that the problem was so extensive. I can try to help, but my surgical schedule is keeping me from doing just about everything! Ronk01 talk 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Nick-D ( talk) 22:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Nick, about Philippines Air Force, I could be wrong but I think I smell an old sleeping sock → Frionn ( talk · contribs)←. Thoughts? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right Dave, but there are a few editors who use the timawa.net forums as reliable sources (which they're not) so I can't be sure yet. You did the right thing by posting a notice on their talk page, so we'll have to see what happens. Nick-D ( talk) 08:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, User:74.96.6.251 is adding the old "DeanJackson]] 9/11 POV info to the Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command page. It appears to all be coming from the one IP for now. See Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command/Archive 2#A few words on policy for bckground. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bill. I've just blocked them and re-added the article to my watchlist (though a ping if he/she reappears wouldn't go astray!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for blocking him. I expect him to show up with another IP bfore 9/11 passes, so I'll let you know if he does. The article is fairly low traffic, and the talk page has had little other activity recently, so a semi-protect on the talk page might work if he does show up again. We'll see what happens! Thanks again. - BilCat ( talk) 08:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I didn't know you worked for NORAD? :) - BilCat ( talk) 08:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, my secret is out! Nick-D ( talk) 09:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On 10 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad, sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill me when i die ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard ( talk) 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Nick-D ( talk) 07:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Have come across a whole lot of australian naval cat talk pages which have been with tags with ships/milhist - and am currently changing the milhist blank tag to WP Australia/maritime/military - I am assuming I am correcting these on the side of commonsense - please alert me if in fact there is some marvellous convention that ships (basically an milhist enclave) or milhist are hiding from me otherwise :( Satu Suro 08:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, edits such as this look great to me. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - I am sure I will hear otherwise - it is the logic of not putting country projects against cats that have the country name actually in the category title that escape me completely - apart from something as monolithic as milhist tags where there is an australian military tag possible - I am replacing em - now that I have mentioned I will leave you in peace and not try the bigger issues that haunt me in times that I am off wiki - like thinking around the logistics of the impending asia project attempt :| - so thanks and cheers Satu Suro 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to start a discussion at Talk:Emu War about what military terminology should be allowed in the article. Since you removed the phrase "military action" and that gave me the idea, I was hoping you could participate in the discussion. Thanks! Some guy ( talk) 22:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded (belatedly) there. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You restated your edit summary but didn't actually address the question of whether we should remove other military terminology. Also, as an administrator, please take note that Lt. Specht is resuming his vandalous editing of the article. If he still can't take the article seriously by now, should he be banned from editing it altogether? Some guy ( talk) 08:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,   Roger Davies ^talk 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No book page is given, just the direct quote. [6] Maybe you just haven't looked thoroughly enough.

Regarding the other edit about misleading, I think the reason for my phrasing about misleading should be obvious.

1. It states that 27% Allied POWs died in Japanese custody. The text I added stated that 25% of Allied POWs in Japanese custody died through "friendly fire". That would leave only 2% to die of natural causes and Japanese mistreatment, which is very weird. Now according to you Gawin has been misquoted (I'm not sure how thorough you have been if you only checked the index), meaning that 9% were killed by the Allies in the water, and 18% died by other reasons, some of which are probably "friendly fire" on land, killed by other prisoners, natural causes etc, thus certainly not all attributable to Japanese miss-treatment.

2. Even if you are correct about Gawin being misquoted the figure in the table is still misleading, especially since the table is used for the sake of "a kind of historiographic cancellation of immorality—as if the transgressions of others exonerate one's own crimes". Please do some introspection and ask yourself, why would someone choose to list statistics of Japanese crimes in an article about Allied crimes? And why would others not protest about it as not topic relevant to the title of the article? -- Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that page of Google books doesn't display here in Australia (though a search for the words finds them in snippet view), but I've looked through the Daws' book (which is on my 'too read' pile) and haven't been able to find the figure attributed to him, which seems inconsistent with the one I could find anyway. The fact that you could seriously suggest that almost all of the deaths of Allied POWs in Japanese hands was due to the friendly fire indicates that you need to read up on this topic. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words, I have never written nor implied "almost all of the deaths of Allied POWs in Japanese hands was due to the friendly fire", please re-read my section 1 above, especially the bit about very weird. I wish you well with the introspection, I really do hope you do it. Cheers.-- Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If the figure is "very weird", why did you add it to two articles? Nick-D ( talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I can't believe how small-minded some people can be, with their petty vandalism! Regards, WWGB ( talk) 11:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This particular vandal seems to have an axe to grind... You would think (and hope) that they'd have something better to do with their time though! Nick-D ( talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit [7], because, although Overy is a reliable source in general, however, more specialised sources do not support this statement. In actuality, all POWs and most returned civilians were treated as potential traitors, and, immediately upon release from German captivity went to NKVD filtration camps. The purpose of these camp was to reveal real traitors and Nazi collaborators. After check by NKVD most POV's and civilians were released or conscripted, only part of them (2% of civilians and 15% of the PoWs) were sent to GULAG. The problem of Overy and some other western scholars is that they mix "filtration camps" and "GULAG camps", whereas GULAG statistic shows no sharp increase of the number of prisoners immediately after the war.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 14:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul, that's fine with me and thanks for your message. I made this change as part of looking for a citation for the statement in the article - would you be able to add a cite supporting the current sentence? Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I really don't want to do anything to stir up the beehive and make it look like I'm trying to make bad faith edits to the article. In your view would an historical event infobox be an entirely appropriate thing to add? Lt.Specht ( talk) 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. The consensus of the discussion of this issue last year was that military-type infoboxes were inappropriate. As the infobox you've added has largely the same content as the military-type ones previously added to the article and rejected, I don't think that it should have been added without prior discussion and have reverted it pending such a discussion taking place. As some advice, I'd suggest that you step away from this article; your previous edits have been so bad as to be indistinguishable from vandalism and you're going to struggle to be taken seriously. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Skywriter, I've reverted (again) the material you've re-added (again) to this article. Given that there wasn't support for including so much on this topic back in 2007 and there were concerns about the wording and you didn't attract any support when you re-added it earlier this year you need to discuss and gain consensus support for including the material you propose - you may wish to post notifications to relevant Wikiprojects seeking comments from other editors. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D, the Wikipedia standard is not whether you personally agree or disagree with reliably sourced scholars. That Morison's fans are editing his bio is not justification for rejecting the findings of scholars. I sense then and sense now that your personal point of view is overtaking logic in your misguided edits. Please reconsider what you are doing. Wikipedia has never stood for the wholesale deletion of views that are reliably sourced but that particular editors prefer to remain buried. Thanks for your consideration. Skywriter ( talk) 18:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I wanted to mention to you also that the editors at Henry Steele Commager are in full agreement that co-author Morison stood in the way of removing objectionable material in their textbook and they recommended moving the material concerning the book's history to Morison's bio. That this was the most widely used history textbook in the United States is of significant interest. That you personally are a fan of Morison for his work as a sea captain and historian of sea navigation should not blind you to facts unrelated to why you like him so much. Your edits seem quite emotional and not based in reason. Skywriter ( talk) 18:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that the material is too long and repeditive. There was a summary of it in the article previously - why was this inadequete? Please don't assume bad faith or edit war. Nick-D ( talk) 22:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment but he does not have any qualifications in the discipline therefore they are not defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.235.159 ( talk) 08:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the case, but you need to provide a reference for the material you'd like to include in the article - please see WP:BLP. Nick-D ( talk) 08:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of respect for not wanting to create an incident or edit war or anything of that nature during the elections I refrained from asking this immediately, but since we are rounding the home stretch for the coordinator elections my curiosity has finally gotten the best of me: why do you think that someone else would do better as lead coordinator this time around? I'm not hurt by the comment or anything, but I did get the sense that others held the same opinion as you did, so I thought I would ask to get a better understanding of what I did or did not say or do to warrant the comment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, My main concern is that you have a tendency to over-react to issues, and this has lead to several attempts on your part to redirect the coordinators' efforts to either unproductive areas or areas beyond the scope of their roles, despite some fairly firm comments on the each occasion that the other coordinators didn't regard the issues you were concerned with as being suitable priorities. I think that you've done an overall good job as the lead coordinator and am happy to see that you've been reelected as a coordinator, but I think that it's time for someone else to take over the lead. Nick-D ( talk) 10:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was hoping to serve one more tranche as lead, then step down, but I suppose being demoted for the good of the project works just as well. After all, the project deserves someone who has its best interests at heart right? Thanks for the reply, I appreciate your honesty in the matter, and I will try and work on that in the unlikely event that I get to be the lead again. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any question that you don't have the project's best interests at heart Tom - it's very obvious that you do. Nick-D ( talk) 11:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In a personal attack on me as the heading, you wrote on another editor's talk page: Skywriter

Hello, you may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison concerning Skywriter's edits - it appears to be related to the Henry Steele Commager and Skywriter has claimed on my talk page that you support his position, when it appears to me that you actually don't. Nick-D ( talk) 09:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D, You are mistaken in that I did not say Longsun supported inclusion of the material about the history of the famous textbook by Commager and Morison. Please be more careful about your claims. Thanks.

Oh, and by the way, you offer no reliably sourced information for your edits on this topic. Please bring something besides your personal opinion. Thanks.

Skywriter ( talk) 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-authors Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morison are important historian and I am a student of history. Just as historians write history, they create history in the process, depending on their historical point of view, or historiography. Co-authors Morison and Commager made a lot of money on their history textbooks, which were used in millions of classrooms in the United States over a period of more than three decades. For nearly two of those three decades, other historians criticized their viewpoint about African American people, which was stated quite frankly in their textbook. Absent documentation, for you to argue that this is an insignificant part of the historical record important to biography is not a strong argument. On the contrary, what American children read in approved textbooks had a great effect on their outlook and on race relations for decades to come. It had an effect, in particular, on both the African American and Caucasian American children who were required to read it.

Your argument would be stronger if you would produce reliably sourced documentation to the contrary, that is, saying that Morison and Commager's textbook was not influential, or that the history they included about African Americans did not influence the views of generations of school children who were required to read it. Absent your presenting any documentation at all to support your position that this material should be erased from the article, your position is extremely weak. I look forward to you backing up your viewpoint with reliable sources. Regards, Skywriter ( talk) 22:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this to WP:AN/EW as it doesn't appear that you're reading what I and others have written on the article's talk page and are continuing to edit war. Nick-D ( talk) 07:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, a user with whom I have a running dispute has apparently threatend to wiki-hound me wiki-hound me to "help my victims" I've issued a stren warning on his talkpage. I've also made it clear before that I will disengage from football-related topics to avoid him, yet he seems determined to do the opposite. Any advice or assistance would be appreciated. - BilCat ( talk) 08:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, has there been anything other than that post on your talk page? If not, your warning seems an appropriate response for now. Am I right in thinking that this is related to Doc Quintana's edits as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#Doc Quintana and football? - it seems that you're far from being the only editor concerned with his or her edits. Nick-D ( talk) 08:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing else along that line of thought (hounding). Yes, it irelated to those discussions. Sorry for not posting a few links, but I had to attend to some things off-wiki, but wanted to get the note in first. And yes, I'm not the only editor concerned here, but he does seem to be taking this one personally. Thanks for the comments, and I'll let you know of any further developments. - BilCat ( talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries Bill. Let me know if anything comes up, though Wikihounding might be best reported at ANI. Nick-D ( talk) 09:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted, but I just meant I'd keep you in the loop. - BilCat ( talk) 09:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now harassment is a problem, per this reapeated edit. I need to try to get some sleep now, so I don't really want to do ANI at the moment. Can you intervene here? Aparrently he doesn't know that users are allowed to rempved comments on their pages, and that reposting them is not a good thisng to do, but he's quoting guidleines to back it up! ANd I;m the wiki-lawyer? Sigh - BilCat ( talk) 11:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And he's filed at WQA because I removed his comments. I think either he or I are insane, and the voices in my head are saying it's him :) I so do not want to deal with this right now. - BilCat ( talk) 11:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how calling someone "insane" can't be construed as a personal attack. This comment above will also be placed at WQA. Nick D, i've just replied at my talk page. Doc Quintana ( talk) 12:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a joke! All it means it that we both see the issue so differently, one of must be crazy. "The little voices in my head" part implies that it must be me. - BilCat ( talk) 12:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Doc Quintana for 24 hours. I've posted the relevant diffs on their user talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didnt't realize until too late how personally he/she was taking this, or I would have been a bit more careful with the inside humor. - BilCat ( talk) 12:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, we've worked quite a bit in an attempt to satisfy the concerns that you and others posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mississippi class battleship. Do you have the time to come back and verify that we've addressed your concerns? Thanks! Kevin -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond at the ACR Nick-D ( talk) 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't see any mention of anything post his pardon YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 08:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, we've worked quite a bit in an attempt to satisfy the concerns that you and others posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mississippi class battleship. Do you have the time to come back and verify that we've addressed your concerns? Thanks! Kevin -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond at the ACR Nick-D ( talk) 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't see any mention of anything post his pardon YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 08:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.   Roger Davies talk 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! Nick-D ( talk) 09:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, Nick :)   Roger Davies ^talk 10:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick!! The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any major changes.. I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi ( talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

On 10 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Icelandic Air Policing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is now up and running http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asia Satu Suro 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I've just added myself to the list of participants. Nick-D ( talk) 04:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

its gonna be a long long climb.... Satu Suro 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated EFF for another FAC, and as you commented (and opposed) last time, I would like you to look her over again. Thanks! Buggie111 ( talk) 01:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of a reliable source for Thailand's casualties in WW2?-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I just checked the Oxford Companion to World War II and it's entry on Thailand didn't provide any casualty figures. Nick-D ( talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an editor who keeps adding information about the school for events dated 2010. The problem is the sources listed are from 2009 and 2007. I have attempted to engage on the talk page, but the editor does not appear to understand and has descended into insults. [8] Edward321 ( talk) 15:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a user name violation and asked that they provide appropriate sources after changing their user name. Nick-D ( talk) 22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU VANDALIZE THE CIVIL WAR IN CHAD 2005-PRESENT ARTICLE!? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!? IT'S A REAL WAR! B-Machine ( talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got no doubt that it is. As I explained on the article's talk page, the materail had to be removed as it was full of copyright violations. I posted on the talk page asking for help cleaning up the article and only chopped it back when there was no response to this for more than two weeks. If you'd like to help the diffs where copyvios were added are at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio#Articles 121 through 140. Please be more careful before you accuse people of vandalism in the future. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/128444
2. http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P02379.004

• Hello Nick, the above links are photos I've tracked down on AWM and was thinking that you might have some use for them in your recent edits. Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  Good news, I've found an 1942 map of Singapore on commons you could use to replace File:Targets of USAAF raids on Singapore 1944-1945.png, which as you know has the modern coastline of Singapore depicted instead of 1942. Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that Dave - the first photo looks particularly useful. I didn't use that map as a) I can't confirm that it's actually PD (the date range means that it might be PD, but the AWM claims copyright over it and the rest of the official histories here and b) the over-layed unit names and boundaries would be confusing at best and totally misleading at worst. Nick-D ( talk) 22:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now added the first two photos to the article - thanks again Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't mention it, Nick. As for the photos, I've noticed quite a number of WW2 photos from IWM got themselves entwined with AWM and in some cases listed on both sides, how is that possible? As you've said, confusing and misleading both at the same time for poor old us. And another thing, you have a small typo error on File:Queen Mary in Singapore Gaving Dock Aug 1940.jpg. Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I presume that the AWM and IWM sourced some of their World War-era photos from the same sources. The AWM mainly draws on the work of Australian official war photographers and servicemen and women. That said, I've seen photographs taken by Australian official war photographers in the IWM's collections (including, from memory, in the IWM itself in London) - I guess it reflects the very close integration of Australia and the UK at the time. Nick-D ( talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• As it was between Singapore and Britain/Singapore and Australia/Briain and Australia, isn't it correct to say that all WW2 photos either by AWM & IWM are crown copyrighted? Hence, the confusion and all due to the geopolitical climate then ( British Empire). Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have added evidence of his ignoring consensus and the actual sources, incivility, and pushing Winer. Edward321 ( talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is to inform you that you have now been added as a third party to current arbitration application by Communicat. Communicat ( talk) 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Since I am back in improving List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War, I would like to inform you that I used this link to double-check most of the cases. Would this satisfy the need for more official press releases? Are there any particular cases that you think I should investigate more? Can you please help me to get this article to A-class? Thanks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis, Are you sure that's a reliable source? - it doesn't provide any sources itself and the website is a Vietnam Veterans' association so it isn't an authority on this topic. More generally, for something to be A class it needs to be comprehensive, so you need to find a reliable source which you can cross-check the totals against. I hope those comments are helpful. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the press release copied from DoD and with the names stated. I checked the names in icasualties.org and they are there too. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's a DoD press release that would be the best source. Nick-D ( talk) 07:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure a US DoD press release is the best source on aviation shoot downs? I'm fairly sure somewhere in the leaking of the Afghan war logs to wikileaks it was reported that the numbers were fudged by the US DoD, and in particular aircraft that were shot down by Stingers and Strela's were listed as 'crashed' on a regular basis. Wouldn't it be a natural assumption to treat the source as suspect and look to any journalists who've collated information from the leaked logs?-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We still need newspaper reports otherwise we are using sources from a party involved in the incident. I think it's in article's benefit that the DoD release is confirmed by an association. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what the press release is? - does it provide a summary of the losses and/or fatalities? I also don't see anything wrong with just using DoD figures - I'm not aware of any reports of them being wrong (and iCasualties seems to rely on official reports of fatalities anyway). Nick-D ( talk) 07:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I can of course try to find the original url but I think this one for example is also ok. What do you think? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You should always use the original. Given that the website included the DoD media release number, it's very easy to find the actual media release by Google searching 'Department of Defence media release 1144-05' or similar - here it is. Nick-D ( talk) 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work to cover as much as possible with official press releases. A bot right now fixed 2 deal links too. I hope we 'll solve the references problem soon. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, could you please take a look at Phalanx CIWS? An Australia IP (124.171.19.245) kept up his edit warring despite being told not do so, after we've told him repeatedly that it is not notable for a fiction section to be re-introduce and his only attempt at discussion was a thinly-veiled "screw us" on the talk page before renewing his 3RR. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I've blocked the IP address and watchlisted the article. I'll semi-protect the article if the block doesn't deter this person. I'd suggest posting an explanation of WP:MILPOP on the article talk page though. Nick-D ( talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you mate for your quick response, will pop in @ WP:MILPOP later to discuss this, have to go run an errand now. Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh well, I've spoken to Bill and we agreed that the particular edit is not worth any notability per consensus on WP:MILPOP, so I won't be bringing a dead horse there to flog. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They've returned and are still edit warring, so I've blocked the latest IP for 48 hours and semi-protected the article for a week - hopefully that encourages them to discuss things. Nick-D ( talk) 07:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again, I suspect that he'll be back again, the dead giveaway is that they both edited on Brown noise and Phalanx CIWS with the exact same edit(s). Actually, this really baffles me but what are the odds that he's operating one day in Adelaide and from Sydney on other day? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fairly low given that the two cities are several thousand kilometers apart - unless they're a busy business traveler who enjoys edit warring in their downtime or something ;) I suspect that one of the accounts is being routed through a different city. Nick-D ( talk) 07:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Business traveller? As if their own business is not enough of a killer towards them that they have to walk down this destructive path of edit warring as a form of cheap thrill? Maybe some spoiled brat following their businessman father? That, I believe is a hypothetical possibility. Anyway, we'll see it how this goes. Cheers~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The photo of the AWM you added to Military history of Australia is fantastic, it adds to the article quite nicely. I have been thinking about what to add here for a while but it didn't even occur to me. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was actually looking for a photo of the AWM with lots of people visiting it (to illustrate how popular it is), but couldn't find a good one to use. I might try creating one myself on a sunny Saturday afternoon! Nick-D ( talk) 10:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey leave the total number up until October 20 2010. You can edit the number count for the months the way you want (preferably keep it like it is now so ppl can get better look on the count) but a total of them killed for the year of 2010 up to October 20th should be implemented in it, then when we add more numbers in the future we can always add to the total killed for that year. Also say something like **** killed in 2010 documents taken from various press releases or something like that... Does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.148.248 ( talk) 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the total figures are supported by a reliable source they shouldn't be in the article. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not a suitable reference. Nick-D ( talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well how about saying **** killed via wiki count and **** killed via reliable published accounts making a combined number****? After all the sources wiki has for the numbers are accurate...check them urself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 ( talk) 23:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That assumes that all the news stories are correct and the Wikipedia article lists every single fatality, neither of which is at all likely to be the case. Nick-D ( talk) 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All I am doing is just adding if you keep deleting that you might as well delete all of 2010 except the 2 sources we have. We need to make an agreement on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 ( talk) 00:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring then, and let's discuss this at Talk:List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan Nick-D ( talk) 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good see u there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 ( talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, looks like Black Friday is doing well in ACR -- congrats! Couple of things:

• Having done my travelling this year and subsequently edited a few digital videos and slideshows to my satisfaction, I might start to get off my suntanned arse re. articles sometime before Christmas. Are you still interested in collaborating on getting Caldwell to GA/A/FA? If so, let me know when it might fit in with your schedule. I'm not ready to start right now, but there's plenty of prep work to do before writing in earnest, e.g. agreeing division of work and sources, plus additional images (found quite a few I think'd be worthwhile, will point you to them in due course).
• On a related note, what do think 1TAF needs to make B-Class? It's about the same length as 9OG but that was a smaller and shorter-lived formation. I'm thinking a couple of extra paras might do, including something that clearly states its purpose, per a comment on the talk page -- let me know your thoughts 'cos I might ease back into writing with that... ;-)

Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, It's good to see you back. How did your travelling go?

• Yes, I'm still interested in working on the Caldwell article. I've got a busy week ahead of me (work + university exam + travel) and am planning to take the Black Friday and Bombing of Singapore articles to FA but should start to have capacity to start with the Caldwell article in a week or so.
• I agree that more detailed coverage of 1TAF's purpose would be useful. Two or three paras on the main operations undertaken by the organisation (including the often very impressive airbase construction work) and an assessment of its performance also seems in order. Nick-D ( talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Travel was spectacular, tks, but I won't go into detail unless you want to feel more jealous... ;-) Where are you heading? I know o/s at some stage but presume that's not yet.

• Heh, no hurry, just let me know when you're ready to start planning. One simple division of labour that came to mind was me concentrating on intro, early life and North Africa (given I've spent a lot of time on bios of his fellow pilots in that theatre), and you the Pacific (which is a bit thin and would benefit from your experience with Nos. 1 and 80 Wings) and later life. I don't think it actually needs a huge amount of additional detail, basically at least one more good para each for lead, early life, Pacific and later life, plus tidying up in North Africa and more images.
• Expanded 1TAF, see what you think -- a lot more could be added but I'm just interested in seeing it to B-Class at this stage...

Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That division of labour for Caldwell sounds good to me, though I'm a bit reluctant to write about his court martial (which seems to have been a bit tedious...). I think that the 1TAF article should now be B class, though I won't assess it as I've had a bit to do with the article over the years. I'm planning a trip to northern Europe (Germany, France and maybe some of the UK) for September/October next year - though this is still in its very early days! Nick-D ( talk) 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only tedious but tendentious...! Well, like I said, I don't think we need that much more detail so perhaps we can keep it to a few lines... Re. 1TAF, yep it should be an uninvolved party formally assessing so I'll be putting it on the requests page. Okay, that European trip was the one I recall you mentioning -- obviously just at the planning stage then... That all sounds great, I worked in Stuttgart for a few months in the mid-90s and travelled a lot in southern Germany and had a ball, my wife and I did Paris, the Loire and Normandy a few years ago and it was one of our fave trips, and you'll never lack for something to do in the UK, so hope it all comes to fruition... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hi mate, congrats again on Black Friday! Looks like you might be starting to gear up for this... I thought we should probably transfer discussion to the Caldwell talk page to keep the collaboration transparent, as there may be others who want to buy in somewhere. I was going to start by listing sources already in the article and others that I'm planning on using, and then just getting an idea of who has access to what so we don't double up too much -- so pls add to it when I'm done and you have a chance... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I was just fiddling about yesterday, but I agree that it would be good to start serious planning on the article's talk page Nick-D ( talk) 06:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Nick. I got the sources for Doomsday from my archive, but it's been so long I can't remember how to actually nominate for ACR. Rather embarrassing; apparently I've been on a content-writing break for far longer than I'd realized. I know the link is at MILHIST somewhere, but I'll be darned if I know where. Cheers, Skinny87 ( talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Skinny, the instructions are at WP:MHRA Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! The review is here if you're interested. Any and all comments welcome. Skinny87 ( talk) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've answered all of them and even asked a question in return. Cheers, Skinny87 ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_19#List_of_infantry_divisions_of_the_Soviet_Union_1917.E2.80.931957_revert. Not sure that we need to do anything about it at the moment though. Probably just FYI for now. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Urgh, just what we need. There seems to be resurgence of edit warriors of late... I agree that there's no point in doing anything with that almost two month old IP address, but Mrg can be blocked by any admin on sight. Nick-D ( talk) 06:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Popped up again on one of his old hot-button topics [9]. Please advise Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have confirmation that it's him? (I'm not familiar with his behaviour in regards to categorisation so can't confirm here). If so, the IP accounts can be blocked by any admin. Nick-D ( talk) 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No confirmation, just very strong suspiction - geolocates to nearby and one of his hotbutton topics. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I added some of your FAs to the various anniversary pages for display on the front page. I was surprised none of them were on there. A large proportion of the incumbent entries are unsourced start class articles, so feel free to just self-serve and bump them off, in my opinion :) YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 06:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn't even thought of doing that! Nick-D ( talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did post a message at MILHIST, MHCOORD, FAC talk, GAN talk for people to come and wash away the unsourced starts with a tsunami of FA/GA/A etc but there was no response...unusually since I would have thought lots of people would want their pov or npov message conveyed to the masses. YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 07:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought its time to say thanks to all the editors who have assisted me in the articles I have been working on; so I took a look at toolserver.org and it shows that you have done 35,244 edits and four years service. I think you not only deserve, but are entitled to the below award in accordance with the award criteria. I know that one is supposed to award this medal to yourself, but we never do, so I am doing it on behalf of you! Thanks for all your help. Farawayman ( talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to contribute your view at [ [10]]? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I've commented there. Nick-D ( talk) 07:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this briefly. No need to read in depth. Do you think it can reach GA? Dapi89 ( talk) 14:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From a quick read, I don't see any reason why it can't reach GA. I'd suggest trimming the 'Post-war assessment' section though as this seems to be focused on the results of the Allied bomber offensive rather than the results of the German defencive efforts which is the topic if the article. Nick-D ( talk) 07:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Talk:Light aircraft carrier and Talk:Light aircraft carrier#Use of "British" as a clarifier? (I probably went over my 3RR on this one, but I won't change it again without a clear consensus. Also, the IP is dynamic, so page protection might be a better solution than a range block. Handle as you see fit.) I'm trying to remember if this has been discuissed at MILHIST before - I think we have, but I can't remember where. Do you recall? Searching the extensive edit histories isn't something I want to do this late at night when I should be sleeping! Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've just protected the article for 24 hours to stop the edit war and encourage discussion on the talk page. I think that there was a discussion of this at WT:MILHIST and/or WT:SHIPS a few years ago, but I can't remember what the outcome was. My personal practice is to add 'British' out the front of 'Royal Navy' only in instances where there's the possibility that it could be confused with other countries' Royal Navies (which seems to me to be common sense), but I don't know if other editors follow this practice. There's nothing on the topic at either WP:MILMOS or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) which suggests that there isn't a consensus on the topic (or that I'm looking in the wrong place! Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I'm applying your practicve in the case of this article: WHile it may be somewhat debetable in the text, there's no indication, or even links at all (I don;t know if they were left out intentiaonally) in the list to indicat which country the "Royal Navy" rtefers to. Should we add the links in, and hope uniformed readers will be informed enough to click the links to find out? - BilCat ( talk) 08:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on Bombing of Yawata (June 1944), Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) and Black Friday (1945), which were promoted to A-Class between May and November 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. Congratulations! Ian Rose ( talk) 11:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D ( talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, you may find this series of interest. I have never seen it, it is not at the NY Public Library. RJ Rummel mentions the figures cited here. I need to get special permission and view it at Columbia University. Now that I have finished the USSR, this may be a goldmine on the Far East. For example they estimate 1 million dead Chinese POW in Japanese custody.

The Tokyo war crimes trial Vol 1-22

Author: R John Pritchard; Sonia M Zaide; Donald Cameron Watt; International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

Publisher: New York : Garland Pub., 1981.

-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That does look like a useful (if huge!) reference. There seem to be at least two copies of it here in Canberra (one at the Australian National University and another at the National Library of Australia). Nick-D ( talk) 02:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RJ Rummel's Statistics of Democide has numerous references to this series in the section on Japan. There should be juicy details to augment the Wikipedia articles on Japanese War Crimes-- Woogie10w ( talk) 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice. I'm pulling that entire section, both the info from the other page and Communicat's edits until I can confirm the sources match the claims. Can you read the full Jstor articles? Edward321 ( talk) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to. I'll follow up on the references in the next few days. Nick-D ( talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, I've copied File:8 Sqn (AWM 042999).jpg and File:Beaufort (AWM OG3362).jpg to Commons under the same names -- would you be able to delete the originals on WP? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Both done. I've also moved them out of the general RAAF category at Commons to the more specific (though increasingly over-crowded...) aircraft of the RAAF category. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

On 25 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 28 January 1945, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that both the British Royal Navy and German Kriegsmarine were dissatisfied with the results of the Action of 28 January 1945? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 00:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, thinking of working further on this as I don't think it'll take much to get to B-Class, but I've come across an oddity and another pair of eyes might help. For some reason the images only appear below the Command Structure section in the infobox -- if you take it away, they appear where they're coded in the relevant sections (same thing appears to happen with No. 86 Wing RAAF). I've compared closely to No. 81 Wing RAAF where the layout's the same and the image sits in the right spot, but see no obvious differences/issues. If you get a sec, can you see if you can spot anything weird? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that seemed to be a problem with the two infoboxes causing bunching of images - I've fixed it in this edit. I was having trouble with this in some of the articles I was working on earlier this year until some combination of Hawkeye7, Anotherclown and/or Australian Rupert came along and fixed it. I agree that it's not going to take much to get that article to B class. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A "bunching" parameter, eh? Heh, still don't know why 78 needs it while 81 doesn't but who cares, it works now so what can I say but thanks (a bunch)!

While we're on this, you don't happen to know a source for the reformation of the wing in 2000 do you? I put that in back in 2006 or so but I have a feeling it might have been first-hand knowledge as it was just after I finished contracting at Air Command -- now I do some searching on the web, I can't see any direct refs... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had a poke around online sources, and the best I could come up with is that it's not identified as one of the units at Williamtown in this 1998 Parliamentary report but is identified as part of Air Combat Group upon its formation in 2002 in this RAAF news story. The ANU has a run of Jane's World Air Forces back to the 1990s which should identify when it first reappeared on the RAAF's order of battle which I should be able to check sometime this week. 2000 sounds right as that's when the Hawks started to enter service. Nick-D ( talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Those things help narrow it down, tks. If you can check on the Jane's, that'd be excellent. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you can also check that 81 Wing was active as far back as they go, that'd be great -- I think it must've been but you never know. Don't worry about the transport wings, I have a book on Richmond that goes into all that and am using it to flesh out those articles in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found the old notes about talking to the Aussie wing commander ages and ages ago. Ohakea Air Day, 22 March 1998. SRG commander was the double-hatted base commander. Maint; (cmd 501 Wg), tng, spt. 82 Wing does operations. On deployment, composite wings would be formed - 95, 96, 97 Wings. Do you have any data on 95, 96, 97 Wings? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't think that I have anything on those three wings, though I think that at least one of them may have been activated during the INTERFET deployment in 1999 (though I could easily be wrong). I've also seen some articles that mention in passing that a wing-level headquarters was deployed to the Middle East in 2003 (possibly as part of the Combined Task Force HQ?) but can't remember seeing what, if anything, it was designated... Nick-D ( talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, would you mind doing me a big favour? We have the ADF reasonably well, you've done the F-FDTL, but we don't have a page yet for Kodam IX/Udayana, the nearest Indonesian Army regional command. Would you consider looking into this and maybe creating a stub? Indo:wiki article is at id:Kodam_IX/Udayana. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on it. I think that I should be able to stick a stub together today. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK done. The recent literature on Kodam IX is confusing - some sources say that a new military district in West Kalimantan received the designation Kodam IX in 2009, but Kodam IX's website still calls itself Kodam IX/Udayana. Id.wiki and some other sources call the command in West Kalimantan Kodam XII/Tanjungpura. Nick-D ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed. That's fantastic. Now we can link it in references to the TNI-AD on the other side of the border opposite the F-FDTL. Fast work - thanks so much. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SAtoSuro may be the man for the IX/XII business; when I did some work with him on divisions/Kodams a while ago he was reasonably well informed. What's the source on the new MD in W Kalimantan being IX? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Page 81 of Power politics and the Indonesian military by Damien Kingsbury (which is online at Google books here) for example. Nick-D ( talk) 00:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a good shot ! my source items a re bit loose and in disarray at the moment Satu Suro 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SatuSuro, can you take a look at this document, a recent ICG report, and tell us what you think?: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/B104-timor-leste-oecusse-and-the-indonesian-border.aspx ?? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. My estimate is that West Timor is still under Kodam IX. Why? The ICG report reports a new infantry brigade in West Timor, the 21st. id.wiki reports, giving 2009 sources, that that brigade is unde Kodam IX: id:Brigade_infanteri_21. What do you guys think? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that it kept the same boundaries as the Kodam IX website shows that its 'Udayana' suffix hasn't changed, and the units which move or are redesignated seem to get new suffixes. Nick-D ( talk) 09:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Korem 161 website also states that the region is part of Kodam IX and vice-versa (though this could be outdated, I guess). Nick-D ( talk) 09:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys my head is curiously vacant of indonesian things tonight (probably will go and tag indonesian stubs after saying that) please leave me a message on my talk if you get into any deep holes - I can over a week or two get into some deep info possibly not on the web - cheers Satu Suro 12:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#military history POV-bias and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Communicat ( talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about why you keep going the RfArb route when your requests for this keep being rejected... Nick-D ( talk) 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A colleague from Turkey is doing some great work on formations that saw action against ANZACs in the First World War. See for example Dardanelles Fortified Area Command. Please keep these articles in mind while working on Australian military history articles and spread the knowledge of their existence as widely as possible. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, though I historically haven't worked much on World War I articles. Nick-D ( talk) 09:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, transferred this file to Commons (and removed the big watermark) under the same name so again if you could do the honours on the WP version... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for that Ian. Nick-D ( talk) 03:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another couple that can be removed from WP when you have the time now that I've duplicated on Commons:

• File:Kittyhawk on Momote.jpg
• File:86 Wing (AWM P00448-093).jpg

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D ( talk) 06:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

...and undone for File:86 Wing (AWM P00448-093).jpg as its deletion left empty image boxes! - does it have a different name at Commons? Nick-D ( talk) 06:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we ended up with an extra "File-" at the front of the name somehow -- it's there as File:File-86 Wing (AWM P00448-093).jpg... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed the links and deleted the file. Thanks for moving these files across. Nick-D ( talk) 09:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee ( talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently going through your points regarding the article and came across one of them:

"*Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office" - I believe that this build-up began under Carter as a response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan accelerated the build-up."

Now I've looked into it a little bit and it seems that due carter re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System, in the beginning of the Reagan Administration the military was underfunded and it was under Reagan that the defense spending increased by 40%- including the revival of the B-1 bomber program, which had been cancelled by the Carter administration.

Most of this information is derived from this article, and I got most of the info about Carter's response to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan from here.

I may wrong due and so i'm bring it to your attention. If you still believe that these policies of military build up began with Carter I'll have to dwell more deeply into the subject. Looking forward to your input,-- Macarenses ( talk) 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The source used in the Reagan article ( http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1957.html ) appears to be unreliable - it isn't written by any named authors and cites no sources. Its claim that there was "practically zero maintenance" of US military equipment, for instance, is plainly nonsense: if this was the case almost all of the Navy would have been unable to put to sea and all the military's aircraft would have been grounded. The article also wrongly claims that the US military is currently deploying laser-armed anti-missile aircraft and satellites (see Boeing YAL-1 for the current status of the airborne laser project). Nick-D ( talk) 03:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you! after looking into it I see from many sources that you are indeed correct. I will add the fact that Carter started the military buildup (with proper citation of course) to the Cold War and probably also to the article on the Reagan administration.thx again,-- Macarenses ( talk) 11:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries - it's good to see that this article is being improved given the importance of its topic. Nick-D ( talk) 11:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you again but i was wondering about what you mentioned:

"Why are the American fatalities in the Korean and Vietnam wars the only casualty figures quoted? Good estimates of casualties in these wars for many other countries (most notably North and South Vietnam and Korea) are available for these wars, for instance, along with figures for many of the proxy wars."

The paragraph in which does numbers are quoted is about the military expediture of the the two superpowers, Do you think a section of "Casualties of the Cold War" where all proxy wars and operations and their sum total of lose of life will be listed is called for? or maybe just removing the line regarding american losses? . I'm still not sure myself though i'm leaning towards creating a new section. your consul will be appreciated,-- Macarenses ( talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can find sources, a new section for casualties as you suggest sounds great. It seems important for the article to acknowledge that the 'Cold War' involved a number of 'hot wars' which lead to tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. Nick-D ( talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come across an issue with compiling casualties- should i consider all conflicts in which the powers picked sides and supported them or just the conflicts involving a communist and anti-communist side? That is, should the Iran-Iraq war, the Arab Israeli wars and the like be counted or just wars like Vietnam, Korea and the Sandinista War?-- Macarenses ( talk) 08:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest only including wars in which your sources say were part of the Cold War. Nick-D ( talk) 08:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: can i use a map from " http://www.pbs.org" or can't I? And can i use a map from http://www.america.gov?-- Macarenses ( talk) 13:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless PBS is not claiming copyright on the map, then no you can't upload it. US Federal Government works are almost always free of copyright so it should be OK. There's some advice on how copyright applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is probably the best place to ask questions about this topic. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, now I look again at the RAAF's Richmond and ALG pages, tks for picking that up. Actually, 85 still appears on the AMTDU page, but I agree we have to be guided primarily by the other two (damned Defence web pages never keep up with the constant reorgs anyway)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I notice you put "Parent" groups in the Component section of the wing infoboxes. This duplicates the "Part of" parameter above so I'd prefer to drop the parent unit to avoid duplication -- thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point; it would be best to leave it out of the subsidiary infobox, so I've removed it. For some reason the ADF is really bad about publishing its order of battle online - the Army and RAAF used to have regularly updated PDFs on their websites, but these have been removed over the last few years. They've even dropped the comprehensive list of units from the most recent Defence Annual Report. Nick-D ( talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's times like this I really miss the days when I contracted to Defence and helped maintain the restricted network that had everything up to date -- just for my own knowledge of course, since if it ain't freely published it ain't a suitable source for WP anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The annoying thing is that basic OOB information isn't at all secret and is often reported in chunks in the specialised defence press (including the service newspapers) and various government reports and the various Jane's publications print the lot annually. The US, UK, Canadian and even NZ militaries have much more comprehensive information on their websites. Can you tell that this is one of the topics I like to get on my high horse about? ;) Nick-D ( talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That and anonymous contributors... ;-) (I share your feelings there...!) I know, with all they get into Jane's, etc, it's astonishing Defence cares so much about such basic things on their official websites -- some skewed idea of deniability I s'pose... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be more laziness than secrecy. I've been trying to find an overview about the role of reserves so I can add a section on this topic to the ADF article, but can't find anything online - the Defence Jobs website (for instance) presents all its information about reserves in the context of individual jobs rather than the big picture. If the ADF wasn't always short of reservists it would be funny. Nick-D ( talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, Nick, I appreciate your reply and reassurance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the best place to report a block evader? Gargabook ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created Gargabookofayr ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue the disruption and POV editing (seems to have a fixation to PM Gillard's and Ex PM Rudd's motorcade [See: Talk:Motorcade#PM Motorcade]). Bidgee ( talk) 09:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Any admin can block clear cases of block evasion such as this one, so I've just blocked them. More complex matters should go to WP:ANI and matters where there's some ambiguity are best dealt with at WP:SPI. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from George Sadil, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Marcus Qwertyus 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. The article could be redirected to ASIO, but given the BLP issues I think that it would be best deleted - I'll start an AfD for this to gauge other editors views today or tomorrow. I'll notify you when this is lodged. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, created an article for this which to my surprise looks like it might even have enough for B-Class, given it has a grand total of two page references in Odgers. However I wonder if you can check the Units Concise History and see if it mentions No. 120 (NEI) Squadron RAAF being specifically under the wing's control when it went to Merauke in April-May 1944, since Odgers doesn't say so? BTW, also replied re. Convoy Faith where you left the message on my page. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that was quick -- evidently you agree with the first clause above, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I watchlisted the empty page as part of expanding the No. 12 Squadron article a few days ago, and just saw the article pop up ;) The fighter volume of the RAAF units concise history says that No. 120 Squadron replaced No. 86 Squadron at Merauke - I'll add this too the article. By the way, I've just finished bringing the No. 75 Squadron RAAF article up to B class standard - are you aware of any other notable commanders this unit had? Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, great effort on 75Sqn -- no other notable COs with WP articles yet but if you want to redlink John Jackson (1942), feel free -- I'll probably get round to him (and his brother Les) one of these days. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tks for that last check/tweak. BTW, can you give me the page range for Richmond in Volume 1 of the Units Concise History? I have some notes from it but w/o the exact page refs and won't be getting to the library for a few days... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, the entry runs from pages 154–157. Nick-D ( talk) 23:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I noticed that at the World Conference against Racism 2001 article you made this edit after Jalapenos restored some content I had removed. I believe the entire statement is erroneous as the source clearly states that the distribution of the offensive material occurred not at the Durban conference but at "a conference that coincided with the Durban conference" according to the source. [11] Since I can't remove the erroneous material myself due to 1RR, may I ask that you modify your last edit to remove the offending sentence? The article is currently still on the mainpage under DYK so I think it's important. I placed a POV tag on the article in the meantime. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please propose this on the article's talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I already outlined my objections to the statement on the talk page last night, here. Jalapenos ignored them in making his revert. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean - the article does say it was at a different conference. I'll remove it from the article and post on the talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For your block on Bart. To say he needed to be knocked down a peg is an understatement. Big Brother of The Party ( talk) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you at AIV on a report on User:Big Brother of The Party. I was attempting to delete the IP's report as spurious. Did I miss something? Tide rolls 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't tried to edit that page. I just blocked that editor, which may have been what led to the edit conflict (?). Nick-D ( talk) 10:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I read your post-block comment at User talk:Big Brother of The Party. I understand now. Excuse the ring. Tide rolls 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D ( talk) 10:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please withdraw or strike these unfounded accusations. I have absolutely not acted in bad faith at all here. It is 100% allowed to express a viewpoint that an admin should be desyssoped (which I came to believe after investigating the situation. And there is no way that filing an MfD for a more general problem is "using wikipedia process to bully an editor" even if the mfD was misplaced. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are acting in bad faith. access_denied ( talk) 05:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I regard starting a MfD related to ongoing RfC/Us as being inappropriate. As was this post on YM's talk page which you made after the MfD was closed as a keep. Nick-D ( talk) 06:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[12] Some good photos and sources. Cla68 ( talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D ( talk) 06:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 4
Please see comment here -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see edit summary here -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tenmei, I note your post above. This was a bit rude. Nick-D ( talk) 07:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got one. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I've just responded to you. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick. Congrats on AC for Black Friday. I think the above might be ready for GA. It is not a very big article but I think it is sufficiently covered. What do you think? Dapi89 ( talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dapi, I think that article should easily meet the GA criteria. Nick-D ( talk) 21:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again mate, just so I can try finishing off an article on John's younger brother this w/e (which among other things will mean we have have another notable commander to add to your excellent 75Sqn expansion), would you mind checking the Units Concise History for 75Sqn and 80Sqn and giving me the date ranges (and of course page refs) that Les commanded both? I only have one source for him commanding 80Sqn in any case, and want to make sure that one isn't confused... Unfortunately AWM has no article on 80Sqn and the only digitised NAA record for Les is his early militia service... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, he commanded No. 75 Squadron from 29 May 1942 to 2 January 1943 (p. 46). He's not listed as commanding No. 80 Squadron in that unit's entry... Nick-D ( talk) 05:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tks mate. Just to round things out if you have a few more spare moments, can you tell me who did command 80Sqn during 1943? Also, can I assume that the succession of 75Sqn commanders in 1942-43 was Peter Jeffrey, Old John Jackson, Les Jackson, Woof Arthur and Geoff Atherton? I ask because if that's the case we might have a good DYK hook when I tackle my next bio after Les Jackson, which will be Jeffrey, namely that starting with him, five COs of 75Sqn in a row were aces -- I don't know that many RAAF squadrons (except No. 3 I s'pose) could boast that. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, 80 Sqn was formed on 10 September 1943, and it's only commander that year was Sqn Ldr G.A. Cooper. He was replaced by Sqn Ldr Atherton on 21 July 1944, who was followed by Waddy on 15 September and Sqn Ldr D.R. Kelly became the unit's fourth and final commander on 1 June 1945 (p. 77). 75 Sqn's first commanders were Peter Jeffrey (4-19 March 1942), John Jackson (19 March-29 May 1942), Les Jackson (29 May-2 January 1943), J.F. Meehan (2-22 January 1943), Arthur (22 January-12 June) and then Atherton (12 June-23 November 1943). I suspect that Meehan was acting given the short duration of his command (though he was the same rank, Sqn Ldr, as the others). Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that Nick, much appreciated! Ah, so Meehan might spoil that DYK idea as he wasn't an ace.... :-( Actually, the Unit History has it wrong about the Jacksons because John was killed on 28 April 1942. It may be that Les didn't officially take over till 29 May and was only acting CO immediately after John's death, but I think it's more likely there's just been a typo and they meant 29 April for the start of Les' term... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll double check the dates - it might be my typo! The article on 75 Sqn in the RAAF unit history isn't very good and contains a number of mistakes. Nick-D ( talk) 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay mate -- BTW, that wasn't one I wrote (mine were bases)! Also I think J.H. Meehan is actually W.J. Meehan, as there's no J.H. Meehan among the RAAF entries on the WW2 Nominal Roll, and Odgers mentions W.J. Meehan commanding a few squadrons around this time... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

God, you wouldn't believe it, created this one as Leslie Francis Jackson instead of Leslie Douglas Jackson -- obviously I've moved the original to the correct name but could you pls delete the Leslie Francis Jackson redirect, as it serves no real purpose... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've created articles with blatant typos in their titles, so welcome to my world! Nick-D ( talk) 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, tks for the reassurance -- BTW though, I think we've lost the talk page for the moved article -- can that be restored? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk)

Done. I deleted the talk page I was redirected to rather than the one I meant to delete. Nick-D ( talk) 07:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

David Wilson's book Seek and Strike: 75 Squadron RAAF 1942–2002 (full ref in the No. 75 Squadron RAAF article) gives the following: P Jeffery 2-19 March 42, JF Jackson 19 March-29 May 1942, LD Jackson 29 May - 2 Jan 1943, 'JF' Meehan 2- 22 Jan [correctly identified as 'WJ Meehan' on p. 88, where it also says that he was the temporary commander while they were waiting for Arthur to arrive], WS Arthur 22 Jan - 12 June 43, 'JF' Meehan 12 June-23 Nov 43, JR Kinninmont 23 Nov - 10 June 44 (p. 215). Nick-D ( talk) 09:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you if it is alright if i am allowed to recreate the article Operation Enduring Freedom - Spain via rewording it. I know it required little work using the translator, but i dont think that it is completely copyrighted. I just dont want to be having no article for this important event in OEF. - BakeySaur99 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Do you have any WP:Reliable Sources that say this operation existed under this name? You appear to be creating U.S. military operations from your imagination. Please help us understand here. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for re-adding the copyvio and making things up. Nick-D ( talk) 06:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

On 15 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 61 Wing RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 61 Wing RAAF built a 10,000-foot (3,000 m) runway at Darwin, Northern Territory, in 1944 to accommodate a proposed deployment of 100 USAAF B-29 Superfortress bombers that never eventuated? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, I notice you've found the Oboe book at the Air Power Development site -- while I didn't cite it in the 1TAF and wing article expansions I did recently, I found it invaluable for checking the sources I did reference. Have you seen they now have How Not to Run an Air Force! in PDF here? I only got a squiz at this once when it was in a military book shop in town but it looked like the last word in the higher command shambles of the RAAF in WWII -- more good data for the RAAF Command article I keep putting off. Odgers got a lot of the juicy stuff into Air War Against Japan but this goes into even more sordid detail... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just notice they've committed The Third Brother and Going Solo -- the definitive pre- and post-war histories of the RAAF, respectively -- to PDF as well. Feel like a kid in a candy store, no more trips to the Mitchell Library just for these...! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that they'd greatly expanded their online books a few days ago. I think that they've also added some more conference papers as well. It's certainly an excellent resource. Nick-D ( talk) 07:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not protecting them, they were protected in April and I'm just adding the template {{ pp-move-indef}}. With this they appear at Category:Wikipedia indefinitely move-protected pages. Tbh®tch ^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 07:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 ( talk) 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll comment there. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being the first person to respond the Peer Review request for the Iowa class battleship article I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Now, you see, I will actually have something to do rather than sit in the house and pass the time doing nothing, all the while wishing that someone would reply to the PR or call me up to chat :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries Tom - the article was an interesting read. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. If I may borrow your attention for just a bit, do you mind taking a look at the comments I left on Buckshot08's talk page and on the respective section on the Administrator's Noticeboard? I figure that since you have a basic understanding of the issue and Buckshot08's quandary you may be able to chime in on the matter. If possible, can you opine on the latter page? Thank you. Cheers, -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 20:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, noted (and didn't ignore!) your message on MilHist talk. I quite understand... ;-) Funny it should coincide with me about to say that I didn't mind holding off on improving Caldwell's article for a while and would that put you out -- I guess it works out well! Thing is, now that Ackworth's How Not to Run an Air Force is available, I've pretty well got all the sources I need not just for an article on RAAF Command but also a whole series on the air force command system in WWII and after, and I feel like getting on to them next. Reckon I can manage them but naturally welcome your input at any stage. So you know, I'm looking at:

• RAAF Command, which could easily be FA-length but I think just a B-Class article for the moment
• RAAF area commands, covering 1939-54; don't think I can bothered doing an article on each area but they'd all get a subsection that could conceivably be expanded and broken out in future
• RAAF command problems of World War II, which would be the piece de resistance, potentially FA, and then possibly
• RAAF command structure of World War II, just as an overview, plus somewhere down the track
• RAAF Air Board, covering 1920-76

Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Those all look like excellent topics for articles Ian, and I'll probably have some odds and ends to contribute to them. The command structure and command problems articles will be particularly interesting. In regards to the command problems article, I'd be interested in adding some stuff on the debates around why the RAAF never set up any higher-level operational HQs in Britain to bring the Australian squadrons there under Australian command. Nick-D ( talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That'd be fine, as I'd tend to concentrate on the Pacific issue but the European side would be necessary for a well-rounded article (Ackworth's book has data on that theatre as well, including Henry Wrigley's frank observations of his fellow RAAF air marshals)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. By the way, I leafed through a copy of The Private Air Marshal by Peter Helson in a second hand bookshop today, and it looks like it would be of interest to you. Nick-D ( talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Second-hand already -- I thought it only just came out! Tks, I haven't read it but I suspect it must be very closely based on Helson's UNSW thesis Ten Years at the Top, which was the main reason I was able to get enough detail into the George Jones article to make it my first A/FA... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Would you please kindly review User:Atabəy's recent actions and tell me whether you think they merit action under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2? Under the username User:Atabek, he was the original person who was complained about in A-A2, and I am getting close to considering additional sanctions. However, I'm involved now ; would you kindly take a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think so. However, I'm not familiar with how the Armenia-Azerbaijan restrictions have historically been applied and am likely to be attacked as involved given I endorsed your deletions at WP:AN, so I'm probably not the right admin to action this - this editor has recently been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Atabəy so hopefully an admin more familiar with this kind of issue will follow up on it. I'll post there. I hope that this isn't seen as a cop out - I feel that I'd be walking on thin ice by getting involved in what seems to be a fairly vicious nationalist edit war without the appropriate background. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Back as a new IP. I would try a rangeblock if possible, based on recent IP addresses he has used, the range would be 121.209.160.0/21. Momo san ^Talk 01:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to implement a range block given that their ISP is Australia's largest and almost all of this idiot's article-space edits have been to vandalise Talk:Kristina Keneally which I semi protected (again!) yesterday. Merry Christmas by the way! Nick-D ( talk) 01:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

True, yeah you wouldn't want to cause collateral damage. Thanks anyway and Merry Christmas to you as well. Momo san ^Talk 01:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick! Is it OK with you if I were to paraphrase stuff? I figured since I used footnotes giving credit to those sources it was ok as it was. Please clarify. Thanks Jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jngilmar ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can loosely paraphrase from sources (with emphasis on 'loosely'), but copying text word for word or only making minor changes are not acceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for general guidance on copyright issues. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Nick. I hope you had a good Christmas, and are set for a joyous New Year! :) I was just having a little poke around when I noticed that among the Featured stars on your user page Tom Derrick is not present. I was wondering why is that so? It is as much your Featured credit as it is mine. You put a significant amount of effort into that article, and deserve to have it displayed with pride on your user page. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've historically limited the stars on my user page to articles I nominated for FA/A/GA status. However, if you think that it's appropriate for me to add this, I'll do so :) (even though you did the bulk of the work). On a different topic, I recently noted that one of the commanders of the 6th Division (Australia), Maj. Gen. Allan Boase, is a red link even though there's an ADB entry on him [13] and he had a distinguished military and civilian career. Nick-D ( talk) 03:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think it is most appropiate, and do not underestimate your own valuable contributions to the article! :) Yes, I have come across Boase before. He is one of the more obscure, non-Chief of the General Staff officers to have been promoted lieutenant general. I've been working on an article of Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll (Chief of Naval Staff 1965–68) in my sandbox, but got a little busy with some RL issues so it has kind of stalled for the moment, though I am hoping to get it finished off shortly ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm in the middle of writing the RAAF area commands article so for completeness I'm trawling just about everywhere on WP that mentions them... I notice on No. 11 Group RAAF you've added that the HQ disbanded in Sep 45 based on p.304 from How Not to Run an Air Force. This is a great list of wartime changeovers of command and is giving me no end of help in my current article but it does contain a bit of a trap, namely that he seems to stop everything at September 1945 because that's when the Japanese surrendered and RAAF HQ took control of everything back from SWPA. Therefore we need to be careful about what we infer from his last dates for each of those commands. For instance, it has Eaton as commander of Southern Area until Sep 45, but his WW2 Nominal Roll entry says he held that command until retiring in Dec 45. Similarly Ashworth has Walters in charge of Northern Command until Sep 45, but his ADB entry says he commanded it until 1946 (presumably when it disbanded). Hannah and Charlesworth also seem to have commanded their respective "@war's end" areas into 1946. So tempting as it is to say 11GP disbanded in Sep 45, I don't think I'd be that precise w/o another source... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, and thanks for that - I've just swapped it back to a vague 'after the war'. I did notice that 11 Group's operational history file in the NAA ran from 16 June 1945 [I think they meant 16 July] to 31 March 1946 which implies that it lasted until sometime in late 1945 or early 1946, but it's not online. 31 March 1946 seems to have been the date a lot of 'paper' RAAF units were officially disbanded so it doesn't necessarily mean much. By the way, let me know if you find anything on RAAF 'reserve' squadrons of World War II - when I was expanding the articles on the 60-series of squadrons which were raised as emergency units from training schools in 1942 and 1943 I found some indications that there were other reserve squadrons which were never detached from their parent schools. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame that Ashworth didn't go that bit further and give an "aftermath" of or a potted history for the commands, as he did for some of the key people. Anyway, I think you can at least say/cite that 11GP lasted in to 1946 -- here's a Trove article that indicated it was still alive and kicking at Xmas 1945, and another in April 1946 mentioning it re. a parade... The picture from the Xmas news story, BTW, is here and could be uploaded for your article. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, good 'ole Trove -- while checking on 11GP and other things, I find I also have to revise the 1TAF article. I figured it was disbanded in late 1945 because no commander was listed anywhere for it after Scherger, who went to Japan after war's end, but now I find evidence that Read had it in Jan 1946! So you won't be the only one amending an article (in fact I have to do two, Read's as well as 1TAF's)... Who needs to dream about being a detective or a private eye when we can do this, eh? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I don't think that the Anzac Day story is evidence that 11 Group was still active in April 46 though given that it seems to be about veterans marching in Melbourne. I'm enjoying reading through the RAAF operational history books on the NAA's website - they're full of all sorts of interesting details. Nick-D ( talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree about the parade not being a definite indicator -- though I noticed it didn't mention RAAF Command, which we know was disbanded in 1945, and all the other big formations it mentioned were definitely still going concerns in early 1946. In any case, it's doubtful they could have disbanded 11GP until '46 if it was still around in Xmas '45... Not perfect for WP though, I admit. Re. NAA records, yes, I had 78WG's open when I noticed you updating that article -- great minds! Just wish more key files were digitized though... ;-( Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

On 30 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 201 Flight RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 201 Flight's role was considered so secret by the Royal Australian Air Force that few people outside the unit knew that it even existed? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The penultimate day of the year. Thank you from the DYK project Victuallers ( talk) 20:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, please see WP:Did you know/Additional rules#C7 for the proper use of possessive apostrophes. I had corrected the hook, then you restored the incorrect version, and finally an admin had to fix it again while it was on the main page. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 22:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that - I wasn't aware of that rule and have included possessive apostrophes in links in a number of FAs without any problems. Could I suggest that you leave a note with the DYK nomination when you make these changes in future to prevent this from re-occurring? (I thought that the change was a mistake made by a well-meaning editor as there was no explanation of it). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I generally want to avoid cluttering up the nominations page with notations about my many gnomish edits, but per your suggestion I may begin doing it for this situation. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)