User talk:Nick-D

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)

Awards people have given me

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Awarded to Nick-D, as part of AustralianRupert's New Year Honours List, for undertaking the often frustrating and challenging role as an administrator during 2010. Keep up the good work! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

World War II

Can you please discuss your changes on the article's talk page rather than edit war? Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly happened? You reverted my change, I then tweaked it for you, added more to the citation for you, and put it back, in an effort to work toward WP:CONS. Besides, we are having a discussion on the World War II talk page, where I've even stated I want to engage in re-wording the line with you. I have brought and have expanded on a citation, and have referred to further reading that I think you'll be interested in. I do it all with good will. This use of the term 'edit war' seems unfair. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for General Dynamics F-111C

Materialscientist (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I sent you an email. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal library question

Outside chance, but I thought I'd ask. Do you have any books in your substantial library on infantry weapons? I used to own a copy of Janes Infantry Weapons (1970-something) and I was wanting to look up what term they used for the German round used in the Gewehr 98 and Kar 98 rifles when I found I had got rid of it at a carboot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not... Guns aren't really my thing I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the quick answer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands

Dravecky (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know.
Message added 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

invite

You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Manar Group

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group, Looks ready to close, would you like to visit again? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of photo

I noticed you deleted the spring weather photo from the Sydney article claiming that it was a photo shopped version of the other photo that you pointed out. This is not the case, they are two different photos taken on different days from the same location, you need to check the dates in the camera data, they are about a month apart. If a photo has gone through photo shop the meta data would state this. Check the data for this photo, this is the main photo for the Sydney article, it is also a featured photo and you will find that this has been through photo shop. If my image had been through photo shop the way that you claim it never would have been nominated as a quality image. Also if you look at the waves breaking against the cliff side in either photo you will notice that formations are different and the photo without clouds was taken from a different vantage point as the bushes are not obstructing the view of the cliff. Would you say this has bee through photo shop [1]. Thanks ***Adam*** 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how File:Dover Heights, New South Wales 2.jpg is a photoshopped version of File:Dover cliff tops.jpg, I can tell the angle is different (same location but not the same spot). Also I'm assuming that Adam is using a polarizer filter on his camera as it is the same effect I get. Bidgee (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK no worries. File:Dover Heights, New South Wales 2.jpg is identified in its commons record as being a version of File:Dover cliff tops.jpg and the clouds look a bit odd so I assumed that it was a modified version of the original. Thank you both for setting me right. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't use any filters just the lens itself, the clouds may look unusual due to the fact that it is a stitched panorama, in height and in width. I took the first row with the camera facing up and the lower level with the camera facing down to the water, there is about 15 shots all up from what I can remember. Clouds may also look unusual due to the fact that it is higher up and the clouds look as though they are heading towards the lens of the camera. Also do you think there may be a use for the sub photo that I have linked above. Cheers. ***Adam*** 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That explains it, reason why I said assumed as I thought that there could be another possibility. (Sorry to Nick-D for hijacking his talk page) I've taken the next step of panoramas by trying to do a Equirectangulars (360x180) but it isn't going too well without a panohead. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No-worries, good luck with the panos, I just did a quick google and found this page [2] on flickr. You can press play and watch the whole thing as a slide show, check it out. I might even give it a go myself later on but I am not to keen on warped panoramas these days. I think this one of my own a 60 photo stitch might be close. Cheers. ***Adam*** 05:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

76SQN

Hi mate, no doubt this is on your list but just a prod that it could really use the same sort of treatment you gave 75/79SQNs sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

...I was thinking the same thing yesterday ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice straightforward division of labour here -- you take care of the squadrons (viz. 76), and I'll take care of their notable commanders (viz. Turnbull)... ;-) I did have Alan Rawlinson next on the list but he's proving a bit more of a challenge now I find he left the RAAF in '46 and joined the RAF the next year, which is where the info starts to thin out. Did get his RAF commission/promotions/decorations from the Gazette -- he added an AFC and OBE to his wartime DFC & Bar but just what he did to earn those is anyone's guess -- looks like he commanded an RAF base according to Flight International archives and also heard he flew Meteors and Vampires (but not from a reliable source) and of course his NAA file stops in '46... I'll continue to investigate but if you come across any snippets of him post-war, let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do. It seems that the RAF keeps its personnel files on a tight leash as well: [3] so they're not likely to turn up online. Let me know if you spot any obscure Australian books which would be of use - the NLA will have a copy I can look up. The production of RAAF squadron articles has been slowed down a bit by me losing my copy of Steve Eather's Flying Squadrons of the Australian Defence Force book, but my current intention is to focus on the squadrons which are currently active on the grounds that they'll be of most interest to readers. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mitchell has a copy of Eather so if you do as much as you can with the Concise Unit History and whatever other sources you have, I can occasionally check on Eather for you when necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I found my copy of Eather's book - hooray. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:

• Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
• Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship PR

Nick, I added a cultural significance section to the article that partially addresses the question you raised about the human side of the ships. I am still working on digging more information up for the human side, but I thought it important that I inform you that I finally had some success in addressing this point (I think so, anyway). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Great work Tom. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Talk:2010_Copiapó_mining_accident.
Message added 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied to your comment. Veriss (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable commanders

Hi mate, suddenly got a burning desire to finish adding notable commanders (i.e. they have articles or they soon will) to RAAF squadron articles -- since some of my date ranges come from other than the Concise Unit History or Eather, pls let me know if you happen to find anything I add to be dubious as it may mean I have to update the relevant commander's bio... ;-) In fact you could help me straight away with 3SQN, as I find I have both Wrigley and Anderson commanding in 1918-19. ADB says Anderson led from Oct 1918 till he went sick in Jan 1919, so I guess it's possible Wrig commanded on either side of him in both years, but be interested in anything you have on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to AWM, looks like Wrig only commanded after Anderson, but still interested in dates you have from the two book. I'd always understood Wrig to have commanded 3 in combat but I now suspect he only flew with it (maybe as flight commander) during WWI and then led it post-war. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Vol 2. of the RAAF Concise History gives 16 October 1918 as the date Anderson assumed command but the next commander listed is Lukis from 1 July 1925 (when the squadron was reformed)... (p. 6) The series is pretty patchy with recording acting commanders though. No. 3 Sqn's AFC-era war diaries are on the AWM website here and might be helpful if you haven't checked them - the entries for the last months of the war are big downloads! From a quick check, Wrigley signed the December 1918 war diary as the unit's commanding officer but the January 1919 diary gives 6 January as the day Wrigley temporarily assumed command. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Indef Full Protect on 1961 Indian annexation of Goa

Hi Nick. I was just reviewing indef fully protected articles to make sure no articles are protected that could possibly be semi'd or unprotected. I came across 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, and it looks like you meant to protect this for 3 days to stop an edit-war, but it remains indef protected. Just thought I'd bring your attention to it in case indef protection wasn't your intent. Hope you're having a great day!--Gnowor^T_C 06:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you for letting me know - I've just lifted the protection. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that allied warships came that close to Japan before the end of the war. Thanks for the good article! Location (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It was an interesting article to research and write. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From memory, Garzke and Dulin have some information on the bombardments in both Allied Battleships and United States Battleships (User:The ed17/Library). I don't have them with me at college, but if you would like to take the article to FA in the future, I'd be happy to add references to those two over spring break or during/after May. (also, great article!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I should be able to get my hands on that book at the Australian Defence Force Academy Library (from memory they've got a copy). Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. The article is looking great right now, can't wait to see it even better! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Purple Heart

For grace under fire during the World War II arbcom case

For displaying grace under fire in the lead up to and during the World War II arbcom case I hereby present you with this purple heart. God knows you've earned with the all crap you've taken trying to keep things in order over there. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, and thanks also for your contribution to the case. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded :) On a related note, I'm not sure I'm really getting anywhere with User:Iqinn (see my talk page and their recent edits to the drone attacks article; they apparently know everything they need to know about editing policy and don't need any advice). I'll continue to keep an eye on the article but I'm usually off-'pedia over the weekend, so ANI/another admin may be your best bet if anything develops. Best, EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That discussion on your talk page is consistent with Iqinn's standard conduct (eg, insisting that he or she is clearly right and everyone else is wrong while edit warring to push their preferred view of things). Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arado E.381.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted - the copy edit is on my to-do list Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Military history B class assessments

Nick-D,

Yes I understand completely. I tend to stay away from "B-Class" criteria, because I feel it's upto someone else who know's what to look for otherwise, I'd make a mistake and possibly promote wrong ones or all of them! Rather help get them assessed for "B-Class", than leave them blank. As for any other Military History articles, that you would like me to look at, I'll do my best as for User:AustralianRupert is a little bit busy with the cleanup of the Brisbane flood. Thanks for the message. Adamdaley (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Aerial Battle of Taiwan-Okinawa

Could you please assist to suggest better name? How about "Aerial Battle of Taiwan Sea area" or "Aerial Battle in Sea area of Taiwan"? Are these better than the original name?--alberth2 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not good grammatically and there's no sea called the 'Taiwan Sea'. Can you please move this discussion to the article's talk page?

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll look into it. Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me Nick. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks Ed Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Minas Geraes-class battleship ACR

Hi, Nick, I'm trying to determine if Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Minas Geraes-class battleship can be closed as successful. Have your concerns been addressed? Would you mind stating on the review page whether you support its promotion or not? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my comments have been addressed sufficiently for me to support the article's promotion - I've commented in the ACR. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL!

another reason why previewing edits is a good idea. Indeed ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the string of stuff ups was in one an article which is going to be very popular today ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#OzVC2. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Highland View Academy listed for deletion

I have listed Highland View Academy for deletion. I noticed you had participated in previous AfDs of high schools and thought you might participate. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland View Academy. Salegi (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While this does look like another non-notable high school, unfortunately AfDs on high schools are always mobbed by editors who Google the school and proclaim that trivial media coverage in local media adds up to enough RS to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize that which is why I am notifying editors who have previously taken a more balanced approach to participate. As of yet there have been no comments and I would like to establish precedence for deletion of high schools with ridiculously low coverage and will never be anymore than a "start class" article at best. Welcome your thoughts. Salegi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Northern Marianas raids

Hey Nick-d ive responded on the review page to your recent additions.XavierGreen (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey/2OTU

Hi mate, can I ask a favour -- the Mitchell Library has gone and lost Volume 8 of Units of the RAAF just as I was about to check Peter Jeffrey's dates as CO of 2OTU (later 2OCU), so would you be able to furnish those with page refs? I understand from other sources he had it the first time from Apr/May 42 until taking over 1 Wing from Caldwell in Sep 43, and then again from Oct/Nov 44 to Jun 46, but nice to get additional sourcing when you have a sec... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'm afraid that I don't own that volume, so it will take a while for me to check that (within the week, with a bit of luck). Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't know they could be got separately! No prob, the Mitchell has my mobile and has promosed to call if/when they find it so will let you know if it happens soon (BTW, if I don't get it first, also like to confirm when 2OTU moved from Mildura to Williamtown -- the RAAF website says Mar 43 but I've reason to be dubious about that, suspect it was May or after)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've bought my copies second hand, so I only own the ones on fighter units, bomber units, maritime and transport units and bases. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if I ever spot the training units volume, maybe I'll spring for that, 'cos you seem to have all the other key ones! Not too fussed on this now anyway, the most my current sources disagree on timings is a month so no big deal. Also don't worry about OTU at Williamtown, I think all that happened in Mar 43 was the Spitfire section moved to Williamtown; the HQ and the rest the unit appear to have remained at Mildura. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I'm looking forward to seeing this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You and me both! This one was supposed to be a quick B/GA-level article but ended up taking ages, partly because I had to resort to microfiche in the State Library to locate even one obituary, then 'cos no two sources precisely agreed on his combat claims, and finally there just turned out to be more and more interesting things to write on him -- I don't think there's enough post-RAAF stuff for FA but reckon I'll take it to ACR to reward myself for the effort... BTW, your excellent 1WG article helped speeed up writing the Pacific section a bit, so tks for that as well as the quick B-Class assessment...! ;-) cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: the Mitchell rang today to say that they've found the Units training volume, so the set should now be complete once more... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - and that's good service - the NLA didn't bother telling me on Saturday that some of the books I'd ordered were at their offsite storage facility and wouldn't be delivered until Monday. Who would have thought that obscure volumes of the US Stategic Bombing Survey dealing with naval bombardments would be in deep storage? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PSE check RMCDE source

Hi Nick,

I've added a source for the RMCDE article. Could you please check if this is sufficient?

thnx Hans de Haan (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans, that weblink doesn't seem to work Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently they are restructuring their site. I'll figure out where the page went Hans de Haan (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Included a temporary link to RMCDE information until the original page is back on-line Hans de Haan (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1

Hey Nick, thanks for the review. As always, your advice greatly helped the article's development into a FA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries Ed - it's great to see such high quality articles on these battleships. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He's back

See User:61.68.175.113's contributions. Alos, his "debating style" seems similar to another problem user on WP, User:MickMacNee, though without the profanity, but with plenty of other PAa, particulary accusations of lying/falsehood on my part. A check user might be intereseting though I seriously doubt that he 'is Mick, he's clearly not a brand-new user, and may well have been banned/blocked before. I've also alerted Milb1 about this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've just warned 61.68.175.113 (talk · contribs) about their rude comments. I don't have checkuser access, so you may wish to take this to WP:RFCU. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm way past my sleep period, so I'll check into that later, if someones else hasn;t already. - BilCat (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Polish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Polish Polish casualties 23/01/2011 1 soldier and 1 civilian were killed when IED exploded under ROSOMAK APC ! Please don't cancel editions if u dont know what happened. http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1816230.html that 23th soldier and 1st civilian ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.165.246 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources when you add material to articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship Peer Review

The Iowa class battleship Peer Review will be closing in the next few days. If you have any additional comments, questions, suggestions, complaints, or advise on how to improve the article, or if you wish to strike any comments you believe to have been addressed, please do so now before the review closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

World War Two

I'm vaguely aware there was recently some kind of arbitration case with the WW2 article, and that it may be targeted by POV crusaders and other fruitcakes. The way I see it, you've admirably stepped up to the task of policing the article and guarding it from disruption. I'm sure I can speak for everyone when I say I am grateful to you for that.

At the same time, because you are an administrator your behaviour is under greater scrutiny rather than less - precisely because you are expected to set an example. You and user Stork Stark 7 have had a couple of minor conduct disagreements that I know of, and I have my own minor concern which I hope to resolve now. I hope that if you'll consider what I have to say, it might help reduce conflict at the article and be of benefit to you in the future.

Perhaps it is all because of the enthusiasm you have for maintaining order at WW2, but you have made me wonder about (i) your choice of words in Talk page discussion and (ii) your commitment to collegiality.

This is not a big deal and this is not a formal complaint. The moment that stuck out was an incident when you reverted my content, I then re-worded the content you reverted, and put it back again once. You then alleged I was 'edit warring'. I think that was a rash remark, and you meant I was 'editing rather than discussing'.

Per WP:RV, revert a good faith edit only as a last resort... Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Personally I adhere to the essay Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit which states...

Restoring part of a reverted edit is a recommended practice in on-line collaborative writing. Often when an article version contains more than one disagreeable passage, it is easy to revert to a previous version. This gets rid of all the "mistakes" in a few seconds, but it also can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war.

My understanding is that WP defines an 'edit war' as three blind reverts within a day. Please correct me if I'm wrong. More to the point, though the essay I've quoted above is just an essay, it recommends editors re-word removed content and put it back again, as a method of working toward consensus. When I told you I felt your 'edit-war' allegation was unfair, you replied it 'would have been better' if I'd discussed the content on the Talk page. That may have been so, but the fact remained that you had alleged 'edit warring'. I believe it would have been more persuasive if rather than reacting judgementally, you could have crossed out the allegation as an innocent mistake made in haste, and invite me to discuss the content with you. Instead, it appeared that you couldn't care less. In the real world, false accusations of misconduct which damage reputations can be considered libellous; at the same time rash comments can be retracted and forgiven.

You've used word 'normal' more than once. To my mind that is a volatile word which may not persuade editors to comply with you. It implies that your perspective is normal while others' are not. For example, you assert its 'normal' to always discuss changes on the WW2 Talk page first, before making changes. I'd suggest it would be more persuasive if you told editors 'In my experience it is more constructive to discuss on the Talk page first - please do so', rather than implying that their conduct isn't normal. It would be different if there was some kind of notice on the page that said consensus or administrator intervention had established a page-specific rule that all changes must be discussed first. There is a notice on the page when it is opened for editing - but it does not go that far. I may be blind, but I havn't seen any kind of indication of this convention, anywhere. If you want to set up such a formal notice or 'Please talk first!' mechanism, I would support you. It might save a lot of reverting, misunderstanding, bruised egos and fraught exchanges in the future. Otherwise, without such a formal mechanism, one could form the inaccurate impression that you are dictating personal rules at WW2.

If you do remove fresh content from the article page because it hasn't been discussed, you've got to follow through and discuss it. You raised an objection to my Second Front content, but then haven't fully engaged in discussion yourself. Pushing content from the article page to the talk page and then effectively leaving it there just doesn't look like you really are committed to talking. I appreciate it might be a busy administrator's time-efficient technique of generally keeping the status quo at the WW2 article, but its going to backfire if this becomes a knee-jerk reaction or a habit of throwing away everything whether its good or bad. If you demand discussion, you've got to fully participate in discussion. With respect, you haven't always done that.

As I say, I think you are doing an admirable and unenviable job at WW2, but I'd suggest you invite another couple of admins to share the burden of WW2 quality control with you. I would recommend Transporterman and Sandstein, although I would expect them to stay out of this content area.

These are just minor issues, but I raise them at length partly because I never want to again, and I expect us to do plenty of good work together in due course. It also may help to nip something in the bud. Take your current discussion with SS7. He's put in the effort to provide us a source to back up content that he obviously feels strongly about. You told him his source is 'contested'. I don't see any evidence that it was contested by another secondary source. I think you meant was that it 'appears to be contradicted by other sources'. Maybe you are about to provide evidence of it being contested. But if you know you were rash or mistaken in using the word 'contested', then please cross it out and use another word. After all, nobody is perfect. Yes, this level of linguistic precision is tedious, but it keeps things much, much cooler. So to go back to where I started from, I'm humbly asking you to take renewed care about your choice of words as well your commitment to collegiality. And again, I sincerely thank you for your good work at the WW2 page.

Phew. That's it. I feel another Wikibreak coming on. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chumchum, and thanks for your comments - I really do appreciate them and will take them on board. I'm sorry if you were offending by me saying that you were edit warring - I actually have a very high regard for both your editing and conduct in discussions, which is consistently constructive and good humoured. There are no set number of reversions for an 'edit war', and its generally best to err on the side of not making a second reversion in high profile articles. I try to be level headed, but there are certainly times when I've edit warred in various articles, so please don't think that I'm putting myself on a pedestal or seeking to insult you. Without digging through old discussions, if I didn't discuss changes I'm sorry about this as well (though at times I've deliberetly stepped back from discussions so that other editors could have room to comment). In regards to SS7, there have been a number of disagreements between myself and him or her over the years, and I've got serious concerns about their editing practices, which all too frequently is to pick out small sections of books or journal articles on a contentious topic that support one viewpoint without acknowledging other viewpoints (even when these are discussed in the same source) and aggressively react to comments about these changes. A number of editors have had similar experiences with this editor. I'm trying to limit my involvement with this article as a) I'm burned out following the ArbCom case and b) I agree completely with your comment that a more diverse range of views is needed, and have asked the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject to keep an eye on it (see WT:MHCOORD#World War II article). I should note that as I'm heavily involved with the article's content my comments on the article's talk page and edits to the article have been with my editor hat firmly on, and my admin hat firmly off (it would be quite inappropriate for me to intervene as an admin against anything but gross breaches of policy such as vandalism or copyright violations in an article I'm involved in). Thanks again for your comments - I hope that my response is useful. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have been the topic of conversation here, without being notified. No matter, I've given Chumchum7 my views at his talk page. Cheers.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you need to be notified? This is a discussion on a user talk page - there's no requirement to notify other editors who are mentioned. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Move protection

Nick, the NBC Universal article has been moved multiple times in the past 3 days, including by me. It's a bit unclear at the moment as to whether the new corporate name should be spelled "NBC Universal" or "NBCUniversal". Could you move-protect the article for a few days, to give us time to sort out the correct format? I'm sure it must be driving the redirect update bots batty by now! I'm leaning towards "NBCUniversal", as used on the company's website in its copyright notice, but I'm not going to move it back to the "correct" version while also requesting protection. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've just move protected the article for a day - the move war (for want of a better term) is fairly slow paced so I hope that this is an adequate circuit breaker. Let me know if further protection proves necessary though. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem - there's definitely contradctory info out there, and all the moves, including mine :), appear to have been in total good faith. Enough is enough, though. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your contribution to copyright detection and cleanup, especially this CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the work on this (knowing someone else was working on it certainly motivated me to keep going!) and for detecting and dealing with the issue in the first place. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In the "Black Friday" air attack of World War II a force of Allied Bristol Beaufighter aircraft suffered heavy casualties during an unsuccessful attack on German destroyer Z33 and her escorting vessels on 9 February 1945. The German ships were sheltering in a strong defensive position in Førde Fjord, Norway, forcing the Allied aircraft to attack through heavy anti-aircraft fire. The Beaufighters and their escort of North American P-51 Mustang fighters were also surprised by twelve German Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters. In the resulting attack the Allies damaged at least two of the German ships for the loss of seven Beaufighters shot down by flak guns. Another two Beaufighters and one Mustang were destroyed by the Fw 190s. Either four or five German fighters were shot down by the Allied aircraft, including one flown by an ace. Due to the losses suffered in this raid the Allied anti-shipping force adopted new tactics which placed a lower priority on attacking warships. (more...)

Congrats Nick! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Belated congrats from me, too, Nick. Just started working for a living again after my extended travel break so you may have noticed I haven't been quite as active here lately -- on the other hand I didn't see too much vandalism on this one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. The ratio between time spent travelling and the amount of time you need to spend at work to pay for the travel is always depressing! Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Persistent blanking of properly sourced content by IP editor

Hello Nick, wonder if you could wave your magic wand to salt the article page of Type 45 destroyer for a week or two? Honestly, we're quite fed-up with the content blanking rhetoric of a certain IP editor over the last 48 hour period. Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please disregard the above, matter has been taken care of. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to see. Cheers Dave. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Engvar at Drafts7

Did you wish to have UK spelling at your /Drafts7 sandbox article? The subject seems primarily Usonian to me. I can go through and Americanize the spelling if you request it. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about that today... American English would probably be more appropriate given the subject, so please do make those changes. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Donnerkeil

Hi Nick. I can't find any information that says specifically that the RAF dropped mines in anticipation of the KM breakout from Brest. Can it count as a preparatory measure against the CD, if those mines were laid to interdict German/Axis shipping and damaged Scharnhorst by mistake? Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but the fact that it was air dropped mines which did the damage seems well worth including in the article. I don't think that the British would have regarded this as a 'mistake' ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You know I was going to change that to "fluke" before you read it, but got distracted. Dapi89 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for No. 29 Squadron RAAF

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for John Hines (Australian soldier)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As requested

I've posted a list of IPs and the involved articles that you requested here. I'll be watching that section if you have any questions or observations. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spruce Production Division

Thanks for the GA review! Nice to see that it passed. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries - it's a very interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested

is a very reliable source which has attracted excellent reviews. Actually the author started writing for a newspaper associated with far right after that, defending "patriotic" members of Luftwaffe Legion Condor, and making other statements along this worldview. It sometimes happens to some German historians it seems ;) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the book's a RS. If other RS come to different conclusions that should definitely be included in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maginot Line Article

Nick-D,

Article: Maginot Line

Over the past few days there has been a discussion between an administrator (on en.wikipedia.org) as well as Tim PF and myself concerning the English version to use on this particular article. So far we have agreed to go with "British English" and have done distance conversions where appropriate. I suggested the following people may help the three of us that has started the conversation to improve the article or have suggestions. The following users have been named by myself who could be of some assistance:

• Ian Rose
• AustralianRupert
• Parsecboy
• Nick-D

Hope you can join the conversation on the Maginot Line Discussion page. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe Baugher

Please revisit WP:RSN#Joe Baugher, I've raised some questions in response to points you made. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded there. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

50 Squadron RAF

Re your copying of the temp article into the existing article - doing that kept the copyvio in the history. I deleted the article under CSD G6, and then moved the temp article to the original title, thus keeping the history of the new article and losing all trace of copyvio from the history at the same time. All that was left to do the was remove the temp notice from the new article. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Thank you for fixing that up. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, those who never make a mistake never make anything! Thanks for the barnstar. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Groups

Would you please mind reviewing my recent actions and those of User:Marcd30319 in regard to the above articles? We have quite a different view of how they should go... Marc wishes to keep as much as possible U.S. Navy terminology and official pronouncements, while I think they're bloated and there's inclusion of material that hinders improvement. User:The ed17 has given a few opinions but says he's quite busy. Would you mind adding any thoughts you might have to mine or Marc's talkpages? I've recently started another section at Marc's talkpage. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 4 Squadron RAAF

I have given you my thoughts on the matter, and I do not intend to edit the article. I am simply being a conduit for observations of other articles on aerial units, and how they were/are written. My intent is to suggest possible improvements, nothing more.

For instance, if you check out unit lineage in the article for the 477th Bombardment Group, you will note several changes in unit focus and function while it retained its original number. On the other hand, such units as No. 213 Squadron RAF changed their number designations as their history devolved. My opinion (note, opinion) is that lineal coverage of unit histories gives the most intelligible result, and orphaned stubs may be in danger of AfD.

I might add that my opinion is that of a military biographer with a secondary interest in Forward air control. I whip up squadron stubs on occasion to create linkages to bios of flying aces, but otherwise seldom bother editing articles on units. Having stated my opinion, I repose my trust in you to create the best article(s) you can about the units that interest you. I may drop in on a unit article to link to it (usually under "Notable personnel" or the WWI portion of the "History" section), and I would take it kindly if you would allow such linkage.

Thank you for your courtesy, candor, and lack of defensiveness in this discussion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

North Australia Air War

Hi Nick, just wondering whether you have come across North Australia Air War before? Should this be merged into North Western Area Campaign? Any thoughts?? Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that before - probably as it isn't linked from any articles. I agree that the two articles should be merged. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

LCM2000 question

Nick, are you able to confirm or disprove my guess at Canberra class landing helicopter dock that the LCM2000 landing craft were covered under Joint Project 2048 Phase 1 (the source I used only says that phase 1 was for new landing craft to work with the Kanimblas). Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 04:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The media release from October last year stating that the LCM2000s had been added to the 'projects of concern' list states that the relevant DMO project was Joint 2048 Phase 1A. I don't think I have a source, but I remember reading that the LCM2000s weren't going to be either compatible or suitable for use with the LHDs (which, along with the hull cracking, presumably explains why they're being sold or scrapped rather than mothballed). Nice work with redeveloping the Canberra class article BTW. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the compliment :) -- saberwyn 11:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalking by Nick-D

Hi Nick-D, I see that you are stalking me, for example to Chenogne massacre, and Commission for Polish Relief. It would be a pitty if you engaged in WP:Stalking, so please read up on policy. All the best.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stor, Adding a link and tweaking a word (as in the Chenogne massacre article) and expanding an article using a reliable source (as in the Commission for Polish Relief article) is hardly harrasment, so please don't throw baseless claims of 'stalking' around. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Commission for Polish Relief

I noticed your edits and added something on Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and especially in Poland. It would be worth mentioning that Hoover's attempt to get aid were in conflict with Nazi plans to starve "untermensch" population into mass death. In any case I added some information including policy of stealing food from Poles and Jews by Nazis and redistribution of food supplies based on racial criteria. Cheers! --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I elaborated on Nazi policy in Poland that is backed up with reliable sources. Wikipedia is a joint endevor where we work together. Cheers--Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The more people working on articles (in good faith, of course) the better. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a comment on the article's talk page about the order of material in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you add your Medlicott's citations on a per-sentence basis, not per-para basis? I find some facts quite interesting, but in collaboratively edited projects it is hard to make sure that the paragraph-citation integrity is stable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do (though it might take a day or two). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. At that point I think the article may be around C or B class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Drone attacks

Replied (belatedly) on my talk page. EyeSerene^talk 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Crappy ranking by Bangkok Post‏

• Hey Nick, mind taking a look at the following below? Can't blame me for being sceptical, right? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1.) Talk:Chengdu J-20#Fifth best fighter in the world

2.) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bangkok Post not a reliable source on statements by the Thai military?

Hi Dave, I've commented at WP:RSN. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable or not, this sort of addition is typical of Hcobs's editing style, which is mostly composed of adding news-quotes to articles. See Next Generation Bomber for an example of this "he said, he said" style at its worst. - BilCat (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed! Think we need to refresh people here about 1.) WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; & 2.) WP:Competence is required. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything that bad with those edits - adding news stories can be a useful way to lay the ground work for future expansions. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive/deluded anon editor claiming to be god

Hey Nick, I've reported the IP editor to ANI, could you please take a look at his disruptive editing behaviour? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I just blocked them for 24 hours for edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for removing the pesky bugga. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully whatever religion he or she is the (or a) god of is forgiving ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• My feisty Chihuahua would love to meet him. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

echelon and google

My google was just to add a pragraf with says that theres is in fact SPECULATION about that google is and echolon porject funded by the cia, i have proved with webside from the web there is speculation.

The source is realiable to tell there is speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.42.75 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Commission for Polish Relief

Orlady (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Ian Rose's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Britsh Twelfth Army

Thanks for joining me in updating this article. I don't have the bandwidth at home to do a comprehensive google books search, so I was relying on my (very useful) copy of Holt's 'The Deceivers' for the basics. I'm wondering if a (British) Public Records Office search might also turn up some useful information as there are some things in Holt, such as the relationship between Twelfth Army and the British XIV corps that his book does not make clear.

Do you know anyone who'd be willing to tackle the formation insignia?Graham1973 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. I don't know much about the British PRO either I'm afraid, but there are some MilHist editors who have used PRO files, so a general appeal for help might work. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011(UTC)

Started to explore the Records Office World War II page. At the very least it should give access to the raw material Holt used.Graham1973 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Contacted a user of Wikipedia who I thought might be interested in doing some of the British Phantom division insignia based on his work with the US Phantom Divisions. Got the 'if it's not online, it's not true' response which rather annoys me.Graham1973 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures, many of them

Hey Nick, I left this message with Saberwyn, but it applies to you as well. As you are interested in Aussie ships, I have a feeling you're gonna like [4]. Specifically, Australia has quite a few photos in these two categories: [5][6]. There's a thread on WT:SHIPS about the uploads. Hope you enjoy! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ed - that's an excellent resource. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They say, he say, she say, me say

REF: this edit

• Hello. Per the above WP:CPUSH statement: This is getting way out of hand, the guy's rhetoric is getting from bad to worse and all he does day after day, week after week is nothing but the insertion (or the attempt of it) of content that does not readily improve the related article pages in most ways than not. Check out his contribution history and it is very apparent what I'm saying here is verified; Talk:Chengdu J-10, Talk:Chengdu J-20 and Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II being pages where he goes on and on about such crap (apologies for lack of a better word to describe it). Should we have a specially formed panel of committee members for WP:AIR or WP:MILHIST to help curb such piling of nonsense that does not serve the Military section of WP as an online free-to-edit encyclopeida (which is factual and accurately written by responsible editors backed up by verified facts and figures). Or should we refer this to WP:RFC/U or WP:ARBCOM instead? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To be quite frank Dave, I think that Hcobb's editing and general conduct is fine. Adding bits of information to articles is useful and, from what I've seen, he or she responds in a civil and constructive fashion to talk page posts and changes to or the removal of material they add. I can't see anything wrong with the talk page post you provide a diff off - asking for a reference about a feature of the aircraft on a talk page to prove or disprove a viewpoint before it is added to the article is actually a productive editing practice. If there's some kind of long-running problem here, you should substantiate it through a RfC/U or similar. However, I really don't see any issues here beyond a clash between different editing styles. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In isolation or moderation, such activity is not a problem with most user. With Hcobb, it's the sheer volune of his edits, and this is the bulk of them for his entire time on WP. I keep waiting for him to grow out of it, the fourum-style comments and not-news additions never let up. He is civil, and not a behavioral problem as such, but WP is not a forum, and there are better outlets for the bulk of his talk page questions. The he said/they said additions to articles can be useful, but they end up being the bulk of some articles, and that's hardly encylopedic, in my opinion. The fact that he is quite prolific makes it a bear to try to clean up after him. Several editors have approached him about these issues in the past, but he has not moderated at all, in fact getting "worse" at times.

But add to his penchant for smart-alec remarks - something Dave and I also practice - a cryptic, hard-to-understand way of dealing with other editors: See his response here, which is hardly helpful in anyway. In the end, the Lexinington talking-head Loren B. Thompson - a favorite "source" of HC's - proved to be dead wrong,a nd the item removed again. Again, it's really only an issue because he tends to respondd that way a lot. Compared to genuine tenditious editors such as our "friend " Tenmei, Hcobbs's not that bad at all. But it would be nice if he'd show some discernment in his talk page comments and article additions, which he has yet to really show. - BilCat (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill. If you think that Hcobb's overall pattern of editing is unhelpful (which I personally don't think is the case) but civil, I'd suggest that a RFC/U is the way to go. I really don't see anything which warrants admin intervention here and I doubt that any other admin would either, but a RFC/U is a good way to provide feedback on editing in a semi-formal setting. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence - Merger?

Nick-D,

As you maybe aware I have started a discussion with the WikiProject Council concerning the following:

• WikiProject Espionage.
• WikiProject Intelligence.
• A third is possibly associated with WikiProject Military History.

You can clearly see, that I'm willing to leave the one associated with WikiProject Military History to that WikiProject. My aim is to merger or come to some agreement with the three users who seem to be still active (which includes myself) on WikiProject Espionage and have approached WikiProject Intelligence to seek their advice, opinions, or have a discussion about merging. If they want to keep it seperate it's upto them, but I would like to know where they stand with the current discussion I've started with the WikiProject Council. I welcome any feedback on this suggestion to be located on the WikiProject Council page where there has been alot of discussion about it going on. Would like you to inform other coordinators within the WikiProject Military History about this. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Saigō-no-Tsubone assessment

Hi, please see the discussion at the Help desk regarding an assessment you did and I hopefully corrected. Please check it to make sure it's right now. If I screwed up, my sincere apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've responded there. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I realized that my change knocked out your inclusion of the military history assessment. So, I went in again to the Talk page and restored the page to your edit + the listas parameter added by the other editor. I think it's correct now, but I have far more confidence in you in this area, so please check it one more time to make sure it's complete and accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine now. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove alt text

Copyedit from my page: "Removing alt text as you did in these edits and adding odd comments about it as you did here isn't very helpful. If you don't like alt text, please discuss it rather than remove it arbitrarily. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I saw your comments regarding sight-impaired users and on the basis of that concern, I can see the need for alt text. However, the original issue I had was that editors have insisted on the inclusion as a means of satisfying GA/FA review requirements, which is not the case. Besides, the very poorly written alt comments have been piling up and finally, I did make a deletion and explained the reasoning both in a talk comment and edit comment. This is a now a non-issue, but I do wish there were some standards to making an alt note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, there's a lot of confusion about the status of alt text and how it should be worded - the introduction of alt text was handled poorly, and the policies relating to its use and guidance on how it should be written have since changed considerably without much publicity. I think its worth keeping unsatisfactory alt text rather than removing it, however, as it's at least of some assistance to readers. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but after seeing the mass of alt text submitted by one zealous editor, I simply wanted to address the issue and was not intending to open up a "cauldron of smelly fish." The initial contention that the alt text was a requirement for feature articles was off-setting as is the entire campaigning of the editor to rewrite articles into his/her own bent, ostensibly under the feignt that the changes were necessary to adhere to a FA/GA standard. FWiW, my primary concern was that the alt text was not well written. Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

OK, no worries Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Spammer

See here, primarily USN ships. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rolled back almost all the spam. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

> Please stop spamming references to Wendy Lewis' books. This is basically bad-faith editing > as the references are being added without any apparent consideration of whether they're a > good reference for the topic (or even a precise page number) and it appears that you have > a conflict of interest. You will be blocked if this continues.

I will stop. I'm sorry that this has been seen as a sign of bad faith. Would you like me to go through the references and put page numbers in?

Ben Morphett Ben morphett (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. And remove the references where the material was already referenced. Nick-D (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Chief of Defence Force (Singapore)

Despite meta:The Wrong Version being protected (isn't it always?), I had no intention of restoring what was originally in the article (then taken out by the other user) again until others had weighed in, so I'm not sure what you really hope to accomplish with the protection. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Strange Passerby, Applying full protection to articles which are the subject of an ongoing edit war is standard practice. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Britain Day

I just wondered if you had time to give me a quick opinion on whether or not this is ready to go to GA. Dapi89 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of a quick skim of the article, I think that it's ready. Great work! Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Block Required

Hi Nick, User:99.7.155.224 needs to be blocked for making continued vandalism and unconstructive edits as shown via User talk:99.7.155.224 and here. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Newm, As the last vandalism from that address was almost a week ago and the volume of vandalism isn't huge I can't block it at the moment. Please let me know if they return to vandalism though. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous attacks agains YM

Could you review this guy's messages? I have a strong faith that he is the guy who wrote the attacking open letter and has WikiHounded YM for a long time (and now he changed his IPs). These comments are full of strong language (rubbish, me not , not coming back etc.) which I tried to remove but I can't fully do that. Would you mind archiving this discussion or protect YM's talk page against anons until YM return. I feel so bad for seeing a anon use his status to drive YM out like this.--115.75.150.108 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that I've made some (what I think are fairly strong) statements in support of YM, I'm not an uninvolved admin on this issue and can't take any action I'm afraid. It might be worth taking this to WP:SPI as it seems certain that this IP editor is someone who has been blocked from editing, most likely by YM, and has a grudge. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank for your reply (I'm the IP guy above). I see that an other admin has fulfilled my request and I am so delighted. I agree with you that he might be someone who was blocked by YM and now he try to add fuel to the fire so that YM would never come back. Have you heard anything from YM? I tried to send many emails but YM has replied any of them yet. Moreover, YM's facebook profile is disappeared. He reminds me of the admin User:RickK (I don't follow RickK's case much but the way people remember RickK is like the way people remember YM). What a life!--115.75.144.240 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't heard anything from YM. I do hope that he's OK - I was put through a relatively mild version of a Wiki-witchhunt a year or so ago (over an indef block I imposed and was overturned), and that was a stressful experience. These sort of things tend to attract the crazy fringe of admin-haters who unleash their bile upon the poor admin in question and then get away with it as its seen to be in the context of feedback for a bad admin action, and it's really unpleasant to deal with. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, this is one of many weak-points of Wikipedia. Sometime, policies and guidance are true obstructions and they easily make people crazy. In Vietnamese Wikipedia, I myself experienced a witchhunt that is somewhat like the case of YM in which people kept attacking and questioning an admin's decision for a very long long by using SPAs and IPs until this admin became inactive (before that time he contribute about 12000 edits for Vietnamese Wikipedia but now I rarely saw him). And this made I think letting people edit and create account freely is both most attractive feature and the greatest weakpoint of Wikipedia which some can abuse if they have knowledge to avoid getting blocked. By the way, if you by any chance could talk with YM, please send him my best wishes and tell him that he has some kind of supporter like me so that do not surrender to haters. Thank you very much for everything you have done.--115.75.130.227 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Nick, thanks for adding that image to the 2/3rd Pioneer Battalion article. I've been quite busy the past few weeks on a course and haven't had much time for Wiki unfortunately, so I hadn't yet had a look through the AWM's database or on Commons for images. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, though the article reminded me (again) of my plan to get the Battle of Tarakan (1945) article up to A class or better. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for DYK review

Hi Nick... I appreciate the review and comment on my submission for DYK. I've not done that before and I'm relatively new at article creation. Just an FYI, first, I added a couple of alternate hooks and then went back to check on the reference. Both Amazon[7] and WorldCat[8] indicate the reference for the hook was not published by the author but by Fulcrum Publishing. I'll learn not to trust one source on that information! If everything else checks out, I'd like to use the first DYK nom. I know it's in other editors' hands, but I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for patience.. I'll get better. Wikipelli ^Talk 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to bug you, again, I'm new at this. What happens next with the DYK nom? The page says that, once approved, "any editor may add the hook to the DYK template preparation area, and then delete the hook from the DYK template talk page". Is that something I should do? Is that appropriate/standard? or is it something another editor should do? Sorry for the newbie questions, but it looks as though you've done this quite a lot! :) I have to say that the process is just a little confusing. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a perfectly good question. There are several editors who specialise in looking after DYK, and I normally leave it to them to move my nominations into the DYK queue. This can take a few days. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A favour

Hi, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to review Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mike Jackson for me. I'm in no rush, but I'd hate for it to fail because of lack of comments, so any input would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at it over the weekend (university essay permitting!) Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. I hope I didn't distract you from your essay for too long! I've replied to your comments when you have a minute. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Kanimbla-class amphibious ships

User:Kwamikagami has moved Kanimbla class landing platform amphibious to Kanimbla-class amphibious ships, with several intermidiary stops, which have not been updated for redirects, and some are probably dubious names. The current title includes a hyphen between the ship name and the word "class", which is not done in almost all of the other ship class article. As an admin, he should no better than to leave such a mess. Can you help to straighten this out? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, I've fixed the double, triple, and (once I moved the page from plural to singe) quadruple redirects to this page. Related discussions include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Bot request and Wikipedia:Bot requests#hyphenation of ship classes. -- saberwyn 01:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks also, Saberw. - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian flag debate article

My additions to the article were well referenced.

We'll see what comes out of the dispute resolution process.

I've been accused of this before and prevailed.

Gloriousrevolution (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Under what user name? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For your outstanding work on Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands, No. 79 Squadron RAAF and John Treloar (museum administrator), all promoted to A-Class between February and March 2011. EyeSerenetalk 07:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)