Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:58, 6 September 2013

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave new messages at the bottom of this page. I generally watchlist other editors' talk pages I comment on during discussions, but please also feel free to leave me a {{talkback}} template when you respond. If you send me an email, I'd appreciate it if you could also drop me a note here as they're sometimes automatically sent to my spam folder and I don't notice them. Please note that I may reply to emails on your talk page, though I'll do so in a way that does not disclose the exact content of the email if the matter is sensitive.

As a note to my fellow administrators, I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me. I have no delusions of perfection, but it's basic courtesy to discuss things rather than simply over-ride other admins' decisions (it's also required by policy). I'm quite likely to agree with you anyway!

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (Jamiary-June 2013)

Awards people have given me

C-130 ACR/FAC

Hi mate, FYI, since I've 78 and 84 Wings at ACR and you have C-17, I was going to wait for 78 to pass before nominating C-130 -- but it looks too damn good to leave sitting around so I'll probably do it this w/e anyway! Just expanding 36 Sqn now (great minds, I see you've taken care of 38 already) so I'll see if anything else apropos C-130s comes up there and then I might kick it off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that sounds good - there isn't much purpose in waiting to nominate the C-130 article. I'm thinking of taking the No. 38 Squadron article to GA, so please let me know if you spot anything I've missed there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I expect I'll do the same with 36 Sqn, so ditto... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The new infobox image just reminded me, I think it'd be good to use crests where possible but the only 38 Sqn one I've seen lately is tiny and probably not worth the trouble. If one of us finds a better version, think it'd be worth using (36 Sqn's on the RAAF site is excellent, same quality as the 33 Sqn one I added to that article not long ago). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we should be aiming for consistency here. By the way, I have a memory of reading recently that the Government had decided to retain No. 38 Squadron's King Airs, but I can't find this anywhere. Can you remember seeing it? Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, you got me there. I'd been looking in vain for something suggesting the RAAF would get more than 10 C-27s (the implication being that they'd replace 38 Sqn's King Airs as well as re-equip 35 Sqn) but hadn't -- are you saying there was such a plan but not any more? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What I remember seeing is that the government had decided to retain the King Airs as light transports once the 10 C-27s enter service on the grounds that they'd proven to be a useful and cost-effective capability. I suspect that I've miss-remembered, or saw this on a dubious source as I can't see anything on it on the Defence websites. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, just finished (for now at least) expanding 36SQN. I'll put it up for GAN but not ACR as yet (will add detail on maintenance history at the very least before considering that). I suppose it'd be logical for us to each review the other's at GAN but perhaps we should avoid even the semblance of QPQ. At the very least we should check each other's for consistency since the two squadrons had such an intertwined history for a while, even becoming effectively the same unit once or twice...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I've just calculated that if I add another 400 characters or so it'll qualify for fivefold-expansion DYK -- so maybe I'll add some maint history sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Success -- fivefold expansion, and it all came down to a bit of routine maintenance... ;-) Now, thinking about DYK hook, it looks to me like the Linda Corbould article was never at DYK (at least according to its talk page). Is that correct to your recollection? If so, I think it'd be a great opportunity to get that article and 36SQN on the front page -- just let me know so I can write up the DYK nom one way or t'other... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Great work! The Corbould article was never on the front page, and her leadership of the unit would make a great hook. I'm planning to work on the 38 Sqn article over the weekend, and will nominate it for GA status. I need to add something on it being merged with 36 Sqn. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(od) Hi mate, the ACR could be closing shortly, are you happy for it to be nominated at FAC straight afterwards, and with a similar nom statement? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I've figured out what happened to the C-130Es, and will add that later today. Once that's in I'd be pleased for this to go straight to FAC when the ACR concludes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Added (I stumbled across the key reference a few weeks ago while browsing a recent magazine! - talk about good timing). Do you think that it's worth separating out the material on the retirement of each type now that the topic is fully covered? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff, Nick! Re. reorg, heh, the idealist says yep, the pragmatist says no way after what looks like a successful ACR -- gimme a chance to read it again and I'll see which of those wins out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, had another look (and tweaked a couple of things) -- pragmatism aside, I think only the C-130A disposal sticks out a bit, the others are relatively short and fit in pretty seamlessly, so not sure we need to break 'em out after all (the next question is just where we'd put the section or subsection anyway). So happy to leave the structure as is unless you feel strongly about it or until a reviewer suggests we change it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was puzzling over how to turn this into a separate section this morning, and didn't come up with a genuinely satisfactory solution. The best option would probably be a 'disposal' section at the end of the article, but that might look a bit clunky. As such, I agree to leave things as they are unless there's a few complaints (or someone comes up with a better idea!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That title and position in the article was in fact the best I could come up with as well, and given the type is still a going concern it didn't thrill me either... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's FACed -- don't forget that if you want to keep the momentum going with the C-17 article, it's okay to take it to FAC as well since you'd have only one solo and one co-nom there (I may well solo-nom Hely as soon as it completes ACR). We'll just owe FAC a lot of reviews (on which I'm sure we'll make good)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian (thanks also for the suggestion on nominating the C-17 article; I've been sitting on the fence with that one). Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously it's shorter than the C-130 or F-18 service articles but the type's been around a much shorter time. Seven years is long enough though, I think, for this to go to FAC, especially since it was deemed enough for ACR. Regardless of future details, the structure should stay the same. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(od) Well congrats, we did it, C-130s now FA -- might have to start thinking about another one (there's always Caldwell I guess!)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, thought it might be worth trying this even though joint awards are pretty much unheard of... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

War dead desecration

I'm undoing you're removing of the context paragraph I added. There were references included. Nothing I wrote is surprising or new or hardly in need of a reference. Context is pretty important, especially in such a subject. It is like yelling, "Fire!" without mentioning it's outside in a fireplace. Desecration of war dead is a real phenomenon; I have no objection to including reports of it in WP. On the other hand, anybody can use WP for a soapbox. Eventually, however, this dilute its value and hurts those who contribute, including you and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasCreek (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no references whatsoever in the material you've just restored , so that's not true. Please provide some citations to support your claim that the subject of the article is merely "gallows humour". I tend to agree with you that this article is overblown (it was created by a POV pusher and used to be much worse: at one stage the article was arguing that most American troops went around chopping the heads off Japanese troops), but you need to provide citations. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

All the references were to WP pages, appearing as normal WP links, including the definition of gallows humor, which is obviously one end of the spectrum of the motivations. The original writers include a long litany of motivations, mostly as pejorative as possible. Neither they nor I were there during the incidents. Was it due to racism or due to the fact that many of the kids were about to die or had just seen their bosom buddy shot through the head by an enemy far more tenacious than expected? The writers cannot compare the European war (Army, large-unit action) to the Pacific island campaign (mostly Marines, in vicious small-unit assaults). As to your deletion of my remarks, which are truly mild, well-referenced, and obvious to most historians of the war, are you trying to suppress dissent? As I said, I am putting the article in context, which is essential in reporting on stories from the past. Sorry, but I'm undoing you're unjustified deletion. Spend your time deleting some of the rest of the article, which hides behind cherry-picked references. SilasCreek (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Please don't do that. Misplaced Pages articles can't be used to reference one another, and you need to provide citations to external references (eg, books, reliable websites, etc). I'm not going to defend the content of the article, and I agree with you that it's cherry picked (it does largely reflect the sources on this, though they're not what I'd consider particularly good quality academic works - all seem to have been written by people with axes to grind). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings

Hello Nick, Could I ask you to have another look at the Normandy landings article? Editor Syngmung is getting close to a edit war and is reverting the deletion of rape allegations with strange comments. The base of these allegations is only one recently published book on the Normandy Campaign (not landings) and a review of same. I have to say that this "editor" seems to have an unhealthy obsession with rape, looking at his editing history. Would be glad of your imput/action. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, This guy seems to be on a crusade to prove that American soldiers are frequent rapists, and is edit warring all over the place. He's been warned for this previously, and I'd strongly recomend that you lodge a report at WP:AN3 given that the edit warring is persisting. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings

Hello Nick, Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I have added my comments to your complaint. I must say that this "editor" does seem to have an unhealthy interest in rape and is pushing POV. As you will see from the Normandy landings Talk page, I did get another admin involved - it may be an idea to request his views on the latest developments. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

procedural question on Rape during the liberation of France

I hope I haven't created a mess by starting a deletion discussion without going through proper procedures. What happens if the result of the discussion is to delete an incubate? Can the deletion be done without a formal nomination at Articles for deletion? Should it be formally nominated now or after the discussion has run it's course or does it need to be formally nominated at all? Thank you for any advice you can give.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, If the consensus is to incubate (as seems likely at present), an uninvolved admin should be able to do this - I'll leave a note at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators asking for an admin who is also a coordinator to volunteer for this. If the conclusion is 'delete' then this will probably need to go to an AfD discussion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Then I'll refrain from complicating things further with a formal AfD. Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar

Hi Nick, you'll recall that you contributed to the FA review of History of Gibraltar few months ago. I've nominated it at TFAR for July 13, the tercentenary of Gibraltar becoming a British territory. If you have any thoughts on this you're very welcome to comment at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests#July 13. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for No. 38 Squadron RAAF

On 6 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 38 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 38 Squadron was equipped with DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft for 45 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 38 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Well there seems to have been a nasty quasi edit war created on the Australian Greens page ever since you reverted me. ( As a side note, normal users are people too like administrators)

I only edit wikipedia on a very part time basis and had completely forgotten about the three revert rule. User Bidgee is also engaged in this edit war.

Since Bidgee is using your wanting the pictures in as a reason to repeatedly revert me, could you explain your position and how it is backed by policy?

The pictures would seem to go against recentism, undue weight and the precedents set on other Australian political party pages, such as the ALP or the Liberals.

Please explain. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who's edit warring (and I have commented in the talk page discussion). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well could you comment again and offer some policy based reasons for your viewpoint. I wasn't aware we were allowed to so blatantly violate established policies as soon as we got two people to agree to it, even if one of them calls themselves an 'administrator'. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to have discussions about article content, but not with people who throw accusations of bad faith around. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the latest stalker. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries Bob. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You (Vietnamese: Cảm ơn) Nguyen QuocTrung (talk)18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC+7)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Microconsole DYK

I spent a good amount of time sprucing up microconsole per your suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/Microconsole. Could you please take a second look at the DYK nom when you have a chance? czar · · 19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Updated czar · · 01:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me—I appreciate your patience czar · · 02:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries - it's an interesting article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

re edit summary

regarding diff, "the 'Currently' section is certain to be years out of date". Sadly, it isn't out of date, is that bad? :3 Although since the assessment I have gone through and added, changed, tweaked a lot of content (before and after). Thank you, — -dainomite   20:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Victor Lundula

I've just spun this short stub on the first armed forces chief of staff of the Democratic Republic of the Congo out from the main armed forces (FARDC) article, and a new editor has listed it as CSD G7. Would you please mind taking a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Crime in New Zealand Article

Nick - I had a look over this article after noticing that 'JaggerAgain' had reverted some of your edit. I have re-performed that edit as I agree with you, and also took out more material that seems highly editorialised from that section. After reading the rest of the article I've put NPOV and bias tags on it as it seems to be pushing a particular agenda and needs a good re-write. After viewing the previous contributions that 'JaggerAgain' has made it will be interesting to see what and how they contribute to other NZ Political/Justice/Crime related articles.... Clarke43 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree that that article has major problems. Given the significance of these topics and the rampant bias in the wording, it seems best to remove large chunks rather than to attempt to rework such slanted material. Of late there's been concern about Misplaced Pages's "voice" being used to push various POVs, and the material submitted by Offender is often a good example of these problems. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for No. 41 Squadron RNZAF

On 10 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 41 Squadron RNZAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 41 Squadron of the Royal New Zealand Air Force operated the "slowest military aircraft in South-east Asia" during the early 1960s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 41 Squadron RNZAF. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

You wrote: "I note that Geo Swan, who is the article's creator and primary editor, has a long history of violating WP:BLP1E by creating articles on people held at Guantanamo Bay, and came close to being banned for creating a list of living 'alleged terrorists'."

I strongly disagree with this characterization of my activities.

I did start articles on Guantanamo captives -- mainly in 2006 -- long before there was a WP:BLP policy. Some of those articles no longer measure up to the more demanding policies and standards current now.

But, since they measured up to the standards current at the time I started them I am not now, nor have I ever been a serial violator of BLP or any other policy. I believe practically everyone who has examined my contribution history with a truly open mind recognizes this. Geo Swan (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all true: as a single example, you created David Conn (judge) last year as a WP:COATRACK based around a living person. You also did very little to clean up the other articles until they started to be mass deleted last year (despite earlier requests that you do so, including as the result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Geo Swan) and have typically argued in favour of their retention during AfD discussions, even when it was clear that this was a lost cause. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you check some recent edits?

On Lai Đại Hàn. I'm not familiar with the topic, but you seem more likely to be. By tone alone, that article strikes me as another nationalist battleground. There are no English sources in the article, which usually spells trouble for this kind of bilateral disputes, as well as impeding verification by editors more likely to be neutral. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, That's not actually a topic I know anything about, and as I can't read Korean I'm unable to check the sources. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination of No. 38 Squadron RAAF

The article which was nominated by you is successfully promoted to GA. Suri 100 (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mutsu GA review

Don't forget about this. I think that I've responded to all of the issues that you identified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tony Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

June backlog drive

Hi. I have been adding photos to bio articles - thinking that this was part of the drive. But I notice today that the drive is only looking for Military History articles - am I correct? g Gbawden (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the drive's criteria are articles which fall into the scope of the Military History Wikiproject. The project's scope is very wide though, if it helps. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock?

• Nick, could you head over to User talk:The Bushranger/Archive20#Newbies problem again, Me and Bill we are having strong suspicion that the said newbie isn't one and could well be someone who has been blocked/banned and is now lurking all over PH related article pages you and I know but using new usernames to evade his block and avoid attracting attention, though not trying hard enough. --Dave 16:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

More sock at PhAF

• Hi Nick, please see Cybolton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), call it my gut instinct but my klaxon is going off on this guy now. This happens especially when a newly registered editor starts off his first edit with an input to his own user page, and his subsequent edits are that on a level that is way too advanced for a novice editor. Only a returning sock fits that profile perfectly, but which one? Do you think its the one we talked about recently? --Dave 14:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

OMT Op-ed

We're creeping up on 16 June, and since I keep long hours at work on the weekend and subsequently crash on Monday to recover I wanted to get the Op-ed in its place before I get saddled with weekend work. I haven't seen a reply in the above section about where the piece should be moved, so I am hoping that a fresh topic heading will help us finish the piece by getting it moved where it needs to be in time for publication. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, Asking you if this was ready was on my to-do list for the weekend :) I'll move it across now - you can continue to edit it until The Bugle is published if you see anything which needs to be changed. Thanks again for writing it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies Tom, I saw the earlier thread here, had a quick look and enjoyed the piece, and was going to move it shortly afterwards but obviously got distracted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has been posted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2013/Op-ed Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then, we are ready to read and roll! Thanks for the help and for the move, and I hope that the membership will enjoy the piece (its my first op-ed, or at least the first built from scratch op-ed I've done for milhist, so I'm a little nervous :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Pig Bristle

On 15 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Pig Bristle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that three Royal Australian Air Force aircraft flew 25 tonnes of pig bristles from Chongqing in China to Hong Kong in May 1946? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Pig Bristle. 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 DYK project (nominate) 09:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

RNZAF Squadrons

Thanks, its arisen mostly out of work I've been doing on WWII bases in the South Pacific Mztourist (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Too big a stick?

Hi Nick. I'm currently looking at the unblock request at User talk:76.166.144.21. It looks to me as though this IP was blocked for a single edit - whilst I don't dispute that it was a BLP violation (and reverting and revdeling it was an appropriate course of action) a week's block for what, as far as I can tell, was a first offence seems a bit heavy-handed to me - I'd have expected a warning, rather than a block, for something like that. We're all fans of the mantra that blocks are supposed to be preventative, but I can't see any evidence that there's anything being prevented here; the IP didn't attempt to replace their comment, and hadn't made any other edits on the subject. Have I perhaps overlooked something? If not, would you be amenable to lifting or reducing the block? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor says in their unblock statement that "no policies were violated" and then expresses a desire to continue this post ("what kind of creep freaks out over a legitimate discussion on the talk page for the article? Perhaps someone had sourceable information on the matter"). I don't think that it would be a good idea to unblock. The subject of this article is a fairly obscure person who attracts heated and obsessive abuse for his views in various internet forums, so hence jumping straight to a one week block. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll grant that it wasn't the best unblock request ever made ("I did nothing wrong! Admin abuse!" always works so well as an appeal), but I'm afraid I'm still not sure I'd agree with the reasoning behind the original block. The last edit of any kind to Talk:Carlo Kopp prior to the IP's was in September last year, and the last disruptive edit to the article itself was nearly two years ago. I'm not sure that the heated discussions elsewhere on the web have any bearing on the Misplaced Pages page; certainly it doesn't seem to be subject to any sort of systematic abuse, at least not in the last couple of years. Just as we don't apply page protection to pre-empt a potential problem, so we shouldn't be blocking people without at least some tangible evidence that they pose some sort of threat to Misplaced Pages. If the same comment - or a defense of it - reappeared after a warning, then fair enough, but blocking as a first move seems excessive.

I don't want to bust your balls over this. Generally I see nothing but good actions from your quarter (your recent actions regarding User:WorldTraveller101 had my utmost support, for example), but much as I hate to say it, this looks to me like a <whispers> bad block. Maybe I'm just too trusting, who knows... Yunshui 雲‍水 09:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, after a bit of thinking, I've declined the unblock request. Whether the original block was correct or not, you're right that the unblock request could be construed as a suggestion of future intent to disrupt (and it's totally non-compliant with WP:GAB). It's therefore in Misplaced Pages's best interest to keep the block in place. Sorry to have taken up your time. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I will take it on board (as the note at the top of the page says, I have no delusions of perfection). I'd have no problem at all with that account being unblocked if they made a commitment to abide by WP:BLP - blocks should only remain in place for the minimum time necessary to avoid disruption. I think that you have me mixed up with Nick (talk · contribs) in relation to the WorldTraveller101 block BTW. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops; yes, I do. You really should differentiate yourself from him somehow: why not put a -D on the end of your name or something so that we can tell the two of you apart? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) *Unlurked* Nick Dowling... I'm feeling rather awkward now and shall remove myself from your page until such time it is again required of me to resurface for some fresh air (D: Yup, we're all suffering here in Singapore from this →dreadful hazy air← that's caused by Indonesian's burning and clearing of rainforest area in Sumatra now.). Toodles~! Supreme facepalm of destiny... *poof!* --Dave 11:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, cheers Dave. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attacks?

Would you like to back up your personal attack at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Pricasso with some actual evidence? This isn't the first personal attack I've asked you to back up, but which you have ignored. I would sincerely suggest that you step back, and stop making such attacks against myself, because I am now collating diffs against yourself for future possible use -- i.e. I am not going to be the subject of continual personal attacks without a shred of evidence on this project any longer. Russavia (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks for threatening me! Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying there. I still believe it's a personal attack, in that the links you show are unashamed personal attacks by parties involved. I don't like collecting diffs on others, just as I don't like personal attacks and other incivility being directed against me by people who don't know me, don't interact with me, don't assume good faith with me, etc, etc. You have certainly made use of my uploads in the past on aviation topics, so perhaps there's some common ground -- just like Commons:COM:MELLOW suggests. If you are unable to interact with me in a civil manner, I can only encourage you to back off and perhaps forget about me. I am taking your talk page off my watchlist, so if there is any reply I will not see it, but my talk page is open if you wish to discuss things in an AGF civil manner. Russavia (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

... yeah, that wasn't anywhere near a personal attack. Ed  03:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen here and at Commons, Russavia often responds to justified criticism of his actions by making accusations and threats such as the above. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

G'day Nick, while working on the GOCE Milhist blitz, I came across this article: Beeline March to Cambridge. During a search for sources on Google Books, I found that it is a copyright violation of ''A History of Jefferson County, West Virginia (1719-1940), pp. 27-29, by Millard Kessler Bushong. I have tagged it for deletion as it appears to have been created initially as a copyright violation, so I don't think there is any chance of salvaging it. Would you mind taking a look and, if you agree with my tagging, delete the article? If I haven't tagged it correctly, please let me know what I should do about it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I agree completely with your assessment - it was lifted from a book which should still be copyright protected in the US, and there's no good version to revert to. As such, I've deleted it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. Have a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Smith A-class

Sorry for the presumptiveness, I hope you will excuse it. Thank you for the cheerful note on reversion! :) Have a nice Sunday. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all - the system is a bit confusing, and the coordinators (including myself from time to time) often place these stories in the wrong months' editions. If this is promoted to both FA and A-class status in June it will save Ian and I some work ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Book review

As there are currently three book reviews for the upcoming issue of The Bugle I just wanted to tell you to feel free to move my review to the following issue so that there is already one. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, We've managed to attract at least one review from someone other than me over the last few months, so I'm optimistic that there will be at least two reviews next month as well. As such, I'll leave your review in this month's edition. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. BTW, Nick, I'm ready to despatch the issue unless you want to add/tweak anything further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I just made a few minor changes, and this is now ready to go. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 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: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

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) 09:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

MILHIST scope

Hi! After looking at MILHIST scope description, I assumed that a civilian protest march against army demanding an end to a siege would not qualify for MILHIST coverage. I'm having second thoughts because the siege was indeed lifted days after the protest (not necessarily because of the protest, but it looks that way). The article in question is 1991 protest in Split. Could you please let me know what do you think? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, The project has traditionally taken a broad view of its scope to include anything with a solid link to military history (which in turn includes the social aspects of warfare and the military). I think that protests against military forces such as this are clearly in-scope. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Earl of Oxford

Nick, I just noticed that you are listening in, in fact I'd placed a request for help on my talk page. I'd welcome your advice. I certainly don't want any more blocks or bans. It's not worth it over this point, I'd just leave the article alone. You have just seen my latest edit. I certainly don't think Tom Reedy's behaviour is acceptable. Paul seems rather more reasonable. I think there is a significant minority viewpoint which ought to be acknowledged in the interests of fairness. Tom seems to wish to censor any reference to the fact that their are now University courses in Britain and America which promote questioning of Stratfordian authorship. The reference to the Holocaust is from ] As you see the one thing I am passionate about is 'fairness' - I'm not especially an Oxfordian. Thanks Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Nick, I'm not sure it was you listening in here after all (the mild expletive in the SAQ section) ] but I'd welcome your advice nonetheless. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not actually sure what you're referring to - I don't have your talk page or any articles on this topic watchlisted. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List of official languages by GDP per capita

No clear relation between these variables? I need a sense of which languages to translate my client's website to first. My client would prefer the most "affluent" languages. Bugloaf (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That probably rules out Somali then. Try the IMF, UN or the CIA World Factbook (and earn your money rather than relying on a crap and long-deleted article written by some random guy on the internet...). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

2OCU

Hi mate, couple of things... It looks to me from ADF-Serials that one or two of our fatal Hornet accidents were to OCU aircraft -- still a bit dubious about it as a source though, do you happen to have any info on OCU Hornet accidents elsewhere that'd save me scouring RAAF News in the Mitchell?! Also ready to take suggestions re. a DYK hook as nothing's really leaping out at me -- maybe something about the preponderance of North African aces in its WWII leaders and instructors... If you come up with a good 'um, happy to share credit! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Phantom, Hornet, and Skyhawk in Australian Service has this. The only 2OCU F/A-18 loss was A21-104 in November 1987 (page 124). Two other 2OCU Hornets (A21-102 and 107) collided during an air-to-air combat training exercise in February 1986, but both managed to return to base (page 124). I somehow managed to get ADF serials through as an OK source in the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service FAC... I'll replace this with references to Wilson tonight (though I saw it referenced in a professionally published book recently for what it's worth). As some of suggestions for hooks, how about:

• ...that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 2 Operational Training Unit was equipped with more than 100 aircraft throughout the last two years of World War II?
• ...that No. 2 Operational Training Unit was reestablished in 1952 due to concerns over the quality of some Australian fighter pilots in the Korean War? (might be overly negative)
• ...that No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit trains all of the Royal Australian Air Force's F/A-18 Hornet fighter pilots?

I prefer the last of these (in my experience, hooks which are straightforward and include an aircraft do well!). Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, tough with this one for some reason -- I also quite like #2 but agree it's not so positive, so #3 might be the one. I was even considering the tidbit about staff translating Mirage manuals from French to English as part of their job, just for something light... ;-) Tks very much for the Wilson ref about the F-18 incidents, will add. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I'll probably take this to FAC once the ACR is closed (and my Hely FAC likewise) so if there was anything else you think should be added, let me know (I'll probably take a glance myself at Wilson this week, and coincidentally the latest Air Force News has a report on Aces North, the FCI graduation exercise, so I'll be mining that for some info as well). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

OrBat Graphic Request

I'm not sure if you saw my reply but I am taking requests for OrBats. Just tell me what you're looking for.Dmanrock29 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll put together a short list and get back to you :) Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good, can't wait. Dmanrock29 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 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 A-4G Skyhawk, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service and Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi. I have nominated Majura Parkway for GA. I tried to address all the feedback in the failed review at Talk:Majura Parkway/GA1, and double checked to make sure it complied with GA criteria. As I'm a still learning contributor as far as GAs go, and I know you have a lot of experience with GAs/FACs. I was wondering if you could review Majura Parkway. (I have also asked User:TonyTheTiger, User:Wizardman and User:Hawkeye7 if they could review.) I would like to improve my ability to get through GA faster, increase my understanding of the GA criteria, and would appreciate a comprehensive review. -- Nbound (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

Hi Nick,

Thank you for contributing to the FAC for the 2012 tour of She Has a Name article; it was good to see the article go up on the main page last week. I have submitted another article for featured status: When God Writes Your Love Story. If you would be willing to contribute to the corresponding FAC, I would appreciate your input.

Neelix (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neelix - I was also pleased to see that article on the main page, and congratulations on its successful FAC. I'll look into this review. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Thank you for your kind words regarding the aftermath of the featuring of this article. Hopefully, all of this will be settled soon.

Neelix (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Nick-D,

I have applied for "auto patrol" privileges. I was wondering if you could look into it on how I could get the privileges because I don't know if anyone is aware there is a few people asking for it. Adamdaley (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I've just granted you this permission. Would you also like the rollback permission to be enabled? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D – thanks for the autopatrol feature. It would be great if I could have the rollback feature as well. If you would be willing to give it to me, it would be appreciated very much! Anything in return that you've done on Misplaced Pages, I'll be glad to help. Adamdaley (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I've just enabled that permission for you - given your long history of good edits and good standing among the community I'm sure you'll use the rollback feature responsibly. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Offender9000 talk

Nick-D - I see Offender9000 has been on and blanked his talk page this morning. Moriori has restored the sockpuppet ban notice (and prevented him from making future edits) but it might be useful for material from that page to be restored to allow future editors who come along to be able to easily see why Offender9000 was banned in the first place (e.g. there is no violation of BLP notice on the use page) and the long-standing issues the community had with him? Clarke43 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Clarke, Thanks for letting me know. The relevant guideline is WP:BLANKING which allows editors to remove pretty much everything from their talk pages except notifications of still-active sanctions. I've just restored the thread concerning the BLP block. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that is most useful. Regardless of the policy I don't think having any further material would be required as that section shows the issues quite clearly for anyone who looks into his edits at a later stage. Do copies of general block notices also get put on a user page? Or do only sockpuppet ones get listed on both talk and user pages? Clarke43 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the only sanctions which are placed on user pages are sockpuppet confirmations, community bans and blocks/bans imposed by the arbitration committee. In practice, these tags are not always used - replacing the entire content of the user page for an editor who had a productive editing history before turning to the bad and being sanctioned is controversial. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My mistake

Based on the infobox on your user page I concluded 1) that you were amenable to receiving feedback in a non-confrontational trout-slap and 2) that you had a sense of humor. "Get fucked" as your edit summary suggests neither is the case.--Godot13 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken my comments on your rather WP:OWN-like edit notice which contributed to its blanking as being something other than a routine response handled (politely, I think - though I am biased) through routine channels. Your decision to whack that template here a full day after the event stinks of trolling and recieved the response it deserved. I'm entirely open to good natured feedback (such as "hey, I think that you were wrong about that notice" or words to that effect), but that sure wasn't it. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry it came across that way, it was not my intention. I modeled my editnotice after this one and ensuring standardized referencing (not ownership) was the goal. I honestly thought that the trout-slap was meant to be humorous (I laughed when I saw the infobox on your page), and a non-obnoxious way to comment. Virtually everyone involved in commenting on this list seems to have a shoot first, ask questions later approach. So "get fucked" is just icing on the cake. --Godot13 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that posting a message always gets you a happier response than hitting editors who have different views to you with a template which is used only as a mock punishment when they goof up. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood.--Godot13 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NZSAS Article

Nick-D, could I trouble you to cast a quick eye over the New Zealand Special Air Service article? This is the first time I've built a comprehensive page myself, rather than just fire fighting other edits. I'm not after a formal review just some tips if you have a chance. I'm trying to decide what to do about the NY/QB Hons section at the bottom. A number of those awards were given for operational service (e.g. a BEM for Vietnam with a cracking citation, which really should have been an MM but seemingly wasn't supported by 1ATF, so NZ Army HQ awarded him the BEM instead) but I don't have citations for all the awards, therefore I can't 100% accurately divide them all up into correct deployments. Maybe I should just do the ones I can confirm and leave the others where they are? Thanks. Clarke43 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll read through the article later this week. It looks really good from what I've seen so far. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder (World War II)

I just remind you about my question at the Talk:World War II page. I don't know if you have forgot the discussion, or your just busy, but anyways I wanted to remind you.

Regards,Ransewiki (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hello Nick. Would you possibly be able to have a look at Talk:Gallipoli Campaign/GA1 and delete if it meets the speedy deletion criteria? The review page was created by one of the co-noms due to a misunderstanding. All the details are here User_talk:Keith-264#Gallipoli_GA_co-nom. Any assistance you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Done - that's the very definition of an uncontroversial housekeeping task. A nice thing about having the admin tools is that I can self-delete the instances where I create a page accidentally without anyone ever being the wiser ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka

Hello Nick-D, the editing history of this article is something that may bear occasionally looking at. Users EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver have had editing conflicts concerning the Battle of Kursk and another difference of views may be brewing. EyeTruth has asked me to neutrally observe the talk page interactions, and I am willing to do so -- but I think it wise if another pair of eyes also looks over the exchanges from time to time. My own take (on at least some of the differences of opinion) is that various sources contradict each other (typical for WW2 Eastern Front sources) when it comes to losses of vehicles and personnel. In the case of some of the differing editor viewpoints, it may be necessary (to achieve concurrence among the editors) for information notes in the article to point out in detail the varying outlook of professional authors/historians. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just watchlisted the article and will weigh in as needed. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Plans to create my first articles. Any advice to construct gratefully recieved.

• Hi Nick. I thought I would approach you as you are one of our most celebrated Eds in military-related article creation and policy. After over a year I am starting to think of actually becoming an article creator. Man cannot Wikignome alone :).

I was thinking that there is a big gap in WW2 field rations by major combatants. The rather good U.S C ration, K ration etc, series are getting increasingly lonely. I was thinking of creating a 14-in-1 Composite ration, 24 Hour ration and Emergency ration for a comparable UK article series, and the Canadian 24 Hour mess-tin ration. Further down the line it would be good to develop German and Japanese equivalents as articles. I also was thinking on getting the Jack Nissenthal article sketched out. I redlinked him in Dieppe raid. I have lots of sources from a diverse range of origins, field trials re; palatability and complete menus. I am researching Mr Nissenthal. Any tips welcome. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Hi Irondome, Those look like really good topics for articles - there are quite a few sources on soldiers' rations, including specialist and generalist works. I haven't written anything on the topic myself, but I'd suggest that you cover both the 'official' view of the rations (eg, why they were developed, and the decisions and trade offs the food scientists and logistians had to make), as well as how the 'customers' viewed the rations - including how often they actually had to eat them (most armies generally attempted to minimize the use of pre-prepared rations, and supplied freshly cooked meals to the troops whenever possible). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's well appreciated Nick, esp the purpose and development consideration, and actual references to percieved quality and use by the "consumer". The Americans were decades ahead of anyone in that respect. They really treated their ORs as consumer products. Ive several fascinating quality feedback reports on US rations from their contemporary surveys that they undertook in field testing. They also have in the public domain online great contemporary reports on the development and methodology of usage. There are no comparable British primary sources in the public domain that I can find, and I dont want to risk Original Research by going to the archives. We just do not seem to publish our contemporary WW2 ration development reports online as the U.S do. Still googling every combination of relevant search phrases I can think of though :)

I am using the John Ellis classic "The Sharp End" and the fairly recent and groundbreaking "To The Victor The Spoils" by Sean Longden for Brit secondary ration sources at the moment. There's loads more to tap. Thanks for the encouraging words. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

From memory, Lizzy Collingham's excellent book The Taste of War has some material on the rations provided to combat troops which places the topic in a broad context. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there is a big chunk of it available in a Google books preveiw facility. Cheers mate. BTW, there are at least 3 Australian rations configured for group and individual use developed for WW2 Pacific ops that I have come across. One appears to be SF. Its a great subject in terms of the sheer breadth of notable articles to be created. Irondome (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's a really important topic given that the rations formed a significant part of the experiances of military personnel during the war, and required substantial agricultural, industrial and transport infrastructure to sustain. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and apart from the U.S stuff (good on the original creators) we havent even touched the subject. Food supply and distribution by nation in WW2 would be an offshoot, as a developing subject for articles. Its vaguely covered in WW2 economics by nation articles, and the Rationing in the United Kingdom is excellent, and a one-off at the mo. But we have no equivalent dedicated US, Aus, German, Japanese etc.. Not to mention operational military rations by country. Its a gaping hole in WP coverage at the mo. Its every bit as notable as any AFV or or even campaign article. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviewer efforts!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thanks for your excellent contributions in reviewing articles at FAC! Your suggestions and comments are greatly appreciated, especially regarding the aircraft articles that you helped review in 2011 and 2012. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

Hi Nick- I'm going to make some revisions and wondered if you could take a look at my response to your comment (re: Port Moresby crash) and let me know what you think so I can tackle everything in one go. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick- I know you initially opposed the list for Featured status. There have been a lot of changes with the input of several members of the Aviation Project. I was wondering if you would be willing to have another look, possibly re-review and/or let me know if there are areas I can work on to either gain your support or have you withdraw your objection. Thanks in advance.--Godot13 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd give this one more shot: I've reviewed six books (all added to the list) and found two additional incidents (both in ASN database). I think I've made a solid good faith effort to meet your objection(s) to the list, do you? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi mate, if you have a sec, could you check your copies of Eather and Bomber Units and let me know what aircraft 1SQN was operating between August 1939 and January 1940 (or thereabouts)? I suspect Demons then Ansons but all the sources I've seen are a bit vague on what and when... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Both Eather (p. 19) and Bomber Units (p. 3) state that the squadron was operating Ansons in September 1939. Neither state when they started to operate these aircraft. Eather (p. 19 again) states that the squadron continued to operate Ansons in the convoy escort and patrol roles until May 1941 when these aircraft were replaced with Hudsons. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks Nick, much appreciated ('case you're wondering, it's to round out an article on AVM Frank Headlam, who was a flight commander with 1SQN between -- you guessed it -- August 1939 and January 1940... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It was good to see the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service article pass its FAC today. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian

Hello Nick-D,

Can we continue with the A1 for George Juskalian? If you're busy it's fine. I could maybe get another reviewer. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond in the review, but note that A-class nominations typically require three supportive reviews to pass. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Prokhorovka, again

Nick-D, 71.191.213.248 (talk) has suddenly appeared to edit the article. No other article contributions other than Battle of Prokhorovka -- situation smells to me like someone has decided to edit without logging in, in order to provide cover for actions that might be seen as tendentious. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, and have just blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: FAC

Hi. I'm not sure if you saw or if it changed anything regarding your position, but just in case, I'm writing to let you know that I responded to your last comment at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Confusion (album)/archive1. Dan56 (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I saw that as I was about to walk out the door for a couple of days out of town, and will follow up later today. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

UDI

Hi Nick, just a quick one to let you know that I've just nominated the UDI article at FAC. If you're interested in taking a look, the review is here. Thanks, keep well and have a great week. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note: I'll look into the article (though I may not take a support/oppose position as I'm pretty clueless on Rhodesian political history). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've included quite a bit of background stuff to help with this as I think most people don't know much about the context, which is more complicated than many would presume, so I hope this helps. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Four Award

Just a heads up, do you realise both you and Ian have turned down the award because the other wasn't recognized? Just sayin, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not the case I'm afraid: Tony withdrew the credit from Ian on the grounds that it was "mistaken". Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently you're not allowed to reject a FOUR award. Related discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:Four Award#Removing name and articles from WP:FOUR. Ed  05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I rejected the award he made on my talk page before he withdrew it at the Four page... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I think Ed should be allowed to refuse his awards or return them. If it works for the Nobels... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Co-leads

I'd like to propose at WT:MIL that the top 3 vote-getters become the 3 co-leads again in the September elections; I think that's worked out well. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, that sounds sensible to me. I think that we need lead co-ords, and having more than one is preferable given the need to cover variations in editing activity. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 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 Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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) 16:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions in your inbox

MikeDS (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I can't stress strongly enough that I did not suggest that CarringtonB was an employee of that firm as you've attributed to me in your email. I suspected that there was a conflict of interest of some sort with the firm at the time, but have no way at all of knowing what the situation actually turned out to be: I may have been completely mistaken. For privacy-related reasons, the small number of highly trusted editors who have access to the checkuser tool do not share the results of their investigations, and it's not sensible to read too much into this kind of thing. There's some background information on how the Checkuser tool is used at WP:CHECKUSER if you're interested. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, kinda tired of typing, can you add it, im going to sleep in a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolo68 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Favour

Hi mate, could you delete Misplaced Pages:Goings-on/Sunday, July 28, 2013 and Misplaced Pages:Goings-on/Sunday, July 21, 2013 for me? I rarely have to archive Goings-On so tend to forget how to do it properly... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/AVE Class 103

Hi friend! I have uploaded an ALT version. Can you please have a look and give your valuable comment. Thanks in advance!--Nikhil(talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

FYI, I will agree to a WP:CONSENSUS determined at an RFC after User:Rjanag gets back to me with some statistics on the project. I understand that it will take at least a week after he creates the new category to have the data. I am drafting the RFC here. You can follow along.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

		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 Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP Issue

Nick please see this posting to my talk page --Woogie10w (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just blocked that latest IP. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiroshima Nagasaki

I hope that you don't mind my removal of this book you added from the Hiroshima Nagasaki article. The only review I've seen of this book (in the Australian War Memorial's magazine Wartime) was highly critical, and Ham is not an expert on the topic - his main focus is on Australian military history, where he's something of a journeyman author. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. What did Wartime say was wrong with it ? I did indeed note that he fell for the old 100,000 dead at Dresden furphy but I'm more interested in his reasoning that the bomb was used as the first act of the Cold War, i.e. aimed at the USSR, using Japanese cities and civilians as convenient test material, which sounds like the truth to me. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The review was written by the American historian Richard B. Frank, and he notes Ham's use of David Irving's discredited book as the source for the figure of 100,000 people being killed at Dresden, as well as a couple of instances where Ham attributed claims to Frank's book Downfall which aren't supported by that book. He's also critical of Ham's understanding of the details of the war, pointing out some other mistaken statements. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In the same vein - do you have an opinion on the value of Paul Kennedy's recent book "Engineers of victory : the problem solvers who turned the tide in the second world war". He's usually associated with economic history rather than military, but I haven't noticed any errors. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've read a sample on my Kindle, and it looks pretty good (I'm waiting for the price to come down). It's received mixed reviews, but I quite like his style of analytic history. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian ACR

G'day, Nick, I have done a bit of copy editing on George Juskalian as part of my review. In doing so, I think I may have addressed some of your review comments. If you get a chance, would you mind returning to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/George Juskalian and letting the nominator know which of your comments remain outstanding? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll look into the review later today or tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Another walk down the footpaths of Gibraltar

Please check out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. I, as the lone delete advocate now, am a bit peeved that there seems to be a group effort (I'm not saying sockpuppets) to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a viable article to me, and accusing other people of engaging in a "group effort ... to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly" is pretty poor form. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'll say. Occasionally Gibraltar material can be deemed notable by the community, Kit. That being said, editors have consistently rebuked the claim that this is an unwarranted fork of Fortifications of Gibraltar and Upper Rock Nature Reserve, as in the deletion nomination, so "without really addressing the issues fairly" is a bit much methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Dutch in 1913

Hey Nick, seeing as this article is on the main page, I feel like it's high time to thank you once again for the large amount of effort you put into it. Ed  19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - 'tis quite awesome. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. I spent quite some time reading this today, with great interest. It provoked all sorts of "what if?" questions, but I have to resist those! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. From memory, Ed wrote most of the article, but I enjoyed adding material from obscure sources in to flesh it out and put the proposal in context. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I started the article, and you expanded it far beyond anything I could have done with the sources you had available. Don't try to give the credit to me. Not when the article history is there for anyone to see. ;-) Ed  05:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that you started the article under a (legit) sockpuppet account - I wonder how that fits in with the WP:FOUR rules ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the ill-fated WP:NEWT. As for FOUR ... no, I'm not going there. ;-) Ed  08:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten

Hi Nick. I'd just like to thank you wholeheartedly for your excellent overhaul of the article on Operation Tungsten. Really stellar work. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm actually planning to put a fair bit more work into this article, as I think that it's got the potential to reach at least A-class. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds even better. Best of luck. Manxruler (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Operation Tungsten, I have recently photographed the graves at the Commonwealth War Graves section of the main cemetery in Tromsø. Several of the servicemen buried there lost their lives during Operation Tungsten. Do you think one or more of those photos would be a useful contribution to the article? Manxruler (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be really valuable. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Good. I shall upload to Commons and add to the article, as soon as I find the time. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Tosa-class FAC

I think that I've addresses all of your concerns about this article. Please take a look and see if there's anything left to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

Hi, this is a note to inform you that a page in which you have previously shown interest, WP:FOUR, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please can you moderate?

Please can you moderate the current process for resolving the blitzkrieg dispute? I do not wish to get you involved in this but if it is possible for you to moderate this process with your non-involved administrator hat on, please kindly do so. I wouldn't have called you back if not because I'm seeing signs that show nothing has changed in Gunbirddriver's mindset. He again completely removed blitzkrieg from main content and instead moved it citation and notes section. You were right earlier, I should have taken the initiative to write the opposing view (although it would have been subpar since I have no sources for the opposing view). Well, I restored the content but with a major change: "The operation, according to some historians, envisioned a blitzkrieg...".

In the note , I first pointed out that some commentators/historians may not agree with this. That assertion still lack citations, except for Guderian's works (which would still require original synthesis in order to incorporate it as a source), and has been a major barrier to resolving this dispute for months. After that, I listed 9 historians (with supporting citations) that characterize it as an intended blitzkrieg. Essentially, the pattern I used is: Introduce, Oppose, Support. But Nick, if it is possible, can you please moderate this process. Please. EyeTruth (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

While I've mostly stayed out of this lately, I would like to point out to Nick, in case he hasn't gone back through the original talk page posts about this issue, that many, if not most, historians and participants do not characterize the plan in any way so providing cites is rather difficult, which is why my preferred solution is to drop all use of the term and let readers make up their own mind. I also don't place any weight on any use of the term blitzkrieg without a definition since it's a word often used loosely, which appears to be just about everybody except Clark, but EyeTruth seems to have fixated on his use of the term as all the support needed for his position. That said, I'd be relatively content for a note explaining the differences of opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Clark, Glantz and Barbier have also used the term with a definition (I bet there are a lot others). And as I've said before, I agree that providing cites for the opposition will be difficult. That is why I suggest that the wording for the differing view be revised. In fact you worded it perfectly: "participants do not characterize the plan in any way." BTW, how will excluding any mention of the term give wiki-readers more freedom to make up their mind as they see fit? A note explaining the differences of opinion, instead, is what will give readers more freedom to make up their mind. EyeTruth (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that Blitzkrieg term is hugely overused and appears to often be just shorthand for any German offensive. Glantz and House The Battle Of Kursk {Modern war studies) 1999 pg xiii, 472 states "For the German side, it spelled the death of the "blitzkrieg" (sic) and the beginning of defensive operations". I find the quote marks quite eloquent. I would suggest the note approach as mentioned above. Hitlers own operational outline appears to be harking back to a classic blitz approach, but I have not looked at it for ages. I do not know if any wording there would have any bearing, and in any case the northern and southern attacks appear to have been different in their offensive tactics. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if only someone could help me tell Gunbirddriver that other editors think that the "note approach" is a more viable solution than completely removing the term as he has done again, just very recently, with this edit. In the edit, he even deleted sources, and I don't know why or to what end. EyeTruth (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly in our own Bitzkrieg article, is this (and no I am not falling into the trap of using WP as a source) attributed to Glantz and House, 1995, pg 167 which has been paraphrased as "Of course the Kursk operation did not comprise a true "blitzkrieg" operation..as there was no element of suprise, no breakthrough to outflank or strike at rear areas, and no psycological pressure being exerted upon the minds of the Soviet high command". The original Glantz & House wording there may be instructive if anyone has a copy to hand. There is some interesting sections in the "Blitzkrieg" article, which appear to be paraphrasing a debate as to whether it even existed as a unique or conscious tactic. Maybe the sources cited there would repay revisting, although I doubt you are unfamiliar with any of them. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That was Gunbirddriver's original research inserted with this edit. He has done this type of stuff in the Kursk article (and not for contents regarding blitzkrieg) so many times, it should have driven me nuts. Debate over original research is one of things that soured our relations. I couldn't help but raise my tone sometimes. It also made me realize that he doesn't understand the three core content policies of Misplaced Pages, else this simple dispute wouldn't have become one big drama. EyeTruth (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm happy to help with this, but the above discussion really belongs on the article's talk page to maximise its visibility to interested editors. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well GBD should not be taking out a whole small paragraph from a related WP article, and not even bothering to rework wording. That is naughty. Nick, can you transfer this thread to the Kursk talk? Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Done: I've copied and pasted it on the talk page. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Gunbirddriver has reverted it. His edit summary is the most striking thing about this action. The way he bends words is very scary (and has been effective). By stating that I've been "asked by the administrator not to change the article until the weekend had passed," he is making it out as if I disobeyed an admin's explicit order. And then he states "EyeTruth, you need to participate in the talk page and await a consensus" as if I stayed away from the discussion. I'm fed up of his methods. By reverting the edit, he deleted several sources and historians that support inclusion and reintroduced red "cite-error" into the article. I already pointed out these issues earlier and he has made many edits since then but failed to rectify those issues. Eventually I fixed them and then modified the content. But the best he could input is to revert it all. EyeTruth (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging articles

Nick-D,

I come to you to ask a simple request for merging several articles into a new name. Why? I'm in the process of getting the state of Indiana in order of the American Civil War. There are several articles that have multiple pages such as the following:

• 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 months)
• 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 years)

The two above can be merged into the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment, for continuity of other renamed articles on that page by myself. For example No. xx Indiana Infantry Regiment.

• 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment (1 year)
• 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 years)

The two above can be merged into the 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment, with the same reason as above.

It would be appreciated if this could be done as I'll eventually do the article of the 6th Indiana Infantry Regiment and 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment and it would be nice to include the shorter term in with the longer term as they were both in the American Civil War. Adamdaley (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I think that you can just merge them yourself (converting the existing articles into redirects) - I don't think that the admin tools are needed here given that the article history will be pretty clear. I'm also pretty clueless about history merges, so you might want to ask another admin for help with this if you think that this is necessary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried my best with the merging last night. I made a complete mess of it. Hope you and anyone else can work out what I'm trying to do with the articles. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest structuring the articles so that the history section has a sub-section for each iteration of the unit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I already have: your version is not helpful I'm afraid. Canvassing around the first RfC is pretty awful conduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

August Bugle

Hi mate, I think it's ready to go out but will leave till tomorrow morning to despatch (aiming for a bit before midnight GMT) so pls feel free to edit anything beforehand; left a similar note for Storm re. his op-ed now that I've moved it into the issue and given it a (provisional) image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing this off Ian. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 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 the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

HMAS..... Again

. Bidgee (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm . Thanks for the notification - and I agree that Commons is pretty fucked up these days. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

— Maile (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding RAAF

Hello Nick,

I just finished translating Military history of Australia during World War II (what a monster of an article, I fear it is too big to get it awarded in de:Wiki as not enough people would attend the review and nomination phase) and came over something I wonder about the names of RAAF units. Mostly they are in the style of No. xx (yy) Squadron RAAF but if I read the article, the RAAF isnt part of the given name in the text. So my question is, is the RAAF for the squadrons and wings etc. an official part of the name or just used for differentiation from other nations units? I would like to know this because I want to translate some wings (squadrons are not seen as notable in de:Wiki) and want to give them the right names. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bomzibar, The usual practice is to refer to the squadrons as simply No. xx (yy - where relevant) Squadron when referring to it in text. I think that the 'RAAF' at the end forms part of the official name, but it's normally only used in titles and lists or where units from different Commonwealth air forces are present in the same area and there's a need to differentiate them. I'm going to ping @Ian Rose: though in case I'm mistaken. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, my understanding -- certainly my practice and what seems to be fairly common usage in sources -- is the same as Nick's. Just as a side point,FWIW, the main change I've noted through the years is in abbreviations. The evidence seems to be that for a long time you always abbreviated a squadron name to "No. 3 Sqn" or an operational conversion unit to "No. 2 OCU", whereas since the '90s at least the service (and some sources) omit "No." and spaces, and capitalise unit type, e.g. "3SQN" or "2OCU". I never abbreviate "squadron" in WP articles, and I don't think anyone else does who writes quality articles. For more long-winded unit types like operational conversion units, I always use the older-style abbreviation (e.g. "No. 2 OCU"), which is consistent with the sort of abbreviations in use when most units were raised, but I wouldn't go out of my way to make trouble for some using "2OCU", which seems to be the current service preference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on deleting Battle Trance and more importantly for the related multi-page cleanup. Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pleased to have been of help - and thank you for spotting this nonsense and nominating it for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

TFAR for Australian Defence Force

Hi Nick, I don't think anyone has told you that the ADF article has been suggested in the "any date" section of TFAR. As it's a 2007 FA (even though it's one of yours ;-) ) I thought it would be useful to get opinions from you and others as to whether all it needed was a quick bit of polishing of cap badges before appearing on a parade or whether it ought to be reduced to the ranks for insubordination... There's no need to rush to reply. Yours, Bencherlite 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Tungsten

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Tungsten you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Tungsten

The article Operation Tungsten you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Tungsten for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Vote on blitzkrieg controversy at Kursk

Hi Nick. I have created a new voting section on Talk:Battle of Kursk. I have laid out the summaries and voting procedure to the best of my ability. I think it captures the flavour, is timebound and establishes groundrules so it does not develop into another lengthy exchange. Please have a look. Irondome (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I already mentioned in the article's talk page, the vote is resetting all progress made. It is targeting the same options that took us to DRN, in which several editors, citing WP policies, suggested a solution. And a good number of them think it is unnecessary to continue with the drama and have moved on. I personally think a vote will help. But voting on issues that have already been discussed extensively and dealt with, will only lead to a restart of the debate all over again, especially if #2 is selected. Anyways, I elaborated the problem with the target of this vote on the talk page. EyeTruth (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just commented there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I made a poll to establish consensus for the wordings. How is THIS? EyeTruth (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

HI Nick, EyeTruth and Irondome. I wanted to make you all aware of my concern with the presentation of the voting options in the Kursk poll. I'm very seriously concerned with the neutrality of the presentation of the poll choices. I think the second choice (which I contributed in no small part to authorship of) is presented it in such a manner (w/ positive comment that equates to advocacy, whilst the first option is presented with a "blank" comment that makes it appear as if there's nothing to recommend it as a choice) as to introduce unintentional bias. Option #1 needs a comment/summary similar to the treatment Option #2 received, a comment that summarizes the proposed edit and highlights its attributes, or there should be no comment(s) appended to the second voting choice in the interest of fairness. Azx2 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Azx2, I intentionally left it blank since I didn't want Gunbirddriver to eat me raw for making an assessment in his place. If it were an intended bias, then there would be no conspicuously blank space left for the comment. Frankly, anyone can go ahead and provide a comment there. But for the meantime, "pending" or anything else anyone prefers can go there. EyeTruth (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Azx2. Please see my latest post in the voting space. My arguments for V2 are condensed there. I am grateful to you for helping codify V2. That was the kind of compromise I mentioned and envisaged before you joined us, upthread. V1 is weaker. By ignoring the Blitzkrieg-no-blitzkrieg debate it invites future edit wars and us having to go through this all again. We are at last making progress, so this can only be a positive. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the above issue has been resolved? The current voting option looks like a good way of managing this issue - nice work to all involved in setting it up and tweaking it. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, resolved. EyeTruth (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

thoughts and images
Thank you for quality articles such as McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, for thoughts, for images used over the world, and for getting to the core of a situation, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (9 March 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 227th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gerda - I really appreciate those kind comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ghouta attacks

I saw your contribution on the page and was wondering if you cold tend to an edit request I made on the article's talk page. Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Done - and I knocked over another request while I was there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey, Nick. I have been attempting to figure out what has been going on with the editing on the Battle of Kursk page, and I believe the pieces of the puzzle have fallen together. I have mentioned you at the Administrators Noticeboard, and though you are mentioned first the complaint is not really directed at you. It's a little long, but read through it if you get a chance. Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the most hilarious thing I've see on Misplaced Pages. So now you are also reporting Nick-D? And now EyeTruth is same as Blablaaa. XD. What happened man? you felt that consensus was massively against you and time is running out. So, you decided to go apeshit? Gunbirddriver, you just screwed up. And dude, your skill at bending words and twisting scenarios are unbelievable. It still scares. EyeTruth (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Nick-D. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Arctic naval operations of World War II

Please take care not to separate statements from reference citations while editing. I have repaired two detached paragraphs in subject article; but request you provide a reference citation for the Operation Mascot addition.Thewellman (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, but the content was totally wrong. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you clarify the erroneous content and the nature of the error, please?Thewellman (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The statements that the Operation Tungsten and Operation Goodwood attacks were made by the escorts of convoys wasn't accurate - these strikes were conducted by separate forces as part of pre-planned operations (the British used part of the Tungsten attack force to screen a convoy for a few days, but the main role of these ships was to attack Tirpitz). I'm not sure if you've seen, but I've redeveloped the Tungsten article over the last few months, and it's currently up for A-class review at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Tungsten, and I'd appreciate any comments you might have :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to comment. As you can see from my comments at the suggested location, I disagree with the opinion these strike forces were independent of the convoys. The term "escort" had various meanings in the tactical disposition of warships protecting merchant shipping. Independently routed trade shipping was considered vulnerable to submarine and aircraft attack, but convoys were considered an attractive target for larger surface warships. Small warships providing convoy anti-aircraft and anti-submarine protection were identified as the "screen" by USN, although the term "escort" appears widely used in laymen's accounts. USN used the term "escort" to identify capital ships available to defend the convoy from surface attack while maneuvering separately to minimize detection and attack by submarines shadowing the convoy. These heavy covering forces routinely operated defensively where attack by surface forces was a reasonable possibility. Early trans-Atlantic convoys were often "escorted" by armed merchant cruisers in mid-ocean where attack by surface raiders was expected. The specific operations you identified were performed by heavy naval units either posing or acting as defensive covering forces for specific convoys. These covering forces usually had two missions. The defensive mission of convoy safety had to be satisfied before opportunities for an offensive strike could be undertaken. Most histories of convoy PQ 17 provide descriptions of Arctic covering force tactics during the second world war.Thewellman (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. One of the Operation Tungsten strike forces ("Force Two") was entirely independent of the convoy, and the smaller Force One only briefly played a covering force role as a precurser to striking the battleship. The fleet was originally intended to sail entirely independently from any convoys, but the operation was combined somewhat with the convoy due mainly to delays to it being launched which were caused by delays to upgrading one of the carriers. I do agree with your comments about the need to put this operation in the context of the Arctic convoy system though, as this is ultimately why it was conducted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I had conceptually been aware the late war situation with respect to preponderance of forces and effective reduction of German reconnaissance allowed the Allies greater latitude in deployment of assets; but I would value reference citations for specific events documenting these changes. Could you suggest documentation for the orders directing these strikes to act independently?Thewellman (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure - see the references for this material in the Operation Tungsten article ;) They're quite explicit about this and the subsequent carrier raids being separate operations. Patrick Bishop's book is the most accessible work (and is also a good read if you're interested in the topic), but Roskill and Hinsley et al.'s official history volumes provide the most authoritative account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten

Nick, do you have any objection if I replace some occurences of "which" by "that"? I'm bringing this up here because I don't want to sidetrack a review with a copyediting issue. It's a bit involved ... I can go into it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, Please do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave me alone

Hi. Could you please leave me alone over the whole Blablaaa episode? You've given me a very hard time and not once were you ever fair to me in the last three years. Okay I get it you hate my guts. Fine dude. Now please leave me alone. Thanks. Caden 11:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Caden, I've never picked on you, and have never had very much to do with you except in discussions you've instigated. From memory, virtually all of our interactions have been the occasions when you've turned up in various discussions or here to complain about my admin actions. In these discussions you often make incorrect claims about me having a long history of bad blocks and the like, to which I as an admin feel a need to correct. If you stop doing this we won't have anything to do with each other as we seem to have quite different editing interests. I certainly don't hate you. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)