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.

Hey Nick, thanks for writing the book reviews! Would you like me to run one or both of them? Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, please include both of them. I'm going to try to do two or so per month, so it should be a regular part of the Bugle. Do you want add a short introduction to explain the appearance of the reviews? Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I'll include something about them in the "from the editors" section, but you will be able to go a bit more in-depth. Thanks again! Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible Ed - I'll add a para (or so) explaining the reviews at the start of the page today, and will let you know when it's ready. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, done Nick-D ( talk) 12:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll try to get to the newsletter tonight or tomorrow Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Spamming arbitrator talk pages is probably a good way to ensure that they won't be very sympathetic to your request, whatever it is. Next time, for best results, post your request and wait your turn like everybody else. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I posted the notification on the arbitrators' talk pages on the advice of one of the arbitrators (received via email) - so I presume (and hope!) that it's OK. Given that it's a proposal that they impose a significant sanction against an editor who is already under arbcom sanctions, the advice I received to send out notifications seems appropriate. If not - oops! Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 13:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume a little good faith and not rip Nick a new one, eh? Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently that Arb has a novel idea. It is not good to flood everybody's watchlists with the same post to every Arb. Maybe this related to the Arb mailing list being compromised, and thus unusable. Hmmm. Maybe they should set up a pulic noticeboard instead. I'm not ripping anybody a new one neither. Just trying to provide a bit of friendly advice. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did wish that there was a public noticeboard for something like this (though this would probably prove unworkable). Nick-D ( talk) 23:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being such an awesome Admin and that the fact that I don't think I can be one without that clam (oops! I mean calm) head of yours. Cheers~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I don't think that I look much like a clam! Nick-D ( talk) 13:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• All I can say is typo... due to the tiny keyboard I have here. How about sending some back my way? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can WP:TROUT you, but there isn't an option to WP:CLAM instead - yet ;) Nick-D ( talk) 23:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

These edits were made after his latest block began. [1] Is accusing Arcom of topic banning him "in absentia" a personal attack against the members of Arbcom? Edward321 ( talk) 00:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - and ArbCom has (by necessity) the hide of an elephant, so I don't think they'd perceive it that way. The issue with that post was the blatantly false claim that the editing restrictions prohibited him from naming the areas he was banned from. Nick-D ( talk) 00:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some editors complained that the World War II infobox used on the Manhattan Project article was too ugly and unwieldy, so I added Manhattan Project to the World War II template at the bottom of the page. No one seems to have complained. However, now it has no campaign box. I think this is probably okay. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, that looks good to me. It's amazing that the Manhattan Project wasn't already in the World War II template! Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I know you don't know me yet, but there is a discussion concerning Arilang1234 and POV pushing at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#User:Arilang1234 and Boxer Rebellion and I mentioned previous complainants against him. I hear you're an admin who has dealt with him and may have some insight on how to handle him. Please weigh in at the dispute resolution noticeboard and help us if you can. It's tough for only one or two of us to manage... Thank you! NickDupree ( talk) 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do - I'll respond there. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 00:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm maintaining a voluntary interaction ban with Arilang1234, and on editing Boxer topics, based on recommendations that we both stay out of editing the Boxer Rebellion article, (which he has not paid attention to), but he gave other users "assurances" of changing his disruptive conduct and POV pushing before, [2] and [3]. Both apologies/assurances were before his recent edits to the Boxer Rebellion article. on all the previous ANI threads, he assured other users that his conduct would change, and he proceeded not to change. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did note various previous assurances given in ANI reports, but given that this has now been escalated further, he or she needs an opportunity to respond to my assessment. Nick-D ( talk) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And per the rules on personal attacks, can a sarcastically worded apology with taunts constitute a personal attack? I am referring to him calling people's feelings "delicate" [4], and suggesting insults were "humor" [5], these are old so I'm not seeking retribution or penalties for those incidents, but I'm concerned if this type of apology laden with sarcasm/personal taunts happens in the future. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 01:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that those fairly old comments are relevant to how things currently stand. Nick-D ( talk) 01:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence watching and handling the disruptive editor, NickD. Moving forward, we have a lot of work to do excising the POV pushing edits and, even more labor intensive, merging or AfDing the slew of POV forks he has left behind (over 10!) Any assistance in this area much appreciated.

Thanks, The Other Nick D, NickDupree ( talk) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that I know next to nothing about China and it's history so I can't be of much assistance in that regards. For the Boxer Revolution and any other military-related topics you might want to ask for assistance at WT:MILHIST. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 04:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just this... (CC: Hawkeye7) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• File:Singapore map 1942.jpg / Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945)
• Hi Nick, think I might have located the map you've been looking for. Let me know, yeah? Cheers~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, but the problem with that map is all the unit boundries drawn on it - these obviously weren't relevant for 1944 and 1945, and would need to be painstakingly removed to make the map usable, which is well beyond my graphical skills! Nick-D ( talk) 06:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh well... As you can see, I've provided all the necessary annotations in the image file to help you identify the areas of interest. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

my tip is to head straight to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop as they only do maps, have all the tools for it and the necessary experience to create a map in no time - unlike me, who was never done a map before. noclador ( talk) 02:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, A friend built this page and you deleted it and as they are new to Wikipedia, they asked me to help speak to you about it. You deleted it on the grounds of gratuitous advertising. It is a corporate page and they were fully aware of the sensitivities of pages of this nature. Such being the case they were very careful when making the page. I looked at it before you deleted it and I have to say that it looked pretty good and compared to other corporate pages I have seen.

There are hundreds of thousands of corporate pages on Wikipedia. While you may have had an issue with this page, they should have been given the chance to edit it to make it acceptable as opposed to it just being deleted.

Kelly97 ( talk) 17:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, As written the article was was blatant advertising for this company, and so met criterion for speedy deletion 11. If you'd like I can place a copy of the pre-deletion version of the article on your or your friend's user page so it can be re-worked, but as it stood the article was highly unsuitable for being included in Wikipedia proper. Please do let me know if you'd like a copy of the article. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 00:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, Thanks for writing back. They would like to do whatever it takes to make the page acceptable. What about if you put the page back up and edit to make it ok and/or tell them what they have to do further to make it ok?

Best, Kelly97 ( talk) 06:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, I'm not reposting that article in 'article space' for the reasons explained above. I'm happy to post it on a user page so it can be fixed up though. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok can you put it in the creator's user page and also document the parts that were problematic because at this point in time they aren't aware of what the problems were

Kelly97 ( talk) 07:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D ( talk) 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D ( talk) 06:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc For info. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked by Gloryhog99 ( talk · contribs) :) Nick-D ( talk) 23:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I also agree with what you said at What does this project do well?, but I expect everyone will agree with that. Excellent summaries ... concise, hard-hitting. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D ( talk) 01:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to that the proper place to report his personal attacks after his last block is at Arbitation Enforcement, not Requests for Clarification. He's provided several more examples since your last edit at RfC. Edward321 ( talk) 14:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting that way. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself. Nick-D ( talk) 01:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making German attacks on Nauru a certified "Good Article"! Your work is appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've got an active GA review underway :) Nick-D ( talk) 09:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

	And again!
	Well now you've done it. You've gone and made No. 79 Squadron RAAF a Feature Article as well! Seriously, your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D ( talk) 07:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On 12 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Raw, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Air Commodore Peter Raw had joined the Royal Australian Air Force after being rejected by the Royal Australian Navy? 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? 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever nominated this for DYK (I couldn't see anything interesting enough in it to justify a main page appearance, but I'm glad someone else could!) Nick-D ( talk) 07:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nick, I'd like to encourage you to consider running for co-ord in the next election. I know you are probably quite busy, but if you think you might have the time, I'm sure your contribution would be greatly appreciated. I know it's a bit Jack of me, but I'm probably not going to run this time, so I'm trying to find a replacement. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have actually been considering standing again, though my participation as a coordinator would be a bit patchy at times as I'm also combining full time work and part time study. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I see that you wanted to help me out with some aircraft articles, in light of your comment at the MilHist self-assessment page. Well, you do have access to high-quality sources regarding Soviet/Russian aircraft. The site is Ausairpower.net, and the Russian section's at Flanker. Some of the articles are authored by Carlo Kopp, taken from old Australian Aviation magazines and the like. Best of all, we can both relate to the website, provided that you're a Aussie Sp33dyphil ^{" Ad astra"} 04:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, My barrier to helping develop articles is my near total lack of background knowledge on Soviet and Russian aircraft ;) I'd be happy to provide copy editing or reviews, but don't think that I'd be of much use in developing new material on these topics. I don't think that Carlo Kopp is a reliable source by the way - while he's been published widely, much of it is nonsense (I particularly remember the series of articles he produced for the military magazines a few years about about why potential Indian and Chinese fleets of cruise missile armed Tu-22 Backfire bombers meant that Australia needed to develop an air defence variant of the F-111 - this was nonsense on just about every level possible!). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How is that non-sense? It's totally legitimate (well, to me it is). I think Carlo's a great journalist, and I trust what he says, because it matches with the books I'm reading. Anyway, thanks for offering yourself for copy-editing. ありがとう Sp33dyphil ^{" Ad astra"} 11:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither country had, or have, Tu-22s and Australia has a very good relationship with India and a reasonably good relationship with China anyway ;) Nick-D ( talk) 11:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. The offending phrase is withdrawn. I noted on the Fort Pulaski discussion page,

In the article on the Battle of Fort Pulaski, it does not square to address Confederate strategic success, since as argued elsewhere, in the event of Pulaski, the fort was lost. It is only in a larger, longer view that Confederates could advance their cause, so I listed some of those developments specifically, without characerizing them. The phrase objected to is withdrawn, the citation tag removed.

I hope that is procedure. when I went on the military page link, there was nothing I could see on first look.

I've been experimenting, trying to eliminate the big white box at the beginning of aricles. It seems to be a problem with most battle boxes... Battle of Fort Pulaski has something of a new look since you last saw it ... I think this is my best solution to date ...

By the way, it was always said among the Pacific Marines in the 1960s that the once British colonials closest to ourselves were the Australians. Then came the stern lecture not to go crazy on liberty with Aussies and compete at hotel swimming pools, jumping in from ever higher stories, 'cause we both lost good Marines one weekend. You don't think that was just apocryphal, laid on thick for effect, do you? Anyway, thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work - I've just reassessed the article as B class. That story does sound feasible (though Australia doesn't have marines), though see Battle of Brisbane for what happens when things go wrong! Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: That's fine with me. He does not get the issue and does not appear to be any closer to understanding it. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Have noted your rank edit. Do you want to add some sort of link to the ranks article so it can be accessed through the main F-FDTL page? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though unfortunately the references for the rank article have since gone dead so it's hard to find a FA-worthy reference now! The F-FDTL article's infobox contains a link to the rank article. Updating the financial data for 2011 is on my to-do list for this weekend BTW. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 00:24, 16 July 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 Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D ( talk) 08:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic work. An example of how we're getting more professional as a project all the time. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Kita/archive1, I'm going to take advantage of the fact that I totally missed this at A-class and wait a bit before I do a prose review. (Usually, it's easier to do a prose review last thing at A-class and first thing at FAC.) The quality of prose reviews for our articles at FAC has been going up lately, I'd like to see who drops by. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the fine book reviews! A valuable new feature of the Bugle. Binksternet ( talk) 19:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. Dan, that's fine - I'm hopeful that the prose doesn't need any work ;) Nick-D ( talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is is reasonable for me to look at Bombardment of Cherbourg before you start? Not much is on it, but it is another fascinating multi-service, multi-arm effort that I find profoundly interesting ... Some of the German gun enplacements had mounts that unlike Singapore, allowed them to engage targets seaward and landward. In a related context, Battle of Cherbourg is infantry only ... TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! It's not 'my' article, and I sure haven't done much with it! (it was on my to-do list a while ago, but slipped off due to university work and I haven't caught up to it yet). Samuel Eliot Morison's book seems to be the most comprehensive account. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

G'Day you may have missed it, so here is the link for the GA review. Talk:John Hines (Australian soldier)/GA1. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim Nick-D ( talk) 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, hope you're well. It seems people aren't noticing the request on the WWII edit page (inside the editing code) to discuss changes on the talk page first. Indeed it is really easy to miss and I have missed it myself. Your semi-protect header in the pink box is much more prominent, is there any chance you could update it to request people discuss first at the Talk page? It could save days of everyone's time. Cheers, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 12:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chumchum7, that's a very good idea. I've just created one using the rather good instructions at Wikipedia:Editnotice, which now appears at the top of the article when I go to edit it. Can you please check that it also works for you? Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 12:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool! It works. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Nick, this is about an embarrassing edit about a spare tire (deliberate factual error or freudian slip?) by Hcobb ( talk · contribs), and this is not the first time he writes warped explanation in his edit summaries too. To me, his persistent behaviour is nothing short WP:CPUSH and it quite frankly gets on the nerve of a number of editor in addition to me, on more than one occasion. Time to put a stop to this, please. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave, As I've said before, I think that a RfC/U is the way to go here if you have concerns about Hcobb's editing pattern. I tend to think that this would be a good idea, but don't see anything which needs use of the admin tools. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 12:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing me in the direction I was seeking. Best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making John Hines (Australian soldier) a certified "Good Article"! Here's an old jug of whiskey for you, probably swiped from a hapless German. Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk)

Thanks for that. I'll see if I can swap it for a horse ;) Nick-D ( talk) 08:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think ive now addressed those last two issues, thanks for reviewing the article! XavierGreen ( talk) 00:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick I read about your forthcoming tour, and have just found this book which may be useful A traveller's guide to D-Day and the Battle for Normandy - A new kind of guidebook. Each title in the series gives comprehensive information about: Major battles and battlefields, Memorials, sites, cemeteries, and statues, How to get there; what to see. I have not read it just found it when searching the net but it seems to have good reviews. Its located here [6] Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jim Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears Comminukat is continuing his copy-pasting problem. [7] His third sentence - "Editors on both sides of politically charged subjects can rationally discuss their positions, find common ground, and unemotionally document their differences" [8] is lifted directly from another source without attribution. [9] Edward321 ( talk) 01:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not shocked? He's now been blocked for an indefinite period for continued disruptive editing. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your block of M2. Since you used I note that no-one has written in your defence in the discussion at WP:ANI#Proposed topic ban from History of Islam for User:Misconceptions2 and User:Al-Andalusi as an explicit part of your block rationale, I'd like to note that it is wrong. Also your comments there have basically sought to continue the dispute is, in my opinion, wrong or overly harsh. In fact M2 has made attempts to resolve the dispute - most obviously [10]. Al-A has uncompromisingly rejected those attempts; I don't think your one-sided closing of this incident is good William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi William, The reason for the block was that Misconceptions2 ( talk · contribs) had returned to the behavior for which he or she had previously been blocked for an indefinite period (edit waring). This was in clear violation of the serious warnings against slipping back into this behaviour they received when they asked to be unblocked earlier this year. I did notice that post, but 'allowing' another editor to add tags (M2's words) isn't a serious effort at dispute resolution as it was basically seeking to impose a settlement after the matter had reached ANI. This is in line with their conduct in the ANI discussion, in which they variously tried to take the matter to dispute resolution (which would obviously have involved continuing the dispute when Panyd and others were trying to shut it down), and the fairly extreme measure of both parties being blocked for nine months (which was also an attempt to impose conditions on Al-Andalusi). In regards to no-one writing in M2's defence: your comments were the closest to this, but were hardly very supportive, particularly when set against the editor's history. Apologies if I misinterpreted them, but they weren't the reason for the block. Please note that I haven't closed the thread (it's not marked anywhere as such) - I specifically said that I didn't look into Al-Andalusi's conduct beyond noting that they had also been edit warring, and hopefully another admin will follow up on this. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 12:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

your comments were the closest to this, but were hardly very supportive - I'd have been far more supportive had I know anyone was planning on this step. I can't see anyone but you with any enthusiasm for indef'ing M2. I don't think that indef'ing one "side" and doing nothing to the other "side" is fair, in this case. Because this is a pretty clear case where both sides have been fighting (you'll have noticed that I'm not entirely neutral in this case, I hope). Al-A will certainly take your block as proof of his correctness William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

William said "Al-A has uncompromisingly rejected those attempts". Dear Nick-D, I have already explained on the board why I think Misconceptions2 has not put anything on the table, please see here. Thank you. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 15:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just not sure if you're watching it any more. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Your block looks highly sensible to me. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• B767-500 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hello, Nick. Remember this guy from last year? My spidey senses are telling me now that User:JetBlast (aka User:Boeing747-412 before name change) might be his latest incarnation, either that or his room-mate whom he claims is sharing the same computer or connection. Thoughts? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave, to be honest I don't remember that editor in any detail. They've got a broadly similar editing pattern, but are there any clear-cut similarities? Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 07:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• See User talk:Nick-D/Archive 6#BROKEN ENGLISH, you left a note to caution him on User talk:B767-500#BROKEN ENGLISH last year. FWIW, I reckoned User:JetBlast (aka User:Boeing747-412) could be him or his roommate and they had been sharing computers/connection. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you please provide some or all of the diffs which you think demonstrate that this is a good hand/bad hand arrangement? I slept poorly last night, and don't have the inclination to dredge through their editing histories looking for clear pattern. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear about that, mate. Call it a coincidence, something caught my eye (actually my own custom edit-alert program) this morning when I saw JB edit on US Airways (an article B767-500 was actively involved with previously) and seeing that B767-500 had sneakily came back to edit (his last edit before today was on 13 July) but avoiding that article with care, I decided to test the water by placing a note on his talk page citing his refusal to reply your question dated from last year. Somehow, that got him fairly worked up and he left an angry note on my page approx 6 hours later. Barely an hour after that, JB has replied me too. Its too much of a coincidence now and my spidey senses are going off like nobody's business, and I must say that I only get this when I smell sockpuppetry, most of the guys know me well enough as to how serious I think when my alarm about someone goes off like that. For now, I'm inclined to observe for further details but I think B767-500 has yet to answer the question posed to him last year and it needs to be resolved now. Thoughts? Another thing, B767-500 is still making bad edits with his lousy broken English. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not really seeing anything which looks like compelling evidence of sock puppetry in those diffs. I'd suggest taking this to WP:SPI and asking for a checkuser - if this is the mystery roommate the technical evidence will be compelling. A more awake admin would probably also help ;) Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Right, I'll get another Admin to do this but could you press him on User talk:B767-500#BROKEN ENGLISH? Thanks and do get a good rest. Cheers~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi guys, can i just jump in here please. I can assure you i am not B767-500. Dave, I posted this in reply to a post on my talk page. Its not that unexpected because i am on here every day. As an admin Nick i am sure you can look into logs. I am from the UK and you will be able to see i am based here from the IP addresses my account has been logged into. Also being from the UK English is my first language, i think the other guy is from Asia, if you go into his logs im sure you will see his IP address is from that region. I work in a school in the UK so i should imagine when i logged in at work you will be able to see that it was in a UK school. From this im sure you will see i am not sharing a connection with this guy. I like working on wikipedia and i dont want anything to happen to my account, please can you keep me in the loop? Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hello. Wikipedia admins can't see editors' underlying IP addresses, so I'm not able to confirm or comment on that (this right is restricted to the small number of editors with the ' checkuser' right). As I've noted above, I couldn't see any clear evidence from your editing history that you're the same person as B767-500 so I'm not taking this further. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As Australia's just-about first line of defence, do you want to take a look at this appalling excuse for an article with a view to improve it ? Just thought you might be interested. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you mind if I redlink Joint Logistics Command in, among others, Australian Defence Force? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the Northern Command article has hardly changed since I started it in August 2006! I'll add it to my to-do list. Please add redlinks for any units you think are notable - the more the better. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another question - does your modern ADF portfolio extend to the potential war on the Korean peninsula? Buckshot06 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I've added the Defence White Paper's discussion of a possible need for the ADF to contribute a substancial force to conflicts in South East Asia, but I've never seen much emphasis given to Korea in the Australian defence literature. The Defence White Paper has only a single paragraph on this topic (on page 33) which is mainly focused on helping South Korea if the north collapses. There's also some fairly vague language around Australia strengthening its relationship with South Korea and contributing to efforts to stop the north from proliferating missiles. Nick-D ( talk) 04:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an WP:AGF and WP:BITE issue. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I have to disagree with you there. This guy was posting corporate spam in the article: [11] (sample text "From that day forward, the Bank has built a long history of financial success (90 consecutive profitable quarters measured at its 2010 fiscal year end) by consistently demonstrating an impressive track record of organic growth, mergers and acquisitions."). That's rather differnt from just updating outdated information. This wasn't good faith editing in my view. That he now says that he wants to edit in his own right is rather different to the reason for the block and the reason I declined the unblock request. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land ( talk) 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your contributions. I am keen to use one of your photographs and would be grateful if you could contact me to tell me whether this is possible. Many thanks, Singapore History — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singapore History ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, That would be fine - all the photos I've posted here and on Wikicommons are under licences which allow them to be re-used as long as the source of the photo and it's creator are acknowledged. Which photo are you interested in using? Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D, thank you for this edit. The people who attempt to introduce this material are shameless. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all. They're also persistent! Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_a_page_in_my_userspace_without_warning.2C_cause_or_consensus -- Surturz ( talk) 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Although I have marked the thread as resolved (wrong forum); you should know that the user stated that you encouraged them to go to ANI with the deletion issue. Reading your comment, it seemed to me you were telling them to go to AN/ANI with admin problems rather than making list. The clear implication in the ANI thread was "Admin X encouraged me to bring this matter regarding Admin Y to ANI (because Admin X thinks it has merit)", something I didn't see in your statements to the user at all. If I've got it right, you may want to clarify that with the user. -- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, your interpretation of my comments is correct. My comment was if Surturz thought that admins had acted improperly she or he should ask for a review of these actions rather than keep a list of admins they don't like. Instead they seem to have interpreted it to mean that I think they should generate further drama around this mess by seeking to have the page restored. Nick-D ( talk) 07:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I note you reverted my edit to David Irving, I think the Daily Mail is OK as a source because they have good lawyers and wouldn’t have published their stuff if they were vulnerable to libel action. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 16:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Proxima Centauri, Given that the headline of the story clearly misquotes Irving (by sticking two different statements together so it appears they were a cohesive statement) it's credibility as a source is pretty limited. Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the source misquotes it probably shouldn't be in the article especially as the misquote, if it happened wasn't at all obvious. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 08:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: your post at MHSTRAT ... I'll send you an email with GLAM info if you want one. - Dank ( push to talk) 11:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

	You did it again!
	Sorry I'm a little late to the party, but... Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Operation Kita a Featured Article! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk)

Thank you for that Nick-D ( talk) 22:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Just a heads-up: I'm not trying to get drawn into an edit war with User:75.10.108.94, and I'm assuming good faith, but they have gone from their original edits, which could taken as an honest disagreement about Latino involvement in early Hip hop, to simply inserting false information, I guess to make a point. -RoBoTam ^ice 01:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've just blocked them for a week for continued edit warring. cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 03:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I really like your book reviews. You've obviously put a lot of thought into them, and you've picked quite a diverse selection of books. I was just wondering if there was any particular method in how you selected the books you review. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really - they're the books I've read fairly recently which I think will be of interest and/or use to other editors. Thanks a lot for the compliment. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D. I would like to unblock this user. I believe, based primarily on this edit that User:Dominus Vobisdu has, in bad faith, attempted to game the system by placing all four warnings at once on a new user who didn't understand edit warring. The warnings happened 4 hours after the edit warring. User:Dominus Vobisdu attempted to talk to User:Stephfo on his talk page. When it led no where, User:Dominus Vobisdu issued 4 warnings together well after the user stopped reverting and began discussing on the talk page. I feel appalled at User:Dominus Vobisdu's behavior. When discussion failed, he tried for a block to prove his point. Please let me know if you have any objections.--v/r - T P 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose unblocking this editor. As I noted on their talk page, I came close to blocking him or her for an indefinite period due to the battleground mentality they had consistently been showing in the article in question (I looked at article's history and the archives of its talk page when assessing the 3RR report, and Stephfo's comments were highly combatative and he or she is basically a single purpose account) and their failure to respond to a previous block. Their comments since the block confirm that this seems to be their standard way of editing. The fact that they're editing via an IP to ask you to the review the block when appeals made through the proper process have been turned down twice now is by itself a reason to keep the block in place (and possibly even extend it); I'm not sure why you're encouraging this block evasion by responding to them given that they clearly know how to appeal blocks, and their comments on your talk page are basically a case of WP:NOTTHEM. I took Dominus Vobisdu's rather unhelpful way of communicating with Stephfo into account when deciding to apply a 1 week block rather than an indef block, and if you think that Dominus Vobisdu's behaviour is particularly serious you should apply santions to them as well - it certainly doesn't excuse Stephfo's long-running behavior. Please also note that the report at WP:3RR was made by an uninvolved editor, not Dominus Vobisdu. I have no problem with you asking for other admins to review this via WP:AN, but I'm pretty confident that the block will be upheld. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 02:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article as well and the timestamps and I feel that Stephfo's situation is the result of gaming the system by Dominus Vobisdu. I don't deny Stephfo did what he did, but I can't help putting myself in his position and imagining how he must've felt facing someone using the tactics Dominus Vobisdu used. In my opinion, he should be unblocked and allowed to shoot himself in the foot. As you are opposed, I will consider ANI tomorrow and let you know if I decide to go there.--v/r - T P 03:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that he's already fired a cannon at his feet ;) Incidently, at User talk:Stephfo#Block evasion, Stephfo is admitting to evading their block to continue the dispute on the article's talk page, so they're definitely not going to be unblocked. Please note that one editor's unhelpful conduct doesn't excuse misconduct by other editors. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 03:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You said "Please also note that the report at WP:3RR was made by an uninvolved editor, not Dominus Vobisdu." I searched the noticeboards and I couldn't find any reports. Could you please point me toward it?--v/r - T P 03:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Stephfo reported by — Jess· Δ♥ (Result: 1 week). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I should note here that I've reset Stephfo's block for his blatant block evasion on the article's talk page (which basically means that it will last a day longer than originally intended). Nick-D ( talk) 08:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

...and he sees nothing wrong with using an IP account to continue the dispute while blocked: [12] Nick-D ( talk) 11:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please begin the canvass that is requested in this discussion? Your assistance would be appreciated. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm no longer a coordinator. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I've just spun off Chinese aircraft carrier ex-Varyag from Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, per some comments at Talk:Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag. I then discovered thsat you had redirected Shi lang (aircraft carrier), a very poor attempt at such an article. (Had I realized that first, I might have talked to you about this first.) Anyway, I anticipate many attempts to find a better name for the article, and would like to see if you could move protect it. The title its protected at doesn't matter to me, but as far as I can tell at this point, Shi Lang is just speculation, mainly from Taiwan, and has never been confirmed by the PRC. Thanks.

As to why I think a split is necessary, we also have two article for Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and INS Vikramaditya, and this situation is similar. - BilCat ( talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill, That's a good idea. I converted the Shi lang (aircraft carrier) article into a redirect as it had been created without taking into account the Varyag article, and duplicated its content while being of lessor quality. The (now) Chinese ship definitely should have its own article now all the rumours have turned out to be true and she's entered service with the PLAN. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Operation Kita. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tony Nick-D ( talk) 07:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there "Nick-D". I noticed that you deleted hours of my hard work on the 'Federal's Got Talent' page. I would be interested to know why you deleted it, and if it would be possible to return the page so that I can continue editing it on another website of my own.

If this is not possible, I would have much rathered a deletion warning so that I could have kept all of my information.

I am very disappointed to read that it has been deleted. My day has been bad enough. :(

Rhain1999 —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

The article was on a blatantly unencyclopedic topic (an obscure primary school talent competition), named non-notable children and their teachers by name and contained potentially embarrassing material about several of the children and teachers; the last two issues were clear violations on Wikipedia's policies concerning coverage of living people, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and were the main reasons the article was deleted. Nick-D ( talk) 09:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering that, but you didn't answer my second question. Is it possible to get all of that information back as I would like to keep it for personal use and educational purposes.
Thanks, Rhain1999. 28 August 2011, 8:38 AM AEST

If you enable the email feature in your profile (see WP:EMAIL for information on this), I'll send you a copy of the article. Please let me know when you've done this. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have enabled the email feature on my profile just now. If you could send me the copy that would be amazing. Thanks so much. Rhain1999 ( talk) 19:41, 30 August 2011 (AEST)

Thanks for that. Rhain1999, 20:45, 30 August 2011 (AEST)

No worries. Nick-D ( talk) 11:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

May I ask - what happened to the article after you deleted it? How did you still have it? Rhain1999 ( talk) 20:05 31 August 2011 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.19.100 ( talk) 10:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are able to view the history of articles that have been deleted and see the pre-deletion versions. Nick-D ( talk) 10:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) See also WP:ADMINTOOLS. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you removed this post. I had read it before removal... anything else to do with that? — Tgeairn ( talk) 10:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency response contacts asking them to pass it onto the relevant services, and they've responded to say that they'll do so (I'm being deliberately vague here). Nick-D ( talk) 10:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Got it... I figured you had it all handled. Thanks! — Tgeairn ( talk) 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	for reporting a situation which needed an emergency look by the office. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 11:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For saving me from the hard work of going through the requested move process I hereby award you the Working Man's Barnstar. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! I missed that Nick said if the consensus was clear to move back after five days then he would part; if I had seen that, I would've moved the article myself. Good catch :) Thanks for the move. Incidentally, If your up to it, the Kirov class battlecruiser move debate wraps up today and the consensus is pretty clear to move it back. I'd do this one myself, but since I happen to be involved I think it better to let someone else handle the move. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry gents, been very bury in RL just lately. Thanks for moving the article back. However, I suspect we may need to keep an eye out for similar events in the future. I completely support the Barnstar BTW! = Nick Thorne ^talk 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom and Nick. Nick-D ( talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

- Dank ( push to talk) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Concerning your stance in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolas_Savin, might you reconsider? I have found a number of additional sources concerning this man and have begun revising the article accordingly. Please note that he is also covered in international sources that I have not yet cited. In German, for example, see Historische Zeitschrift: Volume 113 (1968): "dem nach 1812 in Sara- tow angesiedelten und 1894 im Alter von 126 Jahren verstorbenen Nicolas Savin..." In French, for example, see Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine: Volume 19 (1970): "Il s'agit de Nicolas Savin, né en 1768, officier de hussards à la Grande Armée, fait prisonnier à la Bérézina..." And still other English language sources exist, such as History today: Volume 22 (1962): "He was a French hussar, Nicolas Savin, who was taken prisoner by the cossacks of Platoff at the Berezina and who is..." That he is written about in multiple published sources in French, English, and German in both the 1800s and 1900s and even got the notice of the Tsar seems sufficiently notable. I do not know if you watch list AfDs, hence why I am messaging you here with this update. Thank you for your time and consideration. -- 24.154.173.243 ( talk) 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell ( talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818, as you can't link named accounts to IP address through Check User, it only remains to user behavioural evidence to complete the SPI Check. And he's twigged you can sock using IP addresses quite prolifically. This has been hanging around for a couple of weeks now with no action. On past behaviour he'll keep his head down and the SPI will eventually be quietly closed as the accounts are inactive and there is no longer a problem. Then it'll start again - and he will claim he was cleared at SPI. I can link the IP to Alex quite easily but with evidence that would fall foul of WP:OUT. I'm in a quandary as to what to do now, what would you advise? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence is compelling, so I've blocked Alex79818. Alluding to any kind of secret evidence is pretty unhelpful by the way - either you have evidence which admins can use to make a decision, or you don't. Note that I haven't taken these claims into account in evaluating the SPI report. Nick-D ( talk) 01:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, for getting this done. Much appreciated, Nightw 04:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out, Nick.

Just on this point, I made some reference to evidence at SPI that I was not highlighting per WP:BEANS. The evidence was not fundamentally dissimilar to the evidence I posted - adding it would not have violated any policy - except that I judged that making it public might make detecting any future socks harder.

What would you say is the best thing to do in such cases, if it comes up again (since for me this is the second time)? Would it be better to e-mail the evidence to OTRS so that there's some relatively wide pool of admins that can look at it and make a decision based on it? Or the Arbcom mailing list (seems a bit drastic for an SPI)? Thanks, Pfainuk talk 15:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, I'd suggest doing nothing with evidence that 'outs' someone unless it's really essential. Admins and arbitrators are expected to protect the privacy of editors, and there's not much they can do with that kind of evidence except in unusual circumstances and/or emergencies, and you open yourself up to all kinds of sanctions by sharing it with anyone without a very good reason for doing so. In cases such as this one, the on-Wiki evidence of persistent and harmful socking was very clear cut and there was no need to allude to private evidence. In fact, doing so substantially weakened this report and might have contributed to the time it took for an admin to review the behavioural evidence - the allusions to private information made it look at bit like Alex was being harassed. I appreciate your frustrations with this editor, but often the best approach to structuring a report is to concisely state what the problems are, and provide diffs to demonstrate each of these - the goal in writing reports should be to help the reviewing admin see what's going on and provide them with evidence which they can use in deciding how to respond. The best report of misconduct I've ever seen is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kirill Lokshin. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 23:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will bear this in mind. Pfainuk talk 17:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for explaining it. I've done a lot of SPI reports but this was the first time I have evidence that would fall foul of WP:OUT. As it happens this would have been conclusive, hence I thought it would be helpful. Lesson taken on board. Thanks for your help. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the right thing to do; thank you. I think he has a legitimate reason to be upset, and he didn't know our rules. (I think the first section of this essay is pretty accurate, even though there was never was any implication of an LT -- maybe there's another essay around about newbie BLP complaints that's not specifically about LTs but I couldn't find one...) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - the block seemed excessive after I thought about it for a bit, and I agree with your views on what motivated the edit warring. Nick-D ( talk) 03:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

ANZ rels needed an admin - suspect with a user name like that wants a block Satu Suro 05:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D ( talk) 05:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But - Who else is documenting the occurrence of ANZLF '11, developments from the 2010 CERMF, the full legacy of Boer War and prior AUS-NZ military relations, and the full significance of the Mawson expeditions to the TransTas exploration relations? Who? response does not fit with the major re-arrangement of the article - I bow out - and wonder why the urgency to revert reversions on this issue when there are such significant changes to the article... I hope that the duck test is as clear as it appeared first off... cheers Satu Suro 05:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the best way to cover those topics is to strip out large chunks of the article and then edit war after being twice warned about this.... ;) Nick-D ( talk) 05:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, can you please review the decision. Because i found your decision ridiculous, injustice and unfair since he have made at least 3 reverts within 24 hours. Which is involvement in disrespecting of the 3RR rule. And for the same reason i was blocked for 31 hours and i cann't belief that he isn't getting anything and can freely edit pages, which is something that i found it ridiculous, injustice, unfair and members unfriendly. I hope for your cooperation about the issue/case. Thanks in advance, Akbar Khan89 ( talk) 12:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at WP:AN3 Nick-D ( talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I just ran across User:Daniel Christensen#Miami High Rise Window Cleaning, which is basically an ad for his business. I've not seen something like this before, so I don't know if it's allowed, though I suspect it isn't. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill, that might violate the letter of WP:UP#PROMO. However, it's pretty small and unobtrusive and, judging by his contributions, Daniel is an enthusiastic and good faith editor, so I don't think that it's problematic. We let people advertise their personal websites and political views on their user page as long as they don't go overboard on it, and I don't see anything wrong with editors who run their own businesses briefly noting this and their contact details in their user space as long as it's not the main reason they're created an account. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, just noticed that the Mitchell has a copy of Norman Barnes (2000). The RAAF and the Flying Squadrons. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. ISBN  1865081302.. Glancing at a few entries I don't think it adds much if anything to Units and Eather, but if you find any contradictions between those two and need a tie-breaker, let me know and I could see what this one says... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ian. From memory that book is basically a reprint of some other histories of RAAF squadrons (I can't remember which ones at present though...!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making John Treloar (museum administrator) a Featured Article! In this and so many other things, your work is much appreciated. – Quadell ( talk)

Thanks for that Nick-D ( talk) 08:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Snipkers ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hey Nick, this looks like one of those throw-away WP:Single-purpose account, and I've just reverted his single hoax on the article page of Philippine Army. Could you please block him to prevent more nonsense? Thanks! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dave, I've just blocked them. I wish that this guy would go away for good. Nick-D ( talk) 08:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See [13]. 209.36.57.10 is one of Alex's many IP addresses from which he vandalises. Its not dynamic, should I do an SPI request? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked them. Socking while blocked for sockpupptery as part of a blatantly transparent strategy to claim they've been set up is rather dumb. Nick-D ( talk) 08:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Stimulated by your recent edit, my befuddled brain seems to remember that Steven Smith said "recently" something about buying MANY less than 72 JSFs. I now can't locate that statement. Do you remember him making such a statement? If so, do you remember what he said? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when he was in the US a few weeks ago he was a bit equivocal about the F-35 purchase, and stressed that Australia has only signed up for 14 at this stage - the transcripts of these interviews are on his ministerial website. However, all the government's policy documents (most notably the updated Defence Capability Planned released a week or so ago: [14]) state that the plan remains to buy "no fewer than 72 CTOL JSF". Nick-D ( talk) 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Though the content was sound, I knew it wasn't well worded or structured, you've made a big improvement. Cheers. -- Surturz ( talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for adding it in the first place. Nick-D ( talk) 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

I know that you're heavily involved in World War II articles, including the mother article itself. Yesterday I encountered a very nice and polite user who is adding Category:World War II sites to numerous articles, articles which are already in subcategories of that category. I asked him about it, and he replied that he was adding the articles to the parent category because then "citizens" could find World War II places of interest without going to the subcategories. Is this the correct way to use categories? Manxruler ( talk) 08:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly over-categorisation. This editor has been adding entire cities to this category: [15] Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I couldn't really persuade the user in question to see that. Thanks for adding your explanation. What now? There are many articles that's been added to the parent cat the last few days. I guess there's a lot of undoing to be done. Manxruler ( talk) 10:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be undone. I've just removed some of the categories (check my recent contributions). I think that the use of rollback is OK in this kind of situation. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way. I've done some work on it too. I'm checking each World War II site contribution first, then rolling back. Manxruler ( talk) 11:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Same way here too, trying to delete some categories connected with other categories, which are subcategories, later.-- Corusant ( yadyadyada) 16:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that Corusant for some took it upon himself to edit your comment on his talk. Manxruler ( talk) 06:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it true, King Richard the Lionheart help in any way pave the road to the Age of Exploration, and if so I might edit something about it ? -- Corusant ( yadyadyada) 22:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about that topic - you might want to ask this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Nick-D ( talk) 08:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As always, it is to be more fluent in English grammar, and yes it wasn't sourceful, sorry if I bothered, I don't want to make a world war out of such an edit. Thanks-- Corusant ( yadyadyada) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, anyway I always wondered, if the king new something about secret trades to Asia since his relations with Saladin.-- Corusant ( yadyadyada) 18:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, since you asked me once to throw my hat in the ring as an admin and I said no thanks it might be a bit cheeky of me to bring this up but we're old chums here so... ;-) Any chance of you coming back as a MilHist coord? Just from the Aussie contingent we've lost you and Bryce and are soon to lose Rupert. While SpeedyPhil looks like having a go this election, AnotherClown has politely refused. Then there are a bunch of others who haven't been too active the past year and no certainty how things will pan out with potential newbies. No hard feelings of course if you don't but be great to have you back. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Okay, I'll also drop a note to Hawkeye but the more the merrier...!

Hi Ian, I decided a few weeks ago that I'd put my hand up for another go as a coordinator :) Of course, my first act if elected will be to travel to the other side of the world and avoid most forms of internet for about five weeks, but after that I'll be available to help out. Thanks for your nice message - I take it that you're going to stand again? (I hope so!). Nick-D ( talk) 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great minds... and great news, you sly dog... ;-) Yes, I will be standing again (never ask anyone to do something you wouldn't be prepared to do yourself)... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your decision, but normally I think it's bad practice for the the same admin to decline multiple unblock requests from the same editor. It's similar to the reason why the blocking admin doesn't decline unblocks of his own block. I'd leave this one alone, but I encourage you to limit yourself to handling one request per block.— Kww( talk) 14:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kww, I normally don't action successive unblock requests for the reason you specify. However, Loveableone ( talk · contribs)'s request was such a no-brainer that I didn't see any point in leaving it in place just so that another admin could waste their time declining it. I'm not sure if you meant your message to be impolite BTW, but it is - it seems to be built around an assumption that I routinely action successive unblock requests, when this is not the case and you could have checked this by looking at my contributions. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 23:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Australian Politics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

See Acroterion's talk page. As for the names of the battles, those come from the Handbook of Texas.-- $1LENCE D0600D ( talk) 02:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick. An IP vandalised the article on Willie Apiata with this edit [16], then undid it himself. Given that its a BLP and the content of the vandalism I was wondering if you thought the edit itself warranted being deleted? If so are you able to do this please? Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 03:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just deleted those edits and blocked the IP editor. While juvenile, that's clearly a BLP violation. cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 04:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Nick-D, I hope this message finds you doing well! I would kindly request that read my message here. Thanks in advance! Have a nice day! With regards, Anupam ^Talk 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The blocked user themselves is asking you to discuss the block with them as well. I've tried to clarify matters for them already but the same attitude that got them blocked is getting in the way a bit. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at User talk:Stephfo (which I have watchlisted). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 23:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Me again. They have provided a very detailed response in their unblock request, completely owning up to what they did to get blocked, specifying what they would do instead in the future, and apologizing. I'm leaning heavily toward unblocking but consulting with you first as blocking admin. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I agree that unblock request meets the requirements (especially considering the editor's relative newness), and have unblocked them. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

cool. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read your message regarding casualties in Afghanistan, and I would like to explain that, like other editors have done in more recent sections of the article, I added together the individual reports of casualties of 2001 and posted the total at the top of the section, hence the sentence beginning with "Based on the Numbers Below". Please do not interpret this as a made up total or vandalism. 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 00:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision. I reread the message and noticed the part about adding up figures. I will make note of that for future contributions. Thank you for the clarification! 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Corusant is back to adding Category:World War II sites to articles which are already in subcategories of that category, as well as adding other parent categories were they don't belong and overlinking. What should be done? This is getting somewhat tiresome to clean up. Manxruler ( talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked Corusant to stop this? The categorisation of the Nazi Concentration Camps might be OK, but I agree that the others are unnecessary. Nick-D ( talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have asked him to stop this on several previous occasions. He doesn't listen to me at least, I'm not sure why. Manxruler ( talk) 08:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You also forgot to delete Santo Tomas Internment Camp listed, however it is free for edit users for categories not in the subbed, if in the appropriate sector.---- Corusant ( yadyadyada) 18:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed that from the category. Could you please take greater care with this in the future? Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 08:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have recently been updating the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article and I have a question. Part of my updates include reports of captured/defected insurgents, but they obviously don't belong in that article. However, I don't really know where to put these reports. Do you have any suggestions? 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 00:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to not bother as I don't understand the point of having a blow-by blow article on a major war, especially one which is subject to the limitations of news reports (which is the central problem with the List of Taliban fatality reports article). However, as other editors feel differently about this it might be worth starting a new article, though you'll need to create an account to do so. I've asked you this before, but am I right in thinking that you're not a new editor? If so, you might want to see WP:STANDARDOFFER. Nick-D ( talk) 00:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If by new editor, you mean making your first edit in August, then I am. I only joined because I got tired of editors not updating the 2011 Military intervention in Libya article. Thanks for the advice! 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 11:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

and use your admin powers to move HMAS Cerberus (disambiguation) to the (currently redirect) HMAS Cerberus? -- saberwyn 00:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 09:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks, OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 22:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I just like WW2 military history, and there was very little regarding SAAF squadrons who made a significant contribution! They need a lot more work though - will plough through my books for more information in due course. Thanks. Farawayman ( talk) 19:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, I picked up McPhedran's Air Force last week (bit of an unusual event buying a new book as I prefer libraries to use up their shelf space rather than me!) so if you want a rest from one or both of your excellent book reviews in the next month or so I could pick up the slack on this occasion... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that would be great. I haven't bought that book yet, and I'll be interested to see your views on in. Nick-D ( talk) 08:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly thank you for your vote in the ongoing Military History election. Your vote is greatly appreciated. LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 08:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for standing for election! Nick-D ( talk) 08:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [ here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 ( talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D. I'm the one who indef-blocked User:Ylightflight, for whom you recently declined an unblock request.

Upon further examination, I'm having second thoughts. About 6 months after the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band), it appears they got an album ranked #5 on Billboard's dance/electronic album list. The band may now be notable under WP:BAND criterion #2. Is that a notable list? (I confess I don't follow pop culture much.) If so, this would mean the article Ylightflight created on them may have been done correctly in good faith. What do you think? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can confirm that, then it might be appropriate to unblock. However, I'd suggest that you ask Ylightflight only start new articles through the articles for creation process given the previous concerns about the kinds of articles they were creating (which seemed to go beyond notability). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 08:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Easily confirmed -- a link to the Billboard ranking was in one of the articles Ylightflight created. Thanks for the comments. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 12:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick,

Bit of a petty problem with a newbie editor who doesn't appear to want to listen [17] [18]. HMS Cardiff (D108) was taken to Featured Article status by a mate of mine User:Ryan4314. As a result its on my watch list. We have a newbie editor who doesn't like the wikilinks to Cardiff as "currently the capital of the UK is actually London!" [19]. The info in the infobox stems from the FA review. They have been conducting a slow revert war to remove anything related to Cardiff. Editor is User:Betakittymolly. Is there any chance you could have a quiet word before they're foolish enough to be blocked for a 3RR violation? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

...the things people find to edit war over. I've blocked the editor for 24 hours. Nick-D ( talk) 11:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I was actually hoping that just a warning would suffice. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for that. Did you contact these photographers to ask that they release their photos? If so, great work - lots of the photos are of professional quality and will be very useful. Nick-D ( talk) 10:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed contacted them all and arranged releasing, most under GFDL. Also, this might be of use to military project. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Nick. I noticed you removed the uncited casualty figures. I would like to let you know that the reason they are uncited is that I got every casualty from a news article, therefore I have no one magical source that documents each casualty. However, said articles are referenced throughout the article, and each instance of a casualty is recorded. You might want to reconsider, though the final decision is up to you. 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 11:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that figure pre-dates your editing with this account, am I right in reading this to mean that you have edited previously? - if so, you really do need to read WP:OFFER. On the topic of this article, given that it's very unlikely that all casualties from such an obscure and remote conflict would make it into the international news media or that the resulting stories would be necessarily accurate, that approach is deeply flawed and violates WP:OR. Nick-D ( talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to get information on this campaign in the past with little results. It seems it mostly focuses on providing supplies and training to African countries in the region, with US personel based in the area focused on those two missions. The only instance of combat i have read about was an incident where some Tuareg rebels attacked a US military cargo plane. There were no casualties in the incident. The only US casualty ive seen reports of was a soldier who died of natural causes while helping train african troops. There have been some signifigant engagements between al-qaeda affiliates and french forces in the region, but i am not to familiar with them. XavierGreen ( talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not create those figures nor have I ever edited before August. I simply updated them. Also, I just read about what does not constitute original research and simple calculations is in that list. 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that there's no source for the casualty figures, it's OR to claim that the news reports you happen across represent an increase to the total casualties. How do you know that any of the reports haven't been subsequently revised down? Given that the original figure is unsourced this is a bit of an unnecessary discussion though. Nick-D ( talk) 11:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the HMS Cardiff is the only article of the Type 42 destroyers that weecurrymonster seems to have issues with!

Adding the words "Welsh Capital" are not need in the article as all of the other Type 42 articles do not have in the right hand notes section anything about the cities that they are named after.

HMS Edinburgh does not have the words "Scottish Capital" in the right hand notes section and the same for HMS Glasgow etc.

So why should HMS Cardiff be any different?

I did ask for another Wiki editor to intervene but I was the one who was blocked, which I don't think was particularly fair and weecurrymonsters own homepage is quite rude and aggressive.

In the article the info about the capital Welsh city is mentioned in the first section and it does not need to be added to the notes.

If you think that I am wrong then please have all the articles for the various Type 42's adjusted in the same way as HMS Cardiff - or if I you think that I am right and all the articles should be the same then please inform weecurrymonster about the correction.

I will hopefully hear from you within 48 hours on your decision.

All the best and thank you for reading this message :)

Betakittymolly ( talk) 12:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A lurker writes.

1. HMS Cardiff (D108) is the only article on the Type 42 Class to have been taken to featured article status.
2. The material you've edit warred to remove was added during the FA review.
3. Removal reduces the quality of the review.
4. No admin is going to tell me to remove material on your say so.
5. You were properly blocked for edit warring and not listening. I have repeated the above to you several times.
6. Your comments indicate you have no understanding why you were blocked, you're blaming everyone but yourself. This will likely lead to further blocks. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Try helping someone instead of being rude to people.

14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betakittymolly ( talk • contribs)

Nick, [20], edit summary "Can't be arsed: Response to rude person.)". If you think my comments were rude Nick, I'll tap dance down Buccleuch Street in a Tu Tu. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Betakittymolly, I blocked you because you were editing disruptively in the HMS Cardiff (D108) article. I don't have an opinion on the material in question and it wasn't the reason for the block. I'd suggest that you use Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes (see WP:DR)). A good start would be to ask other editors to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships - the editors who frequent that page are very knowledgeable about this kind of thing. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!

Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.

If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Binksternet ( talk) 02:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I second that promotion! - BilCat ( talk) 02:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, and congratulations as well MisterBee. Nick-D ( talk) 10:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at [21]. I'm getting some people to join it, and because you're a coord, I'd like to ask you to join to make yourself available to others who need help. Dank, The Ed17, Adamdaley, Ian Rose and a few guys are on it, so please join and tell others about it as well. (I saw you logging on yesterday). Sp33dyphil ^{" Ad astra"} 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather embarrassing question, but how do you post messages on the IRC channel? I couldn't figure it out! Nick-D ( talk) 08:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ignore that, I see how. Nick-D ( talk) 08:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you use Firefox, downloading the add-on Chatzilla makes life a lot easier. :-) Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D ( talk) 23:36, 30 September 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 Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 ( talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D ( talk) 23:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

An article you have helped edit, Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II (which was formerly entitled "Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories") has been proposed for deletion.

Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you're coming to the UK. I can make it down to London on 5 November, or for an evening in the week (but I wouldn't be able to stay very long in the latter case), if you want to get a beer—though I might have to convert you to English ale rather than that 4% swill Aussies drink! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(Stalking) Ahem, that's 4.9% swill, me 'ole mate -- the 0.9 is all the difference...! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi HJ, an evening between 2 and 4 November would work best for me - I'm booked to attend concerts on the other nights and fly home in the evening on 5 November. I'm happy to go ahead with any location you suggest, though somewhere in central(ish) London would be easiest. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd works best for me (but I can make any of those dates). It doesn't get much more central than Trafalgar Square, and there are some nice pubs round there (and it's easy to find!). I can be there for about 6pm if that suits you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd sounds excellent - and I know from prior experience that I can reliably locate Trafalgar Square and am a bit familiar with the area. Nick-D ( talk) 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. It's a difficult landmark to miss! I could be there as early as 4pm (mainly because I refuse to pay twice the money for a later train), but if that's too early for you just come whenever you like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the guy who's on holiday, so let's go with whatever works best for you :) 4pm is fine with me if that's the most convenient time. Nick-D ( talk) 19:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On 7 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

See [22], I have no idea what the guy is trying to achieve but adding what appears to be French and a redlink is indeed a strange contribution. As is edit warring to keep it and posting on multiple projects to lobby to keep it. Would you take a peek for me? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

By your leave, I would appreciate a look-see at Battle of Fort Pulaski since your last. Substantial different look in illustrations, captions and added links throughout. Only one serious vandalism attack has transpired over three months. My entries on the discussion page are a stab at posting a rationale for various editorial decisions. Lots of rewriting on the intro and throughout. Can it qualify for article quality promotion from B to A? Is there a friendly notes-and-references editor who can be relied upon for technical help, if only by tagging items?

Battle of Fort Pulaski is not yet feature article quality. (1) section on blockade needs Union expansion, (2) section on Approaches needs Confederate expansion. (3) I have not figured out how to treat the Tattnall fire-storm of controversy, blaming him for personal neglect and professional incompetence. (4) I am not sure how to pursue Olmstead’s character assassination by post-war memoir wars. (5) Critical analysis is now wanting, but I’ve found articles addressing the sea-based amphibious campaigns of the Civil War in the U.S. Naval Institute’s “Proceedings.”

Can a Colonel without independent command meet WP “notability” criteria for a biography? I did import a portrait of him to Wikimedia for use in the Pulaski article. After a notable letter protesting POW conditions in violation of the terms of surrender to the U.S. Secretary of War and subsequent parole, he returned to Confederate service expanding Charleston SC defenses. On transfer to the western theater, Olmstead performed well as an infantry regimental commander of Georgia regulars (same regimental number, but not the Georgia volunteers of his Pulaski garrison command). If he does not qualify, shouldn’t the brackets be removed from his name? The highlighted red font acts as Hawthorne's scarlet letter. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm travelling for the next three weeks or so, and won't be able to look at the article I'm afraid. Nick-D ( talk) 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Safe trip. By the time of your return, maybe something more on Morton Deyo bio from the 1911 Lucky Bag. It seems he quit three years of USNA choir when forbidden to take Sunday papers into Chapel. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 04:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Nick, when you get back, I could use some of your advice on Talk:Sinking of PNS Ghazi and the merger proposal. Enjoy yourself and have a safe trip, best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick. W.B. Wilson and I have been talking and have provisionally decided to merge all the various Polish and Yugoslav armed forces into one overall 'Military of P' and 'Military of Y' articles. This may generate controversy but is in line with the overall approach of WP MILHIST. Wanted thus to give another experienced editor a heads-up. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick. I just noticed this [23], surely one of the more interesting cases of vandalism that I have seen! It was a while back and Saberwyn reverted it so no harm done. Anyway take it easy. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was really weird. Someone once copied the entire Australian Defence Force article onto my user page at Wiki Commons for some reason. Nick-D ( talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 03:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, not sure if you are going to notice this edit amougnst a packed watchlist. Just wondering if this is right [24]. It probably is but I wanted to make sure. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I'd missed that one. I'll double check the reference tomorrow. The article is now in line with the articles on the two captains, so it looks like a good fix. Nick-D ( talk) 10:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, I don't normally question your edits but the words changed in Cobby were chosen with some care, "enemy" to avoid using "Japanese" twice in the same sentence, and "had flown" because the narrative switched a bit in time, i.e. early 1945, then December 1944, then January 1945. Now I could probably avoid the latter issue by rejigging the sequence of sentences, but I'd still like to avoid repetition in the former case. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I've just reverted myself. I missed that 'Japanese' had already been used in the first sentence, meaning that the use of 'enemy' here was totally appropriate. The wording about 1 TAF's actions in December seems a bit passive so it should probably be tweaked, but it does work OK and I take your point. I probably shouldn't have been editing a FA while heavily jet lagged ;) Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No prob, tks for understanding -- I'll try and see about that phrasing before 11 Nov. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, please help reach consensus by weighing in your opinion here. Thanks! Oz ^talk 00:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on that. Nick-D ( talk) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work and a totally logical extension of book reviewing (and no, I don't stalk your contribs, I watch the page!). Should we change the section title to "Reviews" to reflect the new scope? (I'm thinking of making a fourth new header to facilitate a change from "Article news" to "Content news", so this wouldn't be any trouble). On a side note, I was assigned to review a museum in my Introduction to Museum Studies class today, so I may end up using yours as a basis to start mine. :-) Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I've just heard about this because I stalk this guy's talk page (and of course yours Ed)...! Never thought of war museum reviews but since you bring it up I suppose that sometime I could contribute a piece on the only example I've visited in the past year -- albeit kind of exotic -- namely the one at El Alamein... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no secrets! - though thanks for the nice comments :) I was going to submit the article when it's completed as a 'review essay' separate to the book review section as I'm planning to add a few paragraphs on what I think Wikipedia editors can take away from the museum's approach (in short: a lot as it's a really excellent and innovative museum). Ian, I'd be very interested in your views on the museum at El Alamein. Did you also tour the battlefield? Nick-D ( talk) 10:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the battlefield per se, but the Commonwealth War Cemetery and Australian Memorial. Well if the Bugle wants to run reviews of things beyond just books, I'd be happy to pen something about this one in the next month or two. I don't know that I would draw special lessons for WP editors from it though, unlike Nick's situation with the German museum... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, Nick. Will you still be doing a book review or two? Also, you both make me jealous with your travels...! Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed: yes, I've posted a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2011/Book reviews. I might add another one, but don't wait on me to do so!

Ian: I think that there'd be a lot of interest in your experiences visiting those memorials. I've read that the battlefield is still riddled with mines and is under the control of the Egyptian Army. Nick-D ( talk) 07:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've posted the essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2011/Review essay and would be interested in any and all comments on it. Nick-D ( talk) 07:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

re: your comments at WP:AIV ...

The warnings were issued following continued edits without acknowledging the prior warning - the speed of the warnings were directly tied to the speed of their edits. The warnings used were not the vandal series of templates, but instead were {{ uw-test1}}, {{ uw-test2}}, {{ uw-test3}}, and {{ uw-test4}}.

I agree that they are new and likely well meaning ... but may need a short "break" just to get their attention to read the concerns. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that {{ uw-test4}} redirects to {{ uw-vandalism4}} ... I hadn't noticed this, and I agree that this redirect results in a vandal warning that was too harshly worded. I'll look into starting a discussion to either change the redirect or to create a direct template at uw-test4 that uses a more appropriate message. In the interim, I'll be avoiding the use of uw-test4 as it's just not appropriate for these situations. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Barek, As they ignored my post as well I've blocked them for three hours (I'm hoping that this short duration will be enough to get them to discuss adding this index as it seems that he or she is editing in good faith). I think that it would have been preferable to have written a message to this editor rather than using templates as their edits were (in my view) not tests and the editor is very new and probably doesn't appreciate that they were stepping on toes. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, mate, sorry to bother you with this one. I'm really at a loss with it, though. I'm concerned about the way this article keeps being moved. I've tried to have editors involved stop, discuss and reach a decision, but for whatever reason I do not appear to have the ability to resolve the situation. The situation is harder because I've worked very closely in the past with both editors involved, both of which are editors in good standing and who have contributed greatly to Wiki. Is it possible maybe to get a move protect? So that it is clear what my position is: I don't have a strong opinion what name it remains at, just so long as the moves stop and a consensus is reached about what the name should be. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've just protected the page from being moved again for 72 hours to allow for dispute resolution - this seems to be underway and is going on in a polite fashion (as would be expected given that all the editors involved are experienced and sensible) so I don't see a need for any other admin-type intervention. Taking my admin hat off, I don't really have an opinion on the name of the article, though 'affair' seems a bit old-fashioned. I've watchlisted the article, but do let me know if I can help out further. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nick. I appreciate you taking the time to get involved (the role of an Admin is a thankless one I agree); however, I'm not sure this was helpful to be honest. Of course its only my opinion but I believe this should have been moved back to the original name ("Battle of Abu Tellul") and then protected until it could be discussed properly. Why support a name change that occurred without consensus? I also disagree with the assertion that this is a polite interaction. I have asked repeatedly that the move be discussed and a consensus built first, both on the article's talk page and on that editor's talk page ( [25]). I even requested that the editor move it back before I did so ( [26]). All of these requests have been ignored, and met with an accusation that I'm being unreasonable. The page has once again been moved (for the third time). As such it is difficult for me to see that this outcome is anything other that yet another example of Wikipedia's policy being enforced to support editors who have demonstrated no regard for those very rules. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for those comments. I protected that version of the article as the policy on page protection specifies that admins should protect whatever version of the page is current at the time they intervene except in cases of vandalism - please see WP:PREFER. As the policy notes, this doesn't imply any endorsement of that name or of one side of a discussion over the other - the intention is simply to prevent the article from being moved for a short period as a way of encouraging dispute resolution. I appreciate that this can be a frustrating process though. As I said in my post when I protected the article, if there's a consensus one way or the other before the 72 hours is up I'd be happy to lift the protection. Alternately, you can post at WP:RFPP to ask whichever admin comes along first to do this or to get a second opinion on whether the current protection is needed. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair call. Apologies for the whinge. Anotherclown ( talk) 05:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all - and you're very welcome to comment on stuff like this. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, you might remember this one from ACR a while back, where you made your usual helpful comments. Per discussion there, I've put more meat on the article to hopefully see it through the next stage. Re. A Tribute Fom His Friends, the Mitchell Library has managed to lose its copy (!) but, coincidentally, a recent book on the AFC (Fire in the Sky) used it as a source and included a few quotes from it, which I've duly reproduced in the WP article. Interested in your comments if you have time... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian (belatedly), I'll have a look at it. The article looks pretty good at first glance. Nick-D ( talk) 07:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding this edit, please note that " crackdown on" is grammatically correct, is far more common than " crackdown of" is, and is the wording used in our article. Thanks! — David Levy 12:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi David, it sounds pretty awkward to me given that the sentence is talking about a specific thing but I'm not fussed. The 'the' I added was definitely needed. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your review of the article, I shall expand it again over the next few days and take into account your critiques. I also wish to thank you for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article which I did not know even existed. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 09:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all, and best wishes for the article. Nick-D ( talk) 10:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nick, I just had a quick look at Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy. I can't seem to find a direct citation to Gullett's work, but it appears in the References list. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point; I'll start a further reading section. Thanks Nick-D ( talk) 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of [[ User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_perils_of_anonymity - Solution? That is, a named-user only editing level? Are you interested in pushing for it? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with encouraging the use of actual names. There are plenty of nutters on this website who loose, or simply don't have, a sense of proportion, and there have been some nasty incidents in which trolling has carried across into real-life harassment. I changed my user name to remove my last name for this reason, and tend to be a bit cagey about where I live. Citizendium insists on the use of actual names, and I suspect it's part of the reason why it hasn't worked out. Nick-D ( talk) 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Nick that nobody should be forced to use their real name but, like him (I think, last time I checked!), I believe (that editors should be required to have a user name rather than edit completely anonymously. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still think that people shouldn't be able to edit without logging into an account. Nick-D ( talk) 00:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I have been working with the battle of Milne Bay article and have created a small section on air operations as part of the battle. I was wondering whether you could use your talent, skills and resources to expand this section regarding the Allied and Japanese air operations. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Given that most of the air operations were close air support for the ground troops, it would probably be better to integrate this with the narrative of the battle rather than have it in its own section though. cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt and candid comments on the article, but I wonder if you look it over again soon to see if your concerns have been addressed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed all of your comments, although I'm still not sure about the one regarding the sporting life. Could you take a look and see what you think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My statement that "Why the hell are you guys discussing this at all?" does not really count as involvement in my opinion. And these discussions are a waste of time for doing this shit to people who are de facto banned to begin with.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 23:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for un-closing that discussion. While these kind of discussions are generally formalities, they're important as they act to prevent drama. Imposing a formal ban is worthwhile as it makes it a bit easier for admins to block new sock puppets. Nick-D ( talk) 23:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a formal ban is a waste of time. Admins are going to block sockpuppets of someone evading an indef block regardless of the original user being banned or not because they know they are de facto community banned. Seeking a community ban should only be on a user who is an active participant in the project and a pain in the ass. Not someone who has been already kicked out.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 06:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

which is actually a lot of moaning about WMF's failure to get Vital Articles covered.

I wonder how many FA articles the presenter has authored?

Georgejdorner ( talk) 03:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your deleting the dispute template is very disappointing Nick-D, particularly when you didn't seek to discuss it with me before taking that action. I don't know why you think I might be interested in knowing the likes and dislikes of even more editors when its a problem regarding the reliable references not being respected. The request to the military history page by AustralianRupert elicited responses from editors who expressed their taste - nothing more. I am disappointed that you think these carry more weight than reliable references. Where in Wikipedia does it state a consensus of personal opinions is more valuable than reliable references?

Is WP:COMMONNAME no longer in use? It currently states "Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. The most common name for a subject is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural; one should also ask the questions outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section." Has this been overturned?

Before this article was substantially rewritten and reliable references added there was a template on it calling for this work to be done. The original name of the article at that time reflected the single reference used which incidentally does not name Abu Tellul a battle. The reliable references used to upgrade the article indicate the common name and it is not battle. There is no possibility that I will stand by and let this travesty continue to attempt to lower the high standards of Wikipedia.-- Rskp ( talk) 04:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I probably should have been clearer in my post on your talk page: I am intervening as an uninvolved administrator. You've made great contributions to many articles, but your conduct in relation to this particular issue has become disruptive. As I said before, I think that you should move on from this issue as there is a consensus in support of the article's current name. However, if you think it's still worth pursuing you should use the dispute resolution process and seek a broader range of options via a RfC as your current approach is not at all constructive. Nick-D ( talk) 04:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me where I can find the guidelines, which describe consensus as being more valuable in naming an article, than reliable references which were used to edit the article? -- Rskp ( talk) 04:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please reply to my question of 04:51 and also please address the issues I raised in my message of 04:20 today. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, The best answer to those questions is WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA (in particular, "There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus" and "However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these questions over the others. This is done by consensus."). The second sentence of WP:COMMONNAME is also relevant. As I've suggested previously, if you think it's worth continuing discussion on this topic you should seek broader participation via a RfC rather than continuing to argue with editors who have decided that 'battle' is the appropriate name. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those references. I've had a chance to look at them and begin to see why AustralianRupert jumped to consensus. But I do think he moved a little quickly and the comments during the consensus process did not assist in the process. Some thought it a joke, others compared it to other campaigns on other continents decades later.

Regarding the principal naming criteria, it begins article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. That is Affair of Abu Tellul. It is recognisable because that is the name this engagement has been called for the last 90 years. It is natural, precise, concise and consistent.

As to the common name criteria, its the common name which should be used while ambiguous or inaccurate names are to be avoided, even if used by reliable sources. While affair is not inaccurate it is, in this day and age, ambiguous because affair is most often taken to be a positive relationship rather than a fight.

However, if affair is not to be used because of its potential ambiguity then there is a problem because in WW1 'battles' which probably should be called super battles are just called battles. For example, the Battle of the Somme where 24 to 99 divisions fought 10 1/2 to 50 divisions between July and December 1916. Now if you put the fighting at Abu Tellul by two dismounted regiments (3/4 strength as 1/4 were holding the horses) reinforced by two more dismounted regiments in 1918 weaponry, in the same basket as any of the battles fought at Romani, Magdhaba, Rafa, Gaza, Mughar Ridge, Jerusalem and Megiddo in the Sinai and Palestine campaign, which ranged from a minimum of a large division up to three corps, there will be a serious disparity. And if more recent battles such as the Battle of Normandy or the Battle of Milne Bay are considered then Abu Tellul will look out of place in the battle category.

Apart from being misleading, another problem of using the term battle in this case is that it is probably original research. May be it should not be separate article at all but a subheading on the Sinai and Palestine campaign article.

I would be grateful to have some serious consideration of the problems involved in the name of this article.

I don't know what a RfC is. -- Rskp ( talk) 07:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that I was travelling earlier in the week and missed this message. A 'RfC' is a request for comment - please see WP:RFC. This is a way of seeking a broader range of views on a content dispute through a semi-structured process. Nick-D ( talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you check the last line in the aftremath section. Is something missing or left in by mistake. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 02:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim, did I fix the problem in this edit, or is there something else which I've missed? Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 04:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes fixed it was the Australia was not one of the countries line. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 04:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, excellent. Thanks for the quick response! Nick-D ( talk) 04:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I've also made a couple of changes to this section. Please review and revert if they were incorrect. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

They look great - thanks a lot. I'm planning to expand the article a bit (especially the last section) and hopefully get it to A class. Nick-D ( talk) 09:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Going to keep this real short and sharp, the serial socker has been stalking my edits, thanks for the prompt response. Cheers and best, mate. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You undid my edit because, "POV pushing, BLP violation" What is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinese Homosexual ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In short, using Wikipedia to make personal attacks on someone on the basis of your personal views and a dodgy website. Please see WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and note that you will be blocked from editing if it continues. Nick-D ( talk) 06:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to continue to make that edit if it is not OK. I want to help wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinese Homosexual ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dave1185 is racially and sexually harassing me at my user talkpage. I demand that they stop immediately and apologize (I would comment at Dave1185's talk page, but for some reason I cannot edi t it).

I can't see that in Dave's post. Nick-D ( talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The user is implying that "Chinese Homosexual" is inappropriate as a user name. I find that to have racist and homophobic implications; it suggests it is wrong to be Chinese or homosexual. He must stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinese Homosexual ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Dave1195 and Dave1175, is it possible to clean out the user pages and then locked the usernames as well? It's beginning to make me look bad and if that is possible, please also lock up Dave1165/1155/1145/1135/1125/1115/1105. TBH, I can't risk the thoughts of having mad buggas running amok like that and ruin the entire project for us. Well? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here. Am I right in thinking that you'd like the impostor accounts deleted? Admins can't actually do this, but bureaucrats can (I think - if not, they can definitely change accounts' user names, and so could rename these accounts to something which won't be confused with you). The place to make this request would be WP:BN - feel free to quote me as fully endorsing this. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, but the above section is another matter... I'm beginning to feel that the guy is deliberately baiting me. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they do seem to be a troll. He or she is well on the way to being blocked for this though. Nick-D ( talk) 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. I had no idea that there was such an article. It is indeed a shame it is no longer an FA. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is there a reason why it's not OK to include reference to the matters you deleted from Crikey's page? I don't much care either way but it did seem like an interesting incident. -- Brandonfarris ( talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the article's talk page. Nick-D ( talk) 06:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nick, I've done a bit of work trying to clean up recent entries to the Battle of Milne Bay article. I believe that you had reservations about the Boettcher source that was added by an IP earlier (I haven't read it, so I can't really comment). I've added it to an inline citation, because they seem insistent on adding it back in but using a format that is inconsistent with our standards. I've left a note on the IP's talk page asking for page numbers and pointing them towards policy. It might need a second set of eyes, though, and if you feel that the book should be removed entirely, please let me know and we can possibly discuss it on the article's talk page to try to gauge/establish some consensus. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, those look like good improvements to me. I'm willing to bet that that IP editor is the author of the book. They're editing in good faith, but missing the point a bit. Nick-D ( talk) 22:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I think I've finished the major work on this. Would you mind taking a look? Feel free to adjust, change or add whatever you feel is necessary. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Nick-D ( talk) 09:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nick, thanks for adding that info. I was a bit premature in nominating for GAN, sorry. I've reverted my nom and will wait until you've finished. Please let me know when you are done and I'll put it up again. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I should be finished tomorrow; I'm going to add some extra odds and ends about the Japanese at Milne Bay and a paragraph about the related Battle of Goodenough Island. The article is really excellent and I'm not finding much extra to add to be frank! Nick-D ( talk) 11:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: edit conflict. Ack. I hope you didn't lose anything. I appreciate your help on the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems from my end. I should be done in another half an hour or so. Nick-D ( talk) 23:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, in the GA review there is a query that relates to info sourced to Collie & Marutani p. 102. The query is whether the name of the destroyer is specified here: "During the night a Japanese destroyer entered the bay". If you have time, could you please have a look at the source and maybe reply to the relevant section of the GA review? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Australia Barnstar of National Merit
		For your efforts in expanding Battle of Milne Bay to Good Article status. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 03:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article and it's looking really good. I don't see any omissions. You even have sections on the moral debate and on the atrocities committed against captured Allied aircrews. I have a couple of sources you don't have listed that could provide a little reinforcement on the referencing in some areas, which I will try to add. I recently purchased a thick book published in Japan which appears to give more of the Japanese side. The language barrier is, of course, getting in my way of fully utilizing it. It has a lot of good pictures, including several hundred pages of before and after pictures of the damage done to various cities, which I'll try to get scanned and uploaded if I can ever find the time. Cla68 ( talk) 00:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those comments. I saw a few museums when I visited Japan which had exhibitions on the bombing, and have tried to incorporate their perspectives (eg, the Hiroshima Peace Museum's very frank treatment of the events which lead up to the attack on the city and its aftermath and the Tokyo Museum's surprisingly even-handed account of the destruction of the city). More material from the Japanese perspective would be great. In particular, does Edwin P. Hoyt's 1987 assessment that Japanese people regard the bombing as being the worst atrocity of the war still reflect current views? Nick-D ( talk) 11:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The majority of Japanese clearly view the atomic bombings as atrocities, but feelings are more complex on the conventional bombings. A few months ago I saw a Japanese TV program about the Tokyo fire bombings in which a Japanese TV crew traveled to the Marianas and politely confronted a group of B-29 veterans holding a reunion, showing them pictures of stacks of burned bodies of women and children lying in the streets after the raids. The veterans were understandably shocked and stunned to see the pictures, and most seemed at a loss for words on how to respond. The program stopped short of actually calling the Tokyo fire bombings an atrocity, but this is also a common theme in Japanese media of not explicitly labeling something, instead leaving it up to the viewer to come to their own conclusion. The Hiroshima peace museum is an obvious exception to that theme. I have asked my wife to help me find more books on the Japanese side of the bombings, but so far we haven't found much. Cla68 ( talk) 23:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I suspect that there would be no problem adding any useful Japanese-language books in a 'further reading' section. Nick-D ( talk) 10:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Might you consider giving your opinion at Talk:Polish Armed Forces#Image and, if you have the time, giving the article an informal peer review? Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick, would ask your help here. This anon IP 76.. .. .. seems to be determined to remove one particular picture (the smiling Polish soldiers holding sub-machine guns) from all wikipedias everywhere. He appears to think it gives a negative appearance to the Polish Armed Forces. W.B. Wilson and I disagree, and have been repeatedly personally attacked because we do so. If I was un-involved, I would have now blocked him for repeated personal attacks. Would you consider the various edits and advise me on what to do, or take other administrator action yourself? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Nick-D ( talk) 21:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked the IP address and Microedt ( talk · contribs) for one month, which might be generous considering the circumstances. Nick-D ( talk) 10:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I informed the article creator that you nominated Nicola Gobbo for deletion.

Deletion is supposed to follow a consensus reached through an informed discussion. As nominator it is your responsibility to inform the article creator of the nomination. If article creators aren't informed then it is not clearly an informed discussion. The article creator can nurture dark thoughts, thinking, "if only I had been informed I would have marshalled arguments that would have convinced everyone the article did not merit deletion."

Failing to inform article creators strongly erodes the civil and collegial exchange of views we are all supposed to aim for.

If you ever nominate another article for deletion I urge you to always inform the article creator. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am actually a rather experianced editor who's nominated tons of articles for deletion (almost always notifying the article creator, except for where they were blocked or had been inactive for a long time), so there's no need to take such a condesending tone. Much as I forgot to list the AfD on the log, I also forgot to notify the article creator on this occasion. Thank you for doing this, but a simple 'hey, you forgot to notifiy the article creator, I've done this for you'-type message would have been a bit more polite... Nick-D ( talk) 21:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks re unblocking me from IP blocks Hugo999 ( talk) 12:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all - happy to be able to help. Nick-D ( talk) 06:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D

You recently blocked 88.123.232.186 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring at Roy Spencer (scientist), and asked for people to contact you directly if there are further problems. Another IP, 86.211.20.81 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also based in France has turned up to make the same edits. Compare old IP diffs here and here with "new" IP edit here. The old IP is only a couple of days into a week-long block that you set.

Many thanks, VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi Vsevolod, thanks for your post. I've just blocked that account and extended the original block for one month. I thought I was being generous with the initial block given the extent of this person's edit warring and the fact that it was taking place in a sensitive article. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 06:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note re the above. He certainly was hard to communicate with. Dwelling on some other planet methinks. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I'm wondering if I have sufficiently addressed your concerns at the ACR for this list. Can you take a look please? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've commented there Nick-D ( talk) 06:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to the Nicola Gobbo article, it's much improved now. -- Brandonfarris ( talk) 07:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I recently translated your featured article Bombing of Singapore (1944−1945) into the german Wikipedia ( see here). My plan is to have it candidate for the german equivalent of a Good Article later. But as there are a lot of reservations against the candidateship of translated articles, I want to have it reviewd before let it candidate. My question is, as I don't have access to all the books used for the article, if I can translate and transfer questions that come up and that I can't answer, to you? Thanks in advance -- Bomzibar ( talk) 10:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, I'd be very happy to help. I borrowed several of the books from libraries, so it may take time to answer some queries though. Regards. Nick-D ( talk) 11:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I got the first response within the review. I write the questions below.

• It was asked if it is known how many bombs at the initial attack were on target at the graving dock. That would be more interesting than which aircraft hit the dock. It was further asked if it is known which percentage rate of hits would be valued as high precision by the USAAF.
• Also at the initial attack: Is there any known reason, why the Japanese soldiers murderes the Indonesian workers?
• Is a summation of the dead of each side known?

Thank you -- Bomzibar ( talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, the answers to those questions are:

• The sources don't say I'm afraid. Cate p. 156 implies that the accuracy of this bombing was considered good.
• The source doesn't say. However, it's consistent with the harsh treatment of workers at the docks (as referenced in Liew (2006), p. 429 earlier in the article).
• I looked everywhere for this, but without luck Nick-D ( talk) 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I got a few more questions about the article:

• Is it known how many ships were at the Singapore Naval Base at the time of the first attack because the diary of Ugaki Matome mentions that the battleships Ise and Hyūga were able to flee to Brunei on November 6th.
• Is it mentioned how big the destructions of the refinery of Pangkalanbrandan were?
• Do the sources name the number and types of the japanese Interceptors?
• A user asked why there were no attacks from the start of November up until the start of January and if this is in relation with the heavy fights around Imphal and northern Burma in the same time period?
• The same user mentioned, that the diary of Admiral Ugaki says that the japanese anti aircraft artillery shot down five american bombers at the attack on 12. March and that Bernard Millot says in his The Pacific War that the bombers had 23 P-47 Fighters as escort. Is there something like this mentioned in your sources?

Again, thank you in advance -- Bomzibar ( talk) 14:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, here are my responses:

• No, I haven't seen figures for the number of ships docked at the base when it was bombed. The Imperial Japanese Navy's major warships were mainly based in the Ligga Roads to the South of Singapore. Ise and Hyūga were in Japan, not Singapore, in early November 1944 by the way (see CombinedFleet.com's entries for the ships at Ise and Hyūga.
• See Cate (1953), p. 156 - the bombers which attacked the refinery "reported direct hits on the cracking plant"
• I looked everywhere for this, but couldn't find it
• The XX Bomber Command (which operated all the B-29 bombers stationed in India) had no direct role in the fighting in India and Burma. Chapter 5 of The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki June 1944 to August 1945 by Cate describes the command's other activities during this period; in short, it concentrated on attacking targets in Japan and China during November and December (which was the reason it had been established).
• Toh p. 914 states that no B-29s were lost during this raid. I haven't seen anything about P-47s flying escort missions to Singapore, and it's not credible - the Allies didn't have any air bases anywhere near Singapore they could have flown from, especially as P-47s were fairly short ranged (for comparison, P-47s flying from bases in eastern England could only barely reach the German border during missions in which they escorted B-17s in Europe). Nick-D ( talk) 10:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thought about the P-47 but thought it would be better to ask you. I think I will not mention Ise and Hyuga in the article at all. I asked again about the Ugaki-Book but it's a diary and because of that has to be used with some kind of distrust. Also I can't use CombinedFleet.com as a source in an article I want to get promoted because most of the entries have no sources mentioned. I know quite a number of users in the german Wikipedia which would give me a contra for using this as a source. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame about combinedfleet.com - it's considered a reliable source here (as its authors have written several professionally published books and it in turn has been referenced in published works), and is used in lots of featured articles. Nick-D ( talk) 06:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The published books are the reason it is nowadays distrusted. Many see that this books low the quality of the free accessible online content. I could use it as a source but I am sure that there are some which would ask if I have another source for the same facts. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 20:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I got a few more informations which maybe could be interesting for you too.

• A user said that there were 58 Japanese fighter aircraft of the types Ki-43, Ki-45 and Ki-61 in Singapore. I asked for the date of this number but until then he named as sources Bernard Millot: The Pacific War. 1967, p. 952 and the diary of Ugaki Matome.
• Regarding to Ugaki Matome and Samuel Eliot Morison: The Liberation of the Philippines: Luzon, Mindanao, the Visayas 1944–1945. 2001 Ise and Hyuga were in Sinapore at the beginning of November. I asked for page numbers to check this. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I own that volume of Morison's work, and it doesn't say that Ise and Hyuga were in Sinapore at this time according to the references to the ships in the book's index. The book's first mention of the ships is on page 158, which states that they were near Singapore on 1 January 1945. Nick-D ( talk) 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I have two current A class reviews, on the Relief of General Douglas MacArthur and Armed Forces Special Weapons Project that need reviews. If you have the time, could you take a look? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll definitely do MacArthur, and will try to find time for the other. If you've got any interest in reviewing a long article about the bombing of Japan between 1942 and 1945, then I think I can recommend the ACR for you ;) Nick-D ( talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I found some English variation issues with this article. I didn't want to change them, though, without checking which English variation you are using. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I should be using American English given that this was a mainly US operation... Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 09:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - I really appreciate it. Nick-D ( talk) 09:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my fault I think - found a mixture but most leaned towards the correct spelling so changed the others to match. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've left a message for you at User talk:Brandonfarris (on the "Unblock" thread). Cheers, Yunshui  雲‍ 水 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just replied there. Nick-D ( talk) 09:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We now seem to have an IP editor - 121.217.116.168 - posting the same rubbish previously posted by User:David Byers1770 who was blocked as a sock puppet of User:Gloriousrevolution. Not sure of the procedures here. Are you able to pick up the ball? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked that account and semi-protected the article to prevent them from coming back. Feel free to remove anything they added per the normal way of dealing with block evaders (and POV pushers). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 03:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish Underground State has, as far as I can tell, 100% support. So in what world can it be defined as unsuccessful? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Piotrus, for articles to pass an A class review they need to have three support votes and no unaddressed comments by 28 days after the nomination started. The review of the Polish Underground State article was allowed to run for much longer than this, but unfortunately only attracted a single support vote. Feel free to renominate the article if you like. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, OK. It seems unfair to me to penalize the article for inactivity of the project (or the reviewers). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the same thing happens at FAC when there aren't enough reviewers. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

...is here in draft -- any comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks really good to me. The photos are also well done. Nick-D ( talk) 07:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got one I can write up in 30 mins. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Too long: User:Fifelfoo/bugle_review? Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks good to me Nick-D ( talk) 06:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  -- Lear's Fool 14:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey keep up the good work. - I have just sent an email as well :) - have a great christmas! Satu Suro 09:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope that you're having a great Christmas as well. Nick-D ( talk) 00:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• From me as well, merry christmas~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave - and the same to you :) Nick-D ( talk) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley ( talk) 00:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, same for you. Nick-D ( talk) 00:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Your friend, Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 01:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I hope that you're having a great Christmas as well, and it's not too cold! Nick-D ( talk) 01:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and Merry Christmas! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you, and I hope that you're also having a great Christmas Nick-D ( talk) 07:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the Coordinated attacks hounding my edits have continued.

Please see:

GRC: [27]

Only one edit, so not done

Church of St peter: [28]

Semi protected

Mary's Tomb: [29]

Semi protected

Ecce Homo: [30]

Semi protected

Cathedral of St James: [31]

Appears to be an unconnected user making one edit - try dispute resolution

Church of St. James Intercisus: [32]

Semi protected

Church of the Holy Sepulchre: [33]

Semi protected

Lutheran church of the redeemer: [34]

Semi protected by The Bushranger ( talk · contribs)

Christ Church: [35]

Semi protected by The Bushranger ( talk · contribs)

Ghajar: [36]

Semi protected by The Bushranger ( talk · contribs)

Category:Parks in Jerusalem: [37] (I created this cat)

Semi protected by The Bushranger ( talk · contribs)

Kfar Haruv: [38]

Semi protected by The Bushranger ( talk · contribs)

List of bees of Israel and the occupied territories: [39]

Semi protected by The Bushranger ( talk · contribs)

Every single edit by the IPs and shady sleeper accounts is a revert of my edits. Except at the category which was a revert of User:nableezy, though I created it.

This is obviously a continuation of the organized attack, hounding my edits and reverting everything I do.

I ask that you please revert all these illegitimate vandalism edits, protect the articles, block the IPs, and put the articles on your watchlist. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 05:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Now all addressed one way or the other (and thanks to The Bushranger ( talk · contribs)!). This appears to be Israelite1 ( talk · contribs) attempting to evade their block and continue tedious POV pushing rather than any editor, or group of editors, targeting you specifically. Almost all these articles had been edited by the Israelite1 sock TheJerusalemite ( talk · contribs). I hope that you're having a nice Christmas. Nick-D ( talk) 06:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, please don't report problems simultaneously at ANI and on an individual admins' talk page - this leads to confusion and wasted effort. I'd suggest that you stick to ANI for this if this editor re-appears to get a faster response. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, Merry Christmas! -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 07:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Nick - great to have that news. Would you believe we were discussing the new structures in 2006! - it took five plus years!! I^`ll look into it, but do not for the moment know. If you want a quicker answer, send a msg to the Waiouru Army Museum. For the moment I would NOT add the 1st Rifle Bde heritage, but the WW2 home defence 1st Bde and the 1 Bde of the 1970s / 1980s definitely will have, in my opinion, the lineage. Merry Christmas and many thanks. - Buckshot06 at Enwiki on an unfamiliar keyboard. ;)

A few months ago you assessed 24th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) and brought up why it should remain a "start"-level article on its talk page. Since then I have made a number of changes: it now uses 19 separate books rather than internet sources; it has grown from 8,718 bytes to 19,048 bytes; the German names have been replaced with their English translations (eg. Infanterie-division -> Infantry Division), and the article now paise much more attention to its combat history than to its logistical history ("X was in Y during the year Z" no longer makes up the bulk of the section). Do you think this is enough for me to file in the assessment on MilHist for a "B" or do I need further work on it?-- OsirisV ( talk) 05:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. In the France section, what does the 'soil's reaction to the advance of the 1st Panzer earlier' mean? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks much improved, but the 'Components' and 'Commanders' sections are unreferenced. The statement that "both armies continued to resist the Soviet advancement until their surrenders at the end of the war in May 1945" seems a bit of an over-statement - the Soviets didn't try very hard to attack the Courland Pocket, and generally aimed to simply contain the German forces. Nick-D ( talk) 00:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yessir. And to Buck, I was trying to say that the Panzers ruined the ground, making it hard for mobilized units to travel. A source said that some Infantry Divisions were slowed down in their Schlieffen-esque invasion of France because they were waiting for their mobilized units to catch up... why they're travelling through (what it appears to be) fields rather than roads, I do not know. And yes, Nick, the latter part of the operational history section needs improving. I wasn't able to find a relevant book on Google Books that would let me read it (I have read Mitcham's books so much that I'm barred from them for over-reading), but using a different computer should do the trick. Thanks for telling me what I need to change; happy holidays.-- OsirisV ( talk) 17:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

HAve you got a copy of this ? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I own an e-book copy. Nick-D ( talk) 22:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you feel able to send it to me, for private study purposes only ? As you can imagine I like to try to keep up with Congo material, and the hardcopy hard cover is beyond my resources at the moment. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I'm afraid that I can't as it's a Kindle version and Amazon has strict (and very effective) DRM in place. Nick-D ( talk) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Nick-D for helping to promote Indian Ocean raid (1944) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 01:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Nick-D ( talk) 02:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied to your comments at the FAC. For what it's worth, I figured there would probably be issues with the article (though I couldn't see them) so I hope you will let me work on the article to fix up the issues you raised. (And I'm from Australia too). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I've watchlisted the review, but please feel free to also drop me a note when you'd like me to have another look at the article. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)