User talk:Nick-D/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Himmler

Hi, Nick-D. I was wondering if you would have a minute to look at what is happening with the GA review for Himmler? Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2 The reviewer has found some information on the USHMM website which partly contradicts the sourced material available in the books we are using at sources, and claims that the biography by Longerich is POV. Not sure if you have any knowledge of the subject matter, but I would appreciate any comments or advice you may have. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney (II)

Hi Nick-D,

I acknowledge the outcome of the 2009 Australian government inquiry but given the depth of contention that stretches back over 70 years, do you not think that greater scope should exist for differing interpretations of the evidence that has been brought to light by the new discoveries of 2006 -2008?


Ayecaranya (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources which dispute the inquiry's findings, of course. As I understand it, the lessons learned from inspecting the wrecks was sufficent to debunk many of the earlier theories though. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well let's start with Christmas Island Man. The official forensic report http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/CORR/CORR.012.0233.pdf includes a colour photograph (pg 16) of a top view of the skull that clearly shows a bullet hole, the extensive damage to the lower left portion of the skull is consistent with the exit wound of a high velocity small arms round and yet the obvious (perfectly rounded) hole is not even mentioned in the report or subsequent cross examinations. The skeleton was in a kneeling position suggesting an execution style killing. The shrapnel wound and hole allegedly caused by a "sea bird" are entirely separate from this injury. Ayecaranya (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Do any published works from reliable sources discuss this theory? If not, I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it, as we don't include original research in articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and analysis at the Himmler GA review. Regards, Dianna (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm happy to have been of assistance. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you check if there is something missing ?

Hi, Can you please check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jabir_Hasan_Mohamed_Al_Qahtani, there is a user lambasting me for failing to include the old AFD. I had used Twinkle for the nomination, And it takes care of all earlier nominations. In this case after AFD1 Due to some unknown(unmentioned) reasons Geo Swan moved the page to a different location, so the AFD link was not transcluded in the AFD page. An editor brought it to my notice and i added the infobox for AFD1 At once, Can u please check if there is something more needs to be done. Thanks--DBigXray 11:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. That guy seems to be a jerk. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a prompt action, much appreciated. Regards--DBigXray 11:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

would you be willing to revisit Heinrich Himmler?

Hi,

Would you be willing to revisit Heinrich Himmler and see if your suggestions have been implemented in the way you envisioned?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian Divisions

All my reading of World War II histories indicates these formations were referred to as 'XXth Indian Division', not 'XXth Infantry Division (India)' or 'XXth Indian Infantry Division.' In your reading of World War II histories, what's your perception? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The works I've read which have had a focus on the Indian Army tend to be pretty old, and don't consistently include the 'Indian' part of the name. In Defeat into Victory Slim seems to name the units as the 'Xth Indian Division' during the first sections of the book and 'Xth Division' in the later sections. agree with your move of 2nd NZ Division, but am not sure what the most common naming convention is here. I suspect that it's 'Xth Indian Division' though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for responding to that nonsense which was posted here earlier today. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopian National Defense Force

Hello, Some time ago, I removed the split tag from this article. Sometime later, You put it back in circustances that suggested that it was an oversight when reverting some vandalism. So I removed it again. I see that it has now re-appeared in similar circumstances. Can you confirm that you do indeed wish to split the article (or not as the case may be). Op47 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that that was Buckshot. However, the article's content is so limited that I agree that it shouldn't be split at present - I've just removed the tag. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou Op47 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

I was looking at the circumstances of the block on Arcandam, and it appears that it was a third-party's User Talk page that the various parties were edit warring over. Arcandam asked for a source on the expertise of a person, and this was reverted by several other editors, including three times by LauraHale. It was characterized in edit summaries as a personal attack, but in looking at the text of his request, I don't see anything that can be legitimately called a personal attack. While I agree that Arcandam was in fact edit warring, the other editors were not in line with Talk page policy in the removal of comments on pages not their own. So, in effect you have a few editors who are edit warring to remove comments that had every right to be there, and the User had not removed the comments.

If this were a User removing his own comments, I would see no problem with the outcome as it stands at the moment, but considering that Arcandam is entitled to ask for sources per WP:V, I don't see a problem with him posting a comment to that effect on a User talk page, and the other editors should have left the comment alone. Simply labeling it a personal attack doesn't mean it is. We have a policy of assuming good faith, and while it is sometimes hard to assume that, the plain text on the page isn't hostile. I would recommend that you either block all of the editors that participated in this little edit war, or unblock Arcandam in deference to fairness. -- Avanu (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with that reasoning at all. Arcandam made an aggressive comment on Hawkeye's talk page ("Do you have any proof? I am pretty sure that is simply not true" - eg, that Hawkeye is making stuff up) which was an obvious continuation from a post made as part of an AfD which called him a liar [1] (though as I noted on the editor's talk page, I hadn't seen this post before blocking; if I had the duration would have been longer). Editors have no "right" to post such personal attacks on other editor's talk pages and expect that they'll remain there per WP:NPA and WP:TPNO. Two other editors who appear to have Hawkeye's talk page watchlisted removed this comment, which is pretty normal practice for dealing with rude comments posted on talk pages. Instead of backing off or seeking some kind of admin intervention Arcandam kept edit warring to reinsert their rude post, going so far as to call LauraHale a vandal in two edit summaries ([2], [3]). As such, LauraHale and Gerda Arendt's reversions were in line with the normal way rude talk page posts are handled, and unlike Arcandam neither violated the 3RR in doing so. I don't understand why you think that I should block Gerda for a single reversion. I hope that this clarifies my thinking. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, your call. Have a great day. -- Avanu (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Avanu you are best off taking this to ANI. Nick was the subject of a report not long ago on ANI where one of his blocks was overturned by another admin who claimed that Nick's block was a bad one. I can't recall all of the details. Caden cool 22:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Arcandam did violate the bright line of 3RR, and is justifiably blocked for that. I don't think I would have taken the same actions as Nick, but his actions are completely justified by policy. If it were worth taking to AN/I, I actually think they're a bit weary at the moment, so it wouldn't be profitable for anyone to bring it there unless it rose to a level far beyond where it is now. In short, its done and its fine. -- Avanu (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


More WikiChevrons

 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 second quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about is over my head

What are you talking about is over my head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_New_Zealand

You have given a reason for deletion of skill select Australia as Wikipedia not being a immigration website what the link above suggest something else.. Lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Australian_citizens this also Free pretender (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't say that I remember that. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your encouragement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

I mentioned you at ANI because you had declined an unblock request. I don't think the ANI issue needs your attention, but it is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC

Hello. Could you take a look at this FAC and give your vote and comments? I'd be much obliged since its an old nomination. Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey! A number of your concerns require discussion, so could you take a look at the responses and give your thoughts? Also, could you elaborate on what is "unclear" or "needs explaining"? Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, and as a bit of friendly feedback, it's more customary to respond to reviewers with "thank you" rather than "hey!". I spent an hour of my evening looking at this article and commenting on it ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh sorry, it was just a friendly gesture :). Thanks a lot for taking such a good look at the article, and I hope I can shake you out of your leaning oppose stance :D. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please

You wrote:

It's also worth noting that the David Conn article - as created by Geo Swan - was basically a WP:COATRACK article until it was nominated for deletion (complete with potentially libelous material on another individual).

I have no recollection of the article containing potentially libelous material, or of being responsible for inserting it. Could you please refresh my memory as to what you refer to?

With regard to WP:COATRACK -- it is an interesting essay, but one with such a compelling name that I find it is often referred to by people who should have re-read it more recently, as their claims as to what advice it offers are often at odds with what it actually recommends.

The essay offers a dozen or so sections, each offering different classes of "coatracks". Which section did you think applied?

It also has a section WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. Are you sure that is not the section that appropriately applied to David Conn (judge)?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I explained this in my comment of 04:11, 18 June 2012 in the original AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RAAF website

Hi mate, just in case you hadn't come across it yet, the Air Force has revamped its website for the second time since I, at least, have been on WP, again clobbering pretty well all existing links to current structural and unit info. In fact it looks to me like none of the wings and units have their own pages anymore, though I suppose that could change in future. Even sillier is that with all the bells and whistles of the new format, some info that remains is still out of date, e.g. F-111s still being in service...! I think it's off to the Wayback Machine for me to keep our existing article links alive until they get their stuff sorted out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's also loading really slowly for me as well. The Army rapidly improved the functionality and content of its new website (though it's still a work in progress, and was at least a general improvement from the get-go) so hopefully the RAAF will as well. Removing the material on the squadrons and wings is really weird. The bizarre wallpapers depicting the air force of the future survived for some reason - I'm looking forward to the RAAF forming its own army, arming UCAVs with short range rockets and flying spacecraft in close formation! More seriously, it appears that they didn't mess up the Air Power Development Centre's website, which is a good thing. Thanks for letting me know. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there seems to be some content on the wings and squadrons, though its much reduced. For instance, the page on 84 Wing has pages on two of its sub-squadrons under the 'related links' tab. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that re. 84WG. Yes, I breathed a sigh of relief you should've been able to hear in Canberra when I saw that the Air Power Development Centre was as before. Likewise the RAAF Museum and all of its subpages that I've checked seem to be in order. I've updated the CFS article with the latest links since it's under review; the rest can await my pleasure or until someone complains... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just updated the link to the 79 Sqn page in its article (seeing as its an FA), but will hold off on the others for a couple of weeks to see if they do something about those awful URLs. It would have been a happy day for Canberra's second hand bookshops if they'd broken the Air Power Development Centre's site - they've all been awash with RAAF books since the APDC started putting their back catalog online! Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Just had a squizz at Air Combat Group and related links and, yes, the wings and squadrons still have their own pages if you look hard enough. Unfortunately none of the content seems to have been updated, the main confusion still being who owns 2OCU -- the ACG page says 81WG, the 78WG page says 78WG at the top but not at the bottom, the 81WG page says 81WG at the top but not at the bottom, etc, etc, etc... I might give 'em a bell, as I'm planning to update the 2OCU page (and create a 1OCU page) at some stage -- guess I haven't got training units out of my system just yet...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, sent off an email about 2OCU, and also about the Air Combat Group page claiming F-111s are still in service... ;-) I notice that we finally have an 82WG page again, hooray, but all the info relates to WWII and just after, nothing about current role/composition, so pointed that out too.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ian - what a mess! The Army updated most of its unit pages as part of upgrading its website, so it's rather odd that the RAAF didn't do the same (surely it wouldn't have been too much to ask each squadron/wing to provide a page worth of material on the unit's history and current role? - military units seem to have this kind of stuff sitting around for use at ceremonial events and to induct people who have been posted in). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

I made many changes to avoid copy-right violations that you suggested to INS Shakti (A57). I am willing to make further improvement, if you would kindly check the page and make more suggestions on the talk page. I have changed the language, and sentence structure where ever i could. I would also be grateful if, instead of removing the complete text of any further copyright violation, you would be kind enough to show me how to remove them. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, That looks good, and I've just assessed the article as B class. Wikipedia can't include copyright-protected text for legal reasons, so it's standard practice to remove this on sight. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes i know. I meant, giving suggestions/illustrate on how to remove the copyright violations. Seems like i did that fine on my own. :) Thanks again. Anir1uph (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, you did a good job. That appears to be a very impressive ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! A final request! Can you suggest what should I do more in this article to enable it to become a good article? I am not at all experienced in determining/evaluating an article, and you are, so i thought i should ask. Regards, Anir1uph (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
In short, you need to expand the article so it covers the ship's acquisition, construction and operational service in detail. This prose should be well written and supported by references to high quality reliable sources. There are lots of examples of GA-quality warship articles at Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships you can use for inspiration, and the GA criteria are explained at WP:GACR. However, given that this ship has only recently entered service it's unlikely that there will be enough material available on her to develop the article to this state I'm afraid, though I could well be wrong. Good luck though! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help! I will keep this in mind. You are right, info about the ship is sparse, specially because defence/military history info is not readily available/released by the Indian govt. Regards Anir1uph (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou: 1st Division (New Zealand)

Hi Nick, when I saw that book come out I made a mental note that I would have to properly write up the three home divisions; thankyou for doing 1st Div! Buckshot06 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. There still isn't an article on the 4th Division, and the 5th Division article could do with a re-write. That book is full of interesting details about the home forces stationed in NZ during 1942 and 1943 (I didn't realise that the NZ Army had an armoured brigade stationed on the North Island, for instance). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
1st Army Tank Brigade (New Zealand)? Yeah, and the composite squadron that went out with 3rd Div... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Wikiwings
Awarded for contributing a really well-researched and well-written new article McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I enjoyed researching and writing it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was well-earned! - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1st Division (New Zealand)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin favour

Nick, as I think you did once before for me, would you mind deleting an out-of-process FAC page for me? (Sigh) I have to admit that in all my years here, this is the one admin tool I really think I would make use of -- but I'm still no more enamoured of the idea of full adminship than I ever was... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I just deleted that page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive8.
Message added 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron • You Da One 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll reply later today (FYI, I watchlist the reviews I comment on :) ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You missed one

While deleting offending versions of your user page, it seems like you missed one. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks a lot for reverting that rubbish. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
With pleasure :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I semi'ed it so the anon can't do it again, feel free to revert. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Ed. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and a request

Hey! Thanks a lot for the barnstar! i have a request. Recently, my talk page suffered from an abusive rant from an ip 116.71.58.68. The addition is extremely offending, if one knows Hindi/Punjabi language, and was reverted. I am not interested in making any fuss about it. Just asking you if it is possible to restrict the visibility of the 2 versions of my talk page, the intitial ip version and the signed by Sinebot version under RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, and please let me know if this re-occurs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this, and for removing the two additional versions that i had overlooked. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 09:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed...

  • On User talk:Dragondefense, do you think I'm being too harsh? Because seriously I really don't want Jack Merridew to use his sock to bear down on me with his sanctimonious bitey comment again. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Dave, that looks fine to me. A big advantage of using the standard templates is that no-one can (sensibly) accuse you of being too rude/nice as this wording reflects community consensus on how to respond to these issues (though I personally think that some of the templates are rather badly worded, but meh). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviewing

Sorry I missed the one you asked for. :( I was in Sydney from Thursday until this morning and didn't have time. :( Was busy writing Wikinews stuff ahead of the Paralympics. : / I promise to try to get your next one. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries Laura, and thanks. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

Nick-D,

Appreciated for the closure and the award. Adamdaley (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

An article that you have been involved in editing, Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial event

Hey. Are you going to be around Canberra around 25 August? We're trying to put together an event at the Australian War Memorial involving taking pictures of some of the exhibits before they get redone. I won't be in town so it would be nice to have a MilHist person able to do stuff on the ground. --LauraHale (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laura, I should be able to help out with that (though I'm studying an 'intensive' course part-time this semester, so it will need to be subject to my university workload). My photography is limited to a point and shoot-type camera though. Is there a central discussion for this? Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be a few hours on 25 August. (The final date still will be set but will almost certainly be that weekend.) The AWM would like a few photographers to take pictures of exhibits. Thus, should not be copyright issues per say from what they have said. I was thinking 4 to 5 people optimistically but will invite people. Most of the discussion has been between me and an AWM person via e-mail. (She remembers your e-mail.) Going to give it a few days so they can check on their insurance issues. --LauraHale (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, that sounds really good. Hopefully someone with a much better camera can make it :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I know Bidgee will almost certainly be there. There are a few other people who might be interested. I'd like between 5 and 10 people. As I get more details, I will share but need to tentatively make sure that you can do it if we're basically going with you as the point person. The date should be the 25th. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to be one month into what's apparently an 'intensive' university course by that time (I'm yet to find out what 'intensive' means!), so I'm afraid that I can't guarantee that I'll be able to make it at this point. It should be OK though, and I'll know one way or the other a couple of weeks out anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420

Horhey continues to use his talk page to disparage other editors, primarily me, with vociferous personal attacks. I'd appreciate if you could remind him that this is inappropriate. He has stated that "I dont even want to contribute here", and accused me of being paid to "censor" him. He has also called me a "reactionary" and a "lier [sic]".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've just turned their talk page access off. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Tony Abbott

Fair comment, the reference was a bit weak, though in a known published "magazine"

I've now put some solid references into my edit on Tony Abbott, including Video and Audio of him saying the words quoted. (Some Videos have expired, buit not all)

I put my arguments for the addition I made in discussion. I trust that you will respond there is you don't agree with my comments. Richardb43 (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hello Nick,

you helped me so much with article translation until now that I want to do you a favor. The reason is that we have a central writers competition in de:Wiki in September for which I want to translate Hawkeyes article about the relief of Douglas MacArthur. Until then I have, despite the holidays I will have at the beginning of August, some time. I planned to translate Hawkeyes South West Pacific Area Command but as there probably will be some change over the following weeks I put it on the waiting loop. So I have some time I can spend on translations. As I told you earlier, I want to do you a favor for all your help so if you think there is an article (doesn't matter if it was written by you or somebody else) you think should be translated into as many languages as possible please tell me so I can translate it into the german language to honor you. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, that's a very kind offer. I'm tempted to suggest one of the FA-level articles on the Roman military, but from looking at their inter-wiki links they all have good-quality German equivalents (which isn't surprising given that Germany is one of the main centres of scholarship on this topic). I'd suggest Black Friday (1945) - this covers a significant late-war engagement between the Allied air forces and the German military in Norway, and you may be able to find German-language sources which would improve the article. Alternately, some other articles I've worked on which may be of interest to German readers are: Tom Derrick (Australia's most famous soldier of World War II), John Hines (Australian soldier) (the slightly unusual story of an Australian soldier of World War I who became celebrated for - to put it plainly - stealing from German prisoners) and Take Ichi convoy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nick, I fear John Hines would not be seen as notable in de:Wiki. I will translate Taki Ichi convoy in the next days and see if I find something about the japanese sources mentioned in the japanese version of the article. Furthermore Im not sure and will ask some japanese native speakers about the translation of Take Ichi. As there is no counter word I for myself would translate it only as Bamboo One and not Bamboo No. 1. --Bomzibar (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did the translation today and dedicated it to you, (see here) again, thank you for all your help! Best Regards --Bomzibar (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Paralympic DYK nominations

Hey. If you get the chance, can you review a few of my unreviewed Paralympic DYKs? :) --LauraHale (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure - can you please let me know which ones are outstanding? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

--LauraHale (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just reviewed six of those nominations - please note my question at Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair . Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Think Alex79818 may be back

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ignaciobm seems to share some characteristics, what do you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as it's been endorsed for checkuser attention, I'll leave it up to them for now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair

Found better sources for Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair if you could follow up. :) --LauraHale (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Sorry

I don't know if you remember but I recently let out an outburst against you and I am sorry. I only wanted to fix the article, and I felt as though you were trying to belittle the 40,000 men who died in that battle where you stated that no such battle exists even though historians say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but please respect my request that you never post on this talk page again. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service

G'day, Nick, I've made a run through the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service article and have left a couple of minor suggestions on the GA page. Could you please take a look when you get a chance? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the DYK reviews. :)

LauraHale (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Laura! I found the articles to be really interesting, and I'm looking forward to your coverage of the games :) Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Long Tan

Hello again Nick. For the last 8 months I have been working on rewriting Battle of Long Tan and have finally finished a draft which I uploaded today. Unfortuntaly its too big and I have been working on it for so long I'm probably no longer objective and am struggling to reduce it. If you are interested I would welcome some assistance from knowlegable and experienced editors in going over the article and triming it down. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the edit where you massively expanded the article! It looks really good, though as you say it's probably too big. I'll make some suggestions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, I uploaded it in frustration today. Unfortunately so much has been written about the battle and I haven't really succeeded in summarising it effectively. Areas I see reduction could occur are the lead, the background and the assessment in particular (although admittedly everywhere). Someone with fresh eyes could probably find gains in these areas fairly easily. Anotherclown (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, that is a beastly article. It's at 28668 words, according to Dr.pda's tool... or 169kb. Manhattan Project, the largest FA, is at 15823 words/97kB. Good luck! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
FA! At the moment I'd just be glad if I can reduce it sufficiently to get it through a B class review... You did manage to answer I question I had in the back of my mind though about the largest such article. Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It's only the 228th largest article according to Special:Longpages ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. :-) Nick- anyone want to stubify List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters with me?! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hi Nick! Based on your experience, can I have your opinion on this issue please? Thanks --SMS Talk 21:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:MILHIST. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nick, sorry to bother you again, I have added some sources there, which will need to be read, what I get from the sources about the whole issue, I already stated in the my first comment but I needed some neutral editor to look at it. If you don't find time, or for some other reason would not like to review this issue, it will not be a problem, kindly tell me so I can ask some other editor. Sorry for poking you again, I would not have come here had some editors took interest in the issue. --SMS Talk 16:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:TeeTylerToe

Since you've removed their ability to edit their talk page would you mind procedurally declining their open unblock request? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, I don't think that it's ever allowable for admins to decline unblock requests from editors they've blocked, though I'd appreciate it if you could point out where this is permitted in the relevant policies if I'm wrong. Given that I've extended the block to an indefinite duration and turned off their talk page access, I'd actually rather that another admin review my actions for the sake of fairness. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing an appeal by this user, it does appear that Guy Macon was involved in the dispute, as he reverted the article several times prior to closing the DRN discussion: [4] [5]. I do not believe that the DRN discussion would have ended any other way than it did, but Guy demonstrably was involved and therefore I think this justifies TTT's claim (TTT incorrectly used the term "conflict of interest" here, but his basic argument appears to be true). It appears that this claim was viewed as a personal attack against Guy, and I'm not sure I agree with that assessment.

As the blocking admin, I'm curious as to your thoughts on this matter. I do not think that Guy's closing of the DRN merits any kind of formal action (especially since he was not explicitly listed by TTT as an involved party), but it may be appropriate to advise him to be careful of his own involvement in a dispute under discussion at DRN when closing discussions. I would propose that TTT's talk page restriction be lifted so that he may discuss what I perceive to be the only real issue here: his edit warring and refusal to accept consensus. --Chris (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Those two edits are the sum total of Guy's involvement, and they appear to be consistent with a dispute resolution type intervention to me rather than anything which could be reasonably seen as being 'involved' in what was a long-running issue. While Guy closed the discussion, TTT was actually edit warring against Steven Zang's archival of the thread shortly afterwards (which he raised with Steven [6], leading to Steven clearly explaining the situation and the ways forward at User talk:Steven Zhang#dispute resolution noticeboard sikorsky discussion). Seeing as TTT used his talk page to continue on the dispute and attack various other editors, I don't think that it would be a good idea to re-enable access to it - if he or she wants to be unblocked, this would be better handled through the ticket system to reduce the aggravation all round. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope I'm not putting my nose where it doesn't belong; but I don't think TTT will ever drop the stick in the issue. He sees a consensus against his viewpoint as a 'empasse that must be bypassed' E.G. He hasn't taken it upon that opther people's views on the article's content matter as much as his does, and seeks only the entirity of his position to be fully accepted and intergrated - anything less is apparently outrageous to him. A dozen plus editors explaining various positions to him isn't working; and he took the same WP:Ididnothearthat approach to his ban requests, ignoring different admins time after time explaining that his un-banning reason should be discussing his behaviour and reform, not really anybody else's. He seemed absolutely adament to miss the point, almost like talking to a brick wall. I'm not opposed to him coming back, but I really don't think, with him looking down on every other editor on the site as at fault, that we can expect anything other than the same behaviour that produced the current chain of events. Kyteto (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
TTT has asked me off-wiki to point out that Guy had made these three edits to the article's talk page in recent days, in addition to the two edits he made to the article itself. I've no opinion on the dispute itself, nor have I evaluated the extent to which those three edits are relevant to the dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The first and second of those posts are about the types of blocks which are handed out for TTT's conduct, so obviously aren't part of the content dispute. Almost all of the third post is about TTT's need to provide a reliable source for what he wanted to add (the rest appears to be an observation from his personal experience) and so is also consistent with Guy intervening in a dispute resolution type role. I don't think that any reasonable editor would interpret that as being 'involved'. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Nick - I would recommend having another look at your block here. The block is perhaps appropriate, but there are no "personal attacks" for which you blocked him indefinitely on that page. Mind reinstating his talkpage access? — foxj 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Foxj, Repeatedly making unfounded accusations of edit warring against Guy and other editors, including after several editors had pointed out that this wasn't accurate and asked him to stop, qualify as personal attacks to me. Given that the block is for an indefinite duration, the only thing he can realistically do with his user space is to ask to be unblocked. As this can be done through other means (which would also probably involve a lot less drama), I don't think it's appropriate to re enable talk page access at the moment. However, I'd be happy to do so if TTT makes a commitment to myself or to any other editor via email that he'll drop these accusations of edit warring (which would be a precondition of being unblocked anyway). I have the 'email this user' option enabled, and if any editor says that they've received such an email from TTT I'd be very happy to take them at their word. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Understood. — foxj 11:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

ESmith quote

I think you have a typo in your user page quote, confirmed at least at metrolyrics.com. Back to Iraq/Algeria. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There were actually two typos! I've just fixed them - thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha! I certainly meant to tell you the one I'd spotted -- "altitude". But my omit-"tactic" got you to search! (Though curiously I don't see the fix.) Best. Swliv (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't press 'save'. It's now fixed. Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

2nd opinion

Hi. Thanks for your suggestions on the South African Navy page. I have done some more work on it and would appreciate your comments and suggestions to get it to a C or a B class article. Thanks. Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gbawden, the articles's looking really good. I've assessed it as C class as it still has several unreferenced paragraphs. Great work with the photo of Simonstown! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the compliments. The photo was a case of right place right day. I have started adding references. Would you give me some pointers as to what I have missed ito referencing? I am a little worried about over referencing. Graham Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You beat me to it by adding those references. I've just assessed the article as B class. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tks

Heh, no more embarrassing than my failed attempt at cleverness. Note to self: take more care editing while watching Olympic cycling.... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that my most common edit summaries these days are 'oops' and 'fix' ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the kind words. I'm almost done just running through the last bunch to get the info for a set of lists. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Casualties of the Syrian civil war

I agree with you on the other totals because they were based on figures that were coming from different sources and thus if we combined them that would have been OR due to possibility of overlapping figures. But, the figures in the new day-by-day table all come exclusivly from one source, the activist group SOHR, so they are in essence cited, there is no OR in this case. Your argument on the talk page was that we can't add up various types of casualties, various figures. I agree with that. But, these are not various, they all come from a unified source, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If you have a problem with this please initiate a discussion on the talk page, I'm sure other editors of the Syria civil war events will join. EkoGraf (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't the SOHR have a total figure which can be cited directly? If they don't think that this is a good methodology to reach a total, why should we? Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
SOHR gives out daily totals which are cited by the mainstream media every day. They DO give out a total figure, but the problem with it is what we talked about before. In their total figure they combine civilian fatalities with rebel ones (those that were civilians in their previous lives). And than they just say X civilians have died, Y soldiers have died, F defectors have died. P.S. we count armed civilians as civilians. But in their daily totals they DO differentiate between standard rebels and civilians. So it is misleading for our readers that way. And I thought since they do nicely say every day the total number of rebel fatalities, and this does come from a unified sources and not different ones, it would be nice to present how many they said for a given month. If the daily totals came from different sources I wouldn't summ it up because as you said that would be OR, but this is all coming from one source. EkoGraf (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Are any reliable sources providing monthly totals based on this data? (for instance, stories on the war by journalists). If not, I really don't think that we should. Given the nature of these kinds of figures (based on battlefield reports from a very confusing war and not collected by a consistent methodology) it's likely that they're not entirely reliable, so adding up totals gives them a false sense of precision. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
SOHR is doing the same thing with their monthly totals as with their full total. They combine rebels and civilians into one category...civilian. I would totally agree with you otherwise, but we do have here a consistent methodology by this organisation. And the BBC, Reuters, AP and others obviously consider them reliable since they publish their full total, monthly totals and daily totals on a regular basis. EkoGraf (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If you feel this strongly about this I will remove than the totals from the table and copy-paste our discussion to the talk page and ask other Syria civil war editors to join in and give us their opinion. OK? EkoGraf (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be great. I'll also post a notification at WT:MILHIST inviting uninvolved editors to comment. My basic concern that if reliable and reasonably well-resourced media outlets aren't adding up the rebel casualty figures they're receiving from the SOHR it suggests that they don't think that this is a good methodology. More importantly, if SOHR is combing 'rebels' with 'civilians' in its aggregate casualty counts, it suggests that the organisation itself isn't confident about its ability to distinguish between the two categories (which isn't surprising or unreasonable given the nature of the war). Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Its not that they combine them because they are not confident. Its more of a propaganda thing. In the months before the director of SOHR said they were in the full total counting rebels as civilians, multiple analysts and journalists were reporting that opposition groups were presenting dead rebels as civilians for the maximum psychological and propaganda impact. Add it to MILHIST please. EkoGraf (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks again. If the casualty figures are that rubbery, it seems safest to stick to only what reliable sources are reporting. Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Operation Donnerkeil missing info?

Hi - saw you put a lot of time/effort into the article Operation Donnerkeil and wondering if you would check the Talk page there for the question I posted concerning missing information that to the best of my knowledge is factual and is certainly sourced/referenced (concerning a second pair of British Spitfires discovering the German flotilla nearly simultaneously with the first pair of British fighters)? Thanks. joepaT 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Hello. You are among the top contributors to this Featured Article. Work has begun on changing the citation format and referencing conventions in use on the article. There is a discussion underway at the talk page for the article. Feel free to participate. Kablammo (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi Nick, can you access 'The Shaba crises: Stumbling to victory' Small Wars & Insurgencies Volume 5, Issue 2, 1994? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid not. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nick anyway - and for vandal reverts at UPDF. Hope all goes well in Canberra, with *better weather* than I've seen in the last few months (specially in the UK!!). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries. There are some signs that spring is on the way (though, in all seriousness, I really like winter - probably as I've never suffered through more than a few weeks of a northern hemisphere-type winter). Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Reducing overlinking

Hi. Could you please help in reducing overlinking in List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pretty busy at the moment, and won't have time to do that I'm afraid. You could speed up the process dramatically by copying the text into Microsoft Word or equivalent, using the find and replace tool (eg, find "[[Boeing AH-64 Apache|AH-64D Apache]]" and replace it with "AH-64D Apache") and then posting the resulting text back into the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indef Semi-Protection Request for Userspace

Could you indef semi-protect a couple pages for me, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Guess you are offline for the night, so Bongwarrior took care of them. No worries though. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, no worries. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


WP:FOUR for McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tony! Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fac termination

I wasn't meaning I would close it or anything, I meant to say that I didn't feel it was approprate for me to ask a delegate to close it sorry for that confusion. I have removed the GA topicon on my user page, and well on the front of editing the article, It says I can do it as long as it is a menial task. ObtundTalk 21:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and I was probably being a bit high-handed myself in my comments at that FAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh a barnstar

The Barnstar of Integrity
Thanks for standing up to me and putting me in my place. ObtundTalk 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

SG3 at peer review

Hi Nick-D, I've listed Samsung Galaxy S III for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Samsung Galaxy S III/archive1; feel free to comment on the article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LT

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project also provides templates to help you make the perfect article.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

— From the members of WikiProject London Transport

Thanks for the welcome :) Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

FYI--DBigXray 12:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Julia Gillard

Why did you delete my contribution? Please tell me exactly how I violated BLP by suggesting that the proposed addition would violate BLP. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rrius, your comment is still there - and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it. I had to revision delete the diff where you added it as part of the process of removing some material which clearly violated WP:BLP added by another editor, but this hasn't affected the material you added beyond the diff no longer being viewable by non-admins. Sorry about any confusion which resulted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Hi Nick, hope you're feeling well. I thought I'd mention that there's a peer review request open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mitt Romney/archive1 since you commented on the article's unsuccessful nomination at FAC a few months back. If you're interested and have time for it, of course. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Thanks for letting me know. I probably won't have anything to add beyond my comments at the FAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I just commented at the peer review ... I did a little copyediting, but I'm going to wait for the FAC as well. If people oppose on prose, my explanation for why I waited to copyedit is at the peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK Review

I know we haven't interacted, but could you review Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Byrne, Gaz Choudhry, Peter Finbox, Abdi Jama, Jon Hall (basketball), Dan Highcock, Ade Orogbemi, Jon Pollock, Ian Sagar, Matt Sealy for me? Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I just checked all the articles (which took about 15 minutes to run the various checks!), and it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I spent that long on the QPQs! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've had to modify the hook. Could you re-review? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Nick-D. I note you left a message on my page welcoming me to the site. I left a message on the Liberal Party of Australia talk page under the Seeking consensus - ideology heading. A user called Timeshift left a message simply saying WP sockpuppet What does that mean? What is a sock puppet? Please help, I'm really confused. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. A 'sockpuppet' is someone who edits under multiple accounts, especially to create the impression of greater support for a position. I presume that Timeshift is unaware that you've stopped editing via IP addresses and was concerned that you were doing both. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok. How should I resolve this? I didn't comment on the talk article using the IP though. Thanks Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Noting the connection on the article's talk page would be the best approach. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History: Assessing Articles as "Start"

Nick-D,

I had a thought, since there is a backlog of articles which have an asssessment of "Start", would there be any possibility we could remind users of WikiProject Military History to ask for articles to be assessed against "B class" (maybe a simple message to everyone on their talkpages)? Maybe this could decrease the backlog a little. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Are these new articles? Personally, I think that an automated note to all the members of the project would be excessive, though I can see how it would be helpful. At note at [WT:MILHIST]] might achieve much the same results. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes to new "Start" articles. Assessing them as "Start" would move them from the 21,000-odd backlog to "Requests for assessment" possibly as "Unassessed". I was thinking of having it in the newsletter or even at a section where WikiProject Military History users can find it and know to include the "B class" assessment too. Adamdaley (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Land Warfare Centre

Re this; there is a British Army Land Warfare Centre as well. Maybe this should be a disambig. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - I'll move it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Precious

thoughts and images
Thank you for quality articles such as McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, for thoughts, for images used over the world, and for getting to the core of a situation, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (9 March 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

QF1, Bangkok

Hi Nick. You might be interested in contributing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1. Dolphin (t) 07:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean Areas (command)

I've made this edit in relation to New Zealand, Nick. You may wish to consider adding specific Australian units. Hope you're enjoying your holiday. Warm regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed Abdul Qader link

Nick-D,

I found a link in the unassessed B-criteria with the link name Ahmed Abdul Qader. While it directs to Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Redirect mistake? There is no need for this small error. Would be appreciated if it was removed. Adamdaley (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, that seems to be part of the clean up of the articles on non-notable Guantanamo Bay inmates. I've just redirected the talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoffmann Archive

Dear Nick, unfortunately, Stefan2 (talk · contribs) and others are wrong branding these images as unfree. In fact the {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template is not at all accurate. I would suggest that the people who created this template review the facts of the Price v. United States ruling. All the photos posted by myself on Wikipedia come from negatives owned by Wartenberg Trust and its foundations and yes, these are ALL part of the NARA Hoffmann works (because Wartenberg Trust gave copies of all their photos to NARA). There are no links to the individual images at this time! Also, many more photos, not at NARA, are part of the Carlisle Archive, which is also covered by the Price v. United States ruling. Unfortunately the poorly made and deceiving {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template does not show this at all. In conclusion, nearly 100% of all Hoffmann photographs (created between 1933-1945) are protected as FREE by the above mentioned legal decision. It is absolutely frustrating that administrators such as Stefan2 (talk · contribs) make these incredibly poor decisions based on conjecture rather than facts. Before he nominated these images for deletion, he should have talked with the uploaders and others (who actually understand the legal matter) to resolve this issue.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Maria, I think that the issue here is that evidence is needed to prove that these photos were sourced from a PD collection (for instance, records of the images in the collection's catalog as well as evidence that the collection itself is OK). At present, you've provided evidence that the collection itself is OK, but need stronger evidence that this is the source of the images. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In honor of your service as a Milhist coordinator

The WikiProject Barnstar
In honor of your service as coordinator for the Military History Project from September 2011 to September 2012, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your confidence in me Nick. It's like a newspaperman being offered the chance to be an editor - what it means is a lot of administrative work and pulling your hair out, when all I would really like to do is improve and write articles. I'm quite happy to be a frequent answerer of questions on the main talk page, and to sometimes do Milhist dispute resolution, but I would rather not be nominated for Coord status. Appreciate the thought though. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, no worries - and fair enough! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ACR closure

Nick-D,

AustralianRupert is talking me through how to close an ACR and I'm coming up with an invalid status in the article history on preview on the talkpage. How can I get this to work? Adamdaley (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Without details on the exact problem you're having I can't really help - what's going wrong? I always follow each step of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review, which is pretty good. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Nick-D. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but Facepalm Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Doncsecz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GyorgyFerenc is an obvious sockpuppet of Doncsecz. After Doncsecz was blocked, GyorgyFerenc was created to continue the edit war. Moreover, it is his 3rd block for edit warring, why was he blocked only for 24h? 79.117.135.137 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DITWIN GRIM & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doncsecz. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit, but i asked Hungarian users about the affair of the article Battle of Raab and the users of a value to me. I did it because DITWIN broke the first the sanction. 81.183.47.44 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I see that the Checkusers have handled this and the article has been protected by another admin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe

Hi Nick. I was just wondering whether it would be possible to reinstate this user's talkpage access? He's been in the unblock channel on IRC and seems to indicate he doesn't intend to continue his attacks on Guy Macon. Figured it was only fair to ask you first. Thanks! — foxj 12:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fox, Given that I don't know what was posted in the IRC channel, I can't really make a decision on that basis. If you think that the assurances are sufficient to re-enable talk page access, then I'd have no problems with you doing so - WP:ROPE obviously applies. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoax agent

Hi Dave, There seem to be some WP:COMPETENCE-type issues with this editor, but the stuff about the Harpoon missiles was backed by what seems like a reliable source, so I don't see any grounds for admin intervention. Given the limited capabilities of the Philippine Navy at present, acquiring Harpoons would be a big jump forward, and so belongs in the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudirman

Just a note (as you did the GA review): if you can get it, Salim Said's Genesis of Power: General Sudirman and the Indonesian Military in Politics is a fairly good look at the political situation at the time. I'm reading through it now and have already used it for a bit of contextual information; biographical information seems lacking so far though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll see if I can find a copy. Can you recommend a good general history of the Indonesian Revolution? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • McKahin seems to have been well received, although I'm not sure how general it is because I don't have a full copy.
Regarding Australian contributions, Margaret George wrote Australia and the Indonesian Revolution in 1980. I can't vouch for the quality of prose as I have a translation, but it touches on many of the key aspects of the revolution (with a focus on the Australian role, naturally) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadie Harris

Hi, Nick-D. Thank you so much for reviewing Sadie Harris at its FAC. I addressed all of your concerns, and hope you will consider striking your oppose. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I addressed the remaining concerns, and hope you can now strike your oppose and support. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

David Irving

I suspected this issue would come up. Please have a look at my reply on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 and let me know what you think. Prioryman (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

MarkMurata

Because of this I think this editor should simply be unblocked to give him more rope. Besides, User:Calm As Midnight who gave him a "warning" was apparently sockpuppet. But this is all on your discretion of course. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments. I'm not comfortable unblocking editors who've been violating WP:BLP to see if they behave better. The entire thrust of this person's editing has been to add news report-style negative material to articles about living people, and the use of primary sources to support this (including the addition of clearly libelous material to one article which I've since revision deleted) crossed a line. The editor can appeal the block, and if they express an understanding of WP:BLP they'll be unblocked. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
All right, that sounds logical.My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cohen on RSN

G'day Nick-D, I'm hoping you will clarify so I'm clear on what you are saying? We also seem to struggle to get a consensus of several experienced RSN editors on this one. Is that normal, or is it just the repellent nature of Balkans shenanigans? These things just come up again and again if we can't get some firm guidance we can rely upon. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment at RSN (posts carrying debates over from the relevant articles are very offputing to the regulars at RSN as it isn't a forum for dispute resolution per-se). Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Long Tan Cross

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Congratulations for this DYK today! It makes a great entry or exit point for readers to/from the main article and is a beautiful use of the image. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Plea for help

Do you remember blocking User:Gaba p? He was warned him at the time for his confrontational and aggressive attitude (I'm copying other admins). Well he has continued in exactly the same vein, he edit wars in a WP:TAG team with User:Langus-TxT, he edits to promote POV, he edits against consensus, he's been following me from article to article and makes every article I try to edit a battleground. At Self-determination I took it to talk, then WP:DRN and finally WP:RSN, he follows everywhere with the same confrontational attitude constantly trying to antagonise. DRN concluded he was wrong, RSN concluded he was wrong and he just carries on with the POV editing. I have been nothing but polite and all I get is constant accusations and antagonism. Its getting to the point where I can't edit productively as I spend all my time at the noticeboards or in talk rebutting tendentious argument. I just want to edit articles but I can't and its frustrating. I've copied this message to JamesBWatson. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing. I'd suggest posting at WP:ANI or approaching a completely uninvolved admin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it was mistaken identity but that may be moot. Now at WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

La Coupole FAC

I've posted an update regarding the sourcing issue you raised - please take a look at La Coupole and let me know on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 if this resolves your concerns. Prioryman (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Is there anything else you'd like me to cover off, or are you happy with the article now? Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi Nick, I seem to have gotten myself into an argument with an admin and am after some advice. I believe my actions are being mischaracterised, but I feel too close to the issue to be entirely objective about it. To add to the issue it seems some others want to pile onto the case without necessarily taking everything into account. I would appreciate it if you can check it out and if you agree with the other party I will post an apology, even though I am very upset about the allegations being levelled at me. The issue started here then migrated to AN/I where things spiralled out of control. - Nick Thorne talk 11:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment in the ANI thread. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hardicanute requesting unblock

Hello Nick. You are Hardicanute's original blocking admin from June 2011. Please see this user's unblock request at User talk:Hardicanute#Blocking. See also an article talk page at Talk:Denis Avey#2nd Reply, where he admits to also editing as User:SherlockHolmes249 who you blocked recently. Though it is nice that he wants to come clean, the very recent socking is a concern. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Ed; I've just commented there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Eric Greitens

Do you believe this guy is notable? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on what's in the article, probably not. There's lots of impressive sounding claims (being a Rhodes Scholar and a White House Fellow and then starting a charity), but none of these confers notability by itself, and the coverage in reliable sources looks rather thin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I sincerely apologize for combining parts of two of your posts to present your view. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. Please take much greater care in the future though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Polish Casualties

I still have more to add to this article, stay tuned--Woogie10w (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN#TeeTylerToe unblock request

Hi Nick, I've started a community discussion regarding an unblock request by the user whom you blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'll comment there (it actually looks fine to unblock). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've checked why the editor was blocked, I think that some assurances in regards to editing are needed. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Seriously, his way of small talk got me uneasy all over again, are Giant pandas really being deemed as dangerous or endangered? Which is which? And seeing that he has not dropped the same battleground mentality that got him to where he is in the first place, I just wish to say that I have no confidence whatsoever even if a 1RR was imposed, some people are just not capable (or is it a competency issue?) of handling such restrictions. But, that's just me. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You'd be very welcome to comment on the thread at WP:AN Dave. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking Horhey and the US dilemma

I have been following the events of this and other articles for some time now. While it is a sensitive topic, I don't think it should have been handled in such a way. Horhey had a lot of good sources, and I do not see where he was adding POV, thought his "copyright" copy & paste style of editing was not helpful either. However, the "TimesAreAChanging" has repetaedly removed cited sources from Wikipedia articles (I can give you links if you want) which are critical of US policy and reverted some of my edits to include them. He clearly has a right wing POV agenda, yet he is supposed to be respected because he can delete warning off his pages and keep the barnstars? Also, theres another user, User:ImStillStanding, which appears to be his sockpuppet. (Tag-team editing on similar articles, I'm just throwing it out there). --JTBX (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, It's routine to block editors such as Horhey420 (talk · contribs) whose contributions are largely copyright violations. The fact that he was also POV pushing was also highly problematic, though it wasn't the main reason for the block (and, from memory, wouldn't have justified an indefinite duration block in isolation). If there are other issues, please report them via WP:ANI - I was just following up on Horhey420's copyright violations (from memory, I advised TimesAreAChanging that it was OK to revert edits by Horhey420 which appeared to contain copyright-violating material per the normal way of responding to such editors). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
JTBX's accusation that StillStanding (of all people!) is a sockpuppet of mine is rather hilarious. Paul Ryan is the only article both SS and I have edited, and we disagreed about most every issue. If you're going to try to smear someone, at least invent a more plausible allegation! JTBX's other criticisms--that I remove old messages on my talk page, or that I am somehow biased whereas he is neutral--are simply not serious. And what does he propose--unblocking Horhey? It's hard to believe anyone concerned with building an encyclopedia would even consider doing so.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said to unblock him, I simply pointed out to the admin that it appeared to be a serious violation of power as Horhey had very decent sources, but which you continously removed and still do so for other users who have similarly brought this up. I really do believe someone who has strong POV, strong enough to go to every article of US criminal actions and over throw of goverments and remove every source which mentions US support including declassified documents, is serious. Again I can give examples, such as our recent discussion which I joined and you placed me into a soapbox template. Nice one.--JTBX (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at TeeTylerToe's talk page.
Message added 07:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 07:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not actually a message for me; it's a request that someone post his comments at WP:AN, and you could have done so. I've posted them across. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a pointer

See Rupert's talk page please, Nick. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

One more time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Co-Lead Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2012 – September 2013

In recognition of your election as co-lead co-ordinator of the Military history project for the September 2012 to September 2013 period, please accept these co-ord stars. Thank you for standing again and I hope it will be another fruitful year for the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, and congratulations to you as well. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Well done Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

SNCF

Hello Nick
I've replied to your points on the SNCF talkpage, but I thought I'd take a side-bar to voice a concern that WP is getting used in all this. The fact that quite a lot of the material there is about current contracts makes me wonder about commercial in-fighting (as SNCF has previously been proud of its resistance record, and DBB is its competitor in the US, the words "swift-boating" spring to mind). Just my nasty suspicious mind...Xyl 54 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While I think it reflects the somewhat overblown campaign against the company by its competitors for contracts in the US (which has lead to some very silly political campaigns), this is an issue in France as well. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugle

It's published now – sorry about that. Good luck with helming the Bugle; I know you'll do fine. If either of you need a stand-in for a month, I'd be happy to. I just couldn't keep up with it every month. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ed :) Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I think that the contest results here are from August as I came in second in September.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes; all the article promotions and contest results are from August. I have to confess to being clueless about how the contest is normally reported though; should this be amended, and if so can you please point me to the results to drop in? Thanks Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
G'day Nick and Sturm. I might be mistaken, but my understanding is that the contest results are published in the following month's edition. As such, August is reported in September and September is reported October's edition. If not, apologies for this as it was I that posted that section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at SWAT

Hi Nick, it appears there is a disruptive editor at the SWAT article. His edits and edit summaries are gibberish and he has performed 5 reverts there in the last 24 hours. ROG5728 (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rog, I've just blocked them for 24 hours. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war article needs your help

Hey, thanks for your help in resolving the Syrian civil war article. We used your solution and added the note in the infobox. But there's still a dispute regarding the infobox. Some editors think that Iran and Hezbollah should be classified as supporters, not combatants in the infobox. There has been a heavy debate about it here: Talk:Syrian civil war#Iranian and Hizbullah support. Are there standard definitions for combatants and supporters in infoboxes? Please reply on my talk page or the Syrian civil war talk page-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews of Military history project articles for the period Jul–Sep 12, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

October Metro

I'm sorry I missed September but I was rather busy. Enjoy.

Also, welcome to the London Transport WikiProject. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance with personal attacks

Hi. I have been receiving unacceptable personal attacks from two editors: User:Arkhandar and User:BeasttoBeast.

Arkhandar: [7] [8]

BeasttoBeast: [9]

Thanks in advance. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you've reported Arkhandar at WP:AIV, and I'm sure that the matter will be dealt with. You are also at fault with over-the-top warnings and snide comments though. I've blocked BeasttoBeast for 24 hours. Rather than spam editors with templated warnings, please either post polite messages or, in the case of repeated problematic behavior, ask an admin to look into the situation. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand. However snide my comments may be, though, I always take extra care not to trespass into harassment or personal attack territory. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 23:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Posting multiple templated warnings is harassment. Please knock it off. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Please know that it's not my goal to cause distress on Wikipedia. I made mistakes today, and I'm willing to admit that. I just want this to stop. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 23:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File move request

Hi Nick, any chance you could perform an admin file move, please? A regular file mover won't be able to, due to this being a file on en-wiki and one on Commons each having the exact same filename but different images..

File on en-wiki is File:General cinema.png – would like it renamed to File:General cinema corp.png and allow the image on Commons, with the name "General cinema.png", which is part of a set, to show through.

You can see the "problem" I came across here: Irish Film Classification Office#Cinematic certificates.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries (I didn't even know that I could move files to a new name!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, lol.. glad you learned something new then. I was awaiting a file mover to do it, until I read the info at WP:FMR and realised they can't move in some cases.. but yeah, file mover is "in" with admin abilities. Probably comes in useful from time to time. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I've often wished that I could do it at Commons (but I don't think my chances of becoming an admin there are terribly good given that I'm pretty clueless about how its behind the scenes aspects work). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a report at WP:AE that might benefit from your input [10]. Thank you. -- Director (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that Antidiskriminator's silly behaviour concerning my posts was made before he or she was warned about the restrictions, and they apologized for this I've got no problems with them. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, given that the comment is still there, I'm pretty cranky. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:ARBEE/Tu-154: Thanks Nick. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tide Austral (AWM 301506).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tide Austral (AWM 301506).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ars Nova (theater)

Just a heads up that I responded to your comments at the article's talk page. :-) RunnerOnIce (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I was a bit hasty with my original reply and have subsequently edited it. Having read through your edits more closely, I can definitely see where they make sense--thank you for helping to improve the article's quality by doing so. :-) Feel free to let me know if there are any other issues that you think need to be addressed. RunnerOnIce (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered

I asked the question at the recent ANI, you did not answer it, but repeated the comment in your most recent summary "and, in fairness I would have also needed to have blocked PBS for his snarky ANI notification post on Parrot of Doom's talk page given that it was about as rude"

My question was

In what way was my ANI notification to PoD snaky? Is PoD not an experienced editor and as such should PoD not be aware that calling another editor an idiot in the edit history of the article inappropriate behaviour?

I would appreciate an answer, and would like to know what you would have written in its place. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If I thought this was worth taking to ANI, I would have simply have posted the ANI notification. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I also left an additional message for the counter-party do you consider that to be "snarky" as well? -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be easier if you just said whatever it is that you're trying to get at rather than pepper me with questions about how I perceive your actions of several days ago. If you think I made the wrong call, fair enough - I don't have any illusions of perfection. However, I think that my actions were largely endorsed by the other editors who commented in the ANI discussion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Block for non-targeted cursing

Re [11]: Just for using the expression "the fuck"? So expressing discontent at all is now a bockable offense? In that case, I'm perfectly fine with your opinion. I'll leave now, sir. Please keep stroking the white cat, no need to push the button. --213.196.217.240 (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Care to log in and put a user name to that post? You're obviously not a new IP editor, and hiding behind an IP is pretty lame. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for helping to edit the Ars Nova page, and for being understanding about my initial errors with it. :-) RunnerOnIce (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries, Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

An editor mentioned you in a Request For Closure at WP:AN

WP:AN#Talk:Syrian civil war#Iranian and Hizbullah support: "The discussion has essentially ended, with majority of people, including an administrator and military history expert Nick-D, agreeing on what the definitions of combatants and supporters are. The majority support that Iran and Hezbollah should be classified as combatants in the infobox"

Note that the first use of "majority" included you. The second sentence repeats the word "majority" and I am afraid many scanning through will read that as you support classifying Iran & Hezb. as combatants. I am not sure why, but people quoting you seem to subtly change things. Churn and change (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Government Hooker

This article is once again a featured article candidate, and I am hoping third time's the charm. Can I request you to provide a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Government Hooker/archive3? Would be very appreciated! —DAP388 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Book review

G'day Nick, I have another book review. I wonder, though, if you might want to keep it for a "slow month" if you get too busy to produce something yourself (perhaps over Christmas if you are busy with family commitments?). The review is on Johnston's The Proud 6th. Apologies for doing something that is again Australian focused, but I find it difficult to find time to read books other than those that I am using to write articles. Anyway, please let me know what you want to do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to include that in this month's edition: I've been really busy and haven't read anything newish and substantial on military history recently, so I probably wasn't going to post a review (the one substantive military history book I have read recently is the official US Army history of the Leyte Campaign, which I doubt is of wide interest to readers given that that I appear to have been the first person to borrow it from the ADFA Library since the 1970s!). I'd be very interested in reading your views on that book. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I want to add a little more to it, but will post it to the newsletter this weekend. When I do, if you get a chance, could you take a quick look and let me know if it is ok? I'm still learning the artform. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added it now. Hawkeye has written a review for the October edition, so I've put mine in November: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2012/Book reviews. Apologies for the length of the review. I think I am possibly a bit too close to the topic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
That's an excellent review - thanks a lot. I liked your discussion of your family connection to this unit; I developed the Axis naval activity in Australian waters article as a way of understanding my mothers father's experiences in the merchant navy (he was lucky to survive when his ship was torpedoed off Newcastle), and it now includes a photo he took of two of his shipmates. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_13#Category:Military_units_and_formations_that_have_changed_designation

Would you please consider commenting at this CfD? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October Bugle

Hi mate, hope you're well. Just following on from my note on the Newsroom talk page, as well as chasing up an op-ed I was planning to double-check we have everything up to date re. September articles, awards and contest blurb. Could I leave you to distill any important discussion points over the past month or so for Project News / From the Editors? Given my absence I think you'd be in a better position to do that while I tackle the more mechanical things for October's issue... Oh, and welcome aboard! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, and welcome back. The contest blurb and list of articles should be OK (though some of the paragraphs on the articles need to be written), but the awards needs to be checked. I'd be happy to write the summary of recent developments (if I can think of any... - I was flat out with other commitments until last Tuesday and am also a bit out of touch). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate, I saw the project news and the Featured photos, just tweaked a couple of words in the op-ed. I think it's ready to go out too, did you want to do the honours or will I? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that I'm not sure what the process for sending it out is yet, it would be great if you could do that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Lisbon Appt

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

—Cliftonian (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your ACT election image

Heads up re image deletion. I'm not going to revert the IP, although I do disagree with him. I'll leave this one up to you. Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just reverted them. The Liberals had only a single sign up for their candidates, despite this being part of the seat which is expected to decide the ACT election. There was also only a single Liberal volunteer handing out how to vote cards vs about half a dozen from Labor. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
So i've heard and read. Even if there was a perceived issue here, it's not like it will matter in 6 hours. If there's another revert, maybe put it up at 6pm and nobody will care? I wonder if they find the Liberal campaign images on the 2004 federal election article to be biased, or the 2007 article for that matter. I wonder what that IP would have done with a photo of the Labor + Greens = triple rates sign :) Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not going to edit war over what isn't a very good photo! Under ACT law parties can't advertise or hand out how to vote cards within 100 metres of polling stations, so opportunities for interesting photos are pretty limited. The ACT Liberals pretty much gave up when the Canberra Times polling was released a few days ago which suggest either no change to the composition of the Legislative Assembly, or an increased Labor/Greens majority. I suspect that they're saving their money to protect their senate seat next year. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhh

I think I might log off for a while, can you make a comment? I really don't know how it got from nowhere one minute to ANI the next. I don't feel like ANI today. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Commented there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article review of 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash

Many thanks for your comprehensive review of 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash, and for your astute comments. I am grateful that you have volunteered so much of your time to helping me improve this fascinating article. I have made many changes in response to your comments, and I have summarised my reactions in the GA talk page. A couple of my reactions include a question for you so I will await your answer before doing anything further. Regards. Dolphin (t) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I probably won't have time to respond today, but I'll do so tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Whenever you're ready. Dolphin (t) 12:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

SNCF WWII

Hello Nick, I am writing this short note to let you know I made another comment on the SNCF discussion just today with a proposal for what to do with the section. I will need a bit more time to work out the details, and I hope you will still be able to review it when I'm ready. Thank you, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle

G'day Nick-D. If you click on the bugle it takes you to the September edition. And the mission command article is redlinked. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It all works for me now :) Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hello. I requested a clarification on your comments on the School of Advanced Military Studies article review. Thanks for your time. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Plan Beersheba

Having been working on Thailand and the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, I've just become aware of this. Have the identities of the ten manoeuvre units been announced? Is there any announcement on the future of 1 AR? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I've seen - the Army seems to still be planning how to implement it, or is yet to publicly announce this. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the details of Beersheba have never been fully articulated either in Army or in public, and I suspect will never be fully implemented given recent funding constraints. I'd like to be proven wrong but it seems a credible capability is no longer a goal of the current government, nor I suspect the opposition. Anotherclown (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I imagine that's one reason why nothing has been announced about this. Given that it's been reported that a squadron worth of tanks was mothballed following the budget, the 1st Armoured Regiment may not have a particularly rosy future. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Buglese

Hey Nick. One thing I've continually forgot to do is update User:The ed17/sandbox3 with new Milhist members each month... last time I did was in March. Just food for thought. :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - I'll add that to my to-do list. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Draft book review

Nick, I've written a book review for the Bugle at User:Sturmvogel_66/Sandbox#Book review. Probably still needs a little tweaking, so feel free to edit it as necessary or ask me for more substantial issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks excellent - thanks a lot. I've posted it (with a couple of minor grammatical tweaks) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2012/Book reviews - feel free to edit it further if you like. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Informal review

Hi Nick. Would you mind casting your eye over Hugo Biermann and give me some ideas on what needs to be done to get it to a C or B class article? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure; I'll post on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

JSF

"still the plan, officially at least. Smith seems to be backing away from it, but is also explicitly leaving it on the table". Really? I thought I'd read that Smith had reduced it to some number like one or two dozen? (But of course I can't find that article now ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - it's not that black & white: [12]. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the current status is that Australia has only signed up for 14 aircraft and the government is (sensibly, IMO given the problems with the program) delaying signing up for any further aircraft. However, the official intention is still to purchase somewhere between 72 and 100 F-35s. The DMO page here does an OK job of explaining things. From what I've read, no-one expects the RAAF to receive anything like 100 F-35s, and 72 seems unlikely; presumably the 2013 Defence White Paper will provide an updated figure (if I was a betting man, I'd say it will come down with something like a 48-48 split of F-35s and Super Hornets). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"presumably the 2013 Defence White Paper will provide an updated figure". Yes, I think that's a safe bet! Pdfpdf (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques

You kindly commented on my successful FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 back in September. I've now nominated the second of the three articles in this series, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques/archive1. I'd be grateful for any comments you could provide in the review. Prioryman (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

SNCF WWII Draft

Hello Nick, I have just posted my new proposed version of the World War II section at Talk:SNCF#Problems_with_the_WWII_section.... Please respond at your nearest convenience. Thank you, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Argus FAC

I've finally had time to address your helpful comments on the Argus FAC and would like to know if all of your concerns have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that I've fixed the remaining issues. See if you agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

JP22Wiki block

I support this block. Have you noticed that Carlang behaves quite similar? See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlang. Tagremover (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a different editor, though the conduct is similar. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

John Adair

Hello, friend. I was wondering if you might have a look at John Adair, a current FAC. It is a MILHIST A-class article with two supports and no opposes at FAC, but it has been open a while, and I'm afraid it won't get enough reviews before someone closes it as "not promoted". As usual, this is a Kentucky politician who happened to have a military career, but his military career and its aftermath is not as trivial as many of the articles that you fine folks at MILHIST review for me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll review it over the weekend. If you have any interest in the Australian role in the Battle of Normandy I know of a FAC that you may wish to critically review. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice on the Ars Nova page

Hey Nick. I'm trying to figure out if there's a decent way of mentioning something about the most recent mainstage show at Ars Nova (that's about to close), called Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812, but I'm not sure how to do so without coming off as too promotional. The show sold out faster than any other show has ever sold out at Ars Nova and got a slew of reviews and coverage (most notably in the Times , the NY Post and Out New York, among others [13]), so it seems like it should be mentioned somehow (it's certainly the most noteworthy thing to ever happen at the theater), but I'm not sure if I can determine the best way to go about doing so. Since you were able to take a critical, unbiased view of the page before, I figured I'd ask you first. Any thoughts/suggestions?

Thanks. RunnerOnIce (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, If a reliable source has stated that this is the theater's greatest success, there's no problem including that in the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the line about it being the theater's greatest success so far was mine, not any of the articles' (and wasn't going to call it such in the article itself, since it's both unsourced and too promotional sounding). The part about it selling out (and then being extended and selling out the extension) and the reviews are all publicly available and mentioned in reliable publications, though. I'm more just wondering exactly how to go about mentioning it--then again, the show seems likely to be heading to at least one larger, more commercial venue, so I could always wait until that happens, seeing if its success stays consistent and noteworthy outside of Ars Nova, or see if it gets nominated for the Obies or Drama Desk awards (not sure about the former, but I think it's already being considered for the latter), and then if it becomes more than a single venue success, could always make a separate page for the play itself. My internship would be long over then, and the show would no longer be directly affiliated with Ars Nova, so I'd no longer have a direct COI--just a normal interest. And then I could just add the play to the list of past mainstage productions on the Ars Nova page and link back to the play's article. There's no real benefit to the theater to add it either way (since the show's sold out and ends its Ars Nova run for good tomorrow), but it does seem significant from a wiki standpoint as far as the theater's history goes. Just not sure how to mention it now without it seeming like trivia or too promotional. RunnerOnIce (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The key thing is that an external reliable source needs to have stated it first. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

RSPAS

I do not like afds - specially when the flies descend. RSPAS main notability when it was running well was the people were the australian top experts in their fields - that is why they were and they were not somewhere else - it was the staff and the visitors when it was working. the actual school has been demoted down by the penny pinching admin. the expertise and the notability with those associated was the strength. I have much more info but its off wiki level only. SatuSuro 09:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding as well. Lots of important experts have worked there, and I believe that it played an important role in the development of Asian studies in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
gggrrrr - send me an email sometime and I'll give you some background on rspas i dont want to type here... SatuSuro 04:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW I have fairly strong opinions on the fate of the espionage and intelligence projects - and am a bit concerned that milhist appropriation wont be the way ships project relates to adjacent topics... reassure me - please SatuSuro 12:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I got it all wrong and am actually very pleased that Kiril is prepared to help get a combination project up and running - just wish I had time (am shifting house at the moment, and if you know what a never finished PhD means in cubic metres of paper, books, etc...) SatuSuro 13:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill and yourself; MilHist didn't intend to take over this project, and it wouldn't be well placed to ever do so given the specialised nature of the topic. I'll sign up to the 'new' project - every now and then I get a burst of excitement about intelligence topics. I haven't undertaken a PhD, but from the experiences of friends that have I think I know what you're going through! Good luck. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

Nick, could you give this Featured article candidate a look? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the sources, but probably won't have the time to post more detailed comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

public domain images

Hello Nick D,

Thanks for your msg. Can you explain why those photos are not in public domain? I understand that a page designed for media to take and use images together with copyright information I read indicates they are good to be used??? Any assistance would be appreciated Rocket Rodsss (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia uses a strict legal definition of 'public domain' - eg, images which are free of all copyright restrictions and can be used for any purpose whatsoever. As Wikipedia's licensing conditions allow its content to be copied, reproduced and modified by anyone (including for commercial purposes), it doesn't fall into the categories covered by the Australian Government's copyright statement. There's a long-winded explanation of this at Wikipedia:Public domain. I hope that this is helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Canberra Edits

That information is mostly extraneous, for example there is no need to list every TV channel especially now that they are basically the same Australia-wide. Also no mention is made of the digital radio trial that has been running several years now. Nbound (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, but given that this is a featured article, it's best to err on the side of keeping information in and updating outdated material rather than remove it. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your good intentions, but if that were the case we would be listing the local channels in every town and city across the nation, and in the majority of cases it would be as simple as a cut and paste. If you like I will can re-do the edit with which radio stations the commercial broadcasters own. The only material that wasnt extraneous and required updating, was the DAB+ trial; which due to the revert, is no longer on the page. Nbound (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Images without copyright notices

Hi Nick, I checked out your comment at the FAC for Cher earlier and just wanted to ping you about the images. We hope (who uploaded many of the images) generally takes really good care to show that the images are PD. In the case of File:Sonny & Cher Show 1977.JPG (a press release) xe uploaded both back and front to show that there is no copyright notice. It could be (and probably is) PD as far as I can tell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, My concern was (and remains) the fact that the source of the images is a listing uploaded by what appears to be an entirely random person onto Ebay. I don't think that's sufficient in cases such as this - if the original creator/owner of the press release, someone clearly acting for or a person/institution which is a trusted source of copyright-free material them had uploaded the images it would be OK as this would be a reliable source for the image, but there are too many unknowns here for the image to be usable (for instance, how do we know that the seller hasn't simply edited out the copyright notice to prevent Ebay staff from deleting the listing? - this would be very easy to do, and is obviously in the seller's interests). I hope that makes sense. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand that concern (its occurred to me as well) but one would wonder why the reseller would upload both sides of the image if s/he were afraid of receiving a Cease and Desist notice, not to mention why so many other "imperfections" (the newspaper clippings, the stamps, etc) would not have been removed. It should certainly not be taken wholesale like we used to do (used to be pre-1977 publicity shot = PD), but on a case-by-case basis.
Copyright is, after all, often unclear. When reviewing Imagine (song) I noted that File:John Lennon Imagine 1971.jpg may have been published in the UK first, which would have made it non-PD. However, I think that until such a thing is shown we should recall that "you can't prove a negative". The same applies to photoshopping. You can't prove an image wasn't Photoshopped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm generally pretty relaxed about copyright, but I do worry about it quite a bit in cases where a) there are commercial interests potentially at stake and b) the article is likely to be linked directly from the main page as this is a magnet for lawyers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree about that, but one wonders just how far we need to go with that. I consider the law of probabilities ruling out that all images have had the notice removed through Photoshop, although I don't doubt the possibility. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Everytime I raise non-obvious copyright concerns in a FAC I feel really bad, as copyright paranoiacs bug me. But I also worry about a company declaring that Wikipedia is stealing lots of their intellectual property and taking legal action. If the source of the image was OK-ish (eg, a fan website or similar) I'd be happy, but stuff posted by random accounts on eBay worries me. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. It would be nice to have a policy/guideline to fall back on, but... that may be a bit too much rule creep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Article assistance

Hi. I've drafted User:LauraHale/Damien Thomlinson in my user space. The article should pass WP:GNG. In any case, he is a military guy and I will be seeing him as part of Wikinews:IPC Nor-Am Cup. I was wondering if you could copy edit the article? Fix any of the spelling and grammatical issues? Fix any prose that is choppy? I'd like to take the article to GAN or MilHist A-Class as the article is pretty much as comprehensive as it can be given the sources I have access to. --LauraHale (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laura, I'll have a go, and leave some comments on the talk page. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


New Comment from HChristopherSWebb

Nick, firstly sorry if I get the structures wrong; I'm new to this and trying to find how to change somethign whcih I know to be incorrect. You are right that my edit of the descrtiption of the wing turrents on HMS New Zealand was wordy, but the design is fundamentally different from the Invincible design shown on the drawing that I have now had two attempts to remove. I wanted to change the text to draw attention to this! Please check out other drawings of the Indefatigables (ie + HMSs Australia and NZ) and you will see that whatever Brassey published at the time it was wartime and based on misinformation, ie it was wrong. As a cross check look at the-blueprints.com and compare the drawing with the pictures. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.225.17.100 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that the Indefatigables revised the midships layout of the Invincibles by moving the middle funnel aft, between the turrets. But I'd still prefer to retain the image, inaccurate as it is, because there's nothing else that graphically shows how an en echelon arrangement was laid out. Feel free to clarify the caption if you wish; I'll do it once I get home again if you haven't already done so, but leave the drawing in place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi Nick, hope things are going well. Can you get 'Ukraine's Armed Forces and Military Policy, JOHN JAWORSKY, Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. 20, UKRAINE IN THE WORLD: Studies in the International Relations and Security Structure of a Newly Independent State (1996), pp. 223-247' via JSTOR? If possible that would be good. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that I can only access articles from that journal for the periods 1998-2004 and 2006-2007. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I have access, Buckshot. Send me your email and I'll attach the articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Fresh input needed


DYK for Damien Thomlinson

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC) 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Barras/archive1

Hey Nick, just in case you missed it, I think I've addressed almost all your comments at the FAC ^. If you could take another look when you get a minute, I'd be much obliged. Also, noting the section above about JSTOR, does it give you access to any of the following?

  • Abrahamsen, Rita, & Williams, Paul; "Ethics and Foreign Policy: The Antinomies of New Labour's 'Third Way' in Sub-Saharan Africa", Political Studies', vol. 49, no. 2, 2001 Green tickY
  • Stewart, Andrew; "An Enduring Commitment: The British Military's Role in Sierra Leone", Defence Studies', vol. 8, no. 3, September 2008 Green tickY
  • Connaughton, Richard; "The Mechanics and Nature of British Interventions into Sierra Leone (2000) and Afghanistan (2001-2)", Civil Wars, vol. 5, no. 2, summer 2002 Green tickY
  • Richards, David; "Operation Palliser", Journal of the Royal Artillery, vol. CXXVII, no. 2, October 2000 Red XN
  • Richards, David; "Expeditionary Operations: Sierra Leone – Lessons for the Future", World Defence Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, July 2001 Red XN
  • Williams, Paul; "Fighting for Freetown: British Military Intervention in Sierra Leone", Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 22, no. 3, December 2001 Green tickY

—I'm trying to get hold of those for British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War (which I'm drafting offline). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, When I last checked in on the FAC you were still on the road, and I haven't looked in since - I'll do so now. I've marked up the journals I have access to above; please ping me an email. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick. I've sent you an email and I'll see if anyone else has access to the other tow articles. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll post some comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

School of Advanced Military Studies use of PhD dissertation

Nick,

I started a discussion concerning the use of a PhD dissertation for the article School of Advanced Military Studies. You closed an A-class assessment and gave the use of this dissertation as the primary means to deny the article an A-class rating. I just wanted to get some other opinions on that, as I would like to start working on that article. The WP:RSN discussion can be found here. Thanks. Casprings (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I closed the A-class review, because Nick raised good-faith concerns and in the absence of input from third parties, I didn't have much choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that. But I think his concerns are valid. That said, the best source I found on this is that dissertation. I just don't want to start using that to improve the article, if the general source will still hold the article back. Thats why I asked the question on WP:RSN. I did place this for a WP:GA nomination. I think that a copy edit might have brought the article up to that standard by removing some of the language. I am hoping to respond to some of the comments in the GA review an improve the article further.Casprings (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
If the article re-appears at ACR with the same kind of sourcing, I'd raise the same concerns. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review update

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War. I eliminated overlinking and added the complete report on shootdowns/accidents. It still needs to cross-check with our tables. Please comment in necessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There's still lots of over-linking and totally unreferenced 'totals' I'm afraid. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I just did one more edit. According to AWB there is no link repeated more than two times (one in the body text and one in the list). Unless I am missing something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
That's not at all right - Boeing AH-64 Apache is linked twice in the 2007 alone, and there's tons of other obvious overlinking. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Aha. This is because there are links to different models. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I reduced a bit more but I don;t think we should do more. Not everyone knows that some models are in fact the same helicopter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

World War I edit-a-thon

Hi Nick,

Are you interested in this edit-a-thon? There is lots of time to prepare (it is next year) but it would be good if we could make a contribution to the global effort. I helped with the last one run by Wm-UK and much remains to do. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, It would be great to link up with what Wikimedia UK is doing in this area, and I'd be interested in taking part. I'm not sure if you're aware, but WMUK is currently in discussions with the Imperial War Museum about establishing a Wikipedian-in-residence arrangement to further this work, and this seems quite likely to happen. I don't think that there is much hope in establishing a similar arrangement with the AWM and their ability to host an edit-a-thon is highly limited as they don't have wifi in their public spaces (including their excellent research centre). The NLA would be the best Canberra venue, assuming that they have rooms we can reserve. Regards Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Good point about the wifi - no wifi, no go. If you put your name on the edit-a-thon project page under the Canberra section, we'll have a two-city start for this event! We can work with up to it over the next six months and Oz will be part of the overall effort. When you get a minute, can you check out what the NLA requires in terms of venue hire? Sounds like a good option. I participated (remotely) in the WM-UK editathon last June and yes, I knew about the Imperial War Museum. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me sticking an oar in - if the AWM might otherwise be interested in hosting and it's just connectivity that's the issue, you could always look into the possibility of some kind of MiFi setup. We've talked about it a few times in the UK for running workshops where there's no wireless access, though I don't think we've actually taken the plunge to use it yet. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion Andrew; it might be a good option (though mobile reception isn't great in the AWM so we'd need to test the technical feasibility before going down that path; it's a giant stone building which backs onto a steep hill). The AWM has a staff-only wifi network and about a dozen public computers in the research centre, so there may be options. I've just signed up, and will advertise this at WT:MILHIST Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

SNCF Ongoing Discussion

Hello again, Nick-D. I hate to bother if you are busy, but I wanted to see if you had time to contribute to the discussion about SNCF. I had continued discussing the section with Xyl 54 after your last comment, but he has now been offline a week. There are two issues at hand: one is a duplicate sentence that should be removed. Another is possibly emerging consensus that the second of the two sections should be reduced to a short summary. This was Xyl 54's suggestion, which I endorsed. I would welcome your input if you are able to provide it, and I will be seeking additional feedback as well. Thanks in advance, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group Seven

Would you mind please giving me an informal review of this article (on the talk page, maybe?) before I again submit it for ACR/PR? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to do so Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Very much appreciate the quick response. Have made a couple of the suggested changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I've watchlisted that page, and am happy to follow up on anything. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

M-1 FAC

Imzadi1979 has responded to your concerns; would you mind taking a look at the article again? --Rschen7754 07:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do - and thanks for the reminder. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mid Dec Metro

Sorry this edition is so late. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 11:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

SNCF, again

Hello Nick
I made a proposal on the SNCF article here about substantially trimming the "Reactions to WWII" section. I’ve not had much feedback; did you wish to comment on it? Or, if you are OK with it, I will just go ahead with the BOLD thing in a couple of days. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: I was going to post this to Shaz0t as well, but it seems he isn't with us any more! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings to both of you. I have also replied on the SNCF page but wished to convey my thanks here, the section is much improved following your edits, Xyl. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Colombian Army

I put the tank and APC considerations for the Colombian Army because it is noteworthy to show. The references clearly say they are authentic. The other edits made the lists clearer. (America789 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC))

The references say that they're under consideration only, and that's a list of material actually in service with the Army. Israel has offered Merkava tanks to several countries, and none have actually purchased any (including countries they'd be much better suited to than Columbia) so it's most unlikely that any sales will result here. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hornets in Australian service

Hi, the ADF is requesting info regarding an additional 24 Super Hornets -- you might want to add it to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've added it to the Super Hornet article. The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service article is about the A and B variants, so I'll hold off on adding it there until any orders are placed (the decision on whether to acquire more Super Hornets is scheduled to be made next year). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider at least assembling a bibliography for Dassault Mirage III in Australian service, and then maybe 'X in Indonesian service'? Skyhawks? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that for for the Mirages (I think that this article is somewhere on Ian Rose's to-do list) and Skyhawks, but I'm not familiar with the literature on the Indonesian Air Force. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I've posted bibliographies for these aircraft at User:Nick-D/random drafts Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mucked up sandbox project

Thanks! FWiW (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC).

Deaths due to Hitler

I need to read the lengthy discussion at the talk page, in any case I will respond there--Woogie10w (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking time to look into this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been at a number of lectures by Glantz, he is so cool that the air in the room starts to freeze, after two hours the room temp approaches absolute zero.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right judging from his books! (which I find impressive works of scholarship, but heavy going). Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Order!

What is the reson of changing order here? --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

All new nominations go at the top of the list for each day - please see the note beneath the 'Articles created/expanded on December 16' heading in that diff. I'd suggest that you phrase questions more politely in the future, by the way. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
That was not impolite! No one says my comments "impolite" in Wikipedia. You can say the word "please" was missing in that post! Okay, so I'll add it twice here. I am new to DYK zone, I didn't know DYK noms should be transcluded at the top of the page, so, I added my last (my first nomination) at the bottom Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_15 (see Natir Puja]]), Can you please, please () tell me should I re-edit it now and put it at the top of the section? BTW, can you see your nomination here: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_16? --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No, don't move it to the top of the section. Someone will come along and review it in the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Peace Barnstar

The Peace Barnstar
Sorry for bad choice of words in my quickly written post (with a typo reson (reason) which seemed to be unfriendly. But actually, I did not mean so. So, a peace barnstar! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II

Hi,

I appreciate your detailed response on why you reverted my edits to this article. Considering your response to that edit, and your comments made in the discussion from several years ago that resulted in its creation/wording, I believe the new discussion on the MILHIST talkpage may be of interest to you. Regards Tempaccount040812 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll just the discussion at WT:MILHIST. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

AR-15 and Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine

Hi Nick. Looks like page protection is going to be needed on these two articles, and maybe a couple accounts will need to be blocked as well. Persistent vandalism/original research and unconstructive "coatracking" due to the recent shooting massacre in Connecticut. Repeated violations of the Wiki guidelines at WP:OR, WP:GUNS, and WP:NPOV. For example, the contribs by this editor. ROG5728 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected AR-15 for the probably too short time of three days - another admin has protected Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine until the end of January, which may be too long a period of protection. Please let me know, or post at WP:RFPP, if further protection is needed when this expires (RFPP should get you a faster response). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the page protection, but this editor is still vandalizing/coatracking and edit warring at AR-15 even after the page protection. If you look at his contribs, he has performed the same revert over a dozen times in the last 24 hours; he's reverted six different editors in the last 24 hours. Also, a page protection seems to be needed at Bushmaster Firearms International‎ as well; more of the same edit-warring going on there due to the Connecticut shooting. ROG5728 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've just blocked that editor (which I should have done previously) and fully protected the other page for 72 hours to allow for dispute resolution. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it appears we have the same problem at Glock now and another PP will probably be needed there. Persistent edit-warring and coatracking with anti-gun talking points. None of the editors trying to change the article (mostly IPs) have been willing to discuss on the talk page even though I've asked them to do so. ROG5728 (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done. RFPP got to it first. ROG5728 (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

CSG 7 again

Once I've gone through your suggestions in full, do you believe the article would be ready for an A-class review, or more would need to be done to it? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, There's still some material which isn't covered by citations, which needs to be cited before it goes to an ACR, and it would be worth looking for non-USN references. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Paradise War

I have boldly removed the {{notability}} tag as I feel it is notable. Notability is not about sources present but sources available to establish it. Highly popular book; in print for 20 years. Definitely more notable than Captain Underpants and the Invasion of the Incredibly Naughty Cafeteria Ladies from Outer Space (and the Subsequent Assault of the Equally Evil Lunchroom Zombie Nerds). Plus that crap cover to increase notability, yeah. Feel free to disagree but let me know. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you add those sources to the article then? I'm re-adding the tag as I think it's a reasonable request (and a courtesy to our readers given that many use Wikipedia to locate sources for essays, etc). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


DYK for 4th Division (New Zealand)

Orlady (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International

Please see my new note regarding the protection. --Zeamays (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bushmaster Firearms International".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I need some help

Since your name appears in the "The Bugle", I was hoping you could help me. I am in a conversation on the Battle of Jamrud, where another editor is taking certain conditions(ie. "...the immediate military objective of the Afghans was to retake Jamrud fort. They failed to retake it.") as reasoning to place Sikh victory(as opposed to Afghan victory or stalemate/indecisive) in the result part of the template. Is this customary in the military history section of wikipedia??

My other question is, doesn't the template result have to be supported by a reference stating Sikh victory, Afghan victory or Indecisive and not simply an editor's formulated opinion as to objectives gained/lost? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the article's talk page, and locked the article for a week. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you :) Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tony Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Question at A-class

I'm not sure what section title to use for the shooting down of a passenger plane at WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Air_Rhodesia_Flight_825. Cliftonian likes "Shooting down and crash" and "Shootdown"; I replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hungry?

Nando's, Oporto (restaurant) and Chicken Treat... Hungry perhaps? Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is Christmas! (I was actually following the links via Template:Chicken chains - as you do - after finding a dodgy article needing work). I did learn that Nando's ‎is a South African chain which I didn't know before. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it is (Christmas that is). I've been to the gym so now its time for a beer... lifes hard at the moment! Have a good one. Anotherclown (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Surturz (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and same to you. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas - 2012

Christmas Greetings. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I hate to do this, but... non-free image removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Nick. As a present to me, could you intervene in a low- grade edit war at Daimler-Benz DB 605? Both are good editors, so hopefully warnings will suffice. Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Done, and Merry Christmas to you Bill Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from over the ditch, Nick. Enjoyed working with you this year. Have a warm and happy new year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

DB605

Hi Nick, please accept my apologies for this. Denniss has been constantly reverting and changing properly cited material while providing no evidence whatsoever for his claims that highly experienced authors have somehow been muddling PS and hp. I have tried to get him to provide some evidence, and warned him against original research but to no avail. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, It would be a good idea to discuss this, and you can ask for additional input via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Nick! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed - I hope that you're having a great Christmas as well. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

please revert tpa removal

Please restore Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page access. Complaints about Wikpeidia processes are not personal attacks. NE Ent 15:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at ANI is that calling other editors liars (repeatedly) is a personal attack. It's also something KW has been warned about before, and I believe blocked for before. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, what Kiefer was posting went well past being complaints about Wikipedia processes or practices and was a series of quite serious personal attacks on a couple of other editors. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Jane's World Air Forces

Note you cite JWAF in Australian Defence Force. Libraries here appear to have disposed of all their back issues; which library in Canberra are you using? Nothing in Trove to indicate which. Need issues from 1996-2000 or so. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot, I use the copies in the Australian National University's library, which according to their catalog go back to 1996. The library's closed until 2 January, but I'd be happy to look into it for you when it reopens. I also have online access to the most recent editions of all the Janes' products via the library (and goodness me some of them are low quality - World Special Forces coverage of Australia and NZ is about 5 years out of date!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, after 2 Jan, I will ask you to hand-deliver an e-mail request to the librarians there for all the Ukraine sections in JWAF since '96. Not a formal interloan, since it's only 1/190th of each volume or thereabouts. However if they want a formal ILL request, I'll do one. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
OK Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer Wolfowitz

Hello Nick-D,

I am an editor who has been on Wikibreak for a few months to work on other projects, but am now returning to active editing. I have a friendship with Kiefer Wolfowitz that started with collaboation on an expansion of the biography of George Meany. He's contacted me off Wikipedia and says you accidentally extended a block against him that had been set to expire today. Will you please look into this for me, and for KW? I take no stand on the underlying dispute. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the note. According to Kiefer's block log I don't appear to have changed the duration of the block, and Rschen7754 has had a go at trying to fix an autoblock issue (which I suspect would have been the problem here; autoblock works in mysterous ways). However Bwilkins has since imposed an indefinite duration block for continued disruptive editing. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Nick-D
There were criticisms of your use of administrative tools at ANI, to which you have failed to respond. Please do so at my talk page, since ANI has been redacted. Also, please provide diffs to support your allegations, fulfilling your obligation and responding to one criticism of your failure to document your tool use.
Have you done anything about the sexist baiting by Wehwalt? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I took part in the discussion at ANI at the time and there was also endorsement of my decision there by several editors, so I don't think that I need to explain myself on your talk page as you're demanding here (and there). I provided a explanation of why I turned off your talk page access at the time on your talk page and at ANI (where the editor who lodged the report provided diffs as part of their initial posts), so I'm not sure why you're now demanding that I produce diffs (if it helps, these are the main edits in question: [14] (including edit summary), [15], [16] (edit summary) and [17], but the broader issue as noted in my message on your talk page and at ANI was that you were using your talk page to continue to carry on the dispute for which you had been blocked, including by making serious personal attacks on various people). I endorse TP's suggestion on your talk page that you give these issues a rest, as your approach to them is counter-productive at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Ramesh Ramaiah and multiple articles in his userspace

This currently blocked user created several article in his user space and did not show attempts to move them to article namespace. Do you think they are worth keeping or should they be deleted? For a quick Article list see usage of Photo at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, Is there evidence that these articles contain copyright violations or other serious infringements of policy? If not, there don't seem to be grounds to speedy delete them, and the topics generally appear notable. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any review process you could start so these articles get either wikified/moved to article name space or deleted? --Denniss (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
You can nominate user pages for deletion via WP:MFD. As I understand it, there's no policy or technical barrier to you moving other editors' user page drafts into article space (the relevant policy guidance is at WP:UP#OWN) but it seems good practice to seek the agreement of the editor before doing so, especially as they should be able to work on these drafts while blocked if they so wish. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the ones about him personally are suitable for mainspace/articlespace. I'm sure I MfD'd at least one of them (some sort of Facebook-style page), though I lost track of what happened to that nomination. Nick is right that there is no great urgency if they don't contain copyright violations or other serious problems. (The guy did previously do some copyvio - so you would be well advised to check very very carefully before moving anything to mainspace - but nothing else bad.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

Since you locked down the article, I felt you should know that my attempts at compromise have been largely ignored. User:Devanampriya has maintained his/her interpretation(s) of the battle, instead of taking all views from available university sources. I have no interest in continuing a dialogue against another editor's interpretations of the battle. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I note that several uninvolved editors have offered solutions to the issue here and hopefully they prove useful. As noted in my post, I'll be deploying the general sanctions which apply to this article if any POV pushing occurs after the protection expires. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
To illustrate User:Devanampriya's continued original research, he states,[18] "This means we do not have to give undue weight to passing opinions and editorialization. As such, we not only have to look at quality of secondary sources.....". This is his response to the University sources, that disagree with his personal interpretations of the battle.
  • James A. Norris, First Afghan War: 1838-42, Cambridge University --Indecisive
  • Zalmay Ahmad Gulzad, The History of the Helimitation of the Durand Line development of the Afghan State (1838-1898), University of Wisconsin--Madison. --Afghan victory
  • Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838, Oxford University Press. --Afghan victory
User:Devanampriya labeling of "passing opinions/editorializations" are 3 university sources of which two are limited in scope of 4 and 50 years. Hardly a "passing opinion" or "editorialization".
Compared to his choice, The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion, by Docherty. This book spans from Cyrus the Great to the modern age.[19]
According to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". As such, since there are University sources stating Afghan victory and Indecisive, they also should be mentioned.
As for POV pushing, User:Devanampriya already has his version and will clearly NOT allow any other version to be presented, since he is already asking for an extension on the page protection against "edit warring". --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The spirit of WP:ROPE applies if problems occur; if editors can't stop themselves from edit warring, a block is an appropriate solution (and is fairer on the non-edit warriors than keeping the article locked for a longer period). Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that Devanampriya is an extreme POV-pusher and likely a sockmaster. Anyway, I added this and hope it is accepted by all parties: "Afghans defeat the Sikhs but fail to take Jamrud Fort. [20] [21] [22]

Nick-D, these Indian nationalists (User:Devanmpriya and User:Theman244) are major sockmasters who are gaming you and everyone else.


Congratulations

2012 "Military historian of the Year"
By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for I award you this Bronze Wiki in recognition of placing third in the 2012 Military historian of the year.   AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Congrats, Nick! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! --Surturz (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Belated congrats from me, too -- well done mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well done Nick, well deserved. You have really helped me get a sense of the project standards with your detailed and robust reviews. And happy new year! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for those kind comments Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice

Remember User:Gaba p? Well he has followed me to a number of articles making accusations of POV editing, or and syn. It was becoming clear that I was being hounded. Recently turned up at ARA General Belgrano, which given the controversy on the subject had been a pretty neutral and fairly well written article. He has tag bombed it and is adding quotes from politicians pushing the war crime/conspiracy theory. If I comment, he is going to spin that as me hounding him as I haven't edited for a while. Do nothing and it seems a reasonably neutral article will be spoilt, fortunately another editor seems to have intervened for now. I plan to stay out of it for now but would welcome your comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, As I've noted in response to your previous posts, I'm afraid that not a suitable admin to be following up on Gaba p given that I could be seen as being WP:INVOLVED. Edits such as this are clearly unhelpful, though his requests for citations generally seem reasonable - given the controversy over the sinking of General Belgrano and the huge amount which has been written on the subject, our article really should have more and better citations (the British official history's account of the sinking is rather good if you're looking for a source; Lawrence Freedman does a good job of describing the strategic and tactical situation at the time and the orders the British submarine was operating under, as well as the bad PR which resulted from sinking a ship outside the 'exclusion zone'). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick-D/Archive_10&oldid=1151036435"