Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 11 February 2010

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

Awards people have given me

Battle of Arawe order of battle

Hi Nick, yes you are right about Task Force 74.1 being a covering force. It only covered the landing for the first day and then returned to Milne Bay, where it then with Task Force 74.2 covered the landing as part of the Battle of Cape Gloucester on December 26, 1943. I have also done some research and found the following also participated: USS PC-1119, PT 110, PT 138, SC-747, LST-453, and First Resupply Eschleon LCT consisting of LCT's 88, 378, 380, 382, 384, 386 and 387 with escort force of Apc 21, YMS 50 and SC 743. USS APc-21 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 17 December 1943, USS APc-15 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 27 December 1943. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also USS APc-2 was sunk by dive bomber, off New Britain (06 d. 12' S., 149 d. 03' E). Newm30 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that information. What sources are you using? Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources=

• APc-2, APc-15 and APc-21 (Conflicting information from this source relating to sinking/damage of USS APc-15, see APc-15.
• APc-21
• LCT 380 Operations
• www.j-aircraft.com (Interesting source for USAAF, RAAF and JAAF squadrons involved.)
• 19. PLANES AT ARAWE - PT-110 and PT-138
• p376 Breaking the Bismarcks Barrier

Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Another source=592nd Engineer Boat and Short Regiment, 2nd Engineer Special Brigade Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Very interesting read. Splinter fleet: the wooden subchasers of World War II

Thanks for that. I'm going to start reworking the Battle of Arawe article at User:Nick-D/Drafts8 as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I have just found a source Disposition:, on small transport craft that states that APc-2 and APc-15 were sold off in 1947. It would appear that they only damaged by the air attacks and not sunk. (APc-2 damaged at 06°12'S, 149°03'E and APc-15 at 06°12'S, 149°03'E). I have also created a stub article on USS APc-21. The Battle of Arawe and the Battle of Cape Gloucester need reworking and expansion. Newm30 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Emu War

I thought that was something from jokesters like this guy. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably was, but the military history categorisation is valid in my view as this was an incident which involved the Australian military and was authorised by the Defence minister. I hope that the GA nomination is successful. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge and LaRouche

A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Chronicle

Just letting you know I have expanded Operation Chronicle, let me know what you think. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks excellent. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Turnbull bullshit

Turnbull's "bullshit" quote really isn't notable. His support of the ETS is already covered in the Abbott article. It might be notable in Turnbull's own article. --Surturz (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree; it's a pretty extraordinary action for a recently deposed opposition leader to take. I'd suggest that you discuss this on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:ANI

I was out of line here, having been off for so long I panicked and posted here when the post really did not need to be made here. I have apologized to the users at ANI and, and to Damwiki1. I signed on briefly to leave the messages. Thanks your for the critical response, I appreciate it. I am off again until Wednesday, then I should be back for the rest of the month. Stay safe, Nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I deserved that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Remora (ADF photo).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Remora (ADF photo).jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of RQ-170 Sentinel

Hello! Your submission of RQ-170 Sentinel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools Debate Popping Up Again

You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors involved in the WP:SCHOOLS debate. I just figured you'd have an opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ 07:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I've responded there. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for RQ-170 Sentinel

On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RQ-170 Sentinel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it 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.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For a minute there, I thought that the grokstats counter was saying your DYK got 110,800 hits, which would have been an all-time DYK record! Then it dawned on me that the high volume arrived two days prior to your article going live on the main page, in step with a USAF announcement and extensive blog/news interest. :/

Good article, though! Nice work. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those nice comments. It was still one of the highest-viewed DYKs of the month so far - though I imagine that many of these views were still coming from news reports rather than the front page ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

23prootie

Oh surprise surprise. Not quite one of wikipedia's finest - in my humble opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He is permanently blocked now though (at last!). Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oz new arts

sure looks like the alex bot lives - but the project manually created new page update looks like a thing of the past -

Re SMU Santa Maria 1, Cirebon, Jawa Barat‎‎ - I would have tried possible translation if there was any attempt at providing mention of a notable alumni (it is ironic they claim they have had em - but no specific individual is mentioned) - or some aspect of the schools role in javanese indonesian history or whatever - but my rushed read suggest not of that domain SatuSuro 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Alex newbot's owner needs to press the button to make it work each day, so it doesn't run when they're on holiday. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rape during the occupation of Japan

Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan I restored the deleted sections from page history. Can we discuss WP:NPOV issue about Australian troops and WP:RS issue about a reference. Whether you are POV or acted wrong by lack of knowledge, all editor's opinion matters. And if you provide the RS objecting parties original quotes, I will add them, instead removing all paragraphs, to balance the section for better NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As you plainly haven't bothered to read my talk page comments to date (in which I provided the page numbers you ask for several weeks ago), clearly haven't looked at the references to the stuff you've re-added (as a hint, Peter Schrijvers clearly didn't write the quote which is being attributed to him - several other citations also clearly don't support the statements they're being used to reference), have re-added material that's out of place or has no bearing on the topic of the article and still have the gall to declare that I've been editing in bad faith, I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage with you. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a personal issue, but a historical truth issue. You gave "Gerster, Robin (2008) Travels in Atomic Sunshine" as a source in talk page which I do not own, in a commentary style. What I require is non touched blockquotes from sources, not your interpretation over the text which you didn't provide. Also, as far as I can tell another user objected your arguments in talk page, if I am not mistaken. By the way, I read your points in talk page, that is why I ask you to provide blockquotes from the books, so we can add them as a balancing counter-source. Yet, you are utterly wrong about removing allegations, factual details, and removing even a peer reviewed academic journal as non-RS. Moreover, the claim about "false testimonies" do not solidly prove the testimonies are false. For NPOV we can only provide both contradicting sources in the section, so that each claim balance each other. There is no good faith I can assume for replacing "330 rapes a day" with "low number of rapes" by removing "330 rapes a day" from the context. If anyone makes such a critical mistake in a history article I call the case POV or Censorship, which is not an insult and much better than calling their judgment or understanding capabilities are weak, in my opinion. As a reminder, you even censored the allied forces censorship section. If it is uncivil maybe so, but we can tell what civility may do in both Japan, US and other WWII countries cases anyway. Again as I said, POV or UNCIVIL (as being I called), every editors' opinion counts for me, and the truth matters not personal opinions. Just provide the original paragraphs so we can all evaluate them and leave the discussion to the article talk page so we can end the dispute in an academical way. Kasaalan (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the statement wrongfully attributed to Peter Schrijvers is still in the article makes me wonder about your interest in persuing accuracy ;) I re-wrote the stuff about censorship policy (in this edit) as it was largely irrelevant to this article - the fact that reports of rapes were not allowed to be published is highly relevant, but it needs to be put in the context of the supression of reports of other issues and discussion of how the censorship policy operated belongs in the Occupation of Japan article, not here. In regards to Dower, from memory, the footnote which includes the figures for daily rapes was actually provided to support the statement in the body of the book that the incidence of rapes was low - I need to double check this though (I don't own a copy of the book so will need to re-borrow it from the library, which will take at least a few days and may have to wait until after Christmas). In the edit I made relating to Dower, I added his statement that the number of rapes was low as well as maintained the statement that the number when up after prostitution was decriminalised, so your claims about me "censoring" this are careless. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not a native English speaker, so time to time I cannot pinpoint what you mean. As far as I understand you say a quote wrongly attributed to Peter Schrijvers, which he quoted from someone else. Just provide a line about it, make a proposal or edit the article yourself, without removing the quote, so we can handle the issue. I noticed the other editor, but he didn't reply yet. Censorship of US allies part is highly relevant, because if even mentioning the censorship is censored, you may easily guess what would happen if any rape cases occur. As long as you provide a scan of the relevant pages or direct blockquotes texts consider the objecting source will be in as balance. But again a single source against multiple ones cannot justify removal of claims of others. For NPOV we should add both sides claims. Thanks for your help and bothering to answer. Possibly I am not the most CIVIL editor around, mostly because I am a bit careless about Personal Relations, yet too strict about facts at history and social issues like rape, abuse etc. cases, especially against removal of facts or references as inclusionist. On the other hand, I also respect whoever bothers to go to a library and borrows a book for Misplaced Pages. Peace. Kasaalan (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I just removed it from the article, which is what you should have done if you'd taken the time to check the source - which is even online. I'll explain why on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Process for inappropriate user pages

Nick, do you know what the process is for removing inappropriate user pages? I'm thinking of User:DFR(RAAF), which is a copy of the deleted Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, and may be inapproprite as advertising. -- saberwyn 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They can be nominated for deletion through Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion. Note, however, that there's typically resistance to deleting user pages unless they're a copyright violation, attack page or clearly advertising (as appears to be the case here) so you might need to make a strong case for deletion - pointing to the AfD should help. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Okinawa

In the edit comments of your removal of a sentence from the Battle of Okinawa, you said that the claim wasn't made in the source. By my reading, it is made almost verbatim.

rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women.

Hohum (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The book covered by the review doesn't make the claim that rape was a "general practice" - this is the reviewer's view, for which he provides no source whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can read the book further or provide texts of it you may join discussions at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan. Kasaalan (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the page was a review. It would make a lot more sense to change the citation to the book itself, with a page number. Hohum (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I borrowed the book about 18 months ago to look for the page number when an editor first started to add this material to other articles, but was unable to find it anywhere in the book - other claims made in the review are also not supported by the book. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ausairpower not a reliable source?

Nick, would you mind revieing this edit, and the

Hi Bill. I'm in two minds about this. One one hand, the ausairpower site exists to promote the views of the site's authors and its analyses are, in my view, biased and unreliable as a result. On the other hand, the authors of the website have published large numbers of articles in Australian defence magazines and seem to have appropriate credentials (though I suspect that their articles are provided to the magazines free of charge). My inclination is to regard the website as an unreliable source as it is self-published and has a strong emphasis on advocacy, but other editors may have different views - I think that this would be best discussed at WT:AIR. Merry Christmas by the way! Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was condisering doing that anyway, but since you were around, I thought I'd ask you first. Hcobb, however, seems to be basing its unreliability simply because he disagrees with them! That's not quite the same thing. And thanks, and Merry Christmas to you and yours. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian military articles...

Nick

You're correct in saying the problem with translating from WP ID is the lack of sources used on wikipedia Indonesia. I don't believe anything should be added to wikipedia without a RS, and that includes translating from WP ID. I hadn't really given much thought to basing notability on the existence of RS. But, the existence or otherwise of RS is only one of a number of factors to consider when establishing notability.

Not sure if any of that helps. --Merbabu (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As for my opinion - as I say at the milhist talkpage - the issue is whether WP N over-rides WP RS - If it doesthey should be stubs without bulk of uncitable crap which we get regularly.

The other very big problem is the amazing capacity and urge on the part of established and IP editors to make lists on WP Indonesia en - of names of things - with no backup of RS or cites or anything. The project is littered with WP UNDUE lists - with not a link or cite in sight. It makes the project look like the product of paranoid new order era officials too frightened to make a statement about anything - so a list of names of things is better than nothing - bollocks SatuSuro 07:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for your input. Buckshot's suggestion of a list of Indonesian infantry battalions sounds like a good idea to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing - the over-large Indonesian military article got separated into the different forces - if it was possible to keep the same theme in new lists/articles - so that there are no-oversized lists again- referenced or not - it would be appreciated if any effort was made in that direction SatuSuro 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid we are not off to a good start - stubs with no WPRS and limited content. SatuSuro 08:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

COI/ownership issues

Nick, would you mind looking at Langley Flying School? The problem should be evident from reading the history and talk pages. I'm supposed to be going to bed, so it'll be awhile before I can respond. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just protected the article for a week and warned the other editor. I think that you should have sought external input over this earlier though - you're both in breach of the 3RR. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This person claims to be the founder/owner of the company. ANy actions I took were in the intersts of protecting WP. I'm sorry you think I was merely edit warring, but that isn't the case here. I did stop reverting the content once it was apparent he wouldn't stop, and I stopped revert his removal of the tags when it was apparent he wouldn't stop. I considered these separate types of edits, so I was counting 3RR separately. Consider me warned for 3RR in any case! I contacted you as soon as I noticed you being active on my watchlist, and I did contact WTAIR before that. I don't use ANI, as it's been a waste of my time in the past. Thanks for stepping in. Even when we disagree, I still respect you as an admin, and will continue to call on you as long as the door is open for me to do so. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries Bill - it was clear that you were editing to protect Misplaced Pages from someone who wants to use it to advertise their own company (which may not meet WP:ORG). The point I was trying to make is that 3RR is a black and white rule (the policy page calls it a 'Bright-line rule') and that repeatedly reverting anything other than clear vandalism, copyvios or the addition of libelous material can lead to a block, regardless of the reasons for the reverts, and that other admins may have imposed sanctions on both of you. I think that I should have gone into greater depth in my above post though as it was a bit abrupt. Regards, (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I consider myself warned! I'll be more careful in the future. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Articles

Hey Nick-D, i have been researching the East African Campaign of World War One and noticed that today someone created around 10 stubs about real battles that are all identicle and contain bogus information. Battle of Kibata (1917), Battle of Kibata (1916), Battle of Matamondo, Battle of Mkalamo, Battle of Kahe, Battle of Mpotona, Battle of Narungombe and about a half dozen more. It looks like they were all created by User:Starzynka. They all should probably be deleted as they all contain the same information and besides the names are completely bogus..XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there isn't a speedy deletion category these fall into - a battle is a claim of notability, and they're not sufficiently clear-cut hoaxes for the vandalism criterion to apply (they could conceivably be minor skirmishes or something, for example - though I think that you're right). I'd suggest prod deleting or AfDing them. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Germans did not come into contact with Portuguese forces until late 1917, many of the battles listed occured in 1916 and were in German East Africa fighting British and Belgian Colonial forces. The source listed on every single article is contrary to what is listed on the pages created. What is prod deleting?XavierGreen (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Nick. Xavier Green, a prod is WP:Proposed Deletion; take a look at what I've done to Battle of Mkalamo. Cheers and Happy New Year.. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot. Xavier, as that editor's talk page shows a number of complaints about creating content under the wrong name or duplicating existing content and they're creating articles on other topics which are unsourced but may be OK, I don't feel comfortable about zapping these as hoaxes at the moment - is the 1922 The Encyclopædia Britannica online? Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea you can check it out at ]. Every single one of the battles he created is likely a real battle. However all of the information is inaccurate as they were all fought before the German invasion of Portuguese East Africa. If you need more sources i can provide them. He literally just copied part of the infobox and the first line of text from the article Battle of Ngomano which i had just created today. The only thing in each article that is correct is the name of the battles as he took them from the campaign box where they were previously redlinked.XavierGreen (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'd suggest converting the battles which can be verified to redirects to the relevant campaign and prod deleting or AfDing the ones which can't be verified. This is very poor editing on Starzynka's part, but I don't think that it's something where admin intervention beyond warning the editor to not do it again is appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but why would you red link these battles if they were non existent? If they never happened who was the fool who red linked them in the template?. The last editor of the template, Xavier is to blame. It is very poor editing on his part that he didn't remove the "hoax" links. Try assuming good faith on my part.Starzynka (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The names of the battles are real, all of the information you put in them is false. The Germans did not fight the portuguese in east africa until late 1917. Virtually all of the battles you created articles for happened in diffrent places, different times, and with different belligerents than you have listed. Did you even read the source that you listed on each of the stubs?XavierGreen (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. But if the battles actually happened tagging them for deletion is pointless. Please quickly correct the errors and I hope they will develop into good articles.Starzynka (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that you created the articles, why don't you take responsibility for fixing them? Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been removing the prod tags, on the basis that I as reviewing administrator, cannot tell which ones were real and which were not. If the battles are real butthe description is wrong, just fix them, or redirect them to the correct article. If they are not real, take them to AfD with some evidence of that beyond your own personal knowledge of that.

That's pretty unhelpful DGG; as described above, every detail of the battles other than their name is wrong, and they need to be re-written from scratch. I hope that you help out with this effort. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Myself and another editor have removed the majority of the incorrect information. There is very little left in the articles, most simply only having the name of the battle and stating it was a battle of the German east africa campaign. So far only one of the battles has been verified by an additional source. The infoboxes are just empty shells.XavierGreen (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette noticeboard

Hello Nick, I just noticed that you commented on the wikiquette page and I was wondering if you could please look at my post about User Chhe. Thanks so much, Malke2010 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, too, Nick. I'll try to do better on this too. Note that the dude is banned from It.wiki for behavioral and editing issues. His poor language skills are just a part of his WP problems, but it sure doesn't help! I should have posted a note on the Bell 222 page the day I deleted his "contribution". I'll endevor to behave better myself. - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries Bill - you were pretty massively provoked by that editor. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

F-111B

Thanks for the kind words! What do you think of a separate article for the F-111C "Pig"? Do you think there's enough material out there to justify having it on it's own page? - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely - the delayed procurement of the aircraft was a major political scandal for about 10 years in Australia (the aircraft were seen as too complex and too American for the RAAF and they spent years in hangers in Texas due to technical problems), and this generated huge amounts of media coverage, and several books and chapters of books have been written on the aircraft's subsequent service (which is generally agreed to have been outstanding and well worth their cost and delays). An alternative could be General Dynamics F-111 in Australian service, which could also cover Australian use of F-111Gs and provide more room for the political issues surrounding the aircraft. I'd be happy to help out with either option. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember, the RAAF leased F-4s in the interim, and the RAAF pilots loved them, and wished they could keep them. Other than range and perhaps payload, the F-4 was probably a better aircraft in most ways. Interestingly, the F/A-18F is in some ways a modern F-4, and even goes by the radio callsign "Rhino", a common F-4 nickname, on USN carriers.

As to format and title, variant articles do often cover other models, such as the F-15E Strike Eagle's coverage of the F-15I, S, and SG. Granted the G will be covered on the main page too (unless we split off the FB-111), but I think it will work. Be aware that it took 9 months for this one to get done, and that is thanks to Jeff's hard work on the text. I can set up a sandbox page, and we can see how it takes shape. If we think it would work better as a history articel rather than an aircraft vartian article, we can always change the focus mid-stream. The CF-18 and CH-124 article both devote large portions of the articles to political issues, and I think they work quite well. I split the CH-124 Sea King page off of the

The sandbox is up at User:BilCat/Sandbox/General Dynamics F-111C‎. Also, do you have any ideaa when the F-111C retirement is scheduled for? I've seen 2010, but nothing more specific than that. I don't know how much time we have to prepare, but it might be nice to have the article ready for FA when it retires, or at least something suitable for "In the News". If it's sooner rather than later, I could make it a priority to get it to mainspace, but sheperding it to FA status is something beyond my current capabilities. I'm not trying to over-reach with the suggestion, but as I said, it would be nice, and a fitting fairwell, I would hope. - BilCat (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that approach sounds good Bill. The aircraft will be retired in December 2010. According to F-111.net, ceremonies to mark their retirement will be held on 2 and 3 December, so I guess that 3 December will be the last flying day. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That gives us a chance to get something done without haveing to hurry too much. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have specific questions, such as on specs, but we can discuss that at User talk:BilCat/Sandbox/General Dynamics F-111C. (And thanks for the help with the IP hounder - I did try real hard to behave this time!) - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SEA

I see the SEA taskforce tag for the template appears to not work - as it was a field of operation of its own - and is considered the actual source of the use of the phrase SEA as well - I have started a sub cat of mil hist of asia - which I consider an abomination of a category - I hope you support such a move - the cat tagging and management in milhist stinks - looks like no one has thought about it for years - cheers SatuSuro 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - most of milhist's category tree hasn't been maintained and there's scope for improvement. On the other hand, it is rather massive. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well who is the whatto of category trees in the project - or is it a default to nothing issue - theyre all interested in battles ? :) SatuSuro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also get rather nervous when I see things like - http://en.wikipedia.org/Military_history_of_Asia - is that really a viable item? I wonder whether someone needs to have a close look at items like that and have a good think.... SatuSuro 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the military history of continents series of articles are ridiculous. Military history of Europe sort-of makes sense, but all the other continents have had hugely diverse military histories (eg, what does the military history of Syria have to do with the military history of Japan?). Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the Asia category in milhist should be disassembled as a priority - see what I have done for SEA SatuSuro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I bit the bullet - so to speak - I would be very interested in your opinion as to whether it was the right way to go - please feel free to criticise the way I have gone if it seems the wrong way to do it - I am hoping for some intelligent debate to follow on from the proposals for deletion SatuSuro 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn the Afd and Cfd before it even got under way - I remain totally unconvinced that the issue will be resolved - it is a case of wait and see SatuSuro 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Batalyon Raiders

Would you mind taking a look at my investigation of this article and, as an additional admin, take any measures you see fit? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jclemens beat me to it. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Langley Flying School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Langley Flying School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Langley Flying School. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Help, please

Can you help with this? . This editor seems out of control. There's no reasoning with him. The threads have been archived by Jade Falcon. Please, this man needs a break from editing.Malke2010 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

delete

You proposed deletion on an article that I wrote quite a bit (prod). This is a similar article that is most deserving of your wrath. Consider removing your prod from the 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan and moving that prod to this one International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament JB50000 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for deletion yourself, though it would probably survive as the commission has been going for some time now, thereby generating coverage in the media, etc, over a long period of time. I didn't place the prod deletion on the Kevin Rudd article BTW - I merely endorsed it. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you are going to try to delete it in a few days? JB50000 (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete what? I personally think that the Kevin Rudd visit article should be deleted, but the article on the commission is OK. Those are just my views though. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Are you personally going to attempt to delete the article or seek it's deletion should an AFD be filed? This is important because I may not work on an article if I think someone is going to throw it in the trash. I will not call you nasty names if you do say this is your plan, but I would like to know. Thank you. JB50000 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but User:Timeshift has said that they will. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may add, articles cannot be summarily deleted except in spoecific cases where they are elligible for Speedy Deletion, such as direct copyvios, vandalism, obvious hoaxes, and the like. Prods (proposed deletions) are inteded to be a quick way to delete an article that is not eligible for a speedy deletion, but can be contested simply by removing the Prods. This sends an articel to the AFD process, were discussions are held to reach a consensus (not a vote system). Only if there is a clear consensus to delete can an article then be deleted, and that is done by an editor, often an administrator, that is not involved on the discussion.

Almost every experienced editor has had articles sent to AFD, and has had a few deleted that way. I have, and I'm fairly certain Nick has too. An AFD can be a painful process, for even though no editor "owns" wikipedia article, one still becomes quite attached to them, having spent a lot of time and energy in creating and improving the articles. SOme of this pain can be avoided by seeking opinions of experienced editors as to whether an artivcel should be created in the first place, of if the information would be better covered in existing articles. Be assured though that ab AFD is not generally an arbitrary process, and great though and consideration goes into the discussion. Even if an article is deleted, there is an appeals process if an editor still feels that the deletion was unwarranted. I hope this helps. Finally, look at this a a learning process, and learn what you can from it about how to improve articles. I learn more every day that I edit here, even though I've been here over 3 years.

Because the article does assert notability, and has 40 citations, I am removing the Prod. Whether or not the notability is questionable, or has not been sufficiently established, as asserted in the Prod, can be determined in an AFD, if one is filed. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Bill. I've had articles I've created and images I've uploaded deleted and it's not a big deal. In general, the system works well and articles sent to AfD are treated fairly - many editors have an aversion to deleting articles and look for ways to save them or at least to preserve the content in other articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Zulfiqar / Zolfaghar tank

Hi, I wonder if you could lend some aid at Talk:Zolfaghar (tank). An editor has spuriously renamed the article to Zolfaghar (tank) from the more common English usage of Zulfiqar. I have presented ample proof that it is the most common name, and the name that Jane's uses. The editor is now stating "I won't let you move the page back to Zulfiqar because it is a gross violation of Iranian Army's copyright". I'm unsure how to handle such an unhinged claim.

I don't want to edit war about this, is there anything you can do to help? Hohum (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just moved the article back to the original name. The name of the tank in the article's prose needs to be returned to Zulfiqar though. Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Abbott pic

I've had my concerns too but have tended to turn a blind eye to it... not to have a picture of the opposition leader considering how filled out oz pol pages have become is just obscene. Technically yes it does warrant investigation and potential removal. Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a side comment, I think the chances of politicians giving us a free photo are over-rated. Barnett is the only leader of any current or former Australian federal/state/territory government to expressely make the effort to respond and agree to a request for such an image as far as I know. Politicians like us know that wikipedia is also over-rated in influencing any votes... the people that that read politics on wikipedia tend to be more actively interested in politics and hold support for a party. If they don't see a benefit or they feel there's a risk then they won't do it. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The CC licence is not friendly to politicians as it allows photos of them to be used in any way and for any purpose. As a result, any photos they donate to improve their Misplaced Pages profile can legally be used and/or modified to attack them (though, in fairness, any politician who sent a cease and desist note to someone who was miss-using images from their website would probably end up being mocked in the media, so the copyright protections aren't of much use to them). I wish that Misplaced Pages had a more sensible attitude towards fair use/fair dealing image so we could use politicians official portraits. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this also. I've long believed our copyright provisions to be somewhat inflexible to the possible detriment of the encyclopaedia - what we have now promotes a paparazzi culture which would possibly be even more objectionable to the politicians concerned, and ironically a situation where we're far more likely to get good photos of second-string politicians than leaders and news-makers. Wikimedia Australia was working on a solution to this re federal politicians - I'm not sure how that is progressing. Barnett was a lucky strike in my case - I've tried exactly the same approach to around 20 politicians and gotten nowhere. Orderinchaos 11:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in a file for deletion discussion a while ago concerning the use of the official portrait of a senior and highly notable army officer in which an experienced editor argued that the photo was replaceable as someone could take a photo of her at the shops... Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese prisoners of war in World War II

On January 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese prisoners of war in World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interested / Slightly puzzled.

Hi Nick. Happy New Year!
I'm interested, and slightly puzzled, by your edit and its associated comment: ("revert POV wording").
No, I don't like the way the edit was done. (e.g. I think it would have been better as a footnote.) But I don't quite understand why you reverted it, (rather than edited it).
Could I bother you to / would you mind enlightening me? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an uncited comparison to what went on in Germany, and the use of "war looting" is POV without a strong cite to support it. Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's contested that the Soviets did that in both East Germany and Manchuria, but to lump in France/UK/US with it on the same level, I'd certainly disagree too. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the comments Nick; i thought i may have overdone it a bit yesterday but am glad to see people like the additions :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax/vandalism

Would you be interested in some vandal-slapping? :) See this load od hooey, and the previous edit. WHile I'm not that familiar with Australasian history, tehre are some clues here that this is vandalism, such as "weigh station", the Republic of Texas existing in 1873, and the phony Early Modern English. Most telling is the fake Stonewall Jackson quote from 1875 - we US Southerners almost worship the man, but even we know he died in 1863! Thanks, and have fun! - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bill - I just blocked them for being a vandalism only account. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

		2009 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "continuing "big picture" work, particularly achieving FA status for Military history of Australia during World War II, one of 5 FAs this year" and being an "fine all-round participant/reviewer", I award you this Silver Wiki. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 09:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! And congratulations to you as well! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have counting the facilities

I want to count the facilities.I want to count the total facilities and write correct figure above.I write month vise because if anyone will object my figure in total so i tell him the monthly fasilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan Dont remove that because that is only as temparary.I will remove when it complkete. And by the way now-a-days mstly i update that page so iif you add sommethig then add and dont remove the information from there. And if you have any objection on my counting, tell me.I count again.

That's original research and speculation - there is no guarantee that the news reports provide a comprehensive account of the number of fatalities. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I only count from month wise.The total facilities is wrong.I will proof if you please leave that game for 1 houur and then return.So i tell that total facilities is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.24.208 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You should not be counting anything, as you do not have comprehensive or consistent figures to add up. Please stop edit warring and respond to the discussion you started on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I only add in total 2009 facilities.And i will remove all data incidents like 2008.See the page.Facilities in 2008 have no data and no correct figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.24.208 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a direct citation for any totals (eg, a news article which states 'X Afghan security forces were killed in 2009', and not a figure you've added up yourself from what's in the article) it's original research and should not be added. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you computer or human being?I mean i said i count 2009 facilities by calculator in which total is slightly different 335 policemen and 175 soldiers killed.Slightly difference.Ok.I find news articles.Many times i find on many news that more than 700 Afghan security forces killed.I search again.

There's no need to attempt to insult me. Once again, you should not be making up your own numbers. Media sources do give total figures - use them, not stuff you add up yourself. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting me

I have commented on the talk page

Look it is simple, when you use Opvermans figures of 1 million in those he includes soldiers which he believes were shot whilst surrendering, that same figure for Soviet POW is 5 million ie soldiers estimated to have been killed whilst surrendering or in captivity

You can not on one side have Germans pow estimated killed whilst in captivity and on the other side only Soviet POW confirmed killed and ignore the estimated killed whilst surrendering, either you have both estimated killed whilst surrendering on both sides OR confirmed killed in captivity on both side, and not like it is now Gainswings11 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your additions are not suitable - please do not add uncited commentary to the article or uncited figures. I'm glad that you've posted on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are not uncited in Overmans book he clearly writes that his figures are ESTIMATED killed whilst surrendering.

So if I add that piece of text which is cited in Overmans book are you going to revert that as well? Gainswings11 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, as long as you include a citation for everything you provide. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, but that is what Overmans writes so can I just enter the text since Overman is used? Gainswings11 (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's directly supported by the source, yes. What you added didn't appear to be supported by the source, however. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is in the book by Rudger Overman he clearly writes it, and that is the book qouted. I will add the info in a few months or a year so that there is no question of me doing an edit war Gainswings11 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock

Does this help? If not, sorry to butt in. --NeilN 05:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user is autoblocked, such as if a named user was unblocked, but their IP address is still autoblocked, an admin can clear the autoblock by:

• Reviewing the list at Special:BlockList, and searching for the user's account name. This is a case-sensitive search.
• Identifying the #xxxxx number that is associated. If searching on this number, be sure to include the "#"
• Unblocking the #xxxxx by clicking the "unblock" link

Note that once the autoblock is cleared, the user's account name will no longer appear in the list.

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi Nick-D! Thank you for your work on the SPI case against the UrukHaiLoR account. During the collection of evidence, I have com across another account, editing in the same subject area, that has been registered by a user who very likely has run other accounts before, and this account may well be a sockmaster of other accounts. Furthermore, I think that Top Gun is a sockpuppet account, not a sockmaster. Do you have a clue how to find compelling evidence, and how to best locate possible sockpuppets? Thank you for any help you can give me!  Cs32en  04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that there are clear similarities in editing patterns you'd be best off filing a detailed sockpuppet report, including diffs as appropriate. I'm afraid that there isn't a magic bullet which can be used to confirm or deny that one editor is a sock of another. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that your reason for blocking is inappropriate. You don't really have any clear evidence that this user is a sock-puppet. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've detailed on UrukHaiLoR's talk page, the similarities between their and Top Gun's editing pattern are compelling, and go far beyond what can be explained by coincidence. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it at that, I still don't think the evidence is compelling, but I won't say anything more. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I have been working on this article based on the comments you made on the PR. I think I've largely done everything (although there are one or two places that would benefit from a little more work and possible copyediting), so can you have a general look over it and see what you think; I was thinking of doing something like this for the service history section (that's not finished, but I was thinking more about the basic structure), but I wasn't sure about whether it would be better than it is now. Jhbuk (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me, though the coverage of the ships' operational service may be too detailed given that this is an article on the class. I'd suggest that you discuss the main ways the ships have been used over time rather than include all their significant deployments (which in turn leads to the many routine, but incredibly important, training and operational deployments which didn't involve combat or a major incident being under-emphasised). Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've done something like what I was initially thinking of for the service history section, and I put it up for a GAR. I'm sure there will be some things that come up in the review, but I don't think they'll be so bad that I can't repair them if it's put on hold. Jhbuk (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I want to update this article but i cant because edit button is removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan So please add these in the article.And my request is please add the edit button in the article.

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

• January 10, 2010 - An Afghan soldier killed alongwith a US soldier and a British journalist in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.

• January 12, 2010 - An Afghan policeman has been killed and two others wounded in a suicide attack at a police station in south-central Afghanistan.

• January 13, 2010 - Various Taliban attacks in the country killed five policemen and 4 Afghan soldier.

Afghan private security guard losses

• On January 7, 2010, seven PMC's including the commander of Afghan security guards killed by a suice bomb attack in Gardez, the capital of Paktia province.

The article has been semi-protected in response to your edit warfare. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP block notice

Hi Nick! -- I agree that the IP should be tagged. However, the indef tag might mislead admins to think that the problem with the IP had already been solved. Regards.  Cs32en  10:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All admins should be aware that IPs can't be indefinitely blocked, and they shouldn't be operating on the basis of tags on user pages alone. I agree that the wording of that tag isn't accurate, but it's the standard in the template which places the IP in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Top Gun, which is of great value to admins. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a template that says: "This account has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of..." or "This account has been blocked on as a suspected sockpuppet of..."?  Cs32en  11:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 212.235.34.112

What do you think of the IP 212.235.34.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has made edits to two articles?  Cs32en  15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Top Gun, but the IP is a long way out of their usual ranges, and it's more stable than what they normally use. This could be another editor all together. I've watchlisted those articles though. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi Air Force

For some reason I can't recall and now regret, I've been watchlisting the Iraqi Air Force article for a few weeks. In the past week, several IP editors have been removing cited info from the article simply because they believe it's wrong. In addition, another editor has been changing hte roundels without explanation. I don't generally warn IPs, especially dynamic ones, because it's useless, and the other editor has been around while ,and yet keeps reverting. At the risk of being blocked for "revert warring", I thought I'd let you know on the way out (I'm done watching that article). - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bill; I've protected the article for two weeks, which will hopefully convince the IP to move on. Please note that articles can be semi-protected to protect them from troublesome dynamic IP editors who can't be properly warned or blocked (something I'm having to do a lot at present - I decided shortly after I became an admin that I wasn't going to donate to Misplaced Pages fundraising drives until IP editing was banned). Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The other editor was changing JPG to SVG files, and I stomped his edits thinking they were something else, as previously he had been adding an older roundel. That one was my mistake. Though his edit summary was "SVG", I didn't catch it. I'm also not donating to WP for the same reason, though if flagged revisions/protection are ever implemented, esp. on all articles, I might reconsider. - BilCat (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Drop me a note if you see any articles being vandalised by IP-hopping editors. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Found one already. Has a history of unexplained changes, and has been blocked before also. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And he did this one while I was writing the note! - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As the IP appears stable, I've blocked them directly for three months. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task force reorganisation

Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Taiwanese military history task force into the Chinese military history task force. Because you were a coordinator of the Taiwanese task force, I've transferred your coordinatorship across to the Chinese task force; redirects have been left in place on the defunct TF pages, but you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. All the best, EyeSerene 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for handling this reorganisation. As is standard for you, it's being done sensibly, throughly and with a great degree of civility. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why you always said to me to make a account?

I was making an account two months ago.But that was banned a week before.And yesterday i again make an account because mostly people on wikipedia said to make an account and that also ban without any warning. If you want to ban my account then why you said to make account? Anyways now i add information by other users on descussion because edit button is removed on many articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.171.59 (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, please block the above IP, as they're using the IP address to violate their previous block (see also). Kind regards, Spitfire 13:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why you all are against me?what i was done so why you all are against me.

I try thousands times to find unblock appeal but failed.I seriously want to say sorry and please forgive me.Dont angry with me.Please.One chance.Tell me rules of wikipedia.And tell me what rule i violate?Anyways please top blocking my user.And i doesnt know how to unblock so can you please unblock my user.I will tell you my username and password.Please accept my sorry and give me one more chance.And tell me rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.86.242 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request at RPP

Hi there. Could you have a look at the request at RPP to protect more Afghanistan related articles. I can't see the issue myself, but as you protected others, you may have better knowledge about the particular issue. I will also make the same request to Nick D. Thanks. GedUK  14:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are they all protected now? - the request seems to have disappeared. FYI, they're being targeted by IP socks of indef blocked editors User:Top Gun and User:Mujahid1947 Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got to RPP yet, that's my next stop. I'll see if I can find them in the history. GedUK  08:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They haven't been done, not sure why they were cleared (probably the bot, but i've not the heart or time to trawl the history!). I'll try and get to them today if no-one else does, once i've cleared the backlog, but a quick glance over most of them doesn't indiciate IP sockpuppetry on most of them, but i'll have a better look later. GedUK  08:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for bumping it. I've just looked into those articles and have semi-protected three of them. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GedUK  09:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sorry and forgive me and give me one more chance

Why you all are against me?what i was done so why you all are against me. I try thousands times to find unblock appeal but failed.I seriously want to say sorry and please forgive me.Dont angry with me.Please.One chance.Tell me rules of wikipedia.And tell me what rule i violate?Anyways please top blocking my user.And i doesnt know how to unblock so can you please unblock my user.I will tell you my username and password.Please accept my sorry and give me one more chance.And tell me rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.86.242 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That was all explained at User talk:Mujahid1947. Ceasing your block evasion is an essential first step to your block ever being lifted. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Republicanism in Australia

Nick, there seems to be a low-grade edit war occurring on Republicanism in Australia. Since you are probably more familiar with both sides of the argument than I am, would you mind taking a look? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bill; I've just protected the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: usertalk page protection

Yes please Nick, that would be greatly appreciated, just for about 4 days or so will probably be fine. Kindest regards, Spitfire 07:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spitfire 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Mujahid1947

Hi,

I see that I have received messages from the User:Mujahid1947. At this point I have not looked into why he was blocked.

But I did see that he is blocked for an "indefinite period". In my opinion, that is like asking for evasion. The user has absolutely nothing to lose by evading the block. If, however, one sets a time period of block for the user (with the period being reset everytime the user evades the block), that would both give the user incentive for good behavior and, while the user is waiting, give time to cool him/her down.

VR _talk 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the blocking admin, but concur with the block. Blocks for an 'indefinite' period are not permanent; they're only until the editor uses the unblocking procedures to acknowledge that they've done the wrong thing and provide adequete assurances that they won't do it again - this was in the instructions linked from the templated block notice placed on Mujahid1947's talk page. As a result, 'indefinite' blocks often end up having quite short durations (I've seen them resolved to everyone's satisfaction after a few hours). Misplaced Pages:Standard offer also provides block evaders with a way back. Nick-D (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then that is a point Mujahid should be made aware of (and perhaps others as well). I, despite bieng on wikipedia for quite some time, thought indefinite meant infinite. Thanks for the clarification.VR _talk 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should be using Gameboy1947's indefinite block as a reason to continue blocking him. He was blocked for a "disruptive user name" indefinitely on the first block. It was not explained to him, he was never given a chance to change his user name, and Mujahid is a real name. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The block was for "Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username" and at User talk:Mifter the blocking admin states that the user name was one of the less important reasons for the block. The blocking admin used the standard template which included links on how to appeal blocks but they responded to this by using IP accounts to evade the block and continue the behavior for which they were blocked, even after they were told that they needed to stop using IP accounts to have a chance at being unblocked - it wasn't until the articles they focus on were semi-protected (thereby stopping their editing) that he/she started using the proper procedures be unblocked and apologised for their behavior. Now they've made a commitment to stop adding uncited claims to articles in exchange for being unblocked they need to stick to it. I am trying to take into account the fact they they don't appear to be very fluent in English by providing what I hope is clear guidance and using relatively short blocks - as I noted on their talk page, some other admins would have indef blocked them at the first offense after the unblock. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't indefinitely block someone for the first offense. This was done because of the username. I wasn't aware the user was given a warning to stop editting by IP. I recall sending the user some messages via an IP talk page, but none were received until I responded to his messages on a talk page. IMO you're seeing bad faith where there is none. I've never seen someone blocked so many times, so quickly, for such minor offenses. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I think you are violating Misplaced Pages principles on doing what is best for the encyclopedia (see Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules). What if I type it myself manually? Would that be evasion? Bottomline is, I'm gonna to continue doing it every time--Againme (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how encouraging editors who have been blocked for some very good reasons is in any way constructive. If you want to help them out, refer them to Misplaced Pages:Standard offer. If they were to stop their OR, lying about sources, edit warfare, etc and committed to a single account they'd probably be welcome back. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Viceroy again

Nick, I posted a comment on the Talk:Viceroy page here on Jan 8; two editors have commented, but not User:Ajh1492. Two days ago, per the discussion on the talk page, I again removed the uncited portions of the article. Today, he re-added the content here. I again reverted (I hadn't thought of posting here instead, which is what I should have done), and I've also placed a warning on his page. I won't revert him again, but he does need to discuss this issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please prevent BilCat from deleting articles that have and have had perfectly acceptable references. It's vandalism on BilCat's part. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding unreferenced headers to several articles you most likely found on my contributions list. It's appreceiated, though I doubt it's in good faith, and is proablay a disruption to make a point. Regardless of your motives, it's not vandalism, and I'd apreciate the same courtesy in return. - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just performing an editing service for the entire Beechcraft, Bombardier, Lockheed and Boeing sections with the need of having inline citations. Hey, somebody needs to do it, heaven knows the Earth will stop spinning on it's axis if a wikipedia article does not have perfect citations. I'll keep working my way through light & heavy aircraft. Oh, and I am actually reading the articles, if you would have cared to read my comments on the edits. There's some rather good writing in the articles. I only deleted the one line that had a unref tag from 2008. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As this seems to be mainly content dispute, there isn't much scope for admin intervention at this point. I'd suggest using the dispute resolution process by seeking views from editors with an interest in this topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time or energy to pursue this matter beyond the discussion on the article's talk page, which the user has still not contributed to. By virtue of his continual reversion without discussion, and my desire to not e blocked again - which he apparently does not share - he wins. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi protect on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

So I recall in an edit summary somewhere that you semi-protected the page because it was being targetted by sock puppets of a user. I've been watching his edits for awhile, and all he does, that I can tell, is update the casualty figures. There haven't been any consistent malicious edits on the page by any IP. Now in a long post on the article's talk page, he says that he's sorry and he doesn't know what policies he violated or how to request an unblock. Are you sure you haven't misidentified this user as a vandal when he's really just ignorant of policy? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they're definitely the indef-blocked editor Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) (AKA User:Akhlaque1947) - see: where they admit this. The admin who indef blocked them placed the standard template on their talk page with instructions on how to request an unblock and they've been told what to do by myself (see above thread 'Please sorry and forgive me and give me one more chance') and other editors, so their claim that they don't know why they were blocked or how to request an unblock is bogus. The reason given for their indef block is 'Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username' so their editing is not harmless. As I noted above, I wasn't the blocking admin, but I concur with the block, particularly given the rampant block evasion. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we need the semi protect on War in Afghanistan (2001–present) now that User:Mujahid1947 has been unblocked? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - I've just removed it and the other related articles. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass prodding

I've just removed the prod templates from some of the articles you nominated for deletion in cases where there was a reasonable claim of notability and no material that would raise BLP concerns (beyond the lack of a reference). I'd suggest that you slow down and consider whether articles should go to AfD or take the time to look for sources rather than delete inoffensive articles on people who are probably notable. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick, these pages are getting mass-deleted, and not by me. Removing prod tags without improving the content does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. Please reconsider your haste actions on WP:BLP articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding prod tags without first seeing if it's possible to reference the content (including by chopping it back to a referenced stub or contacting the relevant Wikiproject) seems pretty unhelpful - deletion is meant to be a last resort, and not an easy way out. Articles about senior politicans and popular entertainers should not be nominated for deletion, and the use of prod templates rather than AfD seems perverse if the concern is that the person is notable but no-one is maintaining the article - if this is the case no-one is going to notice the prod and take action to fix the article, when this is a reasonable outcome to expect from an AfD of a notable person. I agree with most of your prod nominations I looked at (some of which seem to be for people for whom speedy deletion per CSD A7 would be appropriate), but applying this one size fits all approach is pretty unhelpful, especially as there is no urgent need to delete such inoffensive articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, prodding is certainly better than mass-deletion, which is what another admin is already doing. Many of the editors in the WP:AN/I thread you've just posted in proposed using prod instead. But you even oppose that. You're coming down on the wrong side of WP:BLP, Nick, and your mass reverts may end up in some sort of arbitation case. I again ask you to reconsider your hasty mass deprodding of "harmless" unsourced BLPs. I could understand if you were trying to improve these articles by adding sources, but you're not: you're just preventing clean-up of a major problem for the subjects and for Misplaced Pages, should it get sued for defamation. Please stop, Nick. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me or make baseless claims. The normal procedure for prod deletion is that any editor can remove a prod template if they disagree with the nomination, and this is what I've done (providing edit summaries to explain why in all cases). If you think that the articles I've de-prodded should be deleted, then the normal procedure is to take them to AfD and this is what you should do. There's no crisis, so please do calm down and use the usual procedures. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very calm, Nick. I want you to take responsibility for the WP:BLP articles you've just de-prodded. Source them, verify their content, do something with them. Just mass-removing dozens of tags on unsourced BLPs doesn't help their subjects and it doesn't help Misplaced Pages. Please do something about the BLP problem, Nick: don't oppose efforts to rid the project of bad, unsourced material that has the potential to ruin real people's lives. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not being calm at all - you are making stuff up about me on ANI for instance. You're an admin (as am I), so you can speedy delete any BLPs which are clearly harmful and where there's no good version to revert to (something I've done myself on a number of occasions). Where this isn't the case the usual deletion processes apply: please use them. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted many BLP articles, Nick. I'm asking you to take responsibility for the articles you mass-deprodded today. Source them, improve them, whatever. Just removing the tags won't help WP or their subjects. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom courtesy notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#BLP deletions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pleh. You walked right into a minefield, dude. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I support putting prods on BLPs that have existed for three years or more without being sourced. The prods have already generated some good responses. If any of them fall under MILHIST, I'm willing and able to help find sources for them so that they won't be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick, would you mind putting the author of this unfunny vandalism out of my misery? This IP is poart of a series of IP vandalism edits to the DC-10 ("Death Cruiser") and MD-11 (Mega Death) pages. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Wing RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

...your work here is much appreciated!!....Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)