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.

Thanks for your look over of the article. It has now been 'tweaked' to conform to the preferred format. I'm hoping that this will improve the rating. Over the next few days I plan to revise several other 'Phantom Division' articles I've created. Graham1973 ( talk) 07:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

C class now - nice work. For B class, I think it would need little more information on the way in which the Allies included this fictitious division in their deception schemes. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As a matter of fact I didn't know there's a required quota for people voicing their support. I thought that it's pretty apparent that in this case all suggestions (both from Milhist assessment and from GA) have been taken into consideration and fixed, and that nobody else had any more troubles with the article (given the fact that it's been stable for the last 2 months and so was the A-class review discussion). Because of that I saw no need to spam random members of Milhist with requests for input. Apparently this was my mistake. Too bad, I've been waiting patiently for almost 2 months for someone to drop by. I shouldn't have apparently.

Could you tell me how many people need to add their comments for an article to be successfully assessed as A class? I couldn't find such info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment or in the FAQ. A link to a relevant rules page would do. Also, the A-review page informs, that it's perfectly ok to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied. The problem is that all outstanding objections have already been satisfied, yet you declared the article as failed. Does it mean I cannot renominate, as there is no way to fix what has already been fixed? Happy new year to you :) // Halibu tt 11:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that the article has been renominated. Nick-D ( talk) 06:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it isn't necessarily your interest but Wikimedians to the Games is an opportunity to help improve Australian content, with the possibility of covering Australians live at the Paralympic Games in London. If you are interested in participating, it would be really fantastic. :) You create awesome content. If you're not interested, we might still like you to help out as we're almost certainly going to be hosting a series of workshops and having you assist in a session about Good Articles or Featured Articles would be awesome. :) -- LauraHale ( talk) 02:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Laura, I'll look into it. Nick-D ( talk) 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for more input from you on this FAC. Thanks very much! — Ed! ^(talk) 15:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Added the info in, per your request. Take another look to see if this is what you had in mind. — Ed! ^(talk) 07:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For your outstanding work on Action of 28 January 1945, Operation Kita and Air raids on Japan, all of which were promoted to A-class between May 2011 and January 2012. EyeSerene talk 09:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D ( talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well deserved :) EyeSerene ^talk 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Any chance you might have a clue what this little vessel is? The photo was taken in June (but I've only just got around to uploading it, with the boat parked up the top of HMAS Waterhen (naval base). Looks a bit like a Fantome class survey motor boat, but shorter and bright orange. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Saberwyn, According to my reading of the ' Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World' (page 28), she's the antarctic survey launch Wyatt Earp - the photo of that boat looks the same, and it says that she's red. The hull number also seems the same from what can be seen. The book also says that the design was based on that of the Fantome class, so good ship recognition! I'd guess that she'd been landed at Waterhen while Aurora Australis was leased to the RAN - I took this photo of Aurora Australis docked at Sydney the day after you took that photo, so it all matches :) Wyatt Earp looks to be article-worthy of you'd like to do the honours BTW. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can put together. -- saberwyn 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related ship-spotting note, have another image. I know the big grey one is Tobruk ( :P ), but have I correctly identified the landing craft alongside as LCM-8s? -- saberwyn 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those look like LCM-8s to me as well. That's an interesting photo by the way. Nick-D ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking for photos and stumbled into your projects section, and that is why I thought of you when I found this interesting site on the USS Astoria CL 90. Below are a couple of pages. The photos are amazing.

http://mighty90.com/Operation_MIKE_I.html http://mighty90.com/Operation_GRATITUDE.html

Though you might have an interest.

Cheers. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 06:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - those are excellent photos. Nick-D ( talk) 07:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, sir. I was really just trying to lighten the mood with humor. Won't happen again.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries Mike. Nick-D ( talk) 10:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re your post at Milhist, if you've got any windmill photos to add to the various lists of windmills they would be appreciated. Many ship articles need images in their infoboxes. Mjroots ( talk) 14:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The only windmills I saw were from trains, unfortunately. Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you take a look at the FAC? I have done some work on the article, but wanted to direct you to a particular edit. In your comments, you stated that the reception section made views by single reviews seem generalised, so I've been working on that. Have been crazy busy the last week so I haven't finished as of yet, but you can see it at paragraphs one and two of the Reception section. Is that what you are looking for? Also, there's a few questions I left at the FAC. Could you take a look? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven, That's looking a lot better. I think that the 'reception' section still needs more work, but the article is on the right track. I've replied in the review, but could you please let me know when you've finished editing the article? Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Oh, um, are you able to strike the issues I've fixed. Just helps me keep track of what I still need to do. Thanks :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The only one which isn't addressed is the comment relating to the 'reception' section. Nick-D ( talk) 07:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Just as a question...I thought more users would've commented by now. Is the slowness normal, or do people wait for issues to be fixed before they bring up more? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly common now, I'm afraid, though an 'oppose' vote early in the process does slow things down even further. Nick-D ( talk) 09:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, my naive understanding of FAC is that opposes come with a list of reasons, and when they are addressed and corrected, it's not an oppose anymore.That's my understanding anyway. A bit of drama blew up in my face today, but I've finally cleared the backlog of wiki-tasks I had to do, so I'm relatively free to work on the reception section. I did notice the title of the article is a bit overused (ie in the lede). Do you think so too? Also, I'm assuming as a fictional article it'd be written in present tense, no? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 09:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In theory that's how it works, but a lot of people seem to prefer to not post any comments at all when there's an indication that the article might not meet the criteria (which strikes me as being disappointing: it seems more helpful to point out ways to improve the article than to leave the nominator without any feedback). The tag showing that the article is currently being restructured might also be putting people off. I think that the current tense used in the plot section is fine - the perspective should be (in my view) looking back on the plot after its concluded. Nick-D ( talk) 10:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I request that you unblock Trongphu after 24 hours so that he can participate in the AFD for Apache (Viet Cong soldier), where his comments led to the block. A block which coincidentally lasts past the end of the AFD? Without a warning first? Did you block those on the other side of the debate, who called him "Mein Fuhrer" as well as a communist, and said he needed to take meds for his insanity? (No, you just gave a warning). Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Edison ( talk) 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Edison, Given that I blocked Trongphu for his or her conduct in that AfD and they've made no commitment to stop this behavior on their talk page (quite the opposite, in fact, from my reading of it), I'm not going to unblock them. Trongphu had been blocked twice for similar conduct in the last few months, so it was most unlikely that a warning would have been effective in stopping their disruptive behaviour. In regards to Mike, as he does not appear to have any recent history of uncivil or disruptive conduct from what I could see from his talk page history and has never been blocked for any reason, I felt that a warning was appropriate and a block would have been excessive. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the block preventing Trongphu from participating in the AFD while the opposition poster, whose offenses were just as great, is allowed to continue participation. If Trongphu committed to remain civil, would that justify lifting the block, in your estimation? Thanks. Edison ( talk) 14:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That said, from his continued posts on his talk page, any commitment to civil discourse from Trongphu would be a departure. He does not seem to have calmed down at this point, so amendment of his postings to comply with this Wikipedia's standards is still just a development to be wished for. Edison ( talk) 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the event that Trongphu provided a convincing assurance to stop his or her disruption I'd have no problem with unblocking them (if another admin doesn't beat me to it). However, quite the opposite seems to be happening on their talk page at present... In regards to Mike, I thought that a block would have been unjustified given that he doesn't have a history of causing problems I could see, and I'm not aware of any provisions that allow admins to ban editors from participating in AfD discussions. Regards Nick-D ( talk) 06:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if there were a hypothetical editor who created articles, added refs to articles, and Wikignomed wonderfully, but was insulting and generally disruptive on AFD, we could topic ban him from AFD only. But that would require a long history of such behavior, which could not be corrected by lesser means. I note that you provided at the AFD an "Administrator comment: " Mike and Carrite, I think that what you're discussing here is beyond the scope of what can be resolved through an AfD. The only possible grounds for deleting this article are that 'Apache' isn't notable (per WP:BIO) or that this topic is an outright hoax invented by a Wikipedia editor." During the course of an AFD, you and I are just editors, and probably should not provide an "administrator opinion" which might unduly sway some other editors one way or the other. (I note that some editors would automatically !=vote the opposite way to what an identified admin points). Just provide the opinion ( a reasonable one in this case) without enhancing it by proclaiming admin status. Edison ( talk) 16:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the increasingly bad tempered too-and-fro on matters which were outside the scope or possible result of the AfD, which I think worked. Nick-D ( talk) 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It did, we got sidetracked on the details and it was going downhill. Maybe not all the time, but sometimes you have to throw a bucket of cold water on the 2 dogs to get them to stop growling at each other. It got to the point where I was posting emails I received from the author of 2 of the sources in question. Had Nick not intervened I'd probably still be filling out FOIA(Freedom of Information Act) Requests to see Service Record Books, 45 year-old Unit Diaries from FIRSTMARDIV, etc. For the record, what I said to trongphu was obviously meant to be humorous, he was ranting and getting over the top with 2 other admins that he had some history with [1]. When he answered that he cracked me up and I started to realize he wasn't as nutty as his posts appeared, so I started to read them closer, then he switched gears and was demanding that I answer a question and I did not know what he was talking about, [2] so i attempted to lighten it up with what I thought was an obvious joke. Sometimes I forget that not everyone laughs at the same things. When Nick gave me a warning, I backed off on trying to make jokes. After Nick's cool down of the AFD page, I made peace with the other editor that was challenging the source material: [3]. As for the communist thing, in his first post he said "author hates communists" and either there or on my talkpage he told me he was from North Vietnam. So I thought he was saying I hated him for being a communist. For the record, he should have raised concerns on the talkpage before running over to AFD. I thought that was the policy and if it's not, it should be. I could have spent the time wasted at AFD, wasted with emailing Charles Henderson about the details of Apache's notebook, wasted with debating with other editors over this with improving other articles. I have only had one run-in with an admin on here that was negative in the 5-6 years I've been at this, that involved said Admin threataming me with violence. He's no longer an admin or involved here and luckily for him he was just a tubby kid who lived 3000 miles away and was never any real threat. I'm glad those admins are rare on here, I know it is a tough job (I'm an Admin on a gun and knife forum with over 30,000 members!), but I am glad you guys are there to do it. The only thing worse are the ones who are little more than trained monkeys or Prussian kindergarten teachers who know nothing of judgement, discernment, or discretion. I have never had a run in with one like that, but have seen their actions and the resentment that they breed. A lot of Admins could take a lesson from Nick. For the record I've tried talking to trongphu, and was nothing but respectful, but he seems to be spiraling out worse with charges of racism and conspiracies [4]. Thanks again, Nick, you're one of the good ones.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. You might want to consider becoming an admin here given your experience on the huge gun and knife forum... Nick-D ( talk) 10:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For humane, fair dealing with obnoxious IPs and other good works. -- Djathinkimacowboy chase me thru the cemetery 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2. Moxy ( talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll post a peer review over this weekend. I'd suggest also approaching Anotherclown ( talk · contribs) for a review - he did great work in bringing Military history of Australia up to GA class. Nick-D ( talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D,

I've just completed an overhaul of the Vilyam G. Fisher article and have placed it in the WP:MILHIST assessment page while it is still on my subpage. Is there any chance that it can be moved from my subpage to the main article? Would like it to be assessed for B class, see if it meets GAN assessment and "Did You Know" assessment. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I'm not sure what you're after here. You can start the article yourself, by copying and pasting the content to Vilyam G. Fisher. I don't think that it can be assessed for GA class or as a DYK candidate until its 'gone live'. Nick-D ( talk) 05:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D ... It's now "gone live" at Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher from my sub userpage User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 1. It has been assessed as "B class". Would like to know how to get it assessed as GAN and "Did You Know". Adamdaley ( talk) 06:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, the instructions for requesting a GA assessment are at WP:GAN and the (complicated) process for nominating this for a DYK is outlined at WP:DYK#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page. The article is looking really good - nice work! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the time to bring Trongphu to ANI for a community review/warning/ban. He (according to his user page in Wiki-vi) is one of the most disruptive POV-pushers i have ever seen thus we need a stronger message to stop him.-- AM ^{( talk)} 07:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that he or she has now been blocked for an indefinite period and had their talk page access turned off, I don't think that's necessary unless they're creating accounts to attempt to circumvent the block. I think it's reasonable to say that Trongphu is effectively banned at present in that no admin in their right mind would unblock them given the nonsense on his or her talk page. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I've been keeping an eye on Sumatran Rhinoceros for a while (I've proposed a remerge) and notice that it was edited both by the now blocked User:Jackassman00 and the very similarly named User:Jackasskidzify. I thought best to ask you, as the blocking admin, to have a look -- CharlieDelta ( talk) 09:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just blocked Jackasskidzify as it does appear to be the same person. Thanks for the note. Nick-D ( talk) 09:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheCrecon

This person, as an IP, edited the Liberation of Paris (diff: [5] ), Siege of Budapest (diff: [6] ), Western Front (World War II) (diff: [7] ), and Saar Offensive (diff: [8] ) articles to include (or re-order) Polish flags. I reverted the edits as either inappropriate without talk page discussion or as incorrect in three of the above cases (no Polish participation).

-- Also introduced Polish flag into Battle of the Bulge, another battle where the Poles were not present. (diff: [9] )

And on it goes -- now [10]. This may have 'some' validity if Polish naval vessels were present in the invasion force. But to claim Liberation of Paris, Battle of the Bulge, etc. -- the lily is truly being gilded.

Now, Crecon has reverted again, willfully introducing false information. I like to believe that most cases can be resolved with discussion, but this isn't IMO about someone is simply mistaken; it is a small crusade of the sort that distracts serious editors. Would appreciate any assistance, thanks. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just blocked them for being a disruption-only account. They should have been blocked after the hoax article they created in their first period of editing in November was deleted. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Please note this user was also apparently editing under the IP address 86.171.30.171. I'll raise a flag if I see that address making questionable edits. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is someone using BT networks out of the U.K. -- this diff: [11] -- I will just starting reverting these without concern as the IP can access from multiple addresses. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if they keep coming back and I'll semi-protect the relevant pages. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:31, 16 January 2012 (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 October-December 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 ( talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not finalising my comments on the ACR for Battle of Arawe, real life ended up catching up with me. Glad to see it got promoted nonetheless. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all. I'm planning to nominate this for a FAC in the next week or so. Nick-D ( talk) 09:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I've noted that User 72.89.70.98 is making, well, a lot of changes to milhist articles. Many, if not most, seem to be in good faith. But the user apparently has a habit (see the talk page here) of making some problematic assertions in articles. One example is in the Battle of Debrecen article. There is a citation from Erickson's Stalingrad to Berlin stating the Soviets arrived near the city of Budapest on 4 November 1944. 72.89.70.98 has twice changed this to read 7 November even after I pointed out there was a citation for this material. And this leads to the real problem -- this IP doesn't communicate at all from what I can see. Almost like a bot -- makes changes and moves to the next article; may or may not re-revert if an edit of his gets changed; and does not reply on his talk page. The IP has gotten plenty of "impending block" warnings and at least one short block, but unless the IP is communicating by means not readily visible, there has been no real change in his behavior. I'd be happy to change the Debrecen article's date -- IF the IP would try talking and present other sources. As it is, I have to wonder about the other changes to factual information this editor may be making. Wikipedia seems to have mostly assumed good faith for two and a half years now, but the IP is showing little in return other that many of his edits appear to be harmless. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 04:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, From a random sample of that editor's recent edits, most seem to be entirely uncontroversial (and helpful) tweaks to wording or changes to uncited material. However, I do see your point. Given that IP editors can't watchlist articles, they might not have seen your edit summary - I'd suggest leaving a message on their talk page to direct them to it. I've left them a message asking that they start using edit summaries, though I fear that it may not be successful. Nick-D ( talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I didnt research closely the stubs I was tagging last night - cheers for the delete of the dubious Satu Suro 12:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ta again!! aways reassuring to have other watchingoverthe shoulder ! Satu Suro 06:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D ( talk) 06:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale ( talk) 01:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Laura Nick-D ( talk) 01:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look and see if there are still issues you've raised I've not sufficiently addressed? Feel free to strike down anything that was fixed. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Nick-D ( talk) 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, at this FAC, Nikki has picked up the inconsistency in Allen & Unwin publishing locations, i.e. North Sydney for Coulthard-Clark's Third Brother, and Sydney for Johnston's Whispering Death. A&U often seems to alternate between N. Sydney, St Leonards and Crows Nest, but admittedly I've never seen Sydney alone for them -- can you double-check your copy since you were kind enough to add this ref? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I've replied there. I use 'Sydney' for A&E as it's simplest given their somewhat eccentric practice in this regards and is normally one of the options in the books. Nick-D ( talk) 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tks mate, I agree Sydney would be simplest for the reason you say, but I guess I'll carry on as I've begun and use the exact spot like I usually do... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I have nominated for A-class like you suggested. Thanks for the kind words regarding the article. — Cliftonian  (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I enjoyed reading the article. Nick-D ( talk) 10:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick - there is something strange going on with this article's talk page - it reflects the GA review instead of the standard talk template. Can you take a look please? And I agree - I read this article a week ago and found it to be a very well written and solid article! Farawayman ( talk) 16:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:7 Independent Company (Rhodesia) looks fine to me. It's only content is the tags for GA status and two Wikiprojects and the transcluded GA review. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Ohio class submarines. -- Sp33dyphil © ^hat _ontributions 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

		2011 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "the broad range of his quality articles, including air, land and sea engagements, biographies, and unit histories", I award you this Bronze Wiki.   Roger Davies talk 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well done Nick,   Roger Davies ^talk 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Nick. Your contributions the past year have been excellent and your involvement as a co-ord has helped keep the Military history project heading in the right direction. I feel humbled to have got the Golden Wiki, but I feel it could easily have gone to others such as yourself. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, congrats Nick for making it an Aussie clean sweep. Everyone in the project will now have to observe Anzac Day and answer to the name Bruce... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, Nick! You earned it. Binksternet ( talk) 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot everyone. Nick-D ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats Nick, you deserve it. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm so happy for you -- you definitely deserve it :) -- Sp33dyphil © ^hat _ontributions 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D,

Thanks for the award. It was unexpected. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick. You may wish to comment on a talk page note I posted about the format for commanders and leaders in the info box for the Western Front World War II article, link is: Talk:Western Front (World War II). Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 09:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D - I have reversed you book deletion in the History war. There are several reasons: firstly the book is not a source to the article, merely a suggestion to further reading (this indeed is the group in which it is placed you will note). Besides this is a suggestion strongly recommended by one side in this debate - two major contributors to the history way debate - professor Stuart Mcintyre and Dr Raymond Evans. May I remind you that none of us are supposed to go about cherry picking books and deleting those we do not personally like. The allegation needs to be properly tested if you are in doubt and you have taken no steps in that direction. As far as I have noted your only argument is that it is self-published (which may be the case - I do not know) but so is Keith Windschuttle's (Windschuttle, Keith (2002). The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847. Sydney: Macleay Press. ISBN  1-876492-05-8). Mclay press is his own business and it publishes mainly his own work. Besides he does not even possess a masters degree in history - so if that is you criteria your have more work to do, but you will certainly get yourself in trouble.Helsned 01:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly true ;) Nick-D ( talk) 05:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Next time I hope you block yourself. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't do that again. Nick-D ( talk) 09:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• G'day~! I'm lovin' it~?!? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• That means it'll be even more hilarious when you do it again! Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, as you know I've been working on Colonial forces of Australia for sometime now. It's taking a lot longer than I'd hoped as there was so much uncited content contributed by the original editor. As I've gone through it I've become concerned that some of the original text might be a copyright violation. The part that concerns me is in the Queensland section of the article. If you compare it with this from the AWM [12], some of it seems word for word. I'm not yet in a position to rewrite the Queensland section. I'm just wondering, though, if it is possible that the AWM copied the Wiki article. Is it possible to find out which came first somehow? It seems that the Queensland material was added with these diffs: [13], [14] and [15]. Sorry to bring this to you. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, While there doesn't appear to be any way of telling when the AWM added that text, it's a pretty safe bet that this was taken from the AWM's website rather than vice-versa. There was a lot of that going on before Wikipedia got serious about enforcing copyright, and I've never seen any instances of the AWM taking text from Wikipedia (which seems fairly unlikely given that doing so would probably be considered serious misconduct for their staff of professional historians and curators). The AWM has had detailed descriptions of items in its collections database for as long as I can remember as well. Nick-D ( talk) 10:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my take, too, but I was hoping that I was wrong. I will try to rewrite it tonight but I don't have much to work with in the way of sources for that section at the moment. Not sure I have the time, either, as the wife will kick me off the internet soon. I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed. Seems like most of my work is tainted now. I'd been thinking of putting it up for GA when I finally finished it. I don't think that that would be a good idea now. Thanks for your advice, though, I appreciate it. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just spot-checked much of the article by copying randomly selected chunks of it into Google, and the only problem I found was a small amount of text taken from this AWM item in the section on Victoria (all the other results were Wikipedia mirrors and this guy's decision to re-use the entire article on the defences on Hobart). As such, I don't think that this is a barrier to GA status. Items in the AWM database show up in Google searches and searches of the AWM's website, so you can easily check any suspicious-looking text. Given how old the copyvios seem to be and the extend of your re-write things should be fine. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I think I've gotten those bits cleaned up now. Please let me know if you spot anything else. I have ordered a book on Tasmania's military force, so hopefully will be able to get to work on that in the next few days, work permitting. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've apologised to you here. But while I'm at it, I'll apologise here as well: sorry it's taking me so long. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all - there's no need to apologise :) Nick-D ( talk) 06:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, your action seems fair enough to me. Sometimes we do things which we wonder are a bit silly or really silly!! Cheers Crusoe8181 ( talk) 09:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. As I said elsewhere, I hope that enough references appear on this man for him to meet the requirements of WP:N sometime in the future. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep a redirect seems appropriate to me too. In all liklihood some time in the not too distant future more details will come to light about this bloke, including his identity, but until then it is sufficiently covered where it is. Anotherclown ( talk) 13:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How sad. But in the current circumstances, what else could you do? (I agree with all of the above comments.) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick

User:RoslynSKP is deleting articles from the Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine. I replaced the blue linked articles but he has deleted them again. See history here [16]. Can you offer some words of advice. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim, that looks like a content dispute to me. I've protected the template as this seems to have been going on for a while, and will comment on its talk page. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Having been around the area around the time of bahamut's passing, and having pushed to have posthumous awards planted directly on his userpage (see the page's history and discussion link where I talked about the idea with MRG), I have to say that this made me smile when I decided to make a return visit today. However, the order is now mixed up; the earliest award is presented in the middle between two later awards. Can I recommend organizing them by date? I might recommend putting the WikiChevrons on top; undoubtedly it's the highest award of the three and he would have been proud to have it. I'd make this change myself, but clearly, MRG had to remove protection temporarily to allow me to make the change I originally made; that is, I'm not an admin. and can't do it now either. Also, while it's a minor thing, given the posthumous nature of the user page, I also changed the date presentation format on the other two awards when moving them there; it's up to your call, but all three should match I think. Frankly, I don't even think the dates and times should be necessary in this case, but that's just my personal feeling and not one I attempted to enforce. CycloneGU ( talk) 03:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cyclone, Those are very good suggestions. I've just reorganised the awards by date (so they run from oldest to newest per the normal way things are presented on Wikipedia) and tweaked the date presentation format. The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves is arguably the most prestigious of the three awards, but I think that the chronology of them might mean more to his friends and family. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello mate, I would have a small request concerning your admin position. This man, the chief of Romania's Foreign Intelligence Service has been appointed to occupy the newly vacant PM position. As I wish to overhaul/expand its wiki article and I fear intrusion from elements of that particular service, could you please protect it for a short period? Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eurocopter. Pre-emptive article protection is only used in unusual circumstances where it can be safely assumed that there will be extensive disruption of the article. In almost all circumstances it's only used once there has actually been serious disruption (please see WP:NO-PREEMPT). From looking at the article's history, I can't see anything which justifies full or semi-protection at present I'm afraid. I'd suggest posting at WP:RPP if problems do arise though - I'm in totally the wrong time zone to respond quickly! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm reviewing your nomination. All looks good - just a couple of questions at Talk:Attack on Yokosuka/GA1. (I know from the past that military articles have determined certain sites to be reliable, so probably this is the case here.)

Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just one more question on the review page. MathewTownsend ( talk) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! A very fine article. Best, MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Nick-D ( talk) 22:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've completed all your comments. Please do check that a) I've not missed any and b) there's nothing we disagree on that is truly egregious and would stand in the way of you now supporting the candidacy. I hope you'll agree that we're not intransigent... in fact, we're truly grateful for the comments. Every change we've made has been done because we agree it improves the article, not because we're desperately looking for a support. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll check the article tomorrow and and reply in the review. You certainly don't need to agree with everything I suggested - I've had some significant disagreements with reviewers of some of the articles I've nominated for FA status! (while also agreeing that their comments led to important improvements to the article). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 11:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Australian Military Forces Australian Strategic Policy Institute The Northern Standard Northern Command (Australia) Karpaty Army 46th Infantry Division (United States) Tuareg Rebellion (2011–present) Battle of Sagami Bay 26th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) Campbell Barracks (Australia) Intelligent Life (magazine) Twenty-First Army (Japan) Woodside Barracks Victoria Barracks, Sydney 3rd Infantry Brigade (South Africa) Robertson Barracks Palinurus (genus) 11th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom) Potassium chromate

Cleanup Iraq War President of the Philippines History of the Australian Army Merge Bendix Aviation History of Indigenous Australians Task Force 44 Add Sources II Corps (United States) Weaponry of the Australian Army Military reserve Wikify Operation Grand Slam Military of Lesotho Guy Hartcup Expand Formations of the United States Army (current) Loveland High School (Ohio) Ceylon Mounted Rifles

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me, and i have learned a lesson-not to Vandalize Wikipedia.Thank you Typhoonwikihelper ( talk) 11:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D,

By now you know I don't try and cause problems on the english wikipedia. You are probably aware by now that the article Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher was changed to Vilyam Fisher, now the article may appear to be his full name, in fact in the GAN assessment it is under Vilyam Fisher. I feel that the article should reflect "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" even in the GAN assessment toolserver section. I am asking you if you would be willing to change it back to his full name because there is no Revision ID on "Vilyam Fisher", and I believe it would appear as "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" would show the Revision ID. It would be appreciated and I hope I have done my job as Coordinator to the best I could in your opinion of me. Once again it would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, If the article has changed its name since the GA assessment, it would be totally uncontroversial for you to update the various GA listings to reflect this - there's no need for an uninvolved editor to manage this. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alex79818 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.139.249.234 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Alex is back carrying on from where he left off before. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818 regarding the WP:DUCK test. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've left a note earlier on " User talk:Elockid#Recurring vandal?" but no news so far. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked that account. Nick-D ( talk) 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Monitor (warship)
2. River monitor

• Nick, think I might need your help here. Thoughts? -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dave, It might be best to ask for opinions on this at WT:SHIPS as there's lots of experts on ship types and naming conventions there (you could also post a notification at WT:MILHIST). I don't really know enough about this topic to be able to make an informed and useful comment on the merge proposal. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick, will do. Enjoy your vacation, best and out. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, still have a diagram of the WP vs. MilHist assessment streams to upload but if you're available for a minute and can have a look in Feb's newsroom, I welcome comments (on my talk page I guess, so as to leave comments at the bottom of the page itself until after publishing the issue). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for feedback. "The Battle of Arawe occurred during the New Britain Campaign of World War II and was fought between Allied and Japanese forces." The odds are better than 50/50 that no one at FAC will complain about that, but most working copyeditors would prefer something like "The Battle of Arawe, part of the the New Britain Campaign of World War II, was fought between Allied and Japanese forces." When I consider publishing standards to vary a little from FAC standards, would you rather I choose something that I think will satisfy both and make the edit, or should I talk about it in the FAC, or leave it alone? - Dank ( push to talk) 21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer leaving it as-is. The wording was requested as part of the article's A class review, and I think that it's clear. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 06:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear. Sure thing. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, when you get a chance could you please take a look at this thread on the WW2 Casualties talk page [17] -- Woogie10w ( talk) 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks-- Woogie10w ( talk) 20:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that your reverts of additions of useful references by Crowish are wrong. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] If you think Crowish is violating some kind of policy by helping readers find the original news coverage, you could take the case to WP:AN/I, but I think that (s)he would have a better case against you - see WP:WIKIHOUND. Also WP:RECENTISM might deserve some thought. Wnt ( talk) 16:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Nick is not hounding Crowish. Please read the definition on the page: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." There's no reason to jump to negative assertions, especially when they have no basis in reality. Also, RECENTISM doesn't mean what you think it does - read the nutshell blurb at the top of the page. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing outdated and probably POV videos from the first paragraph of encyclopedia articles is not "wikihounding". - Dank ( push to talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted by Parsecboy and Dank, reverting a small proportion of an editor's changes on one occasion while explaining why I did so on their talk page (in which I referred to the relevant policies and suggested a better way to include this material) obviously isn't 'hounding', and your use of this term suggests that you either haven't read this policy or are trying to intimidate me by accusing me of harassment (something which is a very serious matter to raise against anyone, in any circumstances). I'd normally be willing to discuss the other issues you raise, on which I acknowledge that there are differing views, but I'm not going to do so given the offensive nature of your comments about me here and elsewhere. Nick-D ( talk) 06:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll review my comments, but I don't think I'm misreading the policy. Here I didn't say this is "wikihounding" with certainty, but "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This is an editor who clearly has a project in mind of adding historical references from an archive, and following all those edits around and reverting them definitely is causing distress. If you were fixing vandalism or some other policy violation I could see it, but there's no policy against this! Your essay User:Nick-D/reviews seems to admit as much. So there's no justification for following her around, and every reason to just leave her alone while you use her edits - unreverted - as examples of why you think people ought to adopt your essay as a new editing guideline.

To be clear, I could see you reverting her edits if she added new, contentious facts based solely on old wartime newsreels. But those diffs show you reverting her addition of pure references with no text at all! When I have a sentence with three references after it, that doesn't mean that every fact in that sentence is in each of the three references; it means, one or another documents each fact in the sentence. And original news coverage with relevant footage is something important. Wnt ( talk) 15:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Nick-D/reviews is a partially complete opinion article intended for the next edition of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle (if you look at the article's history you can see that this is where I normally draft content for The Bugle). I have no idea why you think it's an attempt to develop a guideline given that the draft clearly identifies it as being my opinion and acknowledges that other opinions exist. Your continued accusations of bad faith and failure to retract your patently false claim of 'houding' are rather offensive. Nick-D ( talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if this is just opinion, then you're saying you have no real basis to revert those edits at all. So why revert one editor for those edits in six different articles? Wnt ( talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You keep throwing around accusations of extraordinary bad faith (ignoring posts made by myself and others in relation to this), and I'm not going to waste my time responding to them. If you really think that I've deliberately done the wrong thing as part of some kind of agenda, take me to WP:ANI but beware the likely WP:BOOMERANG effect. Nick-D ( talk) 23:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Messages for ya here. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nick, while you are looking at this article, could you check its DYK nomination for me? It is filed under February 15 at T:TDYK Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 05:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm very pleased to see that the DYK reviewing procedure has reverted to its old format as well. Nick-D ( talk) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro Duta FC‎‎ and PS Barito Putera‎‎ - both have had no one watching or warning and close to physical and rather torrid threats - If you are not interested in entering into Indonesian soccer wars (I consider hundreds and hundreds of edits to be so WP:NOT that I usually give up before I start) - could you side swipe it all to a relevant noticeboard - please? otherwise I would say that they need some blocks or serious warnings if you are willing Satu Suro 05:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodness me, that's some serious edit warfare! I've protected both articles for a week (and, for my sins, watchlisted them so I can follow up on any further edit warring) and blocked Kumpayada ( talk · contribs). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 05:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just take care - some of that editing shows no understanding of what wikipedia is - the tendency for non-english speakers to feel some impulsive (or is it compulsive) need to inhabit english wikipedia with wp:not material about Indonesian soccer escapes me completely despite my low level linguistic comprehension and capacity in their national language - the Indonesia/soccer interface has a smell (in arabic or indonesian nafas) of predominately invented non-native english grammar and usage, overlinking, overcapitalisation, and overtabled flagcruft - but I have never checked it against other country material to see if it is unique to that particular interface or not.. it is all a bit too much for mere mortals.... Satu Suro 07:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've also blocked an IP account who I noticed was making death threats(!) against another editor... Nick-D ( talk) 09:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian soccer articles I have on watch (too many I assure you) make me realise I should have become an admin about 2 or 3 years ago when some suggested the idea - there are blockable edit wars everywhere - I am wondering whether a RFC might be an idea? I would need support perhaps... Satu Suro 12:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was wondering if I could keep the username. I'm planning on being an administrator soon and will need to change it back. Id rather just save time. -- AdministratorX ( talk) 22:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No defiantly not. The only reason you were unblocked was that you'd agreed to change your user name. Please apply for this immediately. Nick-D ( talk) 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion? Also, you spelled definitely wrong.-- AdministratorX ( talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you may not keep the username. Your options are to change it, or be blocked again. There's your second opinion. Parsecboy ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I disabled his talk page access after the three unblock requests (and also, surprise! He's a sock). Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Nick-D ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/112/Promoted for me? I created it by accident and can't get rid of it :( Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, cheers. Nick-D ( talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For Protecting PS Barito Putera and Pro Duta FC despite you are Blocking my Account for 3 Days Kumpayada ( talk) 08:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but please note that the articles were protected to allow for dispute resolution, and not in response to vandalism. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. All updated except for one (the Aubers Ridge query) which is going to involve a bit more research, I'm afraid... Shimgray | talk | 22:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[23] You think there is solid enough sourcing to start an article on this? Cla68 ( talk) 11:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably, though you'd be hard pressed getting beyond a stub as the news sources are (so far) based only on a small number of documents. Nick-D ( talk) 06:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick,

Can I beg a favour, could you stroll by Talk:Falkland Islands and tell me if some of the behaviours on there remind you of anyone?

Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a hint? I'm not going to read through those huge threads in the hope of winning spot the sockpuppet! (I don't have this article watchlisted). Going straight to WP:SPI might be better still (feel free to drop me a line if you do so). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid being too explicit, Alex79818. You blocked his IP address six months ago, six months later an editor who hasn't edited for 2 yesars suddenly turns up with lots of tendentious argument, singling me out for personal attention and mockery. Seems a bit of a co-incidence - my spidy sense started tingling. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's who I guessed was the editor. However, what current account are you concerned about? As I said, I'm not going to go through that discussion in search of this guy's new accounts. Nick-D ( talk) 11:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, I was holding off on a SPI check for a second opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I can see some strong similarities, but that account has been active since 2007 so I think that this should go to a formal WP:SPI report as it isn't simple block evasion. A technical check against Alex's other socks would be particularly helpful, and fresh eyes on the behavioral evidence wouldn't hurt. Please let me know when you post this report, and I'll post a recommendation that checks be conducted. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Drafted here, could you give it the once over. I don't want to make the same mistakes I did the last time. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• WCM, sorry for the late reply, I made some checks after reading your email and noted that there is indeed some strong similarities. Well, I'm glad that you've approached Nick for help while I was away and couldn't back you up on this. Let's see what happens next. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• • WCM that looks good to me. Nick-D ( talk) 07:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818, thanks for your advice. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail, no need to respond. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, a few months ago, I translated your Featured Article Operation Kita which an other user put up for candidateship in the german Wikipedia two weeks ago. As you are the main author I want to let you know, that the article reached the status Lesenswert which is equivalent to a Good Article here. If you want, you can add this Icon to your users page because the base article is your work. Best regards -- Bomzibar ( talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent! Thank you for letting me know. Nick-D ( talk) 07:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sehr gut, mein freund! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Got a reply back from Roger Lee of the Army History Unit. He says that the intention is that it will all go back up again, but they only have one reservist to do the work. If you want something in a hurry he can expedite it. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for contacting him - that's good news. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D

Talk:22nd Air Refueling Squadron

The above talkpage is a duplicate and has been marked for deletion. While 5 hours later, nothing has been done. This talkpage falls under the duplication page in the "B-class" assessment in our WikiProject. That is why I marked it for deletion and assessed the real talkpage for "B-class". Would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 12:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Addshore ( talk · contribs) has turned it into a redirect, which seems sensible. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 01:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I had the opportunity to visit the museum a few weeks ago. I can share my impression of the museum if you want MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes please: I'd be really interested in what you thought of it. Nick-D ( talk) 01:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I gladly try to give you my impression of the museum. Before I start getting into the details please excuse that I may not find the appropriate English words, limiting communication to pure text is an art that I have yet to master, especially in a foreign language. As a side note, the trip to Dresden was actually my second visit of the city in my life. A year ago my family and I visited Dresden during the Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag. Back then we focused very much on the events of the Kirchentag and we didn't get do much sightseeing. This year I went with a few friends, actually we go on a history tour about once or twice every year. We had spent an entire day at the museum this year and we were all positively impressed. As you know, if you expect to see a large collection of military equipment or weapons, then you may feel disappointed. If this is what you want to see you should go to Bastogne in Belgium. The museum in Dresden focuses on the history of military in Germany. I would call the presentation almost artistic with a very clear educational objective. The educational message is supported by exhibits but I felt that the exhibits are only a means to transport the educational message and are not self-sustaining. Do you share this view? Unlike you, I had no problem what so ever taking pictures. Unfortunately I was focused on the exhibits and reading all the time thus I failed to take many pictures. I found the setting in Dresden, remember Dresden was one of the military schools centers in Germany true to the motto "Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria", very appropriate. The two World Wars of the last century did not get as much exposure as I would have expected. Typical for a German museum and as a matter of German society as a whole is the level of exposure the crimes of the Wehrmacht got, however without the normal finger pointing, and the Wiederstand. What I truly liked were the small biographies next to the exhibits. This made war personal and not abstract. What struck out to me was one exhibit of a NVA safe full of medals for the event of an East versus West conflict. Later more! MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I found that the exhibitions were used mainly to communicate a message. As you say, none of the individual exhibits are important in their own right, but I found the way in which they were used to be extremely well done. It's a very different approach to what most military museums take. Nick-D ( talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, this AfD (which - full disclosure) I listed, has been relisted because it doesn't have enough opinions. Would you like to give your thoughts either way? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(Prompted by these edits: [24] [25]) I thought he'd been promoted to Sergeant, but I can't find any evidence. What did/do you think? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. "Sorry pdfpdf, but he hasn't" is an acceptable response. (If it is accurate!) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea I'm afraid. Mark Donaldson was promoted a while ago, but I don't know if Roberts-Smith has been. Nick-D ( talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ta. Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Can you review the remaining unreviewed articles I nominated about Australian water polo players? (I think there are two at this point.) They have been sitting for a while unreviewed. :( -- LauraHale ( talk) 04:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not more water polo on the front page! Seriously though, I'd be happy to. Can you please provide links to the nominations though? Regards,

I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Turner (water polo). Another editor has put their hand up to review the Isobel Bishop article. Nick-D ( talk) 10:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Evans (brigadier) is "Brigadier Sir Bernard Evans D.S.O., E.D., C.A.V. (13 May 1905 – 19 February 1981)".
I have no problem with the DSO, the ED, (or the KtB!) But I can't track down what "C.A.V." is.
Can you help, please? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know I'm afraid. Nick-D ( talk) 06:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions about how I might go about tracking it down? Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll post on one of the MilHist pages. If you have some suggestions, I'd appreciate reading them. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your post on 9 March. I have very little knowledge of the honours system, so I wouldn't even know where to start with this stuff (I'm amusing that you've already checked www.itsanhonour.gov.au and any British equivalents). Nick-D ( talk) 06:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh well. Yes, I'd tried many options.

In the end I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#C.A.V.? and got a couple of very helpful answers.

Sorry to bother you, and thanks for your help. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick,

[26] I'm rapidly tiring of the personal attacks but I held my temper. I may be a cantankerous old git but I am not a liar. I'll be cross-posting this at Bushranger's talk page.

Regards Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker)I held out good faith for as long as I could, but his "I'm not Alex" arguments just more and more proved the point that he was. Between the deafening quacking and the increasing personal attacks, I've blocked him. If Nick feels otherwise, though, I'm open to a trout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nah... I'll stand in for him and give you a kiss instead~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bushranger - that's a good block. I thought that it was pretty obvious that this was Alex (yet again), but that another admin needed to verify it given that I've been involved in several other blocks of this guy. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

G'day Nick! I've decided I need to get back into article work (it's too easy to get sucked into chasing nutters around and clearing ever-renewing backlogs and momentarily forget what I'm really here for!), and thought I'd start with some low-hanging fruit in the form of a project I left not quite finished a while ago. So I was hoping you could clarify your comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Field Marshals of the British Army—is the issue that all the data comes from one book, that I only put the reference at the start of the table rather than after each entry, or something else? It's been a while so I've all but forgotten the ACR. It would be nice to get the article through a second attempt, but lists really aren't my speciality, so any advice you could offer would be appreciated. :) Cheers mate, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harry, My concern in that review was that you'd cited a single range of six pages for all the FMs. I think that the specific page should be cited for each FM's entry. This will be a bit tedious to do, but I think that its needed for A class lists. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tedious, but not especially difficult—I've got the book on my bookcase. Is there anything else you think might be a problem in a second ACR? Ta, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's my only concern about the article. The cartoonish drawing of King Birendra of Nepal isn't great though and I'd suggest removing it. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Nick. I'm not sure where that image came from—I thin it arrived one day as a replacement for an image that was deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1‎. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for your feedback at the article's FAC review. Have just spent a few hours reviewing the text and making some changes, but wondered if you could clarify a few things for me. I've dealt with pretty much everything you mention, but commented under the issues I was unsure about. Thanks again for the review. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 17:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll take a look at it over the course of the day. I can work on it for an hour or so now then should be able to finish the rest this evening. Cheers Paul MacDermott ( talk) 11:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, everything done now. Have also added one or two new things I found. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 22:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Admin, if i violated the 1RR rule, you would ban me. As that is my unblock condition. The user wiqi55 has violated the 1rr rule he is under. i am also under this rule. if i had violated the 1rr rule, admins would ban me straight away. In all fairness, i hope that if it happens that i somehow break the 1rr rule, then i should be shown leniency like wiqi55. if not then wiqi55 should be banned indefinitely NOW for breaking the 1rr rule! (he was already warned once for breaking it by PassaMethod). I hope for some consistency from mods.

Thank you for your time-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Al-Andalusi_not_participating_to_resolve_conflict_.28on_purpose_in_my_opinion.29

Some help. Please can you tell me how i can make this image appear on my user page? and any other images on google http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/516021/671077.jpg Thanks in advance -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 00:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia software doesn't allow externally published images to appear within pages. Nick-D ( talk) 06:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nick,
I am wondering if you still have an interest in converting the WWII article into the A-class article. Do you think we can implement the changes we already discussed (Ethiopia, Spain, Soviet Union, etc)? I think before moving further, we need to finish with that.
Regards, -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul, Yes I am. I've just gotten caught up in other things for the last week or so :) Nick-D ( talk) 06:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made major changes. Please re-review the article. -- SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you'd be willing to help with a peer review that I have open? It's outside your usual area of editing, but on the plus side it's only 1500 words or so. No problem if you're busy though, I know you do a lot around here. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I'd be happy to do so. I'll post some comments over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 06:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. We're only allowed one open peer review at a time, so that's a bit of a bottleneck at the moment. Mark Arsten ( talk) 14:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the peer review, I've been trying to make a point to get a lot of input before going to FAC with articles--I'm glad I sought out your advice in this case. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy to have been of assistance. Nick-D ( talk) 22:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

[27] Deja vu, especially if you look at [28]. Another dormant account springing up to edit Falkland Islands topics. Am I getting paranoid? Copied to User:The Bushranger. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake: that's pretty blatant socking. Blocked. Nick-D ( talk) 06:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I've created File:Allied naval operations off Japan during July and August 1945.svg: I wonder what you make of it? I've stripped out some of the elements, which I could transfer from the original if you'd like, but I thought the simplified approach would be the best start. The red/black colours aren't perfect, I don't think, but I couldn't think of another way to rid it of the little aircraft symbols. Otherwise, it's over to you. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 22:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent, and a big improvement over the original. My only suggestion for an improvement is that 'Honsu' should be 'Honshu'. Thanks a lot for this - I'll add it to the article now. Nick-D ( talk) 07:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nom for further improvement. Please discuss in the talk page of the article and give your suggestions. -- SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Opened a peer review. -- SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• See 1961 Indian annexation of Goa (incidentally a favourite haunt of the not-so-great-one-but-got-banned-anyway), this XavierGreen returns to WP:CPUSH about his so-called violation of NPOV for the article page name when we've already discussed it umpteen times on the talk page. Some people just refuse to get the point that there is no consensus~! *sigh...* -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the article's talk page.

I'm contacting everyone that participated in the last one, which ended earlier this month, to inform them of the new one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 13:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I do not know very well all this 'wikilaws' (i should take a PhD in wikilaws, it seems), but i find really questionable (to say the least!) that the Hunter article, just today recon as 'valid' and therefore 'keep', is now already questioned and its sources challenged and deleted, while Citation Need are popping everywere [29] (with the not even well couvered intention to cut the article and merge it soon or before, despite the result of the 3 deletion request already made). I was not already sickened enough about the mistake to open a new article in wikipedia aviation project, then? I held the breath for weeks seeing the outcome of the voting/request of deletion and whetever (used kidding the rules, actually). The discussion continues here [30], for who are interestend. But let me say that this history is going really too far for my breath capability.. Cheers Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look at my edits and let me know if they've satisfactorily addressed your concerns? Palm_Dogg ( talk) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at the nom. Poster is from Manila, Philippines, as noted at the LOC. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your vote. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 06:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The text of the following link, is my contribution of text to the article that you have proposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces#Military_history_of_Norway_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_.282001.E2.80.93present.29. -- Tumorlenk ( talk) 15:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't modify your block (especially since the M2 hasn't appealed it), but I do ask you to reconsider the duration, perhaps reduce to 1 month. After reading the contribution history, the talk page comments that led to the block, and the comments from others in support of this editor, I agree with them that this incident doesn't rise to the level of an infraction that warrants a resumption of an indef block. M2's talk page conduct has been generally civil considering the contentious topics he participates in. As for articles, this editor has contributed some excellent well-researched ones. It would be a shame to lose future similar contributions, especially when he seems quite aware that his activity is under intense scrutiny by me and other admins. I don't disagree with the block, but I think the duration deserves some consideration in this case. Thanks. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He or she's has already been indef blocked twice (the second time by me), and rapidly broke the unblock conditions they agreed to to have their first indef block lifted and have now done the same with the conditions for their second indef block, so I don't think that it's appropriate to give them a time-limited block. Misconceptions2 actually clearly broke their latest unblock conditions last week by lodging an ANI report about an eight-month old dispute demanding that admins sanction the other editor they were involved with (instead of him or her starting a new discussion about this long-dormant disagreement) - I warned them about this ( [31] [32]), so this isn't a bolt out of the blue. I think that there are some underlying WP:COMPETENCE-type issues here. Nick-D ( talk) 21:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nick. I have received an email from Gaba p in connection with a block that you imposed. The user is asking to be unblocked, and, although I previously declined an unblock request, I am wondering whether to unblock this time. I have posted a note about this at User talk:Gaba p#Proposal to reconsider block, and I would be grateful for your thoughts on the matter. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have also emailed you concerning this. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the email; I've replied to you. Nick-D ( talk) 23:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Your email helps a good deal. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, since you peer reviewed this article for me a while back, I thought I'd let you know that it's currently at FAC. It's kind of funny that you nominated what is currently the longest article at FAC and I, the shortest. Any feedback would be appreciated if you have time/are interested. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll comment on the review. I've decided that the next article I take to FAC will be short! Nick-D ( talk) 06:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Public domain newsreels". Thank you. Crowish ( talk) 13:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Nick-D ( talk) 22:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, was just passin' thru and noticed you didn't sign your comments there. I hate those "preceding unsigned comment..." thingies so thought I'd mention it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. My browser isn't always adding the signature when I hit the ~~~~ button at the moment for some reason. Nick-D ( talk) 10:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

[33] Remind you of WP:BEANS? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously. Blocked. Nick-D ( talk) 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

[34] Persistent isn't he. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Nick-D ( talk) 23:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello , Please help me and give your opinion ,

• There are 4 sources for Bilal ibn Rabah al-Habashi ( a mystic in early Islam years 580-640 CE):

1. Encyclopaedia of Islam , here
2. Encyclopaedia Islamica , here , Persian
3. An encyclopedia :Medieval Islamic Civilization , here

and

1. Ali Shariati

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) , I think Ali Shariati is not reliable source for history ( he educated sociology , not history and he don't have book about history ),but others ( number 1 to 3) are reliable sources. Am I right? Delarama ( talk) 05:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Shariati worked academically in sociology of religion, which relates reasonably strongly to Bilal's claim to importance, so it depends on what Shariati text is being used to claim what about Bilal. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea I'm afraid. I'd suggest asking at WP:RSN. Nick-D ( talk) 06:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the current nomination is unlikely to pass, do you have any additional information to hand that could improve it? Is such information likely to exist? I'll withdraw this one, and we can renominate if such information can be added and leave it if not. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 18:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Grandiose, There's a detailed chart of the track the fleet took on page 315 of Samuel E. Morison's book Victory in the Pacific (the relevant volume of the official history of the US Navy in World War II). It's not PD though, so I can't scan it, but it's a widely available book. You can use this to mark the actual locations where the air strikes were launched, and it also provides a good account of what each of the strikes was (the Air raids on Japan summarises this). It wouldn't be practical to mark the ships' involved: the US Third Fleet comprised dozens of major warships and hundreds of minor vessels at this time. Nick-D ( talk) 08:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In a couple of weeks I'll have one of the world's largest libraries on my doorstep; if I do track it down and put the work in I'll let you know. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 09:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, excellent. If it's the Bodleian Library (judging from your user page) I'm very jealous! Nick-D ( talk) 11:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I created List of aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force not being aware that an article titled List of aircraft of the RAAF already existed. Could you merge List of aircraft of the RAAF into List of aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force as I believe that this should be the article name as we should have the name not the abbreviation in this title, for lay persons and other nationalities. If you think the wikitable in List of aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force looks good, I will work my way through the others in List of aircraft of the RAAF when possible. I will probably split the table into the heading groups e.g Fighter, Helicopter etc to provide better navigation. Thoughts? Newm30 ( talk) 22:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Newm, I'd suggest converting the List of aircraft of the RAAF article into a redirect to the other one after moving the missing content across. There's no need for the admin tools, etc. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied. T. Canens ( talk) 10:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, after a fruitless first round I just started a second run for a Lesenswert (Good Article) award with the translations of your article Bombing of Singapore. Despite some critics regarding the lack of sources in german language (which is my fault), an anglocentric view and not enough background of the colonial history of Singapore and the war and not enough information about the situation and reactions of the civilian population of the city (sabotage acts and resistance movements), all voters voted with pro. As you wrote the original article I congratulate you for the award and have to say thank you for your help with questions during the review process.

I recently started translated your article Air Raids on Japan and would like to know if you know the ISSN-Numbers for the magazines you used, especially the Air Force Magazine since I can't find them in the Internet. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 17:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article's promotion! I just looked Air Force Magazine up in the US Library of Congress's catalog, and its issn is 0730-6784 (which Worldcat also uses. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I got one more question regarding your article Air Raids on Japan, do you know what the name HALPRO is standing for? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 16:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And one more: Is it possible to say which of the Japanese Monographs you used for which note? Because they are both from 1980 and have the same name. I would get problems because of not clearly say which number I mean if I would send the translation into a candidateship. Thank you -- Bomzibar ( talk) 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, "HALPRO" is an abbreviation for "Halvorsen Project". The name of the unit was derived from that of its commanding officer, Colonel Harry A. Halvorsen (source: Tillman (2010), p. 32). I've identified the name of the relevant Japanese monograph in each of the citations to these documents (for instance, reference 10 is to Homeland Air Defense Operations Record and reference 11 is to Homeland Operations Record). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 22:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you. I just missed the tiny difference because under References in the englisch article both, number 17 and number 157 are named Homeland Air Defense Operations Record. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 23:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I actually got mixed up between the two works myself, and had to re-do the references to them in the early stages of the FAC (fortunately no one noticed!) Nick-D ( talk) 23:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I searched at Ibiblio and fixed the name of number 17 in the references section. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 08:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the same document as the 1980 version I used doesn't go by that name - its called 'Homeland Opertions Record', and while it retained the Japanese Monograph 17 designation, its title page states that it includes Japanese Monographs 17, 18, 19 and 20. I presume that the name was changed when these documents were combined. Nick-D ( talk) 08:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For me this causes the problem of don't know why you called it Homeland Operations Record in the notes but both Homeland Air Defense Operations Records in the references. And as you said that the number 20 you used includes the original numbers 17, 18, 19 and 20 I am pretty sure that you used the same that Ibiblio lists as it is described as follows:

Homeland Operations Record (1941 - 1945) (Army)

Covers defense preparations for Japan proper (with exception of island of Hokkaido), including the establishment of the General and Area Armies and the separate air command. Gives details of organization of forces, building of defenses (with sketches of typical defense positions), mobilization, and disposition of units. (Rewritten, Reproduced, 246 pages) No. 18, 19, and 20 were combined with No. 17.

Homeland Air Defense Operations Record (Revised) (July 1944-August 1945) (Army Air Force)

Covers organization of the air defense forces, including the Air General Army. Special attention is given to a description of the efforts made to combat B-29 raids. Gives diagrams of radar nets and discusses inability of Japanese radar equipment to adjust to the flexible operational methods of the U.S. Air Corps. Air raid warning nets and locations of military and civilian lookout posts are given as are locations of airfields. Discusses pilot training, organization, and transfers of units. Material from Nos. 158 and 159 has been included. (Rewritten, Reproduced, 167 pages)

-- Bomzibar ( talk) 08:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're completely correct - Monograph 17 is 'Homeland Operations Record' and Monograph 157 is Homeland Air Defense Operations Record'. I don't seem to be able to read title pages... Thanks for spotting this, and sorry about the confusion. Nick-D ( talk) 08:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I got another question, I found the term Air Brigade in the section Preparations of Operation Matterhorn. I found this term nowhere else in combination with the japanese Army Air Forces but as they were expanded to Air Divisions, can it be that Air Combat Groups (Hikō Sentai) are meant? They were the subdivision of an Air Division. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, the source (Homeland Operations Record, p. 17) consistently calls them 'air brigades', and this is used in other histories of the Japanese Army Air Force. The 'air divisions' comprised several 'air regiments', and not brigades. I'm not sure what the Japanese translation for these terms are, however. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 01:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D

Just to say thank you for your detailed review and criticism during the Rwanda FAC. Feels like it was quite a long road, but I think the article is much better for your input, and I'm glad to be finally celebrating its promotion! All the best  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to have been of assistance, and I hope that I didn't come across as being too picky. Congratulations on the article's well-deserved promotion to FA class! Nick-D ( talk) 12:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, hope all's going well in Canberra. Would you mind taking a look at this peer review? - nobody's looked at it yet. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Nick. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I hope that they're helpful Nick-D ( talk) 06:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Sp33dyphil © ^hat _ontributions 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D,

Article: 103rd (Tyneside Irish) Brigade,

I would like to bring your attention to the above article. There is no reason why there should be a "," at the end of the article name. Would it be able to be renamed 103rd (Tyneside Irish) Brigade? I've tried and it won't work for me. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Done - someone seems to have redirected the article to 103rd (Tyneside Irish) Brigade, at some stage. Nick-D ( talk) 08:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, there was a (now resolved) discussion involving you at ANI. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 12:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That guy was block evading, POV pushing and lodging dodgy ANI complaints - the trifecta! Nick-D ( talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (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 first quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dan Nick-D ( talk) 08:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Morning, Nick. Thanks for your comment on my page. As your request, here are the articles ' http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/04/16/2012041600655.html and http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2012/201203/news02/20120302-42ee.html' that explaint North Korean leader officially announced "strategic rocket forces" after the People's Army, Navy, Air Force, when he gave his first public speech. Actually, I am not one of good users for wiki, so please check the article and change some information from Artillery Guidance Bureau to Strategic Rocket Forces or Strategic Rocket Force Command. Korean language page was already updated by refs. Thanks. Mailzzang+aus ( talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D ( talk) 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 11:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You've not just undone it but blocked it as well. The details about Swale came from an internet site comprising a day by day diary of naval movements, and from my P O Stoker grandfather who was on board at the time. The image you removed of HMS Swale was from an IWM postcard I bought on Ebay from a collector in the USA, and which I placed five years ago in the article I wrote on the frigate. The image of the SS Duchess of York I simply copied from that ship's webpage; if it was good enough for that, why not the page on 'Faith'? Ptelea ( talk) 09:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ptelea, The article is currently up for an A class assessment, so all its content needs to be referenced to reliable sources. Which website are you discussing here? Do you know anything about the publishing details of that postcard? - we need to be confident that the image is out of copyright. The other image probably shouldn't be used on the Duchess of York article either unless its copyright status can be determined. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've searched unsuccessfully for the website, which I should have referenced at the time. However, I have found another which largely supports my attempted corrections: [35]. It features the report of the air attack from the CO of HMCN Iroquois, in which it is quite clear that Swale arrived after the attack on the convoy, not before, as implied in the Wiki article, and thus took no part in its defence. It doesn't mention Swale's origin of Gibraltar, but does note her approach 'from the south-east'. However, I must concede I was in error in stating Swale had been despatched in response to the attack, when it is clear from the same report that she was making a scheduled rendezvous. As for the Imperial War Museum postcard, I confess I've little idea about copyrights. Suffice to say the image has been there unchallenged for over 5 years, and given what I paid for it, rather it remained so. Regards, Ptelea ( talk) 11:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier - I've had a busy day. I'm not sure what makes that a reliable source - we generally try to avoid using primary sources, and a HTML reproduction of a document on someone's website is not to be relied on as an accurate copy. Moreover, some of the material you've added to the article (for instance, the time Swale was the join the convoy) isn't actually supported by it. I'm afraid that I've reverted most of your recent changes on these grounds (some of the text you added was also in the passive voice and rather wordy and I'm not sure what source supports the claim that Port Fairy was carrying ammunition), but I'd be very happy to discuss this further at either Talk:Convoy Faith or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Convoy Faith - I really, really don't want to edit war with you, so can we agree on changes before they're added? Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In line with your request, I have made a contribution to the Talk page, which I hope goes some way to resolving our differences. Regards Ptelea ( talk) 13:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Australian newspaper today had a feature on a 2ww person from the Australian Special Wirless Group and it claims 60 years secrecy clauses on recruits from the 1940's - have you ever encountered info about either - the group or a 60 year secrecy clause? cheers Satu Suro 10:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not familiar with either, though the people who worked in signals intelligence units during the war were generally instructed to never divulge what that did during the war, and faced prosecution if they did so. However, almost all of this was declassified during the 1970s and 1980s, and I don't think that much is still classified. I presume that you're talking about this story? If you're interested in reading more about this topic, Edward Drea's book MacArthur's Ultra is the standard work on signals intelligence in the South West Pacific. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup - thats the article - it seems to run slightly awry from the trove initial pickings - ASWG looks like a potential article some time - either the oz sigint folks, or the macarthur level - if there is enough easy pickings - thanks for your speedy reply Satu Suro 10:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

actually the more i tour the trove offering - http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=subject%3A%22Australia.+Army.+Australian+Special+Wireless+Group.%22 - 2 items directly linked only from 96 - i suspect the awsg is worth a stub at least... Satu Suro 10:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. The coverage of the Australian intelligence services in World War II (and since) is awful, though in fairness there aren't that many high-quality works on this topic to use as references (the Australian War Memorial was working on an official history of Central Bureau at one point, but it seems to have been abandoned). Nick-D ( talk) 10:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny that - even the wiki projects espionage and twisted half brother intelligence seem to have died deaths of silence - I tried vainly to rustle the chains and cobwebs at both and had a resounding silence of a response - will still try to resurrect them but its gonna be a very long slow road compared to the starting aust maritime history all those years ago :( sigh Satu Suro 11:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

fyi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Special_Wireless_Group Satu Suro 11:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work starting this off :) Nick-D ( talk) 11:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

On 28 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's F/A-18 Hornet fighters (pictured) have been deployed as far afield as Qatar and Alaska? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tks for that, mate -- glad to see you're awake... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries - it's good to see the the article on Saunders being improved. Nick-D ( talk) 06:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Argentine Military Cemetery ‎ & Blue Beach Military Cemetery at San Carlos

I noticed your deletions, details are highly relevant & should only be deleted after discussion with the page editors. Please desist wit what I believe is borderline vandalism

That's not vandalism, and it's really insulting to label it as such. Do you actually have a reason for wanting to keep material on people not buried in these cemeteries in the articles on them? If so, I'd be happy to discuss this with you, though this material appears to duplicate what's more appropriately covered at Falklands War#Casualties or a new Casualties of the Falklands War article rather than the article on the resting places for a small minority of the British killed and a larger minority of the Argentine fatalities. I'm all for WP:BRD, but starting the 'D' part of this with assertions of bad faith is really poor practice. Nick-D ( talk) 07:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As you've been shown on the talk page by myself and at least 2 others, the information you keep deleting is reliably sourced. Removing it without a decent explanation is vandalism. Its not edit warring for us to keep removing your vandalism. Stop or you will be reported. X Nilloc X ( talk) 02:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely not vandalism. The problems with your editing have been explained by myself and other in the discussion on the article's talk page, yet you keep edit warring this uncited figure back in despite the views of others. Nick-D ( talk) 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a final vote on which image to use a WikiProject Japan. It's about to close. As you voted in the original poll, you might be interested in having your final say. CüRlyTüRkey ^Talk _Contribs 06:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

My book on Sparrow Force is with a publisher. Fingers crossed that it is published soon. In the meantime, you can see excerpts of my research at www.youtube.com/grantmcl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofors40mm ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent - I'm looking forward to seeing the book :) Nick-D ( talk) 11:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

X Nilloc X blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, warned by admin: "Allow me to spell this out in no uncertain terms: what you are arguing on the article and related discussion boards is unequivocally wrong. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked again, for longer and longer durations" [36] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent; I asked an uninvolved admin to look into that mess, and Parsecboy beat him to it. thanks for dropping me the note. Nick-D ( talk) 08:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I think that I've address all of your concerns about the list of US BCs. Whenever you get a chance, could you drop by and see if you agree?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick, could you do me a favour and have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Jackson for me? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!

LauraHale ( talk) 09:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries Laura - I'm happy to help. Nick-D ( talk) 09:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, have most article names in your watchlist suddenly gone bold? I thought I must've done something to my Preferences but I don't think so now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's happened to me as well, and I can't see any rhyme or reason behind which ones are bold and which ones aren't. Presumably it's been brought to us by the same people who buggered up the appearances of diffs a couple of weeks ago ;) Nick-D ( talk) 10:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah -- I notice if I hit the "Mark all pages visited" button they unbold again, but don't stay that way for long... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if that helps. However, I thought that's what my internet history is for... Nick-D ( talk) 10:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What its doing is bolding all articles that have changed since the last time you looked at them (i.e. go to the page itself or a history diff) your watchlist. There's a complimentary change in article histories, where every edit since you last looked at the page has a note "updated since my last visit" between the edit summary and the undo button. I'm still undecided if these changes are A Good Thing^TM or A Bad Thing^TM... -- saberwyn 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that helps to explain it. I'm leaning towards this being a Bad Thing, but I never like change to the appearance of websites ;) Nick-D ( talk) 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, in relation to your comment about the change in "diff" format. There appears to be a gadget that you can use to make the diffs look like they used to. If you go to your "My Preferences", select the "Gadgets" tab, and then select "Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design" and hit save, it will restore them the way they used to look. I just put it on a moment ago and it makes a world of difference, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D ( talk) 09:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"in the Prelude section, the reason that the article discusses movement of two troopships from Scotland, when the entire focus is on moving the division from West Africa to India, is a little unclear. Until half way through the article I did not understand why we were discussing ships originating from Scotland. Recommend you recast the introduction to emphasise the repositioning of troopships to support movement of divisions, instead of the division move itself. Otherwise, a good article, well referenced, though a note might usefully explain exactly what you did above - why the convoy does not appear to have had a code." were my initial comments. Rereading the article, you haven't actually reemphasised the movement of ships to make the division move possible, nor explained the absence of a convoy code. Did you actually mean to address these points, and accidentally overlook them ? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I had tweaked the article so that this was addressed; I've added a para on the background of the WS convoys and the material on the troop movement leads into an explanation of why California was sailed from the Clyde to make up a shortfall in berths. I haven't been able to find a source on why this was allocated a name rather than a number. Nick-D ( talk) 10:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly Nick I still think the reason for the convoy is still a bit buried. If it were me, I would add a concise sentence in the lead stating why each ship was going to Freetown, because this is the actual raison d'etre for the convoy. However it's your show though. Cheers and best wishes Buckshot06 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea - done. I actually missed your inclusion of the words "the introduction" :0 Hopefully this addresses your comment, but please let me know if you think further changes are in order. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

174.48.242.45 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log)) 174.48.246.221 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

Think an old friend is back at Talk:Falkland Islands, ComCast Florida, one of his signature ISP. I wanted to run it by someone familiar with the case before I filed an SPI. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks possible based on the IP, though the tone of the posts is - thankfully - much less combative. Nick-D ( talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

NickD, there has been a misunderstanding about the listing of units (i.e., carrier, cruisers, destroyers, air wing) assigned to a specific U.S. Navy carrier strike group. You may not be aware, but a previous discussion on listing this information within a separate section via a bulleted format for enhanced readability and to avoid serial linking problems, and a consensus was reached by all interested stakeholders. I have looked the archived peer review for Carrier Strike Group Seven, and I do not see any recommendations to list the assigned units in a serial fashion in the opening paragraphs as opposed to the previously-agreed bulleted format in a separate section. It has been suggested that you are the source of this format change. Can you clarify this situation? Thanks! Marcd30319 ( talk) 23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I was the initiator of this change following your comment on the Peer Review saying that the actual composition of the strike group should be made clear. I thus included the exact components in the intro section, thinking that since the actual composition of the group was important it should be in the intro. I should also note however that Marcd30319 was mistaken in thinking a 'consensus' was reached at the earlier discussion. In fact, I did not endorse any kind of 'consensus' that some may have thought had been reached, and, in addition, it runs directly in contravention of Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists. Marcd30319 seems determined to continue to have all the of CSG articles exactly as he wishes them to be, regardless of WP:OWN or other guidelines and policies such as the MOS. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, we had a consensus which Buckshot06 is ignoring. The rationale was about readability, not ownership, and this was reached through the afrementioned consensus. If there is anyone who had issues about WP:OWN, it is not me since, in the interest of comity, I was more than willing to compromise as shown during the peer review which, I must add, the initiator saw fit not to include me in that process. Again, we had a consensus that was sanctioned by theEd17, who is a coordinator at the Military History Project. Also, I see nothing in the [ peer review] for Carrier Strike Group Seven that contravenes the previous consensus. In closing, this is about readbility, not ownership, and the proposed serial-linked text is not the best way to present this information, and that bulleted lists are used in other military articles, such as Seventh Air Force, United States Seventh Fleet, United States Army Europe, Commander Land Forces, Moscow Military District, and Leningrad Military District. Marcd30319 ( talk) 11:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggested in the PR that the group's composition should be made clearer. I don't know if Carrier Strike Group Seven#Deployed force composition was in the article at the time I reviewed it, but it seems a bit over the top given that this could be covered by a paragraph of prose at the start of the section on each deployment (having the aircraft squadrons in a column parallel to that on the ships also makes it look like the destroyers, etc, had embarked fixed wing aircraft!). As Buckshot notes, the general preference in articles is always go with prose where there's a choice between this or a table/bulleted list. I'm reluctant to suggest stuff I've written as being best-practice, but the sections in the Australian Defence Force article on the military's structure and equipment is an example of where prose as been used instead of bullets or a table. I respect theEd17's views on this matter, but that doesn't mean that there's a never-to-be-changed 'consensus' as a result of that discussion on your talk page. By the way, coordinators of the military history project don't have any special say over article content (as Ed would agree) - it's an administrative role only. For what it's worth, I'm also one of the coordinators (the full list is here), but my opinion isn't worth more than yours. I'd suggest moving this discussion to either the article's talk page or a relevant central dispute resolution board as editor's talk pages aren't the appropriate area for it. Nick-D ( talk) 11:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, please stop edit waring over this. Nick-D ( talk) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The force composition section, now called assigned units section, was included in the the original draft of Carrier Strike Group Seven per the consensus that theEd17 adjudicated. The Australian Defence Force article is a very good article, but it is not comparable to Carrier Strike Group Seven or the other carrier strike group articles. The ADF article is a high-level overview with minimal serial linking, and it also cross-references to the main articles for the Australian Navy, the Australian Air Force, the Australian Army, etc. These articles have assigned unit information that is presented in bulleted lists and/or tables. Again, the better comparison would be Seventh Air Force, United States Seventh Fleet, United States Army Europe, Commander Land Forces, Moscow Military District, and Leningrad Military District. Please note that the last three articles cited are ones that Buckshoy06 helped to improve. Therefore, including an assigned units section for Carrier Strike Group Seven or the other carrier strike group articles is consistent with these articles that I have cited. I should note that for Carrier Strike Group Seven the listing of the assigned units was changed to the Deactivation section by Buckshot06 which seemed logical to me and so, contrary to popular belief, I did not object to this change. As it stands now, Carrier Strike Group Seven lists the assigned units in the second opening paragraph and the Deactivation section which strike me as being redundant. Regarding the various tables in the other carrier strike group articles , I think they are more concise and readable than a regular prose approach that is cluttered with serial linking. If you have any recommendation about improving these tables, I welcome your suggestions. Thank you for your consideration and help. Marcd30319 ( talk) 14:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought there was some continuing confusion. I've just seen the additional discussion here. I agree with Nick-D that the best place for making completely clear to non-specialists as to the exact composition of a strike group is in prose at the beginning, not in lists which WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists discourages. The other articles that you cite Marc are not as highly developed as the CSG articles and do not include the same proportion of prose. Therefore I would strongly suggest that all the CSG articles list components in prose, at the beginning in regard to the present-units list, and elsewhere for other things such as deployment lists. Nick-D, where would suggest moving this discussion? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Marcd; I think that you have some serious misunderstandings of Wikipedia practices. Ed didn't "adjudicate" anything: he was just offering his opinion. Wikipedia doesn't have a hierarchical structure in regards to how article content is determined. I agree completely with the concerns Buckshot has raised here and elsewhere about you trying to control articles. This is clearly a case of WP:OWN. Buckshot; I had a good experience with WP:DRN recently (albeit somewhat against my initial preference) so I'd recommend that option. I'd suggest posting a notification at WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS when you start this discussion. Nick-D ( talk) 08:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard your call, and in the interest of comity and consensus-building, which I have shown here and here, thus conclusively disproving WP:OWN, allow me to offer the following description for the "exact composition of a strike group" noted to be added as the third and fourth sentences of the opening paragraph of a carrier strike group article: "A carrier strike group is an operational naval formation that deploys together. Permanently assigned units of a carrier strike group typically consists of an aircraft carrier that acts as the flagship, an carrier air wing embarked onboard the carrier, a squadron of destroyers and frigates, and at least one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser." This is a clear explanation of the composition of a strike group," which is the goal of Buckshot06 and Nick-D, while retaining an assigned units section for the specific composition of a specific carrier strike group which is consistent with similar B-Class articles like Leningrad Military District which lists its units under a Subordinate Units section. This approach provides a clear, uncluttered, consistent general overview of the composition of a strike group carrier while retaining the specific information of the units assigned to a particular carrier strike group. This approach can be the basis for building a consensus of this issue, and I have taken the liberty of incorporating this phrasing into the other carrier strike group articles, except Carrier Strike Group One, pending discussion. Again, as noted, I have addressed previous issues in a constructive fashion, and I think we can do so here. Marcd30319 ( talk) 14:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Marcd, before I take this issue to DRN, let me tell you again that this is *EXACTLY* why we say you're attempting to control articles. The proper response to such comments as Nick-D has made is not to make a series of changes to a set of articles (or to rewrite them completely, as you did following the PR) halfway through the discussion; the intended process is that everyone discusses things, leaves the articles alone in the meantime, so we can be sure the comments we make refer to the same version, and then collaberatively decide how to make the changes that the consensus agrees upon. This also involves WP as the encyclopedia 'anyone can edit'! ANYONE can edit these articles - you are not the only editor, and I believe you would do well to reexamine WP's five pillars on accessibility to everyone and NPOV, or reconsider your involvement with this project. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Buckshot's post. Nick-D ( talk) 10:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As you suggested Nick, I've now posted this at WP:DRN. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you blocked an IP a few days ago who was edit warring on Charles M. Blow. After his block ran out he went right back to edit warring over the same passage. He hasn't broken 3RR again though, should I report him now or wait until he technically breaks it? Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, You don't need to wait for a 3RR violation for someone who returns to edit warring as soon as a block for this expires. I've just blocked this person for two weeks. Let me know if they return to edit warring when the block expires. Regards Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help, I'll keep that in mind. I sometimes wonder what people think revert warring will accomplish, especially when they're badly outnumbered. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, just a gentle poke per the short discussion at the Coord's talk page re. op-ed... I saw what you've done so far and if you can finish it off shortly I'd love to use it, it of course mirrors my own experience employing news archives to fill in little gaps or add colour to articles. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'll try to finish it tonight - I think that it's almost there. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 07:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good work on the article (and many others), by the way. Nice to see quality work on WWII articles. Manxruler ( talk) 11:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On 19 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rose turret, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Air Marshal Arthur Harris regarded the Rose turret (pictured) as being the only improvement made to the defensive armament of the RAF's heavy bombers between 1942 and the end of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rose turret.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter seems to be a conduct issue to me. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The all caps abuse is pretty full-on! Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I have one more question about a detail in the article. In the section March Firebombing Campaign you wrote that in the attack on Nagoya on 18/19 March one B-29 was shot down but the whole crew was rescued. Is there anything in the sources how the crew was rescued from Japan and when? Or if the plane later crashed over the open seas? This would be something I would be asked with the german version of the article as it seems highly arguable that the USAAF were able so rescue an aircrew out of Japan at this time. Best regards -- Bomzibar ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, The plane ditched into the sea and the crew were rescued (the source doesn't say by what, but it would have been either a submarine or an amphibious aircraft which were deployed off Japan for this purpose during B-29 raids). The exact reference is Frank (1999), p. 69. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you still got JSTOR access? I'm looking for 'Demobilization: The Dialectics of PLA Troop Reductions' which was in the China Quarterly. Do tell me if you don't have it anymore - I can easily ask someone else. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Timor Leste Defence Force know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Timor Leste Defence Force is the military organisation responsible for the defence of East Timor. The F-FDTL was established in February 2001 and currently comprises two small infantry battalions, a small Naval Component and several supporting units. The F-FDTL's primary role is to protect East Timor from external threats. It also has an internal security role, which overlaps with the role assigned to the Policia Nacional de Timor Leste (PNTL). This overlap has led to tensions between the services, which have been exacerbated by poor morale and discipline within the F-FDTL. The F-FDTL's problems came to a head in 2006 when almost half the force was dismissed following protests over discrimination and poor conditions. The dismissal contributed to a general collapse of both the F-FDTL and PNTL in May and forced the government to request foreign peacekeepers to restore security. The F-FDTL is currently being rebuilt with foreign assistance and has drawn up a long-term force development plan. ( more...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, per your request at Milhist talk, I took a quick look at the article. I didn't go through it in depth, though. I fixed a couple of minor typos, and have a couple of observations (I didn't muck with the citation style, as I wasn't sure what one you want to use):

• the citation style is a little inconsistent, e.g. compare "Rees (2004). Pages 7-9." with "Rees (2004). P. 14" and "Republica Democratica De Timor-Leste (2012), p. 66";
• inconsistent date format for the retrieved dates, e.g. compare "Retrieved 23 May 2012" with "Retrieved 2007-08-11";
• the Wiki mark up doesn't seem to like the link provided for the article by Ian Storey in citation # 70;
• in the Naval Component section, there is a redlinked image on my screen. Has it been deleted, or is there a typo in the file name?

Anyway, I hope this helps. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - I really appreciate it. I'll follow up on these issues (some of which reflect the significant changes in FA standards and formatting norms since this article's promotion!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'll keep it on my watchlist when it goes on the main page. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember User:Gaba p? He was unblocked by User:JamesBWatson and I recently contacted him about his return to the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute‎ page. James is a bit busy right now but you know what my spidy sense is tingling big time. Could you drop by the talk page and see if you agree with me? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi WCM, I think that I count as WP:INVOLVED with that editor, so I'll leave this to another admin. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 09:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What would you suggest as the next step? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI I guess. Nick-D ( talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Recently you declined a request to be unblocked and you said " as you've edited lots of pages since lodging this, it appears that you are no longer being affected by that block." The IP address is my school and I would like my account to be exempted for the future as I edit there often. Please e-mail me or reply back on my talk page as I am going there now and will not be able to edit your talk page. Cheers,
Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Another administrator has dealt with it, thank you for your time.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Nick. I've done a little work on No. 464 Squadron RAAF today. There are a couple of things I couldn't find a citation for (which I've marked with citation needed tags). I wonder if you have any sources for these? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll see what I can find. The Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy article has several paras on this squadron's role in mid-1944 (including the fact that only a minority of its members were actually Australian!) which you may wish to draw on. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 03:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added something on that. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day Nick. You have recently finished some editing of No. 14 Squadron RAAF. In this edit, with the ironic edit summary expand, you deleted a substantial amount of information about Wing Commander Charles Learmonth, replacing it with a red link to a non-existent article to be titled Charles Learmonth. Perhaps you have a new article about Charles in progress. Or perhaps you feel this information should appear in RAAF Base Learmonth. Regardless of which, your objection to the deleted text and your intentions for the future are entirely unclear. Others who share an interest in this article will be curious about what is happening. Could you leave an explanation at Talk:No. 14 Squadron RAAF or respond here? Many thanks. (Incidentally, in one place you spelled Charles's surname incorrectly as Learmouth.) Dolphin ( t) 13:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

While I wasn't planning to buy into a discussion on the 14 Sqn article, I'll just note that I started a draft article on Charles Learmonth a while back, so if either of you were in the middle of something similar, we should let each other know so we don't double up on effort... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. That is a timely announcement of your intention. My concern with an article dedicated to Learmonth would be that his notability will be difficult to establish so the article might not survive the gauntlet of deletion debates. I can already see the comments - fails notability - should be just a paragraph at No. 14 Squadron RAAF or RAAF Base Learmonth. Dolphin ( t) 13:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No prob -- there's a full-length biography on him that I'm using, as well as references in other sources around and about, so I think we'd be safe with a dedicated article. Further, checking the edit you mention, Oz@War isn't generally considered a reliable source for WP, so I understand Nick keeping only the newspaper ref. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin, I removed that material on Learmonth as it was much too detailed for the article on the squadron (he was only its CO from 7 December 1943 until his death in early March the next year) and I think that he's easily notable in isolation. That detailed newspaper article alone is probably sufficient to establish notability, and lots more are available through the NLA's Trove database ( [37] and [38] - his wife appears to also be worth covering, and may also be notable in her own right). Sorry for not explaining my reasoning in the edit summary and/or talk page. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As a random note, the article on Learmonth needs to include this story from Damien Parer! Nick-D ( talk) 23:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for your prompt reply. I am delighted that both you and Ian Rose are firmly of the view that Charles Learmonth is sufficiently notable to warrant his own article. Sadly, since your deletion yesterday, Wikipedia has almost no information about him, despite his genuine notability. Here is my suggestion: Restore the properly sourced information about Learmonth to No. 14 Squadron RAAF; and just as soon as an article dedicated to him becomes available that information can be deleted from No. 14 Squadron RAAF. That way there is no risk of a long period in which Wikipedia will be silent about such a remarkable member of No. 14 Squadron. Dolphin ( t) 05:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just gone you one better, and created the article. I've kept it pretty minimal in light of Ian's comment above though. Nick-D ( talk) 08:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. That's a great little article! Dolphin ( t) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Shucks, there goes my potential Four Award if I took it all the way to FAC -- well, it wasn't very high on my list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could always research and write the article's text to FA standard, and then provide it to me to upload and claim credit for :p (or maybe not!) Nick-D ( talk) 10:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I've heard of ego-less editing but this is ridiculous... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nick Thanks for the barnstar and offer of assistance with Australian records, but I feel I should confine myself to matters botanical, such as the genera Ulmus and Buddleja, of which I have a working knowledge. Best wishes, Ptelea ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For your outstanding work on Battle of Arawe, Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy and Convoy Faith, which were promoted to A-Class between March and May 2012. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work! Binksternet ( talk) 02:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) Nick-D ( talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. While I'm here, could you have a look at WP:Featured article candidates/STRAT-X/archive1? You've read more on the subject than I have, but the article just doesn't sound right to me. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am developing an article name Indian Railways,doing work after consulting admins see here so that it could get ready for GA nomination.I've made lots of changes as per requirement, but the problem is that the page is so long and taking so much time.Meanwhile, some railway fans from the indian sate of West Bengal are editing unnecessary image files.I 've left a note to one of user. one hand i am trying to cultivate it and On the other hand user add materials. I am getting into frustration.Please give some pointing,that could help to make it safe.Reply onmy talk page if possible. Thank You 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Nick-D, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me, and am looking forward to working further with you. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours.  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

#6 on the list! Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Ed :) Military history of Australia during World War II is also at #15 and Australian Defence Force is at #137. I was actually expecting the length of the Air Raids on Japan article to be raised as a problem in its FAC, but (rightly, I think) it wasn't. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 23:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On 11 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 7 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 7 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF (aircraft of unit pictured) was the only Royal Australian Air Force training unit to be based in Tasmania during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 7 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady ( talk) 00:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes at Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've discussed the relevance of the Churchill quote and its framing (under Support)-- Robertmossing ( talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been discussing them... Nick-D ( talk) 09:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Churchill is not a historian either. This quote by a right wing American (Hornberger) summarises many of the opponents view. But if you can find a better one, I would sure be interested to see it. The quote of Satre can go out - it is not relevant.-- Robertmossing ( talk) 10:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page rather than edit war. It appears to me that you're attempting to push your personal views. Nick-D ( talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Albert Camus.It appears to me that you're attempting to push your personal views.What do you mean. I added a quote under Opposition,which summarises many of the opponents view.-- Robertmossing ( talk) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. You asked me to do so above (when I was already doing so), and in response you're edit warring bad material into the article without any discussion. Nick-D ( talk) 10:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've just found RAF Coastal Area, which consists of a two sentences covering 1919-1936, but while the Coastal Command article has paragraphs and paragraphs of text covering pre-1936, when the command was formed (it's 50kB altogether). I'd like to move this material to Coastal Area, as it more appropriately sits there, but though given the work expended that I'd like to run it by someone first. Dapi89, seemingly the major contributor, has retired. Would you please stand in his stead briefly and tell me what you think? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick thanks for your help. Can you get this article via JSTOR for me? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think CA was started after CC got GA, or during. Though I don't contribute the idea is sound. Good luck. Re your comment on my talk page Nick, appreciated, but life has now got in the way also. I'll help out with sources if you like, but I won't visit my page often to look at requests I'm affraid. Dapi89 ( talk) 06:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dapi. It's nice to see you back as well, if only briefly. Regards Nick-D ( talk) 08:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

You seem to have locked me out of editing the page regarding Andrew Wilkie which I was consistently reverting to an impartial state following the very biased contributions of Djapa84. I was removing 3 sentances of biased, outdated and irrelevant information.

The following 3 sentances should be removed for the following 3 reasons:

Sentences:

(1) In exchange for Wilkie's support, the Labor government are legislating for mandatory "pre-commitment" technology which would require persons using high-bet machines to pre-commit how much they are willing to bet on a machine before they begin play,[31] as well as introducing $1 maximum bet per spin machines which would not require pre-commitment, which Wilkie argues would be safer.

(2) The Abbott Coalition opposes the plans, with Abbott saying "it is not Liberal Party policy" and it will be "expensive and ineffective".

(3) According to polling, the Labor government's plans are supported by a clear majority of voters across the spectrum.

Reasoning

(1) The labour government did not follow thru on their commitment, see ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-21/wilkie-withdraws-support-over-broken-pokies-deal/3786040) consequently wilkie withdrew his support for the labour government.

(2) Irrelevant

(3) Irrelevant - this is biased text glorifying the labour government and has nothing to do with Wilkie or his policies.

Oh, and by the way, I am not an IP hopping vandal.

Please discuss this on the article's talk page ( Talk:Andrew Wilkie), and not here. As you were removing content from the article from different IP addresses without any discussion of this, you were an IP hopping vandal. I'm pleased to see that you're now interested in discussing your suggested changes. Nick-D ( talk) 23:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi nick I am here as I share the same concern as you showed here. There are a lot of articles and biographies of non notable Guantanamo prisoners started by the user who I feel shares a WP:COI with the subject. The count of the articles are in thousands as can be seen here Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Guantanamo Bay Detainees and the subpages of the creator. The Creator has autoreviewer rights which takes such articles created by him out of wp:NPP process. Many of the articles started by the author have issues of COATTRACK and bogus/non related sources. Having seen a lot of articles and marking many of them with notability tags, I think initiating an AfD for all these non notable articles one by one would be sheer waste of community time. I am not sure what course to be followed. Can you please advice me, how to address this concern and which the best possible way to handle this. thanks-- DBig Xray 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A possible way that i can think of is There are a lot of lists eg Pakistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the template at bottom that can mention these prisoners in a table form with relevant information. The non notable individual articles "may" be redirected to such lists. -- DBig Xray 14:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray, From memory, there have been some centralised discussions about Geo Swan's creation of articles on Guantanamo prisoners and related topics. He or she stepped back on the creation of these articles for a while, but appears to be creating them again. I fear that AfDs might be the only option, though a request for comment could also be appropriate. Nick-D ( talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

On further though, WP:ANI might also be appropriate (though check for old discussions there). I've nominated the David Conn (judge) article for deletion. Nick-D ( talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you please look at this discussion, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents User:Dave1185 and the user namespace and, if you agree, please close it? There are already three veteran editors that agree it should be closed. There are sockpuppets, a banned editor tried to weigh in and a variety of other editors attacking the subject on all different grounds and the charges seem silly and a waste of time. Thank you, either way. Mugginsx ( talk) 23:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, though I've left Dave a message asking him to note the comments left by several editors that he should be more civil. Nick-D ( talk) 23:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank god that's over and done with, I was wondering which sane SysOp (hint hint!) was still around to do thy bidding on a slow weekend like this one. Anyway, per my new stand against garbage truck-behaving editors, I will just smile, wave, wish them well and move on... really not worth my energy and time to take on their garbage. (PS: I've stopped tagging those annoying IPs and private individuals for some time now, this being brought up on ANI now is quite beyond me, considering how ArbCom has allowed a certain banned individual to continue to wreak havoc here is also beyond me.) -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nick, can you close and collapse the whole section including the original discussion about the userpage? An IP has openly admitted to setting the whole thing up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Dave, Given that several experienced editors expressed good faith concerns over your Dave's edit summaries and changes to user pages, I'll leave it as is. You might want to add a note to the bottom of the thread (below the archive bottom tag). Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 01:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not Dave. :P But I reckon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Whoops! I've amended my post. Nick-D ( talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No worries. Clearly I'm a master of disguise! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that my closure was reverted by an involved editor who didn't even have the courtesy of leaving me an explanation. That's pretty much the reason I don't waste my time by following up posts on ANI. Nick-D ( talk) 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, nice beach pic. :) OK, just FYI, I've had the same experience with templates: You can't put links in them. Why that would be, I don't know. Some obscure technicality connected with HTML, I imagine. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's an annoying bug given that it's often desirable to add diffs there. The picture seems to have succeeded in its primary goal of calming down grumpy editors who post here (no one has called me a vandal since it was added!). Nick-D ( talk) 01:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

of course you can. Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 01:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha! So template-within-template works well. Square brackets, not so well. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D ( talk) 01:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See the edit summary; you can also use "|1= on the template. Th issue is the '=' character in the unnamed template parameter. However, using the {{ diff}} template makes the diff work on both the mundane server and teh secure server. Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 02:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you beat me to it -- still on hols, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Off work with a bad cold, unfortunately. Nick-D ( talk) 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, get well soon then... BTW, don't know if you saw it but while writing the 8SFTS article, I found an NAA file that actually makes explicit the connection between a secondline reserve squadron and its subsequent 'frontline' incarnation -- check the "The outbreak of the Pacific War" paragraph, and 71SQN's record book at citation #13 (#14 also makes a connection). I could update the 71SQN article with some of that, unless you want to. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for that Ian. I'm planning some sort of article on the units stationed in Australia for defencive purposes during World War II, and that will be useful in explaining the RAAF reserve squadrons. Nick-D ( talk) 02:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question - do either of you know anything about a RNZAF or RAAF 230 Squadron? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the RAAF has ever had a unit of that name, and it's not in any of the number ranges the RAAF uses ( No. 292 Squadron RAAF is the only 200-series RAAF unit I can think off, though they may be others). I've never heard of a RNZAF unit of that name, though I don't really understand the RNZAF's unit naming policy! Why do you ask? It's likely that Australians and New Zealanders served in No. 230 Squadron RAF during World War II. Nick-D ( talk) 07:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems they're following the RAAF line. No. 9 Squadron RNZAF has been recreated as No. 209 (Expeditionary Support) Squadron, the former ESS, and No. 30 Squadron RNZAF has been recreated as No. 230 (Mission Support) Squadron RNZAF, the former Operational Support Squadron. There are only those two units renumbered. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes some sense. Presumably the RNZAF is using 200-series numbers for its ground squadrons as the RAAF is using 300-series numbers for this purpose, though I don't really see why they haven't just gone with the original WW2-era numbers if they wanted to go down this path. Nick-D ( talk) 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion you closed yesterday at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dave1185_and_the_user_namespace has been reopened and voted on against Wiki rules.

I ask that you block these people. They know better but respect no ones rules but their own. Thank you Mugginsx ( talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I now see that this has already been discussed and you are aware of it. Please do as you think best. Mugginsx ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort-of tempted to make an issue of it, but I'm unwell and can't be fussed. No harm resulted as 28bytes ( talk · contribs) had the same views on the matter as I did (though he or she was a bit sterner), and I imagine that Dave will be more bemused than annoyed about being told off twice by admins on the same day for the same thing. Nick-D ( talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Noted, bloated andd I then went to "downloaded". Honestly, it's alright with me because I know that you guys are just doing your job, while those who are jobless makes it their job to make a big hoohaa of a mountain out of a small termite mount. As they say, empty vessels makes the most noise, no prize for guessing why I ignore them to the max even when they want to drag me to ANI. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no worries Dave Nick-D ( talk) 01:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Liam Wyatt/ Wittylama ( talk · contribs) has put me in touch with the AWM's webmaster. Apparently the Memorial is currently reviewing its internet publishing policy, and is considering tagging at least some of the images in its database with a CC-By license, which could possibly solve the problems we're having with post-1946 images on Commons. As part of this, she has expressed interest in examples of "how people would like to use our images (or other material) and where they are not able to because of licensing/watermarks or combinations of these things". I'm going to respond with some examples of FA and A class articles which currently include post-1946 articles, as well as a few of the best examples of articles which use pre-1946 images. I'll also suggest that we'd really appreciate it if the AWM could add release the database versions of images created up to 50 years ago under CC-By licences so that editors can use images which are PD in Australia without any problems, and if any other images could be released under these licences that would very well received as we're unable to use those images at present, and the images would be used widely. My current shortlist of articles is:

FAs with post-1946 images:

• Colin Hannah
• Frank Bladin
• George Jones (RAAF officer)
• Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)
• John Treloar (museum administrator)
• Richard Williams (RAAF officer)
• Roy Dowling
• Thomas Blamey
• Valston Hancock

A class articles with post-1946 images:

• Battle of Kapyong
• HMAS Sydney (R17)
• Reg Saunders

Some examples of FAs heavily illustrated with pre-1946 images from the AWM:

• Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
• Attack on Sydney Harbour
• Battle of Sio (includes some images from the war diaries the AWM has been posting over the last few years)
• Bruce Kingsbury
• HMAS Australia (1911)
• Battle of Kaiapit
• Military history of Australia during World War II
• No. 1 Wing RAAF
• Singapore strategy
• Tom Derrick

I'm planning to send a response tomorrow (20 June), and would greatly appreciate any suggestions on the content of the email and the articles to highlight. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 07:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You could also take a similar situation, say with the (extremely high resolution!) images released by NARA, and show the AWM how we've used those, but you may have enough examples already. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea Ed, but I don't want to shoot for the moon - the small versions on their database would be fine ;) (and adding the CC-by tags here should be much less labour intensive than uploading high definition images). Nick-D ( talk) 07:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, perhaps you could point them to "AWM Copyright" images that I've previously asked them about, which would be great for illustrating the later careers of subjects of some of the articles discussed, e.g. Air Marshals Murdoch, McCauley and Hannah, and 4-stars Scherger and Wilton. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. What response did you get when you asked them about releasing these images? I should note that I've asked Hawkeye to comment on whether this is doubling up with his and Laura's efforts in this area (it came about when I replied to an email Liam sent to the Wikimedia Australia mailing list about current activities in cultural institutions, which included some contacts he's had with the AWM and the fact that they're considering the use of CC-by licenses - in my reply I offered to provide some examples of high quality articles using post-1946 images to inform the AWM's considerations). Nick-D ( talk) 07:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I dug out my old emails -- the last exchange was in September 2009, when I'd requested release under GNU for the Murdoch, McCauley and Scherger/Wilton images I noted above. The reply was "Unfortunately we cannot provide permission under the GNU Free Documentation License. We are actively reviewing our approach and policy on Wikipedia and similar Commons license terms and agreements, but we aren’t in a position now to grant such a license at the moment." Knowing the speed with which government departments "actively review" policies, I haven't questioned them on the subject since... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Oh, I know -- I'm just saying that you can show the good things that happened (like USS Arizona (BB-39)) when NARA released their images to us. If the AWM happens to notice that they are much larger than the ones they are offering... well, we wouldn't complain, right? ;-) Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest AHS Centaur as a pre-1946 illustrated FA example: of the 11 images in the article, all bar the three 'modern' images are AWM or AWM derived. There is a relatively broad scope of image-types, including identification images (of the ship, the sub, and Nurse Savage), 'moment-in-history' scenes (the towing of Detmers and co), propaganda posters (Work, Save, Fight poster), and 'daily routine' scenes (soldiers working a lathe with another propaganda poster in the background).

As an example of useful but legally unavailable images, the Melbourne-Voyager collision is an article where images related to a major incident in the history of the Australian military are still 'in copyright'. Although we have an image of the aftermath (on Wikipeida as opposed to Commons, and on what could be interpreted as stretching the licensing), closeups of the damage (like this or this), the aftermath (like survivors in boats or bedding down in the carrier's hangar), or even these shots of Voyager actually sinking would greatly benefit the collision article, articles on HMAS Melbourne (R21) and HMAS Voyager (D04), and general RAN and ADF history articles.

Hope these thoughts help. -- saberwyn 13:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those excellent suggestions - I'll include them. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just sent the email, and will let you all know what the response is. Thanks again for your suggestions. Nick-D ( talk) 10:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As an update, I've received a reply from the AWM. In their response, the officer asks that I clarify the reason that post-1945 images from the AWM's database can't currently be hosted on Wiki Commons, and briefly discusses the legal situation (while noting that this is their personal interpretation of the issues, and not an official position). I'm going to respond by suggesting that the best option would be to mark the post-1945 images which the AWM no longer claims copyright on as being released under the CC-BY-2.5 licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/) which is now being used by many Australian Government agencies. Nick-D ( talk) 10:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, Nick. I think you're right, and, besides, even if I thought you were wrong there's nothing in the tone of your comment to get annoyed at. I always welcome your opinion. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no worries :) The equivalent of this map in the US Army history seems to have a lot of the detail I suggested (see map 17 here, or the direct link here). Nick-D ( talk) 10:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the wording i added is a direct quote, i have changed around the wording of the information. You cannot expect me to change every single word. Some sentences like the last short one cannot not be change as it is a list. It would be pointless to reword it. These are facts, so they should be included. I understand what is wrong with copying the sentence entirely, but i changed the sentences so they would not be exact copies. I don't see what is wrong with the version i changed it too. I did not copy any of the sentences apart from the last as that sentence is a list. I want to re add the info you reverted as it is good sourced info. I don't see how the last version could possibly violate copyright rules on wiki. Stumink

The wording was only slightly different from what was in the sources - the standards regarding plagiarism which are expected in schools and universities are also expected here. Nick-D ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to change every word. Honestly i think if you checked all the sources i have change every sentence. What would you have me change The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, power facilities and crop burning. to. I actually did change this sentence from the original. The original words were The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, and power facilities, as well as deliberate crop burning. Mandela sent to South African newspapers a letter warning that a new campaign would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention. were the original words whilst i put In June 1961, Mandela sent a letter to South African newspapers warning the government that a campaign of sabotage would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention. These are different. This information is fact. It is hard to change info like this to your standards of what different means. The rest was different from the original. I don' t think it is usually this hard to put well sourced info on wiki. Usually You find well sourced info and you change it, as to not violate copy right. I have taken well sourced info from three different websites and i have not directly copied the info. You are basically asking me to change every word. How would i change this The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, power facilities. I have changed a lot of the info to my own wording. The words which remain are impossible or pointless to change. Do want me to change words like sabotage, bombings, crop burnings, constitutional convention, government targets, guerrilla warfare. I doubt what i wrote constitutes plagiarism in schools and universities standards. I sourced facts and i changed the wording where possible or necessary. Stumink —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While you don't literally need to change every single word, you can't just tweak the structure of sentences as you've been doing. Just paraphrase things into your own words. If you can't figure out a way to do this, you shouldn't be writing here. Nick-D ( talk) 11:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I did paraphrase things into my own words enough. I was adding small sentences of information and I changed the words and layout where i could in the previous version. There is no way that my last earlier version would or even should break copy right rules. No way. Any how, thanks for you reply but i had changed the paragraph again before your reply. My current accepted paragraph is worse than the previous version. I detect a tad of selectivity in your choice in the second deletion but doesn't matter anymore, problem been solved. Stumink

Nick, when you talk to the AWM, could you raise the possibility of releasing images whose copyright has expired under a CC-By licence? The issue here is that of the Commonwealth images that have expired since 1969, but are still copyrighted in the United States. I have some correspondence with AG, and they say that responsibility has been devolved to the agencies but The starting point for licencing decisions is that, wherever possible, government material should be released under an open licence such as the Creative Commons BY licence. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I raised that in my email (by giving examples of the kinds of images which are being deleted and articles on post-WW2 conflicts which are clearly under-illustrated). As you've probably noticed, most APS agencies seem pretty unmotivated to move to Creative Commons BY licences. I think that the ABS is the only major creator and owner of content to have adopted this license so far. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 08:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with your comment there (you know the one) ... the problem is that neither that nor anything else can happen unless we can get an RFC to pass, and that's not going to happen unless/until there's some successful outreach over several months, to build support for any RFC. That's why I'm suggesting a board ... but so far, there's no enthusiasm for that, so my best guess is RFA2012 is as dead as RFA2011, RFA2010, etc. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort-of tempted to go rouge and really break out the block hammer at times, but I don't think it would end well! (especially as I try to not generate work for the good folks at ArbCom). In all seriousness, I think that there's a growing case for there to be some sort of Wiki-government appointed to handle situations like this: - we've got an obvious problem, several obvious solutions, but no ability to attempt to implement them. Whatever they'd do would upset a few vocal people, but most editors would either not notice, not care or approve strongly. Nick-D ( talk) 23:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

On 22 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Torpedo Bay Navy Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that items on display at the Royal New Zealand Navy's Torpedo Bay Navy Museum include the Māori warrior's skirt which the captain of the battlecruiser HMS New Zealand wore for good luck in battle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Torpedo Bay Navy Museum. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Casliber ( talk contribs) 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry if the bit about "ask your teacher" a while back made me look like an a**hole, and stomped on your foot a bit. Sometimes I don't know what to do with myself. –  Ling.Nut ( talk) 11:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all. To be honest, I can't really remember this, so I can't have been very offended :) Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding material to Imperial Gift that I started - you've "validated" my effort. Launching a new article which subsequently doesn't get any significant additions from other contributors is a disheartening experience, so I'm really glad to see someone is interested in my newest creation here on WP. I have a few books that I can use to expand the section on South Africa, but for the rest I'm dependent on what Google can deliver. Do you have dead tree sources for expanding one or more of the other countries? If you know any other editors who might be inteested please invite them to join the effort too. Roger ( talk) 08:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and great work with this article. I actually started working on an article on this topic at User:Nick-D/random drafts last September, but didn't get very far. There are several Australian sources I can draw on to add extra material. I'd suggest that you also ping Ian Rose ( talk · contribs) to see what he has available on the topic. Nick-D ( talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, tks Nick, as ever I'm stalking your page and in fact did see the article had been created when links began appearing in a couple of "my" bios (I recgnise the S.E.5 image from one of them, George Mackinolty). I'm sure we could develop a decent Australian section, not sure at this stage about the other countries apart from S. Africa though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I slapped wikilinks in all the articles where I found the phrase "Imperial Gift" so as not to sit with a new orphan article, but I'm sure there are more pages that can be linked - such as the aircraft type articles.

I'm intrigued by the story of NZ's initial refusal and their subsequent failure to establish an air force with the planes they did eventually receive. There's not much more than a passing mention in the online sources I've looked at so far. The Indian situation is also interesting - more research needed there too. Roger ( talk) 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

When I was looking for sources last year, there seemed to be way more available on Australia than any of the other countries for some reason. Nick-D ( talk) 10:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick,

I just reached the section about the treatment of allied prisoners and the vivisection. Just a few days ago I read about this in a book and now looked on it again. The problem is, this book numbers die vivisected airmen to eight in four sessions on Mai 17, 23, and 29 as well as June 3. The book is Ienaga: The Pacific War and the source he names are two japanese books from 1957. So I want to ask how far the source of the six names her own sources? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, The book actually says that "at least six" airmen were subjected to vivisection. Its reference is to a 1995 article in the Baltimore Sun which appears to have been taken from some guy's website judging from the URL given rather than a proper news archive(!), so I reckon that your source is much superior. Could you please update the Air raids on Japan article with this material? By the way, what appears to be a direct translation of this article is currently being nominated for 'Bon article' status on the French Wikipedia. The nomination discussion (available here) has some interesting comments. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the number and a few more facts in the text and the book at the references. I don't know how you handle it in en:Wiki but do you mention the translator at the references if the book was not first published in english? So far, I'm not able to understand more than a few words of the french language (and am sure I never will be, haha) but for my opinion with the high number of voters there are only a few and quite short statements. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 11:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I don't think that we normally name translators in references, except in cases where the name of the original author isn't specified in the book's publishing details for some reason. My French is very limited (as I found out the hard way whenever I tried to use it in Paris last year!), but Google translate works well ;) Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah that was a good hint, Google Translator works better for french than east asian languages where I try it commonly. Well, the template-problem can't happen with the german article because it's not common in de:Wiki to use templates for the references. But the most of the other points can and possibly will be mentioned if I try to promote the article in german. They named it's weaknesses: the view is sometimes very onesided, it should have more japanese or non-english sources and a greater focus on the japanese actions and a comparative section of the bombings with the ones committed against germany would be really great. For the german article I am pretty sure that someone would ask for one or two sentences that compare the bombings with the ones the Condor Legion committed against Guernica. But thats tyical german. I am sure that an A-Class promotion is possible and then the article can candidate for Article of the Day for 6 August 2015 (so that the article of the acutal atomic bombings can be Article of the Day on 9 August of that year. How about trying the same in en:Wiki? It would show that not only the atomic bombings caused sorrow and pain. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I was trying to get this article up to standard in time for it to be on the front page on the 70th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, but didn't quite make it in time. I agree that more material on the Japanese side of the story would be good, but there's surprisingly little on the topic in English - most books which cover the experiences of the Japanese civilians and the aid defence effort have a limited scope or are anecdotal in nature and difficult to use as sources - the same holds true for most aspects of the Pacific War. The combination of the language barrier and the fact that the Japanese Government destroyed almost all of its records at the end of the war, means that English-language historians often don't have much to work with. In light of the comments in the French review I'm going to try to work in some extra material on this topic though. Nick-D ( talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you maybe look up the casualty numbers for the Twentieth Air Force in Kerr (1991) again? It looks a little strange, that they lost 414 Bombers and had 414 wounded. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check that, though it may take a few days. Nick-D ( talk) 01:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You've just spotted another error: Kerr's figure is actually 433 wounded. Thanks for raising this! Nick-D ( talk) 04:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally, it's done! ( de:Luftangriffe auf Japan). I will wait for some review Feedback for one or two months now before trying to get it to Lesenswert-Status. Thank you for all your help until now! -- Bomzibar ( talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Great work with this, and I've really enjoyed working with you on it. I'd be very interested in seeing what feedback it gets. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I just remembered one more hint I wanted to tell you days ago: You oftentimes use the word however. As it is not SO scientific you maybe should use other words for that. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a first feedback in the Review (you can see it over here). Some of the arguments are points I mentioned today as the remembrance etc. The reviewer asked for two interesting things:

He heard on a symposium once, the target cities for the atomic bombs were not or not heavy bombed before because the US leaders wanted to see the effects on non-destroyed cities. Do your sources have something about that?

It was asked if there are statistics of the rise or decline of the total arms production from mid 1944 to the end of the war. He asked because it is commonly argued that the bombing campaign against Germany was unsuccessful as the arms production rose up despite the bombings until the allies reached the borders. Statistics could make this comparable. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer the questions in order, and to make an observation:

1. That's correct. There's material on this, with sources, at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets. I didn't include it in the Air Raids on Japan article as it seemed to be excessive detail, and one reviewer (in the peer or A-class review, I can't remember which) had commented that the article already had too strong a focus on the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2. Yes, lots! The story is very complicated through, as the Japanese economy was becoming badly affected by the results of the Allied naval blockade at about the same time as the air raids began, and the blockade and bombing then worked in parallel. As a result, it's difficult to determine the relative contributions bombing and blockade made to the collapse of the Japanese war economy from late 1944 onwards. Pages 657-658 and 752-754 of Craven and Cate are a very good summary of this situation. A key sentence, which is on page 753, reads "There was a rough correlation between the B-29 effort expended against the several war industries and the loss of production in each, but the indiscriminate nature of area attacks and the existence within each industry of special problems makes difficult any exact measurement of the net effects of air bombardment". On page 754 they suggest the blockade may have caused greater disruption to industrial production than the bombing on the basis of the evidence available, though the combination was devastating in the cities which were bombed. To cut a long story short, there's consensus that the bombing badly damaged Japan's economy and accelerated its collapse, but it probably would have collapsed anyway if the bombing had not occurred given how effective the blockade was.
3. As an observation, it's difficult to directly compare the effectiveness of the raids on Japan and Germany as these countries had very different economic structures. As an example, much of Japanese war production took place in small factories located in residential areas, while German production tended to be concentrated in large factories located in the outskirts of cities; as a result, the area raids on Japanese cities had a large impact on industrial output, while those on German cities generally caused little disruption to output. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nick, as until now a few people telled me that the article is a little too detailed as it counts nearly every air attack until the Okinawa-based ones started I thought about a way to solve this problem. I got an idea and just want to now what you think, would it be feasible and reasonable to create an article Chronik der Luftangriffe auf Japan (Chronicle of Air Raids on Japan)? What do you think, would this transfer of content increase or downgrade the quality of the article? -- Bomzibar ( talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, I chose to include all the major raids in the Air raids on Japan article because there weren't a huge number of attacks, and I felt that this approach would best illustrate the way that the campaign built up over time (and especially its extraordinary violence in the last months of the war). I also wanted to fill the current lack of an easily accessible narrative account of the entire campaign - those that exist are either book length or short and patchy. I think this worked and no-one raised the length as a significant issue in the various reviews the article went through. However, your suggested approach is also quite workable and is a good alternative, especially if you've received comments recommending a shorter article. There's a complete list of all the B-29 raids in an appendix of Bartlett E. Kerr's book Flames Over Tokyo which would make a great reference for developing such an article (it's very long though, so I'm not going to transcribe it!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the hint with Kerrs book, I think I can get access to it if I need it. I will have to look if the users say The article can't be awarded with this length! or only continue to say Could be shorter but still a great article. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nick. I'm having a discussion with Thewolfchild over at his talk page. Since you indeffed him, I was wondering if you'd be able to come over and give some input. Ish dar ian 02:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never used that strong of language with Sarek before, where I called him a type of hat. I've seen him do things over a long period of time and blocking a person without warning was an extreme step over the line in my view. The person had just received their topic ban, and had not made any contentious edits for several weeks at least, so the ban was implemented not to stop a current problem, but as a preventative measure to stop future problems. In other words, the editor wasn't being bad currently. The editor inadvertently began a discussion on their own Talk page because someone came to the page from the AN/I debate and asked them about the debate and engaged the editor in a discussion about it. He was then summarily blocked.

I apologized to Sarek about that hat comment a bit later, and he accepted. I generally tend to seek positive and mutually helpful solutions, and more than anything else, I do not like people using power in a way that is harmful to the encyclopedia. After my outburst and time to reconsider, I partly took Sarek's advice by asking about how to proceed with a more measured and less emotionally-driven response. I have seen Sarek do a lot of things that are decent and helpful, and while I appreciate those things, I feel that there is a time for sanction.

The reason I even bothered to come and say all this is simply to say, I normally leave Sarek to his own things and as such I don't give his actions two seconds of thought. But that particular action and my recollection of his previous actions made me angry at the poor treatment of an editor. Consensus later agreed that it was done in haste, so while I feel my rancor was wrong, my insticts were right. I hope this explains a bit more, but I consider the question about process and proceeding with any action to be a serious thing and not simply something to be done lightly. At this point, I am still not entirely convinced that it is something I will do, but sometimes we need our friends and neighbors to weigh in on things with us to get a better perspective. So that's what I'm doing. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"blocking a person without warning" -- what do you call this and this, then? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As I think your fellow editors and myself said, those comments were not direct explanations of what conduct was and was not expected, but simply implied that some part of the action was wrong, without enough detail to help the editor understand how they messed up. I do believe that you made it clear that you thought those two statements were clear warnings, but other editors (via consensus) felt it wasn't clear enough. I don't want to take your case up here, I just wanted to explain my perspective to Nick-D. This does not necessarily mean I am in the right and you are in the wrong, Sarek, it is, after all, my opinion. -- Avanu ( talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In deference to Sarek, I won't post on your page again about this topic, its generally considered more appropriate to keep the debate in one place, and I'll do that, unless Sarek explicitly requests otherwise. -- Avanu ( talk) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK no worries. I imagine that you don't need me to tell you that it's not a wise idea to start a thread asking about how to sanction an admin for incivility shortly after you've abused them. Nick-D ( talk) 08:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

G'day! You currently show Jo Gullett as being a Company Commander with the Green Howards at the landings. In his autobiography, I'm pretty sure he says he landed as a supernumary with 8th Bn Royal Scots, and was appointed as a Coy Cdr when the Cdr was killed shortly after landing. The wounded date sees right though. Unfortunately, I don't have access currently to the autobiog, 'Not as a Duty Only', but it is worth verifying. I'll try to get it at a Library and confirm. cheers. RichardH ( talk) 09:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll check that. I did briefly consult Gullett's autobiography, but it contained some factual errors about this period (he claimed that the party of Australian Army officers was sent to the UK as part of the effort to make good the British Army's shortage of junior officers, which isn't correct) so I didn't use it as a reference. Nick-D ( talk) 09:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have a few unreviewed DYKs sitting around, including Template:Did you know nominations/Lesotho women's national football team from June 10, [[T emplate:Did you know nominations/Cambodia women's national football team]] which needs a new tick after surviving AfD, Template:Did you know nominations/Sioma which survived AfD, and Template:Did you know nominations/Janine Murray which has hook interest issues. If you could look at any of these four, it would be fantastic. :) -- LauraHale ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laura, I've just commented on all four, though I found problems with three of them unfortunately. Nick-D ( talk) 01:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts on this article. I am close to running it through an AfD because the only thing that says 'Black Wasps' have anything to do with Cuban special forces is an unsourced page of what appears to be fan photos. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This 1994 story from The Independent and this 1997 story from The Nation very briefly mention 'Black Wasps' special forces being used for internal security/political repression-type tasks. I can't find any other reliable sources through Google, Google Books and Google Scholar though. As such, WP:V for the unit's (?) existence is met, but notability seems questionable. I'm a bit skeptical that units which are were used for paramilitary-type tasks are really "trained to handle any missions assigned to them by the Cuban government" (which is the usual special operations fanboy stuff anyway). Nick-D ( talk) 00:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

So do you think I should run it through AfD, or just upmerge with sentences from the Independent and Nation articles in the main armed forces article? Also I've just checked the Military Balance: it lists no Army (or Navy/Air) SOF, and no paramilitary bully-boys beyond 20,000 MoI State Security, 6,500 Border Guards, Youth Labour Army, Civil Defence Force, and an estimated million (?!) Territorial Militia. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest nominating it for AfD - based on the available sources we can't say whether this force still exists, whether it's a military or paramilitary force, whether it's a specialised unit or comprises of personnel detailed from other units, etc, so upmerging seems unsafe. Nick-D ( talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Wasps. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll comment there. Nick-D ( talk) 09:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As you were a recent participant in an edit war at the above-named article I am taking the opportunity to warn you formally that the article is now under a no-reverts rule. This means that from now on anyone making a revert will be blocked instantly without further warning, except in cases of really obvious vandalism. Instead of reverting, you should consider trying for compromise either by drafting a good-faith compromise in the article, or discussing towards one in talk. Edit-warring deters other editors and poisons the atmosphere that we need to edit constructively. Please do not do it. -- John ( talk) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)