Misplaced Pages

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot 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!

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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen 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: (including edit summary), , (edit summary) and , 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, "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.

According to Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources, "Misplaced Pages 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.

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  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)

Fortress of Mimoyecques FA nomination

Thank you for your help with the featured article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques. I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a related article, Fortress of Mimoyecques, for consideration as a featured article. If you have any comments on the nomination, please leave them on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fortress of Mimoyecques/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll provide some comments on the nomination later this week. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please revert your recent edit on Samson

Nick,

The section where you removed my edit is absolutely awful in its current form as it proposes an insane conspiratorial idea that Israel will destroy the world. But some people have been arguing to keep it. If it remains it needs to be clear that this is not Israeli foreign policy but rather the opinions of some experts and the rantings of some lunatics.

Zuchinni one (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to restore that unreferenced material in which you attacked the reputations of various people. Please see WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone, nor would I. But that entire section is trash as it stands and it needs to be clear who is saying these things. I am happy to find another wording that you find less offensive, but I can't stand seeing people promote conspiracy trash on wikipedia as if it was the official foreign policy of a nation. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please find reliable sources which argue the opposite then and use them to add material to the article - please see WP:NPOV and WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

See the talk page ... the first portion of my edit was a restatement of previously referenced material in the article which I did forget to re-reference ... the second portion was simply a statement to clarify that the rest of the section did not reflect Israel's offical foreign policy. Neither is POV or orginal research ... but I do admit that I forgot to put in the references. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not run two discussions in parallel. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Look Nick, your an admin, a huge contributor to military history here, and in general I respect you and think that you are trying to make wikipedia great. I think that I am going to refrain from participating in the debate about this article for a little while. I made some mistakes and did not handle things as best I could. This is mostly because I feel so frustrated about something that appears to me to be obvious.

This article starts out talking about nuclear deterrence in a very reasonable way ... and it discusses what is basically a MAD scenario of deterrence quite well. And then turns into something that implies Israel has a secret agenda to destroy any who oppose it or possibly even the world by creating a nuclear winter. Those ideas come from fine sources ... and people speculate about stuff like this all the time. Its RS enough to be in wikipedia, but it should NOT be presented as if it were real foreign policy rather than guesswork, imagination, and wild conjecture.

You're a good admin ... make this page right. I'm recusing myself from it. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Admins have no extra say on the content of articles. As noted above, if you're aware of reliable sources which provide different accounts of Israel's nuclear strategy, please use them as references. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No but you do have a say in making sure that articles follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and present information in an NPOV manner. As far as references that present a different view ... the rest of the article is full of them. They don't mention that Israel does not want to destroy the world, because they are not written as a response to that ... rather they just talk about actual policy. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

ARA Belgrano

Hi Nick, I've left a message at Talk:ARA_General_Belgrano#Ombudsman_statement explaining the re-addition of the ombudsman statement you removed from the Legal Controversy section to the Aftermath section. Please stop by when you have the time and tell me what you think. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Landing at Nassau Bay

Hello Nick—

And Happy New Year. I see that you are the original author of the Landing at Nassau Bay. One of the recommended readings is Morison's Battle of the Atlantic Volume. Is that your intent? Seems like the wrong ocean. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've gotten me confused with Newm30 (talk · contribs) - I've never edited that article. I have read that volume of Morison's history, however, and it's definitely not the right one - the correct volume is Breaking the Bismarks Barrier. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thank you. I apologize for my confusion. You did create its talk page, but that's just not the same thing. I clicked on the history of the wrong tab. ☹ I should've been clued in when there were no more edits ☺ I'll make the edit. JMOprof (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, and happy new year to you as well :) Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Aotearoa!!

Talk:Belgian Army#Requested move - would you kindly consider providing some input at this RM? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for No. 78 Squadron RAAF

On 6 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 78 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 78 Squadron RAAF took part in the last major air battle between the Royal Australian Air Force and Japanese air units during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 78 Squadron RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Demba Ba

Hello Nick, can you take a look at this situation. It's been going on quite sometime & nobody has made an intervention. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, now I can get some sleep. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Australian National University Classics Museum

On 7 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian National University Classics Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a bronze head once owned by the Roman emperor Augustus was stolen from the Australian National University Classics Museum in 2004? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian National University Classics Museum. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Lending Club

You might like to comment at Talk:Lending Club#History. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan Metro

Issue 47: January 2013 Previous edition · Next edition

London Transport News January DLR operating contract extended until September 2014 Passengers to benefit from £45m Upgrade of Vauxhall Tube station December Mayor welcomes New Year Honour for Sir Peter Hendy and TfL staff TfL and Mayor set out plans to hugely improve transport accessibility TfL consults on bus services for the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park area, Stratford New Travel in London report underscores need for stable and sustained investment in London's transport network Transport for London and the London Borough of Newham seek public's views on new Barclays Cycle Superhighway 2 extension TfL's Games-time Travel Ambassadors return for the festive season Mayor seeks ban on dangerous pedicabs Mayor provides £148m transport investment to boost local economy London Underground car parking charges to change in January 2013 New crime figures show that transport crime continues to fall Woolwich Ferry set for improvement work as TfL awards Woolwich Ferry contract to Briggs Marine New option to pay for travel as TfL introduces contactless payments on London's buses East end residents get first glimpse of new Tube trains Business community backs the case for stable and sustained investment in London's transport services New campaign aims to tackle violence against transport staff head on Customers encouraged to plan ahead this festive season 150th Tube anniversary Oyster card to go on sale Jobs and growth at the heart of Mayor's plans for London's transport services Transport for London urges road users to voice their views on new Barclays Cycle Superhighway. Project News Alerts Frank Pick was promoted to Featured Article status in November Underground Electric Railways Company of London was promoted to Featured Topic status in November A1 road in London was promoted to Good Article status in December London congestion charge was put up for Featured Article Review in November London Necropolis Company has not been featured in Today's Featured Article Metropolitan Railway will be Today's Featured Article in January Hammersmith & City line has been put up for Peer Review in January List of bus types in London was put up for Articles for Deletion in January Project discussions Within the project, discussions included the featured article review of the London congestion charge, edits to London Buses route 24, date of publication of a 1938 LU stock emergency equipment diagram, Metropolitan Railway being TFA to mark the 150th anniversary of the tube and bus routes in station articles. Within other related projects, relevant discussions included unidentified station photo locations in London, linking to train station, bus routes in station articles, template font problems, railway route boxes, primary road destinations in infoboxes and River Lee move discussions. Requests If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor Things to do Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Lists of articles needing cleanup Expand : These top 10 favourite articles to Good Article: J. P. Morgan  · Heathrow Airport  · River Thames  · London Bridge  · London Underground  · London Bridge (Lake Havasu City)  · Gatwick Airport  · London Congestion Charge  · Tube map  · Tower Bridge These top importance articles to Good Article: 7 July 2005 London bombings  · Buses in London  · Crossrail  · London Passenger Transport Board  · London Transport (brand)  · London Transport Museum  · Transport for London  · Transport in London Good article nominations : Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up Photo : Upload your non-copyrighted London transportation images to Wikimedia Commons Stubs : Improve a stub article Update : London low emission zone, London congestion charge Other : Suggest: A Did You Know...? fact here or an Anniversary fact here. Patrol: Recent changes Join: Become a member of WikiProject London Transport or encourage others Membership ThunderingTyphoons! (talk · contribs) and Nick-D (talk · contribs) joined in August, bringing the number of participants to 84. Welcome to them. Spacevezon (talk · contribs) also left the project. Good luck wherever you may go. Recent Activity of Project participants Editorial Editor: Simply south Special thanks to founders Unisouth (talk · contribs) and Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) for setting up the newsletter Here is January's edition. All suggestions for improvements to the newsletter are welcome at feedback page or Simply south Best Articles Featured articles (34) 1910 London to Manchester air race • Albert Bridge, London • Aldwych tube station • Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield • Baker Street and Waterloo Railway • Battersea Bridge • Brill Tramway • Brill railway station • Central London Railway • Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway • Chelsea Bridge • City and South London Railway • Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway • Great Western Railway War Memorial • Green Park tube station • Herne Hill railway station • Charles Holden • London Necropolis Company • London and North Western Railway War Memorial • Marchioness disaster • Metropolitan Railway • Moorgate tube crash • RAF Northolt • Frank Pick • Sinking of SS Princess Alice • Quainton Road railway station • Richmond Bridge, London • Underground Electric Railways Company of London • Vauxhall Bridge • Waddesdon Road railway station • Wandsworth Bridge • Westcott railway station • Wood Siding railway station • Wotton railway station (Brill Tramway) Featured lists (6) List of former and unopened London Underground stations • List of London Underground stations • List of London Monopoly locations • List of works by Charles Holden • London station group • Timeline of the London Underground Featured topics (2) Brill Tramway • Underground Electric Railways Company of London Good articles (112) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Oxted line • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Good topics (1) Misplaced Pages:Good topics/List of London Monopoly locations Featured Portal (1) Portal:London Transport Good articles (112) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Oxted line • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Recently Promoted Featured Articles, Lists or Topics Frank Pick Underground Electric Railways Company of London Recently Assessed Good Articles A1 road in London Good Article and Featured candidates none Gallery Selected by Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 1 and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 2 Misplaced Pages ads file info – #137 If you want to unsubscribe from this newsletter or, if you are visiting this user page and want to sign-up, then please visit this page. You may also like to provide your opinions on this newsletter by visiting The Metropolitan's feedback page or the project's discussion page. Any other issues with this, don't be afraid to drop a line at Simply south's talkpage.

Australian Army in World War II

Gday Nick. The review for this article is here Talk:Australian Army in World War II/GA1‎. This really has been a collobrative effort between a number of editors, including yourself. Indeed if I recall correctly I believe you actually started the article originally. So if you're interested your involvement in the review would be most welcome. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've enjoyed working on this article, and will help out with the GA review. Hopefully we can also take the article to at least A class status. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, do you have any objections to the article being nominated for A-class this weekend? Sorry to rush you, but I'm heading away for six-seven weeks in February, so I'd like to try to get this one through ACR before then. In some ways this has become the defacto Milhist COTM for January... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'll have a go at the POW section today to give it more of an Army focus, but other than that it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will look to nom tomorrow, then. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rapier (missile) and Malaysian Army

It was in Malaysian service, but with the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File problem on Commons

Hello Nick,

I recently created a new version of this file: . But since it had been transferred to Commons I didn't have the permission to overwrite it so asked AustralianRupert to do it for me. He has had a go but the changes don't seem to display and neither he nor I can get it to work. I was just wondering if you had any Common's expertise and if you could work out the problem? Essentially the changes were to add B Coy, 6 RAR (minus). Either the 00:03, 12 January 2013, 00:14, 12 January 2013 and 00:17, 12 January 2013 now look right, just not the current version. I suspect this might be a cache problem but have tried purging and it did nothing. Maybe it might come good of its own accord? Any assistance or advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The truely weird thing is it displays fine in the thumbnail on my User page, but not in the article. And not when you click on the thumbnail... I'm stumped... Anotherclown (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I just had a go at reverting to the 00:17, 12 January 2013 version, but that didn't work for me either. I'd suggest seeking help from the admins/experts at Commons - I presume that it's some kind of cache or coordination issue. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do - I appreciate you trying. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now, apparently its an issue that will fix itself in time but you can "trick" it into displaying by changing the image to a non-standard size. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name

Hi Nick,

Thank you for your comments on the 2012 tour of She Has a Name FAC. If you would be willing to weigh in on Sandy's recommendation to rename the article, your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud(finale)

I have responded to Devanampriya's demand that I and Takabeg answer questions concerning the battle. I have no interest in his interpretation of the battle nor will I be adding other results to the template even though they are clearly backed by university sources. I do not see any edit warring starting since Denampriya has what he wants in the result section of the template. Not until Devanampriya can be held accountable for his original research and suppressing/mitigating of other university sources, will the article be edited with sources other than those permitted by him. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to pursue dispute resolution using the procedure outlined at WP:DR then. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have filed here. Hopefully I did it right. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct-Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

Hi, i contacted you regarding the change made by IP to Battle of Jamrud while there is no consensus yet and matter is under dispute resolution. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just blocked that account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Theman244 is a POV-pusher and a sockmaster who removed scholarly sources from the article and you Nick-D wrongfully blocked an IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.124.43 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I blocked an edit warrior. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II

Hi Nick,

I saw that you reverted Tempaccount040812 name change of this article back in December due to lack of consensus etc. Due to Staberinde's recent comments on the talkpage, I have started looking at various ways to improve the article. One of them is, I think the name needs to be changed. My proposal, which has so far not been responded to on the talkpage, is to rename it either Mediterranean Theatre of War or the Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre (which would include the dropping of Madagascar and the east Africa fighting from the article, per Staberinde's comments, my own agreement, and how the official histories describe the fighting. Thus 'Africa' would become somewhat redundant). The names come from the American and the British official histories, respectfully, of the theatre. I have not been able to find out what, if, the Germans and Italians named the theatre. The German official history is termed "The Mediterranean, South-East Europe, and North Africa 1939-1942" and I have not been able to find if there is an Italian history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba p again

Sorry but he seems bent on disruption and has started a thread on WP:ANI, I would be grateful if you could comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me"

Believe it or not, others feel that way too.—Chowbok ☠ 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:The Second World War (book series). Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the speedy addition of a cite. My concern is with the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown", which seems to be included more for the purposes of obscuring meaning than anything else. We should be as precise as possible, and if there is indeed a good link describing the prerogative powers of the monarch as "reserve powers of the Crown", then I'll have no objection to you equating the two. Thing is, I can't find anything that's an really good source. This description, from the Parliamentary Library looks to be a solid source for the Governor-General's reserve powers, but it is quite distinct from the prerogative powers of the monarch. Further discussion on the article talk page, please. I really just wanted to let you know that I wasn't having a go at you personally by asking for a further cite. The one you provided is excellent, it just doesn't support the precise wording in the article. --Pete (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a citation to that effect while you were typing that message ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

CA 52

I've answered your comments, when you get a chance. --Rschen7754 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your work on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service -- Ushau97 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service

Gday again Nick. I think there may be a copy/paste error in the MILHIST assessment on the talk page. Or did I miss it at ACR? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! I copied and pasted the tags from the F/A-18 in Australian service article and missed deleting that field. At least I didn't declare it a FA as I've done in the past through similar dumbness. Thanks for letting me know (especially so politely!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all - I was sure that was the reason. Another very interesting article too BTW, I'm enjoying this series. Anotherclown (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm really enjoying writing these articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Abbott

I've replied on my talk page. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust train France Section

Hello Nick-D and a Happy New Year. I have now finished the more complete version of the "France" section within Holocaust train#Modern day legacy that I had promised late last year and posted this at Talk:Holocaust_train#Inaccuracies_in_Modern_day_legacy:_France. I hope you are available to provide your input. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Jerry - I'll give that material a look. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Misplaced Pages that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Military camouflage

Hi Nick-D, thanks for your prod, I wasn't ignoring you but missed the un-transcluded comments. Have fixed that and responded to everything (and the other reviewers). Hope it's looking better now... Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I'm about to knock off for the evening, and will check your responses tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone is placing blocks on my talk page with your name on it

Strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

See below, and feel free to add a trout. I must have 'blocked' dozens if not hundreds of editors! Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Half-trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

(Well, half of one... kinda grosser, if you think about it.)

You're sharing this trout with Parishan (talk · contribs), for inadvertently "blocking" everyone accused of edit-warring withiin the last 9 hours . No worries, and clearly this is about as honest a mistake as there is, but, to paraphrase National Treasure, someone's gotta go to jail get trouted. — PinkAmpers& 20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I sure deserve that! I wonder why I did it? (I wasn't even editing while drunk or crazy!). Thanks for the note. I'll now throw myself at the mercy of WP:ANI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Like

Hyphenating ship classes

Hi Nick-D, I noticed you reverted Anzac-class frigate. I have also noted a number of changes to hyphenate all classes of warships in RAN service e.g Paluma-class survey motor launch, Leeuwin-class survey vessel, etc. Not sure if we need to raise this higher. Editors are doing this apparently to meet WP:NC-SHIPS. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just left a note on the talk page of the editor who moved the articles to that effect. It's not in line with WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy and trumps what looks like a rather wrong-headed guideline. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Proper English requires a hyphen for compound adjectives and the WP:Ships naming convention reflects that. COMMONNAME isn't applicable as I've seen the hyphen used and not for ship class names in published books and the navies themselves. There have been several lengthy discussions on WT:SHIPS over the issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not applied to Australian warships in any Australian source I'm aware of (most obviously, the Royal Australian Navy's website). It's also not used in the American-published The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World. It does appear to be used in Jane's Fighting Ships though based on the online edition. Maybe its used by other countries, but these are effectively made-up titles when applied to Australian warships, and it doesn't seem appropriate to me to apply them. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The hyphen seems to be less used in more recent books, but I'd be curious to see how the WW2-era classes are referred to in books on the RAN published throughout the Anglosphere. Don't know if I'd buy off on an exception solely for Australian classes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but the hyphen looks unfamiliar to me. The RAN doesn't use the hyphen in its articles on historic warships (see and as a couple of examples selected at random). Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The RAN is using proper grammar as the hyphen only comes into play when the noun is modified by a compound adjective, i.e. Bathurst-class minesweeper or 15-inch shell. If the word class is the noun in that phrase, then no hyphen is needed, i.e. "The Bathurst class were built..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, it'd be nice to have a common naming convention across all of Misplaced Pages's ships... Ed  06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why, to be honest, unless there's a common naming convention across the English speaking world. Checking my references on the RAN indicate that the use of hyphens in class names is fairly rare. WP:ENGVAR seems to apply here, at a minimum. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? Because we're a global encyclopedia, and we like to have relatively consistent naming conventions. ;-) I don't see the big hassle here either, but if it's grammatically correct, I don't see a clear need to not do it. But that's just me. Ed  06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I rather like diversity in articles myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hate the odd-looking and both commonname/commonsense violatinghyphen additions as much as you do, but, much as happened with the en (or was it em?) dash being forced through on dates in aircraft-by-decade categories, there reached a point where it wasn't worth arguing anymore about. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this would be a good time to update Misplaced Pages:NC-SHIPS#Naming_articles_about_ship_classes, which I was following regarding my moves. Plus other members are also moving templates plus other articles and also correcting text. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Did I open a can of worms? The world is a diverse place and sometimes an encyclopeadia cannot cater for every diversity. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've started a discussion of this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 36#Hyphenating Royal Australian Navy classes Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Nick-D - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

KFC

Ok, I've responded to your KFC comments. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/KFC/archive1 Farrtj (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign improvements

Hi!

I was wondering if you would be interested in helping me improve the Gallipoli Campaign article towards being a good article nominee?

I outlined a list of things i feel are preventing its nomination as a good article.

If not i understand.

Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Retrolord, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. World War I isn't my strong point, and I don't have many references on the Gallipoli campaign so my capacity to help out isn't huge. If you'd like some help to work on developing this article to good article status, you could post a message at: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history (you may also want to sign up as a member of the project :) ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_to_revoke_Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidentArchive706.23Two_topic_bans_for_TonyTheTiger

Just so you're aware, an FPC thread you were in got linked from there, and is being somewhat discussed. Adam Cuerden 21:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

They are still editwarring. And accusations of sockpuppetry are being made on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any edit warring, and there clearly is some sockpuppetry going on (I'm pretty sure that the latest round of edit warring before I protected the article included an editor who'd logged out in an attempt to not be identified and sanctioned for this; I don't have a clue who this was though). Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Hi! I was wondering if you would be able to tell me the procedure in Wikiproject Military History on citing online sources in articles. Is it acceptable for me to use online references inplace of books?

Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Online works are perfectly fine, as long as they meet the criteria for reliable sources. Please see Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (history) for guidance. If your unsure if a source meets the criteria I'd be happy to provide comments, or you can ask for advice at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request assesment

Well, i didn't know whom or where to ask, and because of this, i though i should come back to you for an assessment of INS Jyoti (A58). Thanks! --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, If you're looking for a good article assessment, that needs to run through the formal GA process (eg, WP:GAN). From a quick look at the article, it seems in good shape, though information on her 2002 and 2012 activities is missing and the material on her activities in some of the other years is pretty thin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to improve those. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Joint Task Force Impenetrable Jargon

You may or may not be pleased to know it probably was copy-and-pasted (can I used hyphens, since this isn't an Aussie warship ;), but not from the internet, a NATO official document seems more likely. When they put up the command website they may use exactly the same wording. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's something to look forward to then! ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hint

Take a look at this and then check out the history of this. Cheers! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Blocked and deleted. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled

You have "been around" for a while, and thus I have sought your opinion on more than one occassion. Hence, I'm rather puzzled by two of your recent edits and/or the accompanying edit comments.

• remove unnessessary honorifics from the infobox
  • a) "unnessessary" sounds like your POV. I was under the impression that WP:I just don't like it was a totally inadequate reason for removing good faith edits. Please explain.
  • b) "unnecessary". The whole of wikipedia is "unnecessary". Do you intend to remove the whole of wikipedia? I expect not. Therefore, what is your explanation for deciding that this small piece, rather than anything else, is "unnecessary"?
• an article already exists on that topic - Yes, it does. Why is that a reason for removing a link to it? Logic suggests that if it didn't exist, you couldn't link to it. And vice versa, the fact that the article does exist may, along with other factors, be reasons to link to it. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why the fact that "an article already exists on that topic" is a reason to delete a link to it. Do you think you could explain that to me please?

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why the confrontational approach to uncontroversial changes? Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I must be missing something, because that is exactly the reason that I am trying to politely ask you to explain yourself - i.e. it appears to me that you are taking / have taken a confrontational / aggressive / dismissive tone, and you have made zero attempts to explain your reasons. Again, it is your POV surfacing when you say they are "uncontroversial changes". You are making zero attempt to understand why I'm asking, or even what I'm asking - you are just making a confrontational / aggressive / dismissive reply containing no information. Also, I'm seeing no evidence of you "assuming good faith", either.

I repeat: I'm rather puzzled by your approach; it doesn't seem to be consistent with what I have come to expect from you.

Hence, again, do you think you could explain this to me please? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By-the-way: I have no desire to sour what I consider to be our good working relationship. It's just that - I'm puzzled. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're really coming across as over the top here - I do respond to questions which don't include suggestions that I'm trying to trash Misplaced Pages! To answer your questions: I removed those honorifics from the infobox per what I understand the usual convention; the honorifics aren't normally included in the names for these people in when they're discussed books and articles (eg, David Hurley is normally called 'General David Hurley' in newspapers and the like, and Stephen Smith only gets 'The Hon.' in official-type documents) and don't appear in the body of the article, and so aren't needed in this infobox. I removed the links to the new article as the old article it duplicates more or less exactly was already linked (in the infobox in the ADF article and in the other article whether the editor replaced the link to the old article), and has much more content than the new article. I've suggested to the editor who created the new article that they merge the two. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your rationale by answering a number of questions I didn't ask. I had absolutely no doubt you had a rationale, and that it would be reasonable. That wasn't my point. Nor my intent.

Sorry, but you're really coming across as over the top here - Really? Are you sure you are reading what I wrote, rather than responding to what you think I wrote? Similarly, I'm totally puzzled as to how you can conclude from "Do you intend to remove the whole of wikipedia? I expect not." that I'm suggesting you are "trying to trash Misplaced Pages". Again, it seems like you are responding to what you think I wrote, rather than what I actually did write.

To cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s, please note that I am 'not (and was not) complaining about what you did. What I did was tell you I'm puzzled by the reasons you have stated for doing what you have done.

Now that you have stated and explained the reasons for doing what you did, I'm even more puzzled by your edit summary explanations - the edit summary explanations seem to bear little or no correlation with the actual reasons you state for making the edits.

So, if I am correct in concluding that the reasons you stated in the edit summary were NOT the actual reasons for your edits, then I am no longer puzzled. I hope that clarifies my intent, and my puzzle. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Registration?

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

I noticed this userbox on your user page, and never having noticed it before, I thought about it. I find that despite wikipedia's expressed intent, I agree with the sentiment. Do you know if there is any "user-group" or "discussion page" on this topic? If not, can you suggest how I might go about identifying one? (I don't think I'm up to trying to establish one yet!) Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is. Ceasing IP editing is regularly proposed, but the Wikimedia Foundation (and many editors) is strongly opposed to making such a change. The edit filters help a lot though. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There was a signifcant movement once to require Sign In To Edit; I stumbled across the page, but have never been able to find it again (gentlemen, start your conspiracy theories!); it involved a petition, heavily backed by editors who actually work in the trenches, that was sent up to WMFs ivory tower - where it got utterly lolno'd. Unfortunatly the only way SITE is ever going to be required is if we have another nasty kerfuffle like the one that ended the ability of IPs to start new articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Does that mean that we need to start a nasty kerfuffle?  ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Any time this is pushed, tell me. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of DistrictBuilder article

Hello sir! Good day! Just gonna ask a question, why was the article deleted? --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sir, just message me back in my talk page. Thanks! :D --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, just read the reason sir (its found in the deletion log). I understand it now.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, - see the 'Hint' thread above. The article was created by a blocked editor, and was a continuation of the spamming which lead to the block. There's no need to call me sir by the way! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated "Holocaust train" Draft

Hello, Nick-D. Thanks for commenting on my suggested update for the Holocaust train article. I thought your feedback was good, so I have revised it to add more about the U.S. controversy and replied to explain Marrus's writings on the Toulouse case. Please let me know what you think, when you are able. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Re- Battle of Jamrud

Hi, Nick

Three IP's tried to revert the edits on Battle of Jamrud. I am sure these reverts are done by same person. You said page will be protected for one month, but it's actually not. There is still discussion going on. These three IPs are 182.177.74.223 (which was blocked by you for one week and no activity thereafter), 182.177.124.43, and 182.177.79.242 and last two of them are from very nearby location. Can you please look into this matter. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'm not sure why the protection didn't stick - I must have stuffed up when I applied it. It's protected now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit assistance

Hi, I have added the costs to Operation Astute, but I am having some problems with the formatting. Would you be able to have a look and see if you can see what is wrong with it? The Australian Red Man (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you were missing the |} needed to finish off the table - I've just added this. Great work with adding this information (and mastering the not-very-good coding for the tables), and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Cheers for the help with the editing. The Australian Red Man (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries - thank you for creating this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oz Military Categories

Good heavens you're quick off the mark! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_picture_candidates/HMS_Hood_2

I apologise for not getting the restoration done in time for the original nomination, but it's done now. Adam Cuerden 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Adam. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR at AK-103

Hi Nick, I just noticed a 3RR violation by two different editors at AK-103. Both editors performed 4 reverts. In the meantime, I should point out that the two sources being added by Special:Contributions/Theoccupiedkashmir are invalid and look like they're plagiarized from Misplaced Pages, so it was probably correct for the other editor to remove them. ROG5728 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC) "(talk page stalker)Actually only TOK is over 3RR; the other editor is at three reverts, but not beyond (yet). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of stepping on The Bushranger's toes, I've just blocked both those editors for 24 hours as 1) G PViB (talk · contribs) was edit warring without any attempt to discuss the matter and 2) Theoccupiedkashmir (talk · contribs) was edit warring without any serious effort to discuss the matter and continued edit warring by re-adding the material with a tag stating that it needs a citation. I have no objection at all at either editor being unblocked early if they provide a commitment to knock this off or demonstrate that they've since read WP:EDITWAR. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification about a block

Hello, Nick-D. Three days ago, you blocked RussHawk for BLP violations. He made an unblock request, denying having made BLP violations. I declined the request, because it was abundantly clear that you were right, and he had made BLP violations. However, it seemed to me that he did not understand what the issues with his editing were, so I took the trouble to explain to him why he was guilty of BLP violations, and also what some other problems with his editing are. He responded to this by making another unblock request, accompanied by a long and detailed post, in which he explained his thinking. It seemed to me that he now showed a clear understanding of what had been wrong with his editing, and that he was not likely to do the same again, so I unblocked him. (I did consider consulting you first, but it seemed to me that what I was doing was not actually over-riding your decision, but making an independent decision in a different situation, as the circumstances had changed, and the reason for the block no longer applied. Nevertheless, if I had known about your note above beginning "As a note to my fellow administrators..." I probably would have consulted you, as you evidently have a stronger desire to be consulted than many admins. If you think I was wrong not to consult you, then I hope you can accept my apologies.)

Anyway, some of the things that RussHawk wrote, both before and after the unblock, led me to look further into the history, and I found two facts which seemed surprising, and I would like to hear you view about them. Firstly, I was surprised to see that you had blocked the user without his having received any warning or explanation as to what was wrong with his edits. Normally, blocking without warning is reserved for the most extreme cases, way beyond what seems to be the case here, and I wonder why you chose to do so this time. Secondly, the problematic editing was on the article Andrew Laming, which you have edited many times, and one of RussHawk's edits was even a revert of a revert you made. This seems to me to make you involved, and it seems at best questionable for you to block an editor in such a case, where you were in dispute with him, albeit on a small scale. Please note that I am not questioning your reverting, as the content you removed was clearly a BLP violation, and you were right to remove it: I am questioning only your blocking of an editor under such circumstances, rather than seeking an independent administrator.

I hope you can clarify for me why you took the action you took, and also whether you still think you were right to do so, and if so why. I am particularly struck by the fact that once he had received an explanation of what the problems were, he understood, and accepted that what he had done was unacceptable, which suggests that he might well have mended his ways if he had just been given a friendly explanation, rather than being bitten with a completely unexpected block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi James, I concur with the unblock, and as this was pretty straightforward there's no real need to have consulted me. I'm not seeing the controversial aspect of blocking someone whose only editing since October 2011 had been to add material to the article of a living public figure calling them a racist though, and don't think that you're correct about the 'involved' aspect. I had posted a longer response to you, but I've just removed it as it was written while tired and cranky from a rather busy-but-dumb day at work; it's obviously available in this page's history, but I'd ask that you ignore it as it's long winded and cranky. I'll post something a bit longer than this, and hopefully rather civil, tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As a shorter, and hopefully more civil and coherent, version of what I wrote yesterday: 1) I'm not 'involved' as virtually all my contributions to that article have been with my admin hat on (it was an unwatched BLP which had been turned into spam for this guy which I cleaned up and then watched; I always vote for the other side of Australian politics, so there are no political motivations here - quite the opposite in fact) 2) the edit of mine which RussHawk reverted was removing a flagrant BLP violation (eg, the 'racist' material) so I'm not sure why you find me responding to this to be at all problematic 3) the block was imposed as RussHawk was essentially a BLP-violation only account given the pattern of his or her editing: it's pretty obvious that you can't go around calling people 'racist' anywhere, and doing so was his or her only purpose for returning to Misplaced Pages after more than a year away 4) given that RussHawk was quoting WP:BLP to justify calling this guy 'racist' in his or her initial unblock requests shortly after being blocked, I don't at all agree that a warning would have been productive and think that this actually supports my decision to go straight to a block - which per the usual arrangements can be lifted once the editor commits to stop their behaviour 5) all of the above is entirely in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much for that clarification. I do accept most of what you say, but I don't agree with all of it. I fully agree that the editing was a "flagrant BLP violation", and that reverting was right, and I attempted to make it clear that I was not questioning that, and that my query was only about the block. I have not checked every one of your edits to the article, but I am willing to accept that they were done in an administrative capacity. I still think, though, that there was no good reason for not giving a warning first: the worst that could have resulted was that there would have been one more unacceptable edit to revert before blocking, and the best was that the user would have got the message. Even if you thought the former was vastly more likely than the latter, no significant harm could have resulted by giving him a chance. You say "I don't at all agree that a warning would have been productive", but the point is that neither you nor I knows whether it would or not. In the absence of positive evidence, we are obliged to assume good faith, which is what you are patently not doing: you are asserting that you believe that a warning would not have worked, for which you have no evidence other than your assumption. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in my experience politically motivated BLP-violation only accounts do not respond to warnings of any sort, and this editor's initial response to the block is a pretty typical result of such warnings - eg, they're ignored or it is argued that policy somehow supports the abuse they're trying to include in the article. I'm not going to assume good faith about someone who thinks its OK to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to repeatedly call a public figure a racist as they're clearly not acting in good faith. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Book you might be interested in

T.B. Millar, 'Australia's Defence,' Second Edition, Melbourne University Press, 1969. SBN 522 83917 7 (note pre ISBNs). Is here on my desk. Have been meaning to ask you about it. Do you want it? - if so I will try and figure out how to send it over. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think that I already have a copy of that book - if not, the local libraries have it. Thanks for thinking of me though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Hi Nick-D.... I am working on the references u asked. For Battle of Farhadgerd one reference is -> it is spelled differently in this book but on Misplaced Pages the city is spelled Farhad-gerd instead of Farhad-jird. Thats common when writing eastern names in English you get various spellings in books. Also is helpful for the battles' references you are looking for.

Battle of Chapakchur -> and

--Awaisius (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Laming

Had left a comment on the article talk page. Maybe you should have read that first before you accused me of unconstructive editing. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A major problem with the Laming page is the disruptive editing from his supporters (or staff? - one IP address is in the Australian Parliamentary Library). It is essentially censorship. Is this editing not "politically motivated"?RussHawk (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that it is, but it can't be proven - if you look through the history of the article, it was heavily spammy at one point. Thanks for pointing out the Australian Parliamentary Library IP though this could be a public servant playing with the article during their lunch break for all we know... Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Request clarification/advice on how to name ship-class articles

At Bristol-class interceptor craft, two editors Trappist the monk and Oldag07 made two different edits for displaying the article name. Can you advice which is a more appropriate version, as i am confused which is the correct edit. See diff. Or guide me to the relevant policy page. Thanks a lot! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Basically, it depends on if the class is named after the lead ship of the class or not. For instance, the Template:Sclass-s - as the lead ship is USS Kitty Hawk, the class name is italicised. The Tribal-class destroyer, on the other hand, is not italicised, as the lead ship is HMS Afridi - the class is named after the naming scheme used for the class, not the lead vessel. In the case of the Bristol class, as the class is built by Bristol Boats, I presume that this means the class is named for the builder, not whatever the Indian Coast Guard named the first boat, so it shoudn't be italicised. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the fantastic explanation! :) I'l keep this in mind. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bushranger :) Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Oak Leaves for your work on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service, and just to break the pattern, Australian Army during World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Patton ACR

I think I've responded to all of the comments you posted there. Let me know if there's anything else I should fix. —Ed! 13:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Hi Nick, could you take a look at this user's edits? I've warned him twice, but he has continued to apply thumbnail settings and/or large images in infoboxes across dozens of different articles (no communication from him either). Obviously, per the MOS, we don't use the thumbnail setting in infoboxes, and we don't use large images there either. This is what he's done in all of his edits. I also warned two other IPs that apparently belong to this same editor: User talk:121.54.44.159 and User talk:121.54.44.178. ROG5728 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See also this new user account, which was apparently created by the same person. ROG5728 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#New_Zealand_Army_article

You aware of this? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to comment here at all: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_threats? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just commented there. ANI seems back to being a train wreck... While you obviously need to take part in the discussion, you're not going to be able to make all those people happy, as you seem to be the bad admin who must be punished for today. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Very much appreciated - thanks for your comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all. The show seems to have moved on today (some other admin is copping it no doubt). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Australian Flying Corps

On 24 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian Flying Corps, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Australia had its own Flying Corps during World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Flying Corps. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

KFC

I have responded to your comment Farrtj (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for your assistance

Hi Nick,

Thanks very much for your earlier help on the FAC review of Fortress of Mimoyecques and my other related FACs. I wonder if I could ask you to look at my most recent FAC, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1? It has a very heavy military history slant to it (not surprising given the history involved) so it might be something that you would be interested in. If you have any comments, they would be most welcome. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure - I'll post a review over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. I'll look forward to seeing your comments. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, just letting you know that I've tackled all of your comments and am awaiting your feedback on any remaining issues. Prioryman (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I was waiting for you to address the final point on the current state of the economy, and missed that you'd done so. I've just supported - keep up the great work. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

Hi Nick. Could you please use your magic wand to delete a page from my user space (or tell me how to do it myself). The page is here - Nick Thorne 07:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've just deleted that page for you. Unfortunately non-admins can't delete their own user pages, so the best way to get rid of them is to directly ask any admin to delete them or use the {{db-u1}} tag. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for that. Sorry about the delay in replying, been a bit distracted lately. Anyway, once again, thanks. - Nick Thorne 08:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

NZ SAS

Congrats Nick - thought I maybe should mention that new orgn source to you, but you found it first !! It's 2013. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to start a discussion about whether the article should be moved to 1st New Zealand Special Air Service Regiment. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Another thought. I'd like to move all the carrier strike groups to 'Carrier Strike Group 1', rather than 'Carrier Strike Group One'. This is in-line with the way the rest of the U.S. navy groups are listed on Misplaced Pages and the Navy does it both ways. The point is I can see in the future horribly convoluted titles such as 'Cruiser-Destroyer Flotilla Thirty-Three' or suchlike, which get really ponderous. But I anticipate an enormous amount of resistance from User:Marcd30319. How do you think I should best attempt it? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be best to use the request move process, and advertise the discussion at WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS so that it's not you vs him. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

can you direct me

Hi Nick, I have a description of engines, boilers, and auxiliary Machinery for the USS Iris document dated 1885. I'm trying to figure out if it would be of some use to someone on here. Can you help direct me to someone that might find it useful. Skully09 (talk)skully09 —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, The best place to 'advertise' this would be at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships or Talk:USS Iris (1885). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

March Metro

Issue 48: March 2013 Previous edition · Next edition

London Transport News March Tube customer satisfaction hits record high as strong reliability performance maintained Crossrail train funding announced February Northern line upgrade one step closer Mayor and TfL unveil plans to double Thames passenger journeys by 2020 New set of Poems on the Tube to celebrate 150th anniversary of the London Underground out now London Overground stations now offer WiFi London Overground concession extended until November 2016 Mark Wallinger unveils largest art commission ever for the Underground's 150th anniversary Below inflation increase to taxi fares London Overground introduces five-car trains to meet increasing demand Victoria line customers have most intensive train service in the country TfL's construction industry review highlights action needed to deliver step-change in road safety Seventy per cent of the Capital's bus stops now fully accessible January TfL scoops two Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Awards Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall take a ride on the Tube as it celebrates 150 years of serving London and the UK London Underground outlines plan to cut Tube delays even further London Overground tops passenger satisfaction table Londoners encouraged to submit views on proposed changes to Congestion Charging scheme Mayor announces first bus route to be fully served by iconic new bus for London fleet The Royal Mint issues special London Underground coins into circulation to celebrate 150th anniversary of Tube Mayor and TfL continue drive to improve air quality in Putney First phase of Mayor's Clean Air Fund programme has a positive effect London Underground on hunt for musical talent Local bus services affected by closure of Shepherd's Bush Green TfL travel advice to road users following helicopter crash in Vauxhall London's transport network gets ready for cold weather TfL appoints design consultants as major road structure improvement portfolio takes shape New London Overground link carries one million people in one month Transformation of the Tube network continues apace during historic 150th year DLR operating contract extended until September 2014 Passengers to benefit from £45m Upgrade of Vauxhall Tube station Project News Alerts A1 road in London was promoted to Good Article status in December London congestion charge was delisted as a Featured Article in January London Necropolis Company has not been featured in Today's Featured Article Metropolitan Railway was be Today's Featured Article in January Hammersmith & City line has been put up for Peer Review in January and then promoted to Good Article status in February List of bus types used in London was put up for Articles for Deletion in January and closed as keep M11 link road protest was promoted to Good Article status in January St Pancras railway station was put of for Peer Review in February District line was nominated for Good Article status in February Project discussions Within the project, discussions included the Metropolitan Railway being TFA to mark the 150th anniversary of the tube, bus routes in station articles, comparing American pseudo facts with the London Underground, renaming Uxbridge Road station and identifying stations in photographs. Within other related projects, relevant discussions included colours of railway lines, age of metro systems, coordinates in infoboxes, {{S-line}}, watersports in London, aqueducts, lists of bus, distance measurement of British roads, rail usage figures, the West Coast Main Line, identification and rail freight . Requests If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor Things to do Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Lists of articles needing cleanup Expand : These top 10 favourite articles to Good Article: J. P. Morgan  · Heathrow Airport  · River Thames  · London Bridge  · London Underground  · London Bridge (Lake Havasu City)  · Gatwick Airport  · London Congestion Charge  · Tube map  · Tower Bridge These top importance articles to Good Article: 7 July 2005 London bombings  · Buses in London  · Crossrail  · London Passenger Transport Board  · London Transport (brand)  · London Transport Museum  · Transport for London  · Transport in London Good article nominations : Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up Photo : Upload your non-copyrighted London transportation images to Wikimedia Commons Stubs : Improve a stub article Update : London low emission zone, London congestion charge Other : Suggest: A Did You Know...? fact here or an Anniversary fact here. Patrol: Recent changes Join: Become a member of WikiProject London Transport or encourage others Membership ThunderingTyphoons! (talk · contribs) and Nick-D (talk · contribs) joined in August, bringing the number of participants to 84. Welcome to them. Spacevezon (talk · contribs) also left the project. Good luck wherever you may go. Recent Activity of Project participants Editorial Editor: Simply south Special thanks to founders Unisouth (talk · contribs) and Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) for setting up the newsletter Here is March's edition. All suggestions for improvements to the newsletter are welcome at feedback page or Simply south Best Articles Featured articles (34) 1910 London to Manchester air race • Albert Bridge, London • Aldwych tube station • Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield • Baker Street and Waterloo Railway • Battersea Bridge • Brill Tramway • Brill railway station • Central London Railway • Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway • Chelsea Bridge • City and South London Railway • Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway • Great Western Railway War Memorial • Green Park tube station • Herne Hill railway station • Charles Holden • London Necropolis Company • London and North Western Railway War Memorial • Marchioness disaster • Metropolitan Railway • Moorgate tube crash • RAF Northolt • Frank Pick • Sinking of SS Princess Alice • Quainton Road railway station • Richmond Bridge, London • Underground Electric Railways Company of London • Vauxhall Bridge • Waddesdon Road railway station • Wandsworth Bridge • Westcott railway station • Wood Siding railway station • Wotton railway station (Brill Tramway) Featured lists (6) List of former and unopened London Underground stations • List of London Underground stations • List of London Monopoly locations • List of works by Charles Holden • London station group • Timeline of the London Underground Featured topics (2) Brill Tramway • Underground Electric Railways Company of London Good articles (112) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Oxted line • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Good topics (1) Misplaced Pages:Good topics/List of London Monopoly locations Featured Portal (1) Portal:London Transport Good articles (112) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Oxted line • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Recently Promoted Featured Articles, Lists or Topics None Recently Assessed Good Articles A1 road in London M11 link road protest Hammersmith & City line Good Article and Featured candidates District Line Gallery Selected by Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 2 and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 3 Misplaced Pages ads file info – #137 If you want to unsubscribe from this newsletter or, if you are visiting this user page and want to sign-up, then please visit this page. You may also like to provide your opinions on this newsletter by visiting The Metropolitan's feedback page or the project's discussion page. Any other issues with this, don't be afraid to drop a line at Simply south's talkpage.

Good Samaritan

You're one! :) Thank you for helping out a friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanWinchesterDiaries (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries - and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

I tried editing Battle of Jamrud only to find out its protected. When will the article protection be lifted? Caden 16:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The protection is set to expire at 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC). Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 "Adolph Hitler".