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. |
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Nick-D, as part of AustralianRupert's New Year Honours List, for undertaking the often frustrating and challenging role as an administrator during 2010. Keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
Can you please discuss your changes on the article's talk page rather than edit war? Nick-D ( talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General Dynamics F-111C, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a General Dynamics F-111C bomber (RF-111C pictured) of the Royal Australian Air Force sank the North Korean freighter Pong Su in 2006? 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) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I sent you an email. cheers -- Merbabu ( talk) 08:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Outside chance, but I thought I'd ask. Do you have any books in your substantial library on infantry weapons? I used to own a copy of Janes Infantry Weapons (1970-something) and I was wanting to look up what term they used for the German round used in the Gewehr 98 and Kar 98 rifles when I found I had got rid of it at a carboot. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 10:18, 4 January 2011 (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 Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
On 5 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands between November 1944 and January 1945 sought to disrupt the bombing of Japan by United States Army Air Forces aircraft based on the islands? 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. |
Dravecky ( talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group, Looks ready to close, would you like to visit again? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
I noticed you deleted the spring weather photo from the Sydney article claiming that it was a photo shopped version of the other photo that you pointed out. This is not the case, they are two different photos taken on different days from the same location, you need to check the dates in the camera data, they are about a month apart. If a photo has gone through photo shop the meta data would state this. Check the data for this photo, this is the main photo for the Sydney article, it is also a featured photo and you will find that this has been through photo shop. If my image had been through photo shop the way that you claim it never would have been nominated as a quality image. Also if you look at the waves breaking against the cliff side in either photo you will notice that formations are different and the photo without clouds was taken from a different vantage point as the bushes are not obstructing the view of the cliff. Would you say this has bee through photo shop [1]. Thanks ***Adam*** 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, no doubt this is on your list but just a prod that it could really use the same sort of treatment you gave 75/79SQNs sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [
• 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, I added a cultural significance section to the article that partially addresses the question you raised about the human side of the ships. I am still working on digging more information up for the human side, but I thought it important that I inform you that I finally had some success in addressing this point (I think so, anyway). TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I replied to your comment. Veriss ( talk) 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, suddenly got a burning desire to finish adding notable commanders (i.e. they have articles or they soon will) to RAAF squadron articles -- since some of my date ranges come from other than the Concise Unit History or Eather, pls let me know if you happen to find anything I add to be dubious as it may mean I have to update the relevant commander's bio... ;-) In fact you could help me straight away with 3SQN, as I find I have both Wrigley and Anderson commanding in 1918-19. ADB says Anderson led from Oct 1918 till he went sick in Jan 1919, so I guess it's possible Wrig commanded on either side of him in both years, but be interested in anything you have on that... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I was just reviewing indef fully protected articles to make sure no articles are protected that could possibly be semi'd or unprotected. I came across 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, and it looks like you meant to protect this for 3 days to stop an edit-war, but it remains indef protected. Just thought I'd bring your attention to it in case indef protection wasn't your intent. Hope you're having a great day!-- Gnowor T C 06:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
On 13 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that United States Navy, British Royal Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy warships bombarded several Japanese cities (bombardment of Kamaishi pictured) during the last weeks of World War II? 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 DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
For displaying grace under fire in the lead up to and during the World War II arbcom case I hereby present you with this purple heart. God knows you've earned with the all crap you've taken trying to keep things in order over there. Sincerely, TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiCopter ( t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick-D,
Yes I understand completely. I tend to stay away from "B-Class" criteria, because I feel it's upto someone else who know's what to look for otherwise, I'd make a mistake and possibly promote wrong ones or all of them! Rather help get them assessed for "B-Class", than leave them blank. As for any other Military History articles, that you would like me to look at, I'll do my best as for User:AustralianRupert is a little bit busy with the cleanup of the Brisbane flood. Thanks for the message. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Could you please assist to suggest better name? How about "Aerial Battle of Taiwan Sea area" or "Aerial Battle in Sea area of Taiwan"? Are these better than the original name?-- alberth2 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, I'm trying to determine if Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Minas Geraes-class battleship can be closed as successful. Have your concerns been addressed? Would you mind stating on the review page whether you support its promotion or not? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
another reason why previewing edits is a good idea. Indeed ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 04:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#OzVC2. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 04:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have listed Highland View Academy for deletion. I noticed you had participated in previous AfDs of high schools and thought you might participate. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland View Academy. WikiManOne ( talk) 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick-d ive responded on the review page to your recent additions. XavierGreen ( talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, can I ask a favour -- the Mitchell Library has gone and lost Volume 8 of Units of the RAAF just as I was about to check Peter Jeffrey's dates as CO of 2OTU (later 2OCU), so would you be able to furnish those with page refs? I understand from other sources he had it the first time from Apr/May 42 until taking over 1 Wing from Caldwell in Sep 43, and then again from Oct/Nov 44 to Jun 46, but nice to get additional sourcing when you have a sec... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I've added a source for the RMCDE article. Could you please check if this is sufficient?
thnx Hans de Haan ( talk) 09:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick, thanks for the review. As always, your advice greatly helped the article's development into a FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
See User:61.68.175.113's contributions. Alos, his "debating style" seems similar to another problem user on WP, User:MickMacNee, though without the profanity, but with plenty of other PAa, particulary accusations of lying/falsehood on my part. A check user might be intereseting though I seriously doubt that he 'is Mick, he's clearly not a brand-new user, and may well have been banned/blocked before. I've also alerted Milb1 about this. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bill, I've just warned 61.68.175.113 ( talk · contribs) about their rude comments. I don't have checkuser access, so you may wish to take this to WP:RFCU. Nick-D ( talk) 10:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Polish Polish casualties 23/01/2011 1 soldier and 1 civilian were killed when IED exploded under ROSOMAK APC ! Please don't cancel editions if u dont know what happened. http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1816230.html that 23th soldier and 1st civilian ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.165.246 ( talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Iowa class battleship Peer Review will be closing in the next few days. If you have any additional comments, questions, suggestions, complaints, or advise on how to improve the article, or if you wish to strike any comments you believe to have been addressed, please do so now before the review closes. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm vaguely aware there was recently some kind of arbitration case with the WW2 article, and that it may be targeted by POV crusaders and other fruitcakes. The way I see it, you've admirably stepped up to the task of policing the article and guarding it from disruption. I'm sure I can speak for everyone when I say I am grateful to you for that.
At the same time, because you are an administrator your behaviour is under greater scrutiny rather than less - precisely because you are expected to set an example. You and user Stork Stark 7 have had a couple of minor conduct disagreements that I know of, and I have my own minor concern which I hope to resolve now. I hope that if you'll consider what I have to say, it might help reduce conflict at the article and be of benefit to you in the future.
Perhaps it is all because of the enthusiasm you have for maintaining order at WW2, but you have made me wonder about (i) your choice of words in Talk page discussion and (ii) your commitment to collegiality.
This is not a big deal and this is not a formal complaint. The moment that stuck out was an incident when you reverted my content, I then re-worded the content you reverted, and put it back again once. You then alleged I was 'edit warring'. I think that was a rash remark, and you meant I was 'editing rather than discussing'.
Per WP:RV, revert a good faith edit only as a last resort... Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Personally I adhere to the essay Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit which states...
Restoring part of a reverted edit is a recommended practice in on-line collaborative writing. Often when an article version contains more than one disagreeable passage, it is easy to revert to a previous version. This gets rid of all the "mistakes" in a few seconds, but it also can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war.
My understanding is that WP defines an 'edit war' as three blind reverts within a day. Please correct me if I'm wrong. More to the point, though the essay I've quoted above is just an essay, it recommends editors re-word removed content and put it back again, as a method of working toward consensus. When I told you I felt your 'edit-war' allegation was unfair, you replied it 'would have been better' if I'd discussed the content on the Talk page. That may have been so, but the fact remained that you had alleged 'edit warring'. I believe it would have been more persuasive if rather than reacting judgementally, you could have crossed out the allegation as an innocent mistake made in haste, and invite me to discuss the content with you. Instead, it appeared that you couldn't care less. In the real world, false accusations of misconduct which damage reputations can be considered libellous; at the same time rash comments can be retracted and forgiven.
You've used word 'normal' more than once. To my mind that is a volatile word which may not persuade editors to comply with you. It implies that your perspective is normal while others' are not. For example, you assert its 'normal' to always discuss changes on the WW2 Talk page first, before making changes. I'd suggest it would be more persuasive if you told editors 'In my experience it is more constructive to discuss on the Talk page first - please do so', rather than implying that their conduct isn't normal. It would be different if there was some kind of notice on the page that said consensus or administrator intervention had established a page-specific rule that all changes must be discussed first. There is a notice on the page when it is opened for editing - but it does not go that far. I may be blind, but I havn't seen any kind of indication of this convention, anywhere. If you want to set up such a formal notice or 'Please talk first!' mechanism, I would support you. It might save a lot of reverting, misunderstanding, bruised egos and fraught exchanges in the future. Otherwise, without such a formal mechanism, one could form the inaccurate impression that you are dictating personal rules at WW2.
If you do remove fresh content from the article page because it hasn't been discussed, you've got to follow through and discuss it. You raised an objection to my Second Front content, but then haven't fully engaged in discussion yourself. Pushing content from the article page to the talk page and then effectively leaving it there just doesn't look like you really are committed to talking. I appreciate it might be a busy administrator's time-efficient technique of generally keeping the status quo at the WW2 article, but its going to backfire if this becomes a knee-jerk reaction or a habit of throwing away everything whether its good or bad. If you demand discussion, you've got to fully participate in discussion. With respect, you haven't always done that.
As I say, I think you are doing an admirable and unenviable job at WW2, but I'd suggest you invite another couple of admins to share the burden of WW2 quality control with you. I would recommend Transporterman and Sandstein, although I would expect them to stay out of this content area.
These are just minor issues, but I raise them at length partly because I never want to again, and I expect us to do plenty of good work together in due course. It also may help to nip something in the bud. Take your current discussion with SS7. He's put in the effort to provide us a source to back up content that he obviously feels strongly about. You told him his source is 'contested'. I don't see any evidence that it was contested by another secondary source. I think you meant was that it 'appears to be contradicted by other sources'. Maybe you are about to provide evidence of it being contested. But if you know you were rash or mistaken in using the word 'contested', then please cross it out and use another word. After all, nobody is perfect. Yes, this level of linguistic precision is tedious, but it keeps things much, much cooler. So to go back to where I started from, I'm humbly asking you to take renewed care about your choice of words as well your commitment to collegiality. And again, I sincerely thank you for your good work at the WW2 page.
Phew. That's it. I feel another Wikibreak coming on. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, the NBC Universal article has been moved multiple times in the past 3 days, including by me. It's a bit unclear at the moment as to whether the new corporate name should be spelled "NBC Universal" or "NBCUniversal". Could you move-protect the article for a few days, to give us time to sort out the correct format? I'm sure it must be driving the redirect update bots batty by now! I'm leaning towards "NBCUniversal", as used on the company's website in its copyright notice, but I'm not going to move it back to the "correct" version while also requesting protection. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your contribution to copyright detection and cleanup, especially this CCI. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
In the " Black Friday" air attack of World War II a force of Allied Bristol Beaufighter aircraft suffered heavy casualties during an unsuccessful attack on German destroyer Z33 and her escorting vessels on 9 February 1945. The German ships were sheltering in a strong defensive position in Førde Fjord, Norway, forcing the Allied aircraft to attack through heavy anti-aircraft fire. The Beaufighters and their escort of North American P-51 Mustang fighters were also surprised by twelve German Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters. In the resulting attack the Allies damaged at least two of the German ships for the loss of seven Beaufighters shot down by flak guns. Another two Beaufighters and one Mustang were destroyed by the Fw 190s. Either four or five German fighters were shot down by the Allied aircraft, including one flown by an ace. Due to the losses suffered in this raid the Allied anti-shipping force adopted new tactics which placed a lower priority on attacking warships. ( more...)
Hello Nick, wonder if you could wave your magic wand to salt the article page of Type 45 destroyer for a week or two? Honestly, we're quite fed-up with the content blanking rhetoric of a certain IP editor over the last 48 hour period. Thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you wish to have UK spelling at your /Drafts7 sandbox article? The subject seems primarily Usonian to me. I can go through and Americanize the spelling if you request it. Binksternet ( talk) 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I can't find any information that says specifically that the RAF dropped mines in anticipation of the KM breakout from Brest. Can it count as a preparatory measure against the CD, if those mines were laid to interdict German/Axis shipping and damaged Scharnhorst by mistake? Dapi89 ( talk) 11:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 29 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 29 Squadron is headquartered in Hobart, Tasmania, despite the absence of RAAF bases or aircraft in the state? 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. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
On 10 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Hines (Australian soldier), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a photograph of Private John Hines with the German money and equipment he had looted during the Battle of Polygon Wood in 1917 (pictured) is one of the best known Australian images of World War I? 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. |
rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a list of IPs and the involved articles that you requested here. I'll be watching that section if you have any questions or observations. See ya 'round Tide rolls 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the GA review! Nice to see that it passed. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
On 13 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it has been estimated that 8.5 million Japanese civilians were displaced from their homes as a result of the air raids on Japan during World War II? 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) 12:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
is a very reliable source which has attracted excellent reviews. Actually the author started writing for a newspaper associated with far right after that, defending "patriotic" members of Luftwaffe Legion Condor, and making other statements along this worldview. It sometimes happens to some German historians it seems ;) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Article: Maginot Line
Over the past few days there has been a discussion between an administrator (on en.wikipedia.org) as well as Tim PF and myself concerning the English version to use on this particular article. So far we have agreed to go with "British English" and have done distance conversions where appropriate. I suggested the following people may help the three of us that has started the conversation to improve the article or have suggestions. The following users have been named by myself who could be of some assistance:
Hope you can join the conversation on the Maginot Line Discussion page. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Please revisit WP:RSN#Joe Baugher, I've raised some questions in response to points you made. Mjroots ( talk) 10:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Re your copying of the temp article into the existing article - doing that kept the copyvio in the history. I deleted the article under CSD G6, and then moved the temp article to the original title, thus keeping the history of the new article and losing all trace of copyvio from the history at the same time. All that was left to do the was remove the temp notice from the new article. Mjroots ( talk) 08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you please mind reviewing my recent actions and those of User:Marcd30319 in regard to the above articles? We have quite a different view of how they should go... Marc wishes to keep as much as possible U.S. Navy terminology and official pronouncements, while I think they're bloated and there's inclusion of material that hinders improvement. User:The ed17 has given a few opinions but says he's quite busy. Would you mind adding any thoughts you might have to mine or Marc's talkpages? I've recently started another section at Marc's talkpage. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have given you my thoughts on the matter, and I do not intend to edit the article. I am simply being a conduit for observations of other articles on aerial units, and how they were/are written. My intent is to suggest possible improvements, nothing more.
For instance, if you check out unit lineage in the article for the 477th Bombardment Group, you will note several changes in unit focus and function while it retained its original number. On the other hand, such units as No. 213 Squadron RAF changed their number designations as their history devolved. My opinion (note, opinion) is that lineal coverage of unit histories gives the most intelligible result, and orphaned stubs may be in danger of AfD.
I might add that my opinion is that of a military biographer with a secondary interest in Forward air control. I whip up squadron stubs on occasion to create linkages to bios of flying aces, but otherwise seldom bother editing articles on units. Having stated my opinion, I repose my trust in you to create the best article(s) you can about the units that interest you. I may drop in on a unit article to link to it (usually under "Notable personnel" or the WWI portion of the "History" section), and I would take it kindly if you would allow such linkage.
Thank you for your courtesy, candor, and lack of defensiveness in this discussion.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, just wondering whether you have come across North Australia Air War before? Should this be merged into North Western Area Campaign? Any thoughts?? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 05:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Nick, are you able to confirm or disprove my guess at Canberra class landing helicopter dock that the LCM2000 landing craft were covered under Joint Project 2048 Phase 1 (the source I used only says that phase 1 was for new landing craft to work with the Kanimblas). Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 04:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, I see that you are stalking me, for example to Chenogne massacre, and Commission for Polish Relief. It would be a pitty if you engaged in WP:Stalking, so please read up on policy. All the best.-- Stor stark7 Speak 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your edits and added something on Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and especially in Poland. It would be worth mentioning that Hoover's attempt to get aid were in conflict with Nazi plans to starve "untermensch" population into mass death. In any case I added some information including policy of stealing food from Poles and Jews by Nazis and redistribution of food supplies based on racial criteria. Cheers! -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I elaborated on Nazi policy in Poland that is backed up with reliable sources. Wikipedia is a joint endevor where we work together. Cheers-- Woogie10w ( talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you add your Medlicott's citations on a per-sentence basis, not per-para basis? I find some facts quite interesting, but in collaboratively edited projects it is hard to make sure that the paragraph-citation integrity is stable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Replied (belatedly) on my talk page. EyeSerene talk 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
1.) Talk:Chengdu J-20#Fifth best fighter in the world
Hey Nick, I've reported the IP editor to ANI, could you please take a look at his disruptive editing behaviour? Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
My google was just to add a pragraf with says that theres is in fact SPECULATION about that google is and echolon porject funded by the cia, i have proved with webside from the web there is speculation.
The source is realiable to tell there is speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.42.75 ( talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
On 6 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commission for Polish Relief, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Commission for Polish Relief provided limited food and medical supplies to occupied Poland until late 1941, in spite of Britain's 1940 blockade of shipments to Nazi occupied Europe? 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for joining me in updating this article. I don't have the bandwidth at home to do a comprehensive google books search, so I was relying on my (very useful) copy of Holt's 'The Deceivers' for the basics. I'm wondering if a (British) Public Records Office search might also turn up some useful information as there are some things in Holt, such as the relationship between Twelfth Army and the British XIV corps that his book does not make clear.
Do you know anyone who'd be willing to tackle the formation insignia? Graham1973 ( talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I left this message with Saberwyn, but it applies to you as well. As you are interested in Aussie ships, I have a feeling you're gonna like [4]. Specifically, Australia has quite a few photos in these two categories: [5] [6]. There's a thread on WT:SHIPS about the uploads. Hope you enjoy! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
REF: this edit
As you maybe aware I have started a discussion with the WikiProject Council concerning the following:
You can clearly see, that I'm willing to leave the one associated with WikiProject Military History to that WikiProject. My aim is to merger or come to some agreement with the three users who seem to be still active (which includes myself) on WikiProject Espionage and have approached WikiProject Intelligence to seek their advice, opinions, or have a discussion about merging. If they want to keep it seperate it's upto them, but I would like to know where they stand with the current discussion I've started with the WikiProject Council. I welcome any feedback on this suggestion to be located on the WikiProject Council page where there has been alot of discussion about it going on. Would like you to inform other coordinators within the WikiProject Military History about this. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please see the discussion at the Help desk regarding an assessment you did and I hopefully corrected. Please check it to make sure it's right now. If I screwed up, my sincere apologies.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyedit from my page: "Removing alt text as you did in these edits and adding odd comments about it as you did here isn't very helpful. If you don't like alt text, please discuss it rather than remove it arbitrarily. Nick-D ( talk) 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
See here, primarily USN ships. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
> Please stop spamming references to Wendy Lewis' books. This is basically bad-faith editing > as the references are being added without any apparent consideration of whether they're a > good reference for the topic (or even a precise page number) and it appears that you have > a conflict of interest. You will be blocked if this continues.
I will stop. I'm sorry that this has been seen as a sign of bad faith. Would you like me to go through the references and put page numbers in?
Ben Morphett Ben morphett ( talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Despite meta:The Wrong Version being protected (isn't it always?), I had no intention of restoring what was originally in the article (then taken out by the other user) again until others had weighed in, so I'm not sure what you really hope to accomplish with the protection. Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wondered if you had time to give me a quick opinion on whether or not this is ready to go to GA. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, User:99.7.155.224 needs to be blocked for making continued vandalism and unconstructive edits as shown via User talk:99.7.155.224 and here. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you review this guy's messages? I have a strong faith that he is the guy who wrote the attacking open letter and has WikiHounded YM for a long time (and now he changed his IPs). These comments are full of strong language (rubbish, me not , not coming back etc.) which I tried to remove but I can't fully do that. Would you mind archiving this discussion or protect YM's talk page against anons until YM return. I feel so bad for seeing a anon use his status to drive YM out like this.-- 115.75.150.108 ( talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, thanks for adding that image to the 2/3rd Pioneer Battalion article. I've been quite busy the past few weeks on a course and haven't had much time for Wiki unfortunately, so I hadn't yet had a look through the AWM's database or on Commons for images. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick... I appreciate the review and comment on my submission for DYK. I've not done that before and I'm relatively new at article creation. Just an FYI, first, I added a couple of alternate hooks and then went back to check on the reference. Both Amazon [7] and WorldCat [8] indicate the reference for the hook was not published by the author but by Fulcrum Publishing. I'll learn not to trust one source on that information! If everything else checks out, I'd like to use the first DYK nom. I know it's in other editors' hands, but I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for patience.. I'll get better. Wikipelli Talk 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to review Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mike Jackson for me. I'm in no rush, but I'd hate for it to fail because of lack of comments, so any input would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami has moved Kanimbla class landing platform amphibious to Kanimbla-class amphibious ships, with several intermidiary stops, which have not been updated for redirects, and some are probably dubious names. The current title includes a hyphen between the ship name and the word "class", which is not done in almost all of the other ship class article. As an admin, he should no better than to leave such a mess. Can you help to straighten this out? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
My additions to the article were well referenced.
We'll see what comes out of the dispute resolution process.
I've been accused of this before and prevailed.
Gloriousrevolution ( talk) 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | ||
For your outstanding work on Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands, No. 79 Squadron RAAF and John Treloar (museum administrator), all promoted to A-Class between February and March 2011. EyeSerene talk 07:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
On 31 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Kita, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during Operation Kita in February 1945, six Imperial Japanese Navy warships, sailing from Singapore to Japan, evaded the 26 Allied submarines which were positioned to attack them? 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. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick
I seem to have picked up a troll on this page who is making life difficult and generally being abusive. I plan to get this article to GA soon, but this pest is determined to challange everything while claiming all the usual nonsense: WPOWN and such. I have left a note on the Administration board. Enough is enough. I'd appreciate input regardless. Dapi89 ( talk) 09:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. This IP editor is apparently back to editing in the same fashion; this time as 71.111.136.163. Just like last time, he is citing sources that don't actually support his additions, and he is making said additions across the same group of articles. For example, this print source says nothing about Vietnam, and this print source says nothing about Vietnam, and neither of these two sources say anything about Ethiopia. The latter two sources are online so they can even be searched for the word Ethiopia, which doesn't turn up. I have given this editor two warnings so far, but considering his edit history I don't think he will take notice. ROG5728 ( talk) 07:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your positive welcome :) 110.33.2.238 ( talk) 08:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Because you are a long time member of WPMHIST, could you join this discussion as a neutral admin?-- 115.75.155.250 ( talk) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the new pages incubation trial! The instructions are on the page itself - any questions or quibbles before you get started? Ironholds ( talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, I've started the GA review for No. 75 Squadron. The review page is here: Talk:No. 75 Squadron RAAF/GA1. When you get a chance, can you please take a look? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 04:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why you decided to unblock B.Davis2003 without consulting me, the original blocking admin of his original account, and, quite frankly, I can't grasp the decision. He's a serial violator of copyright, of NPOV, of sourcing, and generally lacks competence. Though he's stayed away from the upload button that got him into trouble with the original account, this account has had the same bad behaviour that merited the original block, plus block evasion. I don't get this action at all, and I strongly object to it. Courcelles 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Courcelles, Although I did not mention the Copyright issues in my reason to be unblocked, I have as, Nick-D has said, will not upload images onto Wikipedia articles, and I have not done so since the warnings came on my account. I have also explained my reason for this second account, which you can read on my talker page. B.Davis2003 ( talk) 02:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I was wondering if you could do an A-Class Review on the Frank Buckles article. User:HJ Mitchell was reviewing the article, but his computer is "on the blink" and I have talked to him by email and he says it is going to be a few before it is fixed. If you can give it a look-see, I would appreciated it, but if you can't, that's cool too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Brad101 is being insanely unhelpful, giving short answers as to what is wrong with the article, not being forthcoming with information, and generally not responding to posts. My first two posts were ignored essentially, and my third was a pure frustration post for his post to the A-Class review page that read simply: "Oppose Overlinked article per MoS. Good luck at FAC." I asked MuZemike what to do, as I unsure how to respond any other way to this user and really feel they are holding up the review by not being helpful or responding. Mike asked what the overlinking problem was and Brad101 responded back with this, saying it was his last post on the subject.
I am afraid with the oppose, it will keep the article from going to A-Class and on top of that, I feel I am going to have to go through this all over again on FAC. I have posted to others for this final opinions and have three "supports" (to the one "oppose"), the only ones left that haven't responded are GraemeLeggett and HJ (the latter probably can't respond, of course). What should I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, I've just taken a quick run through the Air raids on Japan article. I made a couple of minor edits. Please review and check that you are happy with them. I came across something I was not sure of, though. Currently the article has "313rd Bombardment Wing" and "313rd" etc. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "313th Bombardment Wing" and "313th"? Would you mind taking a look and changing if necessary? BTW, the article is impressive. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick. I saw that message you left on Bsadowski's talk page. The sockpuppeteer in question is User:Brennan Hanalei Torres who had been blocked some time ago for vandalism and sockpuppetry. The socks all have the same general naming convention, so he's easy to spot. Ditto his MO; he primarily writes fantasy articles about himself as some sort of child actor. Hope this helps. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Nick, you have incorrectly captioned a photo on the RAAF's 77 squadron page. The photo I am referring to is a picture of a 2OCU FA-18 that is being operated by 77 squadron, but not a 77 squadron aircraft which is what is captioned. I would recommend using this picture: http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/exercises/pitchblack10/gallery/20100805/20100730raaf8160785_0097.jp
I have also just noticed you have incorrectly labled a picture on the 75 squadron page. Once again, the aircraft may be operated by 75th, but the FA-18 pictured is from 77 squadron. I suggest for the sake of getting everything accurate, we use pictures of the right squadron aircraft and not necessarily worry about which squadron is operating it. Ceskazbrojovka ( talk) 12:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you name any fully-reliable websites that I could include on the 24th Infantry Division (Germany) article? I have searched around, though - like many German divisions, I have found few that mention it by name. While I understand that a written work would probably be considered a reliable source of information, I do not myself have in my collection a book directly involving the Wehrmacht's units, themselves (the only book I can find is a translation of the Nuremberg trials' transcripts). Can you think of anyone heavily involved in MilHist who could help me, or should I just go to the library?-- OsirisV ( talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
just wondering how one gets info deleted from a site that is not referenced. I have looked but can not find any sources to back up the info stated in the article, hence the 'citation needed'. I do not want the Jack Wong Sue article deleted as I believe that Mr Sue is a very important member of Z Special, I just feel that the article needs cleaning as there is so much info that is just not sourced.
Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
the country has lots of diplomatic and military relationships - what makes this special? - Good question! And you aren't the first to have asked it ...
I think the simplest answer is: "They have (had?) lots of money and seem prepared to spend some of it on things we find useful". That template is yet another wonderful example of a certain view of the universe. (BTW: Do you, like me, think it strange that Miss Universe is always a humanoid?) Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk) 03:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Nick, a potential problem that may call for administrator intervention -- it looks like user "The way is was" may have a sockpuppet called "Regnbågen2". At any rate, these two accounts introduced exactly the same material into
17th SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen and
42nd Infantry Division (United States) within about one-half hour of each other.
The material introduced are tendentious assertions that troops of the 17th SS Division were massacred by U.S. troops near Nuremberg in 1945. There are a couple of problems with the assertions; one is that they are simply printed in two books by authors who specialize in publications about the SS (Munoz and Williamson) without any sources or corroboration by other authors; the other is that the material posted into the two Wikipedia articles is a direct lift from Munoz's book. Tendentious material or not, this is a copyright violation. I also suspect that deliberate or erroneous readings of the war history may be confusing this purported event with an actual massacre of SS camp guards at Dachau in 1945, but since the sourcing of these allegations is so poor in the Munoz/Williamson books, it is hard to be sure.
I've reverted the edits but I am wary that a revert war could occur as a result.
Cheers,
W. B. Wilson (
talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
For the question about commander in article "Pacific War," I don't know what page I should discuss on. My opinion is Sun Liren is just a major general but in that article he is the major commander and leader. Xue Yue and Peng dehuai which I added are the captain general and joined many battle so I think they are more important than Sun. If the major commander must be in Burma theater, I think the captain general Wei Lihuang is more important. By 210.53.1.98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.53.1.98 ( talk) 07:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Nick-D, thank you for your good suggestions on Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. I may have a conflict; I recently discovered I met Captain Heide at a Summer Camp in 1979. I have not had any contact with her for over 30 years, but have email contact with her now and this may put me too close to the subject - I do not feel comfortable working on her page now. However, I have no problem searching for links to use for citation. I have place a number of them on her Talk Page. Perhaps you could look them over and work on her page? Thank you. Gamweb ( talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
On 4 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Attack on Yokosuka, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the main target of the 1945 attack on Yokosuka was the battleship Nagato, the flagship of the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941? 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 DYK project ( nominate) 06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see here, and thanks for your several helpful comments at the FAN. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
On 5 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Women's National Emergency Legion, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that members of the Brisbane-based Women's National Emergency Legion served as drivers for United States military units in Australia during World War II? 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 DYK project ( nominate) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
A set of unusual edits from a well-respected editor has got me worried. Can you look into: this? Bzuk ( talk) 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC).
It isn't vandalism, watch the news. Ever see the WikiLeaks cables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.146.106 ( talk) 00:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Less than 2 weeks ago you deleted Flag Society of Australia as G5, it is now back again created by a new user, as I don't know what the issue was first time around can you look at it again to make sure the same issues don't exist with this version. Mtking ( talk) 09:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, I did see your challenge on that squadron edit a few days ago... ;-) While I have plenty on his WWII career, unfortunately I still don't think I there's enough reliable info on his post-war career for even a B-Class article, never mind the GA-level I usually aim at with bios these days. I'm going to try and find an obit in the Mitchell Library and also see if one or two of our British brethren have access to anything. Maybe you can find something in Canberra that would help, since he seems to have returned to Oz after leaving the RAF in '61. What I have at this stage is here -- aside from the sparceness of the data, only the Gazette and Flight are through-and-through reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I noticed your revert at Future of the Royal Navy and just to note that I left a little note on the IP's talkpage. (As it happens it is registered to NATO but hey). There was a small discussion at Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier#Prince of Wales Renamed a week ago. It sounds feasible but we are going to have wait until any official statement before it goes in an article. As you stated it's all speculative at the moment. Regards, Woody ( talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've revoked his talkpage access at User:Jarrodaus11copy and User:Jarrodaus11 as well, directing him to post any unblock requests at User talk:Enidblyton11. -- Lear's Fool 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Theres nothing to discuss. Very few surface battles occurred between US and German forces during the war, especially in 1942 and right off the American coast, the Diamond Shoals action was one of them and I felt and still feel is is a notable event. You can delete it if you want but theres a good chance I will just recreate the page as it is one of the more direct engagements in the North American Theater, a topic which I have worked on for a long time. There are many articles on wiki for engagements that were significantly less climactic as the Diamond Shoals action. I am not saying it was a great or major battle but if the Battle of Point Judith has an article, so should this.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that discussion into my attention. I have replied at WP:ANI#Why am I accused of Vandalism?. It appears to be a textbook example of WP:BOOMERANG OhanaUnited Talk page 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, after a protracted investgation and writing effort (due to the priority of home renovations) I think I'm about done updating this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. The single editor you refer to was a flagrant vandal. He cut out an article in its near entirety, as it was at DYK -- uniquely disruptive editing. He was reverted for vandalism, and has been blocked indefinitely, as well he should. He is certainly not an editor in good standing. If you have views as to the article, I will be happy to discuss them at the article's talk page, but the article is of FA/GA level, IMHO, robustly referenced, and not at all as you characterize it. I'm about to go into a meeting, but will look at your edits later. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
On 21 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zoo City, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lauren Beukes wore a fake sloth draped over her shoulders to the ceremony in which she won the 2011 Arthur C. Clarke Award for her novel Zoo City? 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) 08:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just marked this ANI thread as being resolved, as there seems to be no need for any admin intervention and dispute resolution should be used. I would very strongly encourage you to tone down your comments - comments such as these and these are needlessly uncivil and don't contribute to resolving the disagreement. Nick-D ( talk) 05:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I greatly appreciate your so thoughtfully addressing my questions and, especially, your taking the time to improve the article. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC) |
Arilang1234 having a go at his POV pushing on the boxer rebellion article, claiming the content in the article is from "chinese high school text book", when not a single chinese or communist source was used in the article.
look at the section now- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Lead_section
report I made on his edits- he tries to link the black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war to anti imperialism on the boxer rebellion= User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/Report ANI
Now he thinks dropping off conspiracy theories about high school text books, australia, marxists, black panthers, and vietnam on the boxer rebellion article and filing an ANI report after he was criticized for doing so is acceptable
Arilang1234 attempting wikilawyering and making threats when he was caught trolling
After his trolling on the Boxer rebellion talk page, Arilang1234 proceeded to file this ANI report complaining about me after I criticized him for his attempt at linking marxists, black panthers, and vietnam war to the Boxer rebels... ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
And he titled the ANI thread "racist", and proceeded to provide not one single piece of evidence that I said anything racist at all. One also has to wonder what the "cold war" he inserted into the title has to do with anything other than to grab attention. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
besides the fact that Arilang1234's whole complaint it tenuous (such as calling me racist when he couldn't provide evidence of a single racist comment), Arilang1234 lodged two false accusations directly against me, see this User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ.False Accusations. They've crossed the border into outright lying. Arilang1234 deliberately showed past revisions of the talk page rather than the current one, in order to claim/lie that I did not respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. I need other users to confirm that he deliberately lied with malicious intent. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking User Rohan11eleven for Spam. I would normally report through AIV (and have done on quite a few occasions) but just thought this needed to be looked at first. Vrenator ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words of support during and after the review, it is easy to get disheartened. Thankfully after commiing into contact with one or two horrid individuals that frequent the FAC section, I can say that the reviewers on this MilHis A-class review were far more encouraging and civil! I've just came across Air raids on Japan, do you think it is ready for a GAN? It is a big article, but it appears to be in good shape. As you are a major contributor, it seems respectable to ask you on your opinion. Kyteto ( talk) 10:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be an newcomer with IP contribution that indicated very important information in an article you were involved with once, as I am really busy these days perhaps you would be willing to help him? [9] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted the Animal Justice Party page? Thanks 144.136.101.238 ( talk) 13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just to let you know I've lifted the block on User:Mormography, after reading your comments on the user's Talk page. I do understand your misgivings, so I'll keep an eye on their contributions for a while - let's hope the good faith is well placed -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked for a sanity check from User:Dave1185 hereon a dispute that seems to have broken out on Falkland Islands History. Warning: Long Tendentious argument with many rabbit holes before arriving at the point. Dave suggested that I bring this up with you. The accusations are that the text is failing NPOV and TBH I just don't see it. Another check on my sanity would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the intervention on the Friendly Fire article. One of the problems with that guy was he developed a tactic of mixing legitimate edits with wikifiddling and other disruptive edits. I was getting bogged down in separating wheat from chaff. I have no problem with the edits you made. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly them being just as congenial and accurate as always. [10] What is the appropriate place to report them? Edward321 ( talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for staying on top of things. Finaly have net access again and will weigh in as needed. Edward321 ( talk) 11:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens ( talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when someone reverted my good edits and justified it by telling me that ANOTHER editor was a sock puppet, I found it hard to swallow........ This guy took his witch hunt too far and I had to make him understand...... Hudicourt ( talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects, 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. Thanks! TerriersFan ( talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
On 8 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Long Range Flight RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 1 Long Range Flight was formed to compete in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race? 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) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I've found information relating to the first appearance of the fictional Fourth British Army as part of operation Cockade which gives me the first look into the original fictional Order of Battle unfortunately it is clearly incomplete listing only three divisions (3rd British Infantry, 3rd Canadian Infantry, 52nd British Infantry), Howard indicates that at least five divisions formed part of the original Fourth Army OOB, but does not name them. My access to sources is limited and any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Graham1973 ( talk) 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Just out of interest, are you receiving e-mails from him too? -- Lear's Fool 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Paulio is back using IPs for block evasion. Would you mind taking a look. I've reverted some changes as unsourced. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And now canvassing Hudicourt Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Nick, I think I've addressed/fixed all of your comments on the article Juno Beach. Can you check back in to take a look? Cam ( Chat)( Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:NATO#Gates comments regarding NATO. Thanks. 67.101.7.143 ( talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D. Thanks for the compliment. I met Bob a few times when visiting his store. He could be a gruff old bugger, but he certainly had an interesting life. Cheers, WWGB ( talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey ol' buddy, I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/South American dreadnought race. Could you check back at your convenience? Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Good evening - I am the editor of the above mentioned page and am also the webmaster for the www.defencereserves.com. I would like it reinstated, I am the Director of Communication, Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division, Department of Defence, Australia Thank you deannanott
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read and consider the article of the blockade of Germany in WW2. I have no doubt that in marking it as ‘original research’ you have acted in good faith to maintain Wikipedia’s integrity which we all strive for and admire; however I think this broadbrush approach is a little unhelpful. It would be much better if you were to point to specific passages which might be looked at, perhaps reworded or have different sources applied. I take your point that there is potential for bias and propaganda within some of these news reports, however, the blockade is a fairly ‘dry’ subject and I don’t agree that there are many post war secondary books on the subject - any books available only address certain elements and not the blockade in its entirety. Most other Wikipedia articles on the Battle of the Atlantic, convoys, U Boat campaign etc did not mention the blockade at all, (at least until I changed them!) merely concentrating on the military aspects of the conflict. I spent several months researching and writing this article, but my intention was merely to provide a starting point which will obviously change and improve greatly over time. It already has. Just because there is propaganda present within these publications, does not automatically render them valueless.
Regarding the War Illustrated, it’s true that there is bias in the editorial comment, but it is not difficult to distinguish opinion from the hard information which may also be gleaned from these sources as they often reprint speeches and official bulletins from ministries and government. They also reproduce comment from the other side which is valid and part of history, and useful in demonstrating a neutral point of view. In some cases, this propaganda has itself passed into the historical context, but above all, these publications were written in the first hand. We should remember that these contemporary writers wrote days or hours after the event, and did at least witness and experience the events they were describing, TIME / LIFE did seek to maintain a firm editorial control and were primarily overseas news review publications, not a mouthpiece of the Ministry of Information. No doubt the 12 published volumes on the war which were produced by Churchill in the late forties would be considered good sources, however they tell it from his own perspective and gloss over his failures. The surviving French politicians in particular bitterly rejected his version of events, and repudiated it in their own journals.
As we know, Wikipedia is mainly concerned with the use of sources where it is likely that some editorial control has been exercised. For this reason most internet articles are not considered good sources, unless official, such as government sponsored. Can you please clarify what is the problem with sources from US / UK National Archives? These often record minutes of meetings and debates verbatim and their validity surely cannot be disputed. I am well versed of the norms of academic research etiquette which Wikipedia seeks to maintain, however my personal view is that many of the books currently being circulated are merely a re-hash of pre-published content. This is especially the case with recent works, such as the award wining Wartime (Juliet Gardiner 2004) which lists no less than 652 previously published books in its bibliography, and the best selling D-Day by Antony Beavor used a similarly high number, although I cannot be bothered to count them. How can someone writing so long after the time, re-interpreting contemporary material hope to avoid adding their own slant? Just because a book has been published does not make it a reliable source. For example, the Fontana History of England, which runs over several volumes is chronically biased, yet I doubt anyone would dream of disputing the validity if this publication were to be cited in an article
One of the Wikipedia core principles is that work does not have to be perfect, and any glaring inaccuracies will doubtless be quickly corrected by others – there has certainly been no shortage of people happy to read and edit this article, and in some cases supply additional sources. I myself am far from completely content with it but believe it is much better than some I have seen, and intend to add to it and change it as I find improved sources. I also hope to add some excellent photographs in my possession, if I can demonstrate that they are sufficiently in the public domain. If you could kindly point to specific areas that you are unhappy with, I would be pleased to take a look at what can be done to make it better. Please don’t say ‘the whole thing!’-- Godwhale ( talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Nick, thank you for the comment and your kind words, a review would be good. I did anticipate some critisism for the use of some of these sources, and you are correct that they can be biased and give only part of the story, but apart from the Wages of Destruction I was unaware of these other sources you mention - you certainly seem to be an authority on this kind of thing. I will try to track them down and continue to add alternative sources . Thanks again--
Godwhale (
talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Nick, thanks for the review. I think the points you make are fair; there are some areas where it perhaps drifts away from the central subject, and it would probably benefit from being shortened. I think the allied bombing is relevant however, because this was a deliberate change in policy from mere contraband control to a more offensive effort at wearing down German production. I will take a look at when I come back from holiday and try to remove the less relevant parts. Thanks for your help with this.-- Godwhale ( talk) 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am wanting to recreate or take over the Impact Pro Wresting Australia page, however I will need your permission first before taking over or recreating the page.-- Smoco01 ( talk) 05:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Delta has inserted these with arbitrary numbers while at the same time deleting plain English grouped citations. While they make no difference to readers in edit mode its impossible to know to whom the arbitrary number refers. These have appeared in Battle of Jerusalem Battle of Rafa and Sinai and Palestine Campaign. I've re edited the two battles - the first taking me 5 hours and the second just under an hour - a skill I would rather not have developed! But they still remain in the campaign article. AustralianRupert suggested I contact you as an administrator in the hope you might have the tools to fix these, dare I say it 'automatically' as its not possible to simply undo, as there are intervening edits. I'd be glad of your advice, help etc. -- Rskp ( talk) 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Hi, I left the first message on delta's talk on 23 May which was replied to. Since then my messages of 24 May, 27 May and 2 June have been ignored. The messages read -
On 21 March you spent considerable time going through Battle of Jerusalem and adding 'autogenerated' citations. Can you explain why you did this because from my point of view they make it very difficult to make future edits. --Rskp (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The 39 autogenerated citations you edited into the Battle of Jerusalem article took over 5 hours to change back into English. Please, if you are tempted to do this to any other page on Wikipedia, for the sake of wiki, DO'NT. --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you think its better to replace an identified source with a anonymous number? --Rskp (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC) -- Rskp ( talk) 06:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you were involved or might be affected by. Communikat ( talk) 17:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can I get some advice please. You may remember I came to you after User:Alex79818 opened a frivolous arbcom case against me. The guy is still following me on Talk:Falkland Islands flinging a lot of mud and bad faith accusations around. What would you suggest I do? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
[11], [12] for evidence refer to the edits in May [13]. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
[14] Now using a public WiFi network. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, the 23 June 2011 Army News article titled "How RMC works" uses many of the words in our own Royal Military College, Duntroon article which I spent considerable time rewriting over the past couple of years. While I think that it is great that the Army News has deemed the work good enough to use in their own article, I'm a little concerned that someone might tag my own work as a copyvio of the Army News, when in reality it is the other way around. Is there anything I should do to ensure that this doesn't happen? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Nick-D, as part of AustralianRupert's New Year Honours List, for undertaking the often frustrating and challenging role as an administrator during 2010. Keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
Can you please discuss your changes on the article's talk page rather than edit war? Nick-D ( talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General Dynamics F-111C, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a General Dynamics F-111C bomber (RF-111C pictured) of the Royal Australian Air Force sank the North Korean freighter Pong Su in 2006? 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) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I sent you an email. cheers -- Merbabu ( talk) 08:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Outside chance, but I thought I'd ask. Do you have any books in your substantial library on infantry weapons? I used to own a copy of Janes Infantry Weapons (1970-something) and I was wanting to look up what term they used for the German round used in the Gewehr 98 and Kar 98 rifles when I found I had got rid of it at a carboot. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 10:18, 4 January 2011 (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 Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
On 5 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands between November 1944 and January 1945 sought to disrupt the bombing of Japan by United States Army Air Forces aircraft based on the islands? 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. |
Dravecky ( talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group, Looks ready to close, would you like to visit again? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
I noticed you deleted the spring weather photo from the Sydney article claiming that it was a photo shopped version of the other photo that you pointed out. This is not the case, they are two different photos taken on different days from the same location, you need to check the dates in the camera data, they are about a month apart. If a photo has gone through photo shop the meta data would state this. Check the data for this photo, this is the main photo for the Sydney article, it is also a featured photo and you will find that this has been through photo shop. If my image had been through photo shop the way that you claim it never would have been nominated as a quality image. Also if you look at the waves breaking against the cliff side in either photo you will notice that formations are different and the photo without clouds was taken from a different vantage point as the bushes are not obstructing the view of the cliff. Would you say this has bee through photo shop [1]. Thanks ***Adam*** 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, no doubt this is on your list but just a prod that it could really use the same sort of treatment you gave 75/79SQNs sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [
• 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, I added a cultural significance section to the article that partially addresses the question you raised about the human side of the ships. I am still working on digging more information up for the human side, but I thought it important that I inform you that I finally had some success in addressing this point (I think so, anyway). TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I replied to your comment. Veriss ( talk) 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, suddenly got a burning desire to finish adding notable commanders (i.e. they have articles or they soon will) to RAAF squadron articles -- since some of my date ranges come from other than the Concise Unit History or Eather, pls let me know if you happen to find anything I add to be dubious as it may mean I have to update the relevant commander's bio... ;-) In fact you could help me straight away with 3SQN, as I find I have both Wrigley and Anderson commanding in 1918-19. ADB says Anderson led from Oct 1918 till he went sick in Jan 1919, so I guess it's possible Wrig commanded on either side of him in both years, but be interested in anything you have on that... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I was just reviewing indef fully protected articles to make sure no articles are protected that could possibly be semi'd or unprotected. I came across 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, and it looks like you meant to protect this for 3 days to stop an edit-war, but it remains indef protected. Just thought I'd bring your attention to it in case indef protection wasn't your intent. Hope you're having a great day!-- Gnowor T C 06:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
On 13 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that United States Navy, British Royal Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy warships bombarded several Japanese cities (bombardment of Kamaishi pictured) during the last weeks of World War II? 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 DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
For displaying grace under fire in the lead up to and during the World War II arbcom case I hereby present you with this purple heart. God knows you've earned with the all crap you've taken trying to keep things in order over there. Sincerely, TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiCopter ( t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick-D,
Yes I understand completely. I tend to stay away from "B-Class" criteria, because I feel it's upto someone else who know's what to look for otherwise, I'd make a mistake and possibly promote wrong ones or all of them! Rather help get them assessed for "B-Class", than leave them blank. As for any other Military History articles, that you would like me to look at, I'll do my best as for User:AustralianRupert is a little bit busy with the cleanup of the Brisbane flood. Thanks for the message. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Could you please assist to suggest better name? How about "Aerial Battle of Taiwan Sea area" or "Aerial Battle in Sea area of Taiwan"? Are these better than the original name?-- alberth2 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, I'm trying to determine if Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Minas Geraes-class battleship can be closed as successful. Have your concerns been addressed? Would you mind stating on the review page whether you support its promotion or not? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
another reason why previewing edits is a good idea. Indeed ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 04:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#OzVC2. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 04:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have listed Highland View Academy for deletion. I noticed you had participated in previous AfDs of high schools and thought you might participate. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland View Academy. WikiManOne ( talk) 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick-d ive responded on the review page to your recent additions. XavierGreen ( talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, can I ask a favour -- the Mitchell Library has gone and lost Volume 8 of Units of the RAAF just as I was about to check Peter Jeffrey's dates as CO of 2OTU (later 2OCU), so would you be able to furnish those with page refs? I understand from other sources he had it the first time from Apr/May 42 until taking over 1 Wing from Caldwell in Sep 43, and then again from Oct/Nov 44 to Jun 46, but nice to get additional sourcing when you have a sec... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
I've added a source for the RMCDE article. Could you please check if this is sufficient?
thnx Hans de Haan ( talk) 09:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick, thanks for the review. As always, your advice greatly helped the article's development into a FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
See User:61.68.175.113's contributions. Alos, his "debating style" seems similar to another problem user on WP, User:MickMacNee, though without the profanity, but with plenty of other PAa, particulary accusations of lying/falsehood on my part. A check user might be intereseting though I seriously doubt that he 'is Mick, he's clearly not a brand-new user, and may well have been banned/blocked before. I've also alerted Milb1 about this. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bill, I've just warned 61.68.175.113 ( talk · contribs) about their rude comments. I don't have checkuser access, so you may wish to take this to WP:RFCU. Nick-D ( talk) 10:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Polish Polish casualties 23/01/2011 1 soldier and 1 civilian were killed when IED exploded under ROSOMAK APC ! Please don't cancel editions if u dont know what happened. http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1816230.html that 23th soldier and 1st civilian ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.165.246 ( talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Iowa class battleship Peer Review will be closing in the next few days. If you have any additional comments, questions, suggestions, complaints, or advise on how to improve the article, or if you wish to strike any comments you believe to have been addressed, please do so now before the review closes. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm vaguely aware there was recently some kind of arbitration case with the WW2 article, and that it may be targeted by POV crusaders and other fruitcakes. The way I see it, you've admirably stepped up to the task of policing the article and guarding it from disruption. I'm sure I can speak for everyone when I say I am grateful to you for that.
At the same time, because you are an administrator your behaviour is under greater scrutiny rather than less - precisely because you are expected to set an example. You and user Stork Stark 7 have had a couple of minor conduct disagreements that I know of, and I have my own minor concern which I hope to resolve now. I hope that if you'll consider what I have to say, it might help reduce conflict at the article and be of benefit to you in the future.
Perhaps it is all because of the enthusiasm you have for maintaining order at WW2, but you have made me wonder about (i) your choice of words in Talk page discussion and (ii) your commitment to collegiality.
This is not a big deal and this is not a formal complaint. The moment that stuck out was an incident when you reverted my content, I then re-worded the content you reverted, and put it back again once. You then alleged I was 'edit warring'. I think that was a rash remark, and you meant I was 'editing rather than discussing'.
Per WP:RV, revert a good faith edit only as a last resort... Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Personally I adhere to the essay Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit which states...
Restoring part of a reverted edit is a recommended practice in on-line collaborative writing. Often when an article version contains more than one disagreeable passage, it is easy to revert to a previous version. This gets rid of all the "mistakes" in a few seconds, but it also can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war.
My understanding is that WP defines an 'edit war' as three blind reverts within a day. Please correct me if I'm wrong. More to the point, though the essay I've quoted above is just an essay, it recommends editors re-word removed content and put it back again, as a method of working toward consensus. When I told you I felt your 'edit-war' allegation was unfair, you replied it 'would have been better' if I'd discussed the content on the Talk page. That may have been so, but the fact remained that you had alleged 'edit warring'. I believe it would have been more persuasive if rather than reacting judgementally, you could have crossed out the allegation as an innocent mistake made in haste, and invite me to discuss the content with you. Instead, it appeared that you couldn't care less. In the real world, false accusations of misconduct which damage reputations can be considered libellous; at the same time rash comments can be retracted and forgiven.
You've used word 'normal' more than once. To my mind that is a volatile word which may not persuade editors to comply with you. It implies that your perspective is normal while others' are not. For example, you assert its 'normal' to always discuss changes on the WW2 Talk page first, before making changes. I'd suggest it would be more persuasive if you told editors 'In my experience it is more constructive to discuss on the Talk page first - please do so', rather than implying that their conduct isn't normal. It would be different if there was some kind of notice on the page that said consensus or administrator intervention had established a page-specific rule that all changes must be discussed first. There is a notice on the page when it is opened for editing - but it does not go that far. I may be blind, but I havn't seen any kind of indication of this convention, anywhere. If you want to set up such a formal notice or 'Please talk first!' mechanism, I would support you. It might save a lot of reverting, misunderstanding, bruised egos and fraught exchanges in the future. Otherwise, without such a formal mechanism, one could form the inaccurate impression that you are dictating personal rules at WW2.
If you do remove fresh content from the article page because it hasn't been discussed, you've got to follow through and discuss it. You raised an objection to my Second Front content, but then haven't fully engaged in discussion yourself. Pushing content from the article page to the talk page and then effectively leaving it there just doesn't look like you really are committed to talking. I appreciate it might be a busy administrator's time-efficient technique of generally keeping the status quo at the WW2 article, but its going to backfire if this becomes a knee-jerk reaction or a habit of throwing away everything whether its good or bad. If you demand discussion, you've got to fully participate in discussion. With respect, you haven't always done that.
As I say, I think you are doing an admirable and unenviable job at WW2, but I'd suggest you invite another couple of admins to share the burden of WW2 quality control with you. I would recommend Transporterman and Sandstein, although I would expect them to stay out of this content area.
These are just minor issues, but I raise them at length partly because I never want to again, and I expect us to do plenty of good work together in due course. It also may help to nip something in the bud. Take your current discussion with SS7. He's put in the effort to provide us a source to back up content that he obviously feels strongly about. You told him his source is 'contested'. I don't see any evidence that it was contested by another secondary source. I think you meant was that it 'appears to be contradicted by other sources'. Maybe you are about to provide evidence of it being contested. But if you know you were rash or mistaken in using the word 'contested', then please cross it out and use another word. After all, nobody is perfect. Yes, this level of linguistic precision is tedious, but it keeps things much, much cooler. So to go back to where I started from, I'm humbly asking you to take renewed care about your choice of words as well your commitment to collegiality. And again, I sincerely thank you for your good work at the WW2 page.
Phew. That's it. I feel another Wikibreak coming on. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, the NBC Universal article has been moved multiple times in the past 3 days, including by me. It's a bit unclear at the moment as to whether the new corporate name should be spelled "NBC Universal" or "NBCUniversal". Could you move-protect the article for a few days, to give us time to sort out the correct format? I'm sure it must be driving the redirect update bots batty by now! I'm leaning towards "NBCUniversal", as used on the company's website in its copyright notice, but I'm not going to move it back to the "correct" version while also requesting protection. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your contribution to copyright detection and cleanup, especially this CCI. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
In the " Black Friday" air attack of World War II a force of Allied Bristol Beaufighter aircraft suffered heavy casualties during an unsuccessful attack on German destroyer Z33 and her escorting vessels on 9 February 1945. The German ships were sheltering in a strong defensive position in Førde Fjord, Norway, forcing the Allied aircraft to attack through heavy anti-aircraft fire. The Beaufighters and their escort of North American P-51 Mustang fighters were also surprised by twelve German Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters. In the resulting attack the Allies damaged at least two of the German ships for the loss of seven Beaufighters shot down by flak guns. Another two Beaufighters and one Mustang were destroyed by the Fw 190s. Either four or five German fighters were shot down by the Allied aircraft, including one flown by an ace. Due to the losses suffered in this raid the Allied anti-shipping force adopted new tactics which placed a lower priority on attacking warships. ( more...)
Hello Nick, wonder if you could wave your magic wand to salt the article page of Type 45 destroyer for a week or two? Honestly, we're quite fed-up with the content blanking rhetoric of a certain IP editor over the last 48 hour period. Thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you wish to have UK spelling at your /Drafts7 sandbox article? The subject seems primarily Usonian to me. I can go through and Americanize the spelling if you request it. Binksternet ( talk) 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I can't find any information that says specifically that the RAF dropped mines in anticipation of the KM breakout from Brest. Can it count as a preparatory measure against the CD, if those mines were laid to interdict German/Axis shipping and damaged Scharnhorst by mistake? Dapi89 ( talk) 11:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 29 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 29 Squadron is headquartered in Hobart, Tasmania, despite the absence of RAAF bases or aircraft in the state? 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. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
On 10 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Hines (Australian soldier), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a photograph of Private John Hines with the German money and equipment he had looted during the Battle of Polygon Wood in 1917 (pictured) is one of the best known Australian images of World War I? 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. |
rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a list of IPs and the involved articles that you requested here. I'll be watching that section if you have any questions or observations. See ya 'round Tide rolls 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the GA review! Nice to see that it passed. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
On 13 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it has been estimated that 8.5 million Japanese civilians were displaced from their homes as a result of the air raids on Japan during World War II? 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) 12:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
is a very reliable source which has attracted excellent reviews. Actually the author started writing for a newspaper associated with far right after that, defending "patriotic" members of Luftwaffe Legion Condor, and making other statements along this worldview. It sometimes happens to some German historians it seems ;) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Article: Maginot Line
Over the past few days there has been a discussion between an administrator (on en.wikipedia.org) as well as Tim PF and myself concerning the English version to use on this particular article. So far we have agreed to go with "British English" and have done distance conversions where appropriate. I suggested the following people may help the three of us that has started the conversation to improve the article or have suggestions. The following users have been named by myself who could be of some assistance:
Hope you can join the conversation on the Maginot Line Discussion page. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Please revisit WP:RSN#Joe Baugher, I've raised some questions in response to points you made. Mjroots ( talk) 10:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Re your copying of the temp article into the existing article - doing that kept the copyvio in the history. I deleted the article under CSD G6, and then moved the temp article to the original title, thus keeping the history of the new article and losing all trace of copyvio from the history at the same time. All that was left to do the was remove the temp notice from the new article. Mjroots ( talk) 08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you please mind reviewing my recent actions and those of User:Marcd30319 in regard to the above articles? We have quite a different view of how they should go... Marc wishes to keep as much as possible U.S. Navy terminology and official pronouncements, while I think they're bloated and there's inclusion of material that hinders improvement. User:The ed17 has given a few opinions but says he's quite busy. Would you mind adding any thoughts you might have to mine or Marc's talkpages? I've recently started another section at Marc's talkpage. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have given you my thoughts on the matter, and I do not intend to edit the article. I am simply being a conduit for observations of other articles on aerial units, and how they were/are written. My intent is to suggest possible improvements, nothing more.
For instance, if you check out unit lineage in the article for the 477th Bombardment Group, you will note several changes in unit focus and function while it retained its original number. On the other hand, such units as No. 213 Squadron RAF changed their number designations as their history devolved. My opinion (note, opinion) is that lineal coverage of unit histories gives the most intelligible result, and orphaned stubs may be in danger of AfD.
I might add that my opinion is that of a military biographer with a secondary interest in Forward air control. I whip up squadron stubs on occasion to create linkages to bios of flying aces, but otherwise seldom bother editing articles on units. Having stated my opinion, I repose my trust in you to create the best article(s) you can about the units that interest you. I may drop in on a unit article to link to it (usually under "Notable personnel" or the WWI portion of the "History" section), and I would take it kindly if you would allow such linkage.
Thank you for your courtesy, candor, and lack of defensiveness in this discussion.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, just wondering whether you have come across North Australia Air War before? Should this be merged into North Western Area Campaign? Any thoughts?? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 05:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Nick, are you able to confirm or disprove my guess at Canberra class landing helicopter dock that the LCM2000 landing craft were covered under Joint Project 2048 Phase 1 (the source I used only says that phase 1 was for new landing craft to work with the Kanimblas). Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 04:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, I see that you are stalking me, for example to Chenogne massacre, and Commission for Polish Relief. It would be a pitty if you engaged in WP:Stalking, so please read up on policy. All the best.-- Stor stark7 Speak 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your edits and added something on Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and especially in Poland. It would be worth mentioning that Hoover's attempt to get aid were in conflict with Nazi plans to starve "untermensch" population into mass death. In any case I added some information including policy of stealing food from Poles and Jews by Nazis and redistribution of food supplies based on racial criteria. Cheers! -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I elaborated on Nazi policy in Poland that is backed up with reliable sources. Wikipedia is a joint endevor where we work together. Cheers-- Woogie10w ( talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you add your Medlicott's citations on a per-sentence basis, not per-para basis? I find some facts quite interesting, but in collaboratively edited projects it is hard to make sure that the paragraph-citation integrity is stable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Replied (belatedly) on my talk page. EyeSerene talk 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
1.) Talk:Chengdu J-20#Fifth best fighter in the world
Hey Nick, I've reported the IP editor to ANI, could you please take a look at his disruptive editing behaviour? Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
My google was just to add a pragraf with says that theres is in fact SPECULATION about that google is and echolon porject funded by the cia, i have proved with webside from the web there is speculation.
The source is realiable to tell there is speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.42.75 ( talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
On 6 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commission for Polish Relief, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Commission for Polish Relief provided limited food and medical supplies to occupied Poland until late 1941, in spite of Britain's 1940 blockade of shipments to Nazi occupied Europe? 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for joining me in updating this article. I don't have the bandwidth at home to do a comprehensive google books search, so I was relying on my (very useful) copy of Holt's 'The Deceivers' for the basics. I'm wondering if a (British) Public Records Office search might also turn up some useful information as there are some things in Holt, such as the relationship between Twelfth Army and the British XIV corps that his book does not make clear.
Do you know anyone who'd be willing to tackle the formation insignia? Graham1973 ( talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I left this message with Saberwyn, but it applies to you as well. As you are interested in Aussie ships, I have a feeling you're gonna like [4]. Specifically, Australia has quite a few photos in these two categories: [5] [6]. There's a thread on WT:SHIPS about the uploads. Hope you enjoy! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
REF: this edit
As you maybe aware I have started a discussion with the WikiProject Council concerning the following:
You can clearly see, that I'm willing to leave the one associated with WikiProject Military History to that WikiProject. My aim is to merger or come to some agreement with the three users who seem to be still active (which includes myself) on WikiProject Espionage and have approached WikiProject Intelligence to seek their advice, opinions, or have a discussion about merging. If they want to keep it seperate it's upto them, but I would like to know where they stand with the current discussion I've started with the WikiProject Council. I welcome any feedback on this suggestion to be located on the WikiProject Council page where there has been alot of discussion about it going on. Would like you to inform other coordinators within the WikiProject Military History about this. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please see the discussion at the Help desk regarding an assessment you did and I hopefully corrected. Please check it to make sure it's right now. If I screwed up, my sincere apologies.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyedit from my page: "Removing alt text as you did in these edits and adding odd comments about it as you did here isn't very helpful. If you don't like alt text, please discuss it rather than remove it arbitrarily. Nick-D ( talk) 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
See here, primarily USN ships. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
> Please stop spamming references to Wendy Lewis' books. This is basically bad-faith editing > as the references are being added without any apparent consideration of whether they're a > good reference for the topic (or even a precise page number) and it appears that you have > a conflict of interest. You will be blocked if this continues.
I will stop. I'm sorry that this has been seen as a sign of bad faith. Would you like me to go through the references and put page numbers in?
Ben Morphett Ben morphett ( talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Despite meta:The Wrong Version being protected (isn't it always?), I had no intention of restoring what was originally in the article (then taken out by the other user) again until others had weighed in, so I'm not sure what you really hope to accomplish with the protection. Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wondered if you had time to give me a quick opinion on whether or not this is ready to go to GA. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, User:99.7.155.224 needs to be blocked for making continued vandalism and unconstructive edits as shown via User talk:99.7.155.224 and here. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you review this guy's messages? I have a strong faith that he is the guy who wrote the attacking open letter and has WikiHounded YM for a long time (and now he changed his IPs). These comments are full of strong language (rubbish, me not , not coming back etc.) which I tried to remove but I can't fully do that. Would you mind archiving this discussion or protect YM's talk page against anons until YM return. I feel so bad for seeing a anon use his status to drive YM out like this.-- 115.75.150.108 ( talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, thanks for adding that image to the 2/3rd Pioneer Battalion article. I've been quite busy the past few weeks on a course and haven't had much time for Wiki unfortunately, so I hadn't yet had a look through the AWM's database or on Commons for images. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick... I appreciate the review and comment on my submission for DYK. I've not done that before and I'm relatively new at article creation. Just an FYI, first, I added a couple of alternate hooks and then went back to check on the reference. Both Amazon [7] and WorldCat [8] indicate the reference for the hook was not published by the author but by Fulcrum Publishing. I'll learn not to trust one source on that information! If everything else checks out, I'd like to use the first DYK nom. I know it's in other editors' hands, but I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for patience.. I'll get better. Wikipelli Talk 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to review Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mike Jackson for me. I'm in no rush, but I'd hate for it to fail because of lack of comments, so any input would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami has moved Kanimbla class landing platform amphibious to Kanimbla-class amphibious ships, with several intermidiary stops, which have not been updated for redirects, and some are probably dubious names. The current title includes a hyphen between the ship name and the word "class", which is not done in almost all of the other ship class article. As an admin, he should no better than to leave such a mess. Can you help to straighten this out? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
My additions to the article were well referenced.
We'll see what comes out of the dispute resolution process.
I've been accused of this before and prevailed.
Gloriousrevolution ( talk) 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | ||
For your outstanding work on Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands, No. 79 Squadron RAAF and John Treloar (museum administrator), all promoted to A-Class between February and March 2011. EyeSerene talk 07:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
On 31 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Kita, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during Operation Kita in February 1945, six Imperial Japanese Navy warships, sailing from Singapore to Japan, evaded the 26 Allied submarines which were positioned to attack them? 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. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick
I seem to have picked up a troll on this page who is making life difficult and generally being abusive. I plan to get this article to GA soon, but this pest is determined to challange everything while claiming all the usual nonsense: WPOWN and such. I have left a note on the Administration board. Enough is enough. I'd appreciate input regardless. Dapi89 ( talk) 09:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. This IP editor is apparently back to editing in the same fashion; this time as 71.111.136.163. Just like last time, he is citing sources that don't actually support his additions, and he is making said additions across the same group of articles. For example, this print source says nothing about Vietnam, and this print source says nothing about Vietnam, and neither of these two sources say anything about Ethiopia. The latter two sources are online so they can even be searched for the word Ethiopia, which doesn't turn up. I have given this editor two warnings so far, but considering his edit history I don't think he will take notice. ROG5728 ( talk) 07:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your positive welcome :) 110.33.2.238 ( talk) 08:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Because you are a long time member of WPMHIST, could you join this discussion as a neutral admin?-- 115.75.155.250 ( talk) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the new pages incubation trial! The instructions are on the page itself - any questions or quibbles before you get started? Ironholds ( talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, I've started the GA review for No. 75 Squadron. The review page is here: Talk:No. 75 Squadron RAAF/GA1. When you get a chance, can you please take a look? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 04:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why you decided to unblock B.Davis2003 without consulting me, the original blocking admin of his original account, and, quite frankly, I can't grasp the decision. He's a serial violator of copyright, of NPOV, of sourcing, and generally lacks competence. Though he's stayed away from the upload button that got him into trouble with the original account, this account has had the same bad behaviour that merited the original block, plus block evasion. I don't get this action at all, and I strongly object to it. Courcelles 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Courcelles, Although I did not mention the Copyright issues in my reason to be unblocked, I have as, Nick-D has said, will not upload images onto Wikipedia articles, and I have not done so since the warnings came on my account. I have also explained my reason for this second account, which you can read on my talker page. B.Davis2003 ( talk) 02:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nick, I was wondering if you could do an A-Class Review on the Frank Buckles article. User:HJ Mitchell was reviewing the article, but his computer is "on the blink" and I have talked to him by email and he says it is going to be a few before it is fixed. If you can give it a look-see, I would appreciated it, but if you can't, that's cool too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Brad101 is being insanely unhelpful, giving short answers as to what is wrong with the article, not being forthcoming with information, and generally not responding to posts. My first two posts were ignored essentially, and my third was a pure frustration post for his post to the A-Class review page that read simply: "Oppose Overlinked article per MoS. Good luck at FAC." I asked MuZemike what to do, as I unsure how to respond any other way to this user and really feel they are holding up the review by not being helpful or responding. Mike asked what the overlinking problem was and Brad101 responded back with this, saying it was his last post on the subject.
I am afraid with the oppose, it will keep the article from going to A-Class and on top of that, I feel I am going to have to go through this all over again on FAC. I have posted to others for this final opinions and have three "supports" (to the one "oppose"), the only ones left that haven't responded are GraemeLeggett and HJ (the latter probably can't respond, of course). What should I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick, I've just taken a quick run through the Air raids on Japan article. I made a couple of minor edits. Please review and check that you are happy with them. I came across something I was not sure of, though. Currently the article has "313rd Bombardment Wing" and "313rd" etc. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "313th Bombardment Wing" and "313th"? Would you mind taking a look and changing if necessary? BTW, the article is impressive. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nick. I saw that message you left on Bsadowski's talk page. The sockpuppeteer in question is User:Brennan Hanalei Torres who had been blocked some time ago for vandalism and sockpuppetry. The socks all have the same general naming convention, so he's easy to spot. Ditto his MO; he primarily writes fantasy articles about himself as some sort of child actor. Hope this helps. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Nick, you have incorrectly captioned a photo on the RAAF's 77 squadron page. The photo I am referring to is a picture of a 2OCU FA-18 that is being operated by 77 squadron, but not a 77 squadron aircraft which is what is captioned. I would recommend using this picture: http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/exercises/pitchblack10/gallery/20100805/20100730raaf8160785_0097.jp
I have also just noticed you have incorrectly labled a picture on the 75 squadron page. Once again, the aircraft may be operated by 75th, but the FA-18 pictured is from 77 squadron. I suggest for the sake of getting everything accurate, we use pictures of the right squadron aircraft and not necessarily worry about which squadron is operating it. Ceskazbrojovka ( talk) 12:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you name any fully-reliable websites that I could include on the 24th Infantry Division (Germany) article? I have searched around, though - like many German divisions, I have found few that mention it by name. While I understand that a written work would probably be considered a reliable source of information, I do not myself have in my collection a book directly involving the Wehrmacht's units, themselves (the only book I can find is a translation of the Nuremberg trials' transcripts). Can you think of anyone heavily involved in MilHist who could help me, or should I just go to the library?-- OsirisV ( talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
just wondering how one gets info deleted from a site that is not referenced. I have looked but can not find any sources to back up the info stated in the article, hence the 'citation needed'. I do not want the Jack Wong Sue article deleted as I believe that Mr Sue is a very important member of Z Special, I just feel that the article needs cleaning as there is so much info that is just not sourced.
Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
the country has lots of diplomatic and military relationships - what makes this special? - Good question! And you aren't the first to have asked it ...
I think the simplest answer is: "They have (had?) lots of money and seem prepared to spend some of it on things we find useful". That template is yet another wonderful example of a certain view of the universe. (BTW: Do you, like me, think it strange that Miss Universe is always a humanoid?) Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk) 03:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Nick, a potential problem that may call for administrator intervention -- it looks like user "The way is was" may have a sockpuppet called "Regnbågen2". At any rate, these two accounts introduced exactly the same material into
17th SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen and
42nd Infantry Division (United States) within about one-half hour of each other.
The material introduced are tendentious assertions that troops of the 17th SS Division were massacred by U.S. troops near Nuremberg in 1945. There are a couple of problems with the assertions; one is that they are simply printed in two books by authors who specialize in publications about the SS (Munoz and Williamson) without any sources or corroboration by other authors; the other is that the material posted into the two Wikipedia articles is a direct lift from Munoz's book. Tendentious material or not, this is a copyright violation. I also suspect that deliberate or erroneous readings of the war history may be confusing this purported event with an actual massacre of SS camp guards at Dachau in 1945, but since the sourcing of these allegations is so poor in the Munoz/Williamson books, it is hard to be sure.
I've reverted the edits but I am wary that a revert war could occur as a result.
Cheers,
W. B. Wilson (
talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
For the question about commander in article "Pacific War," I don't know what page I should discuss on. My opinion is Sun Liren is just a major general but in that article he is the major commander and leader. Xue Yue and Peng dehuai which I added are the captain general and joined many battle so I think they are more important than Sun. If the major commander must be in Burma theater, I think the captain general Wei Lihuang is more important. By 210.53.1.98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.53.1.98 ( talk) 07:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Nick-D, thank you for your good suggestions on Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. I may have a conflict; I recently discovered I met Captain Heide at a Summer Camp in 1979. I have not had any contact with her for over 30 years, but have email contact with her now and this may put me too close to the subject - I do not feel comfortable working on her page now. However, I have no problem searching for links to use for citation. I have place a number of them on her Talk Page. Perhaps you could look them over and work on her page? Thank you. Gamweb ( talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
On 4 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Attack on Yokosuka, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the main target of the 1945 attack on Yokosuka was the battleship Nagato, the flagship of the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941? 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 DYK project ( nominate) 06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see here, and thanks for your several helpful comments at the FAN. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
On 5 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Women's National Emergency Legion, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that members of the Brisbane-based Women's National Emergency Legion served as drivers for United States military units in Australia during World War II? 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 DYK project ( nominate) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
A set of unusual edits from a well-respected editor has got me worried. Can you look into: this? Bzuk ( talk) 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC).
It isn't vandalism, watch the news. Ever see the WikiLeaks cables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.146.106 ( talk) 00:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Less than 2 weeks ago you deleted Flag Society of Australia as G5, it is now back again created by a new user, as I don't know what the issue was first time around can you look at it again to make sure the same issues don't exist with this version. Mtking ( talk) 09:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, I did see your challenge on that squadron edit a few days ago... ;-) While I have plenty on his WWII career, unfortunately I still don't think I there's enough reliable info on his post-war career for even a B-Class article, never mind the GA-level I usually aim at with bios these days. I'm going to try and find an obit in the Mitchell Library and also see if one or two of our British brethren have access to anything. Maybe you can find something in Canberra that would help, since he seems to have returned to Oz after leaving the RAF in '61. What I have at this stage is here -- aside from the sparceness of the data, only the Gazette and Flight are through-and-through reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I noticed your revert at Future of the Royal Navy and just to note that I left a little note on the IP's talkpage. (As it happens it is registered to NATO but hey). There was a small discussion at Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier#Prince of Wales Renamed a week ago. It sounds feasible but we are going to have wait until any official statement before it goes in an article. As you stated it's all speculative at the moment. Regards, Woody ( talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've revoked his talkpage access at User:Jarrodaus11copy and User:Jarrodaus11 as well, directing him to post any unblock requests at User talk:Enidblyton11. -- Lear's Fool 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Theres nothing to discuss. Very few surface battles occurred between US and German forces during the war, especially in 1942 and right off the American coast, the Diamond Shoals action was one of them and I felt and still feel is is a notable event. You can delete it if you want but theres a good chance I will just recreate the page as it is one of the more direct engagements in the North American Theater, a topic which I have worked on for a long time. There are many articles on wiki for engagements that were significantly less climactic as the Diamond Shoals action. I am not saying it was a great or major battle but if the Battle of Point Judith has an article, so should this.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that discussion into my attention. I have replied at WP:ANI#Why am I accused of Vandalism?. It appears to be a textbook example of WP:BOOMERANG OhanaUnited Talk page 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, after a protracted investgation and writing effort (due to the priority of home renovations) I think I'm about done updating this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. The single editor you refer to was a flagrant vandal. He cut out an article in its near entirety, as it was at DYK -- uniquely disruptive editing. He was reverted for vandalism, and has been blocked indefinitely, as well he should. He is certainly not an editor in good standing. If you have views as to the article, I will be happy to discuss them at the article's talk page, but the article is of FA/GA level, IMHO, robustly referenced, and not at all as you characterize it. I'm about to go into a meeting, but will look at your edits later. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
On 21 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zoo City, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lauren Beukes wore a fake sloth draped over her shoulders to the ceremony in which she won the 2011 Arthur C. Clarke Award for her novel Zoo City? 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) 08:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just marked this ANI thread as being resolved, as there seems to be no need for any admin intervention and dispute resolution should be used. I would very strongly encourage you to tone down your comments - comments such as these and these are needlessly uncivil and don't contribute to resolving the disagreement. Nick-D ( talk) 05:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I greatly appreciate your so thoughtfully addressing my questions and, especially, your taking the time to improve the article. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC) |
Arilang1234 having a go at his POV pushing on the boxer rebellion article, claiming the content in the article is from "chinese high school text book", when not a single chinese or communist source was used in the article.
look at the section now- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Lead_section
report I made on his edits- he tries to link the black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war to anti imperialism on the boxer rebellion= User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/Report ANI
Now he thinks dropping off conspiracy theories about high school text books, australia, marxists, black panthers, and vietnam on the boxer rebellion article and filing an ANI report after he was criticized for doing so is acceptable
Arilang1234 attempting wikilawyering and making threats when he was caught trolling
After his trolling on the Boxer rebellion talk page, Arilang1234 proceeded to file this ANI report complaining about me after I criticized him for his attempt at linking marxists, black panthers, and vietnam war to the Boxer rebels... ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
And he titled the ANI thread "racist", and proceeded to provide not one single piece of evidence that I said anything racist at all. One also has to wonder what the "cold war" he inserted into the title has to do with anything other than to grab attention. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
besides the fact that Arilang1234's whole complaint it tenuous (such as calling me racist when he couldn't provide evidence of a single racist comment), Arilang1234 lodged two false accusations directly against me, see this User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ.False Accusations. They've crossed the border into outright lying. Arilang1234 deliberately showed past revisions of the talk page rather than the current one, in order to claim/lie that I did not respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. I need other users to confirm that he deliberately lied with malicious intent. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking User Rohan11eleven for Spam. I would normally report through AIV (and have done on quite a few occasions) but just thought this needed to be looked at first. Vrenator ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words of support during and after the review, it is easy to get disheartened. Thankfully after commiing into contact with one or two horrid individuals that frequent the FAC section, I can say that the reviewers on this MilHis A-class review were far more encouraging and civil! I've just came across Air raids on Japan, do you think it is ready for a GAN? It is a big article, but it appears to be in good shape. As you are a major contributor, it seems respectable to ask you on your opinion. Kyteto ( talk) 10:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be an newcomer with IP contribution that indicated very important information in an article you were involved with once, as I am really busy these days perhaps you would be willing to help him? [9] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted the Animal Justice Party page? Thanks 144.136.101.238 ( talk) 13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just to let you know I've lifted the block on User:Mormography, after reading your comments on the user's Talk page. I do understand your misgivings, so I'll keep an eye on their contributions for a while - let's hope the good faith is well placed -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked for a sanity check from User:Dave1185 hereon a dispute that seems to have broken out on Falkland Islands History. Warning: Long Tendentious argument with many rabbit holes before arriving at the point. Dave suggested that I bring this up with you. The accusations are that the text is failing NPOV and TBH I just don't see it. Another check on my sanity would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the intervention on the Friendly Fire article. One of the problems with that guy was he developed a tactic of mixing legitimate edits with wikifiddling and other disruptive edits. I was getting bogged down in separating wheat from chaff. I have no problem with the edits you made. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly them being just as congenial and accurate as always. [10] What is the appropriate place to report them? Edward321 ( talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for staying on top of things. Finaly have net access again and will weigh in as needed. Edward321 ( talk) 11:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens ( talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when someone reverted my good edits and justified it by telling me that ANOTHER editor was a sock puppet, I found it hard to swallow........ This guy took his witch hunt too far and I had to make him understand...... Hudicourt ( talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects, 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. Thanks! TerriersFan ( talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
On 8 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Long Range Flight RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 1 Long Range Flight was formed to compete in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race? 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) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I've found information relating to the first appearance of the fictional Fourth British Army as part of operation Cockade which gives me the first look into the original fictional Order of Battle unfortunately it is clearly incomplete listing only three divisions (3rd British Infantry, 3rd Canadian Infantry, 52nd British Infantry), Howard indicates that at least five divisions formed part of the original Fourth Army OOB, but does not name them. My access to sources is limited and any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Graham1973 ( talk) 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Just out of interest, are you receiving e-mails from him too? -- Lear's Fool 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Paulio is back using IPs for block evasion. Would you mind taking a look. I've reverted some changes as unsourced. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And now canvassing Hudicourt Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Nick, I think I've addressed/fixed all of your comments on the article Juno Beach. Can you check back in to take a look? Cam ( Chat)( Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:NATO#Gates comments regarding NATO. Thanks. 67.101.7.143 ( talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D. Thanks for the compliment. I met Bob a few times when visiting his store. He could be a gruff old bugger, but he certainly had an interesting life. Cheers, WWGB ( talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey ol' buddy, I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/South American dreadnought race. Could you check back at your convenience? Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Good evening - I am the editor of the above mentioned page and am also the webmaster for the www.defencereserves.com. I would like it reinstated, I am the Director of Communication, Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division, Department of Defence, Australia Thank you deannanott
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read and consider the article of the blockade of Germany in WW2. I have no doubt that in marking it as ‘original research’ you have acted in good faith to maintain Wikipedia’s integrity which we all strive for and admire; however I think this broadbrush approach is a little unhelpful. It would be much better if you were to point to specific passages which might be looked at, perhaps reworded or have different sources applied. I take your point that there is potential for bias and propaganda within some of these news reports, however, the blockade is a fairly ‘dry’ subject and I don’t agree that there are many post war secondary books on the subject - any books available only address certain elements and not the blockade in its entirety. Most other Wikipedia articles on the Battle of the Atlantic, convoys, U Boat campaign etc did not mention the blockade at all, (at least until I changed them!) merely concentrating on the military aspects of the conflict. I spent several months researching and writing this article, but my intention was merely to provide a starting point which will obviously change and improve greatly over time. It already has. Just because there is propaganda present within these publications, does not automatically render them valueless.
Regarding the War Illustrated, it’s true that there is bias in the editorial comment, but it is not difficult to distinguish opinion from the hard information which may also be gleaned from these sources as they often reprint speeches and official bulletins from ministries and government. They also reproduce comment from the other side which is valid and part of history, and useful in demonstrating a neutral point of view. In some cases, this propaganda has itself passed into the historical context, but above all, these publications were written in the first hand. We should remember that these contemporary writers wrote days or hours after the event, and did at least witness and experience the events they were describing, TIME / LIFE did seek to maintain a firm editorial control and were primarily overseas news review publications, not a mouthpiece of the Ministry of Information. No doubt the 12 published volumes on the war which were produced by Churchill in the late forties would be considered good sources, however they tell it from his own perspective and gloss over his failures. The surviving French politicians in particular bitterly rejected his version of events, and repudiated it in their own journals.
As we know, Wikipedia is mainly concerned with the use of sources where it is likely that some editorial control has been exercised. For this reason most internet articles are not considered good sources, unless official, such as government sponsored. Can you please clarify what is the problem with sources from US / UK National Archives? These often record minutes of meetings and debates verbatim and their validity surely cannot be disputed. I am well versed of the norms of academic research etiquette which Wikipedia seeks to maintain, however my personal view is that many of the books currently being circulated are merely a re-hash of pre-published content. This is especially the case with recent works, such as the award wining Wartime (Juliet Gardiner 2004) which lists no less than 652 previously published books in its bibliography, and the best selling D-Day by Antony Beavor used a similarly high number, although I cannot be bothered to count them. How can someone writing so long after the time, re-interpreting contemporary material hope to avoid adding their own slant? Just because a book has been published does not make it a reliable source. For example, the Fontana History of England, which runs over several volumes is chronically biased, yet I doubt anyone would dream of disputing the validity if this publication were to be cited in an article
One of the Wikipedia core principles is that work does not have to be perfect, and any glaring inaccuracies will doubtless be quickly corrected by others – there has certainly been no shortage of people happy to read and edit this article, and in some cases supply additional sources. I myself am far from completely content with it but believe it is much better than some I have seen, and intend to add to it and change it as I find improved sources. I also hope to add some excellent photographs in my possession, if I can demonstrate that they are sufficiently in the public domain. If you could kindly point to specific areas that you are unhappy with, I would be pleased to take a look at what can be done to make it better. Please don’t say ‘the whole thing!’-- Godwhale ( talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Nick, thank you for the comment and your kind words, a review would be good. I did anticipate some critisism for the use of some of these sources, and you are correct that they can be biased and give only part of the story, but apart from the Wages of Destruction I was unaware of these other sources you mention - you certainly seem to be an authority on this kind of thing. I will try to track them down and continue to add alternative sources . Thanks again--
Godwhale (
talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Nick, thanks for the review. I think the points you make are fair; there are some areas where it perhaps drifts away from the central subject, and it would probably benefit from being shortened. I think the allied bombing is relevant however, because this was a deliberate change in policy from mere contraband control to a more offensive effort at wearing down German production. I will take a look at when I come back from holiday and try to remove the less relevant parts. Thanks for your help with this.-- Godwhale ( talk) 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am wanting to recreate or take over the Impact Pro Wresting Australia page, however I will need your permission first before taking over or recreating the page.-- Smoco01 ( talk) 05:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Delta has inserted these with arbitrary numbers while at the same time deleting plain English grouped citations. While they make no difference to readers in edit mode its impossible to know to whom the arbitrary number refers. These have appeared in Battle of Jerusalem Battle of Rafa and Sinai and Palestine Campaign. I've re edited the two battles - the first taking me 5 hours and the second just under an hour - a skill I would rather not have developed! But they still remain in the campaign article. AustralianRupert suggested I contact you as an administrator in the hope you might have the tools to fix these, dare I say it 'automatically' as its not possible to simply undo, as there are intervening edits. I'd be glad of your advice, help etc. -- Rskp ( talk) 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Hi, I left the first message on delta's talk on 23 May which was replied to. Since then my messages of 24 May, 27 May and 2 June have been ignored. The messages read -
On 21 March you spent considerable time going through Battle of Jerusalem and adding 'autogenerated' citations. Can you explain why you did this because from my point of view they make it very difficult to make future edits. --Rskp (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The 39 autogenerated citations you edited into the Battle of Jerusalem article took over 5 hours to change back into English. Please, if you are tempted to do this to any other page on Wikipedia, for the sake of wiki, DO'NT. --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you think its better to replace an identified source with a anonymous number? --Rskp (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC) -- Rskp ( talk) 06:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you were involved or might be affected by. Communikat ( talk) 17:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can I get some advice please. You may remember I came to you after User:Alex79818 opened a frivolous arbcom case against me. The guy is still following me on Talk:Falkland Islands flinging a lot of mud and bad faith accusations around. What would you suggest I do? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
[11], [12] for evidence refer to the edits in May [13]. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
[14] Now using a public WiFi network. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, the 23 June 2011 Army News article titled "How RMC works" uses many of the words in our own Royal Military College, Duntroon article which I spent considerable time rewriting over the past couple of years. While I think that it is great that the Army News has deemed the work good enough to use in their own article, I'm a little concerned that someone might tag my own work as a copyvio of the Army News, when in reality it is the other way around. Is there anything I should do to ensure that this doesn't happen? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)