User talk:Nick-D/Archive 16

Military Historian of the Year

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For "...still writing high quality content after all these years (including by [one] incomplete count at least 6 GAs, 4 As, and 1 FA this calendar year - probably others) and [your] ongoing work for the wider project via the Bugle (and elsewhere of cse)", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For you contributions to the Featured Article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, you are hereby presented with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

		The World War Barnstar
		For you contributions to the Featured Article Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, you are hereby presented with this World War Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any time for a review at FAC?

Hi, I have an article (very) slowly going through the FAC process: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Morgan/archive1. It relates to the 17th century privateer and politician Sir Henry Morgan. If you have any time to have a look, I would be very grateful, but I understand if your time is too limited to take part. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post a review during the next day or two. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

600 Battalion

It's obvious you only want certain facts out there. You cheat the public. I will no longer help you people out and trust me you guys need all the help you can get.Fury 1991 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

Cairncross Dockyard

I have added the coords for the site and some more pre-1955 photos. It would be nice to have a present day photo but I suspect that there is no access to the site (this does not look promising). Still if I can find a moment, I will swing past it and see if there is any opportunity to photograph it. Kerry (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the photos shows a ship under construction which has 419 on the side of it. Is there any way to identify the ship? Kerry (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Judging from the fairly distinctive bow, that's a landing ship tank and so is almost certainly HMS LST-419 which this usually-reliable site ended up in the Pacific after taking part in the D-Day invasion of France in 1944. I think that the 1943 date of the photo is wrong - the British Pacific Fleet of which this ship was presumably part of didn't start arriving on the Australian east coast until late 1944. The site include a photo of this ship with another British LST in Brisbane in 1945, with the same marking visible on its bow. Thanks for the offer to get a photo, though I came to the same conclusion when I snooped around on Google maps! Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And Trove of course delivers stories about HMS LST-419 being in Brisbane in November 1945 and January 1946. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

German casualties on the Western Front in 1945

Hello Nick-D,

The edit you reverted on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany was agreed with Wikipedia editor "Nihlus1", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihlus1#German_casualties_on_the_Western_Front

I explained to "Nihlus1" in great detail why the figure of "410,000 killed" on the German side, which is based on Rüdiger Overmans' Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, makes no sense and must be dismissed as grossly exaggerated.

If you have any arguments to add to those of "Nihlus1", please write them down in response to this message.

Otherwise, I kindly request that my edit be left as it is, in the interest of Wikipedia's quality of information.

Regards, --Cortagravatas (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a discussion which should have taken place on the article's talk page so that it was visible to all the editors with an interest in this topic. The statement that the casualties are somehow "unknown" is totally wrong: there are at least two reliable estimates, and you did not provide a reference to support a view that there are no figures. The usual solution to this kind of issue is to include all the reliably-sourced estimates of casualties in the article rather than to attempt to pick and choose between them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Are there really at "least two reliable estimates" of German casualties for the period covered by the article Western Allied invasion of Germany, which is stated to be "22 March – 8 May 1945"?

Actually there are no estimates at all covering specifically that period.

General Marshall's figure of 263,000 doesn't refer to the period from 22 March to 8 May 1945. It refers to the period from 6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945, or to a longer period (Marshall's report, which also mentions Axis deaths in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy, is stated to cover the period from July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1945).

For the period from January to April/May 1945, there are the following figures:

I) 265,000 killed and 1,012,000 missing and prisoners of war on all fronts according to Das Heer 1933–1945 by Burkhart Müller-Hillebrand, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#Das_Heer_1933.E2.80.931945_by_Burkhart_M.C3.BCller-Hillebrand;

II) 1,230,045 deaths on the Eastern and Western Fronts alone according to Overmans, thereof two-thirds on the Eastern Front and one-third on the Western Front according to that author (the two-thirds vs. one-third split, as I pointed out in the discussion with Nihlus1, seems to have been plucked out of thin air; a split based on the relation of casualties on either front between June and December 1944, according to Overmans' own figures, would be 78.29% in the East vs. 21.71% in the West). The resulting figure of about 410,000 deaths on the Western Front between January and May 1945 is everything other than a reliable figure. It is, to borrow one of your expressions, totally wrong. It is a glaring exaggeration at odds with all known evidence about the fighting on the Western Front in that period. The Amazon reviewer of Overmans' book who I quoted in my discussion with Nihlus1 considers the figure exaggerated by at least a factor of 4. I tend to agree, for the reasons I explained to Nihlus1 on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihlus1#German_casualties_on_the_Western_Front. I don't think there's a point in repeating my arguments here; please read what I wrote and let me know if you have anything to add to Nihlus1's arguments.

The bottom line is that, if the information "410,000 killed" is left on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany, the reader will be badly misinformed. He will be induced into believing that this is reliable estimate, when in fact it is everything other than that. And if he doesn't look up the footnote, as will be the case with many a reader, he will be further induced into believing that the figure refers to the period of 48 days between 22 March and 9 May 1945 and that during this period Allied forces killed 410,000 German soldiers (about 8,542 on average every day, go figure) while losing only (15,009 + 1,482 =) 16,491 killed of their number (344 per day on average), a fantastic kill ratio of about 25:1. Everyone who is familiar with the history of World War II in general and of the theater and period in question in particular (in which there was no longer much fighting on the Western Front as German troops were increasingly prone to offer but token resistance and surrender en masse, quite unlike on the Eastern Front where fear of the Red Army kept them fighting to the bitter end - in the final days many German soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front tried to make it to the lines of the Western Allies in order to surrender to them rather than to the Soviets) will acknowledge that this is utter nonsense, not supported by any evidence. It is hardly compatible with the informative purpose of Wikipedia to offer such utter nonsense to its readers.

The most accurate information that Wikipedia can provide to its readers in this respect is that German casualties on the Western Front in the period from 22 March to 9 May 1945 are unknown, because there are no reliable estimates (actually no estimates at all, see above) covering that period.

Considering the above, I hereby request permission to reintroduce the edit that I proposed, and that Nihlus1 has already agreed to. Regards, --Cortagravatas (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC). Edited --Cortagravatas (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As above, I have no intention of discussing this kind of stuff on individual editors' talk pages. For that reason, I started a discussion yesterday at Talk:Western Allied invasion of Germany/Archive 1#German casualties. As a note, if you want to include material disputing Overmans' figures in the article, you will need to cite reliable sources which make this argument and not your own views or those of Amazon.com book reviewers, given that Overmans is clearly a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why, that rules out any discussion, since no "reliable source" has so far undertaken to dispute Overmans' figure, if only because such sources probably don't hang around Wikipedia and thus haven't yet fully realized what trash "reliable source" Overmans produced.

I'd say you're taking a rather easy and comfortable way out of addressing pertinent arguments against Overmans' figure - they are either my own or those of the mentioned Amazon reviewer, so however logical and well-supported they may be, they don't count because they are not from a "reliable source", i.e. an "authority" on the subject.

Maybe you should bear in mind what Carl Sagan wrote about the value of an argument from authority, which is essentially what your argument amounts to:

"Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."

And I also duly note your conveniently ignoring my argument that for the specific period in question, 22 March to 9 May 1945, there is not even an estimate from Overmans. There is no estimate at all.

Anyway, I'll post my arguments against Overmans' figures on the Talk:Western Allied invasion of Germany/Archive 1#German casualties, so readers can see what nonsense Wikipedia is offering them claiming that it comes from a "reliable source".--Cortagravatas (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC). Edit: where I wrote "9 May 1945", read "8 May 1945".--Cortagravatas (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

OP RED HAT ongoing issue notification

Hi Nick-D, There's an ongoing discussion (part II) about the deletion restart and rollback of Operation Red Hat if you would care to offer us any additional guidance. Thank you much. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

HarveyCarter?

Quality posts here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm wondering looking at the contributions of this editor, whether they may well be the banned editor HarveyCarter. Would you mind taking a look? WCM_email 08:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest: I'm not very familiar with HarveyCarter's editing style in these topic areas. This might be one for SPI, where a bunch of sockpuppet accounts were recently blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive). 09:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about HC either. However, it's extremely doubtful that a new user's first post would be this lengthy FA critique. He's almost certainly someone's sock. - BilCat (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've made an SPI report, pinged you both. Would appreciate any feedback as I'm not very good at these things. WCM_email 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 6 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Hi Nick, I wonder if you could help or provide some guidance. In the recent weeks, I've been the subject of what could come across as wiki-hounding from anon IP users:

• Special:Contributions/69.172.198.206 (Editing KC winner articles: "Reverting mass removal of material by coffman. Warned multiple times by several editors to stop." etc.)
• Special:Contributions/104.237.138.234 ("...but you still ignorant. You've been engaged in edit wars with multiple veteran editors")

Edit summaries, idioms, concerns expressed and articles edited seem to be in line with editors who exhibited similar behaviour in the past:

• Special:Contributions/HicManebimusOptime (blocked at ANI: Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime)
• Special:Contributions/Stonedtower (accused me at the KC winner articles of "antifa political activism"; warned at ANI: Personal attacks by Stonedtower.)
• Special:Contributions/2602:304:CF64:1D50:C450:94C6:E4FA:34A0 ("It seems someone is censoring information due to some personal agenda???" -- this appears to come from the same cohort of edits, possibly from HicManebimusOptime)

Is it possible with the admin tools to see if these new IP accounts are connected to the users above? If not, perhaps there are other avenues I could explore? Or just ignore and carry on? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Only the small number of people with access to the checkuser tools can see technical evidence - admins can't do this. Checkusers also won't publicly link an IP to a registered account on technical grounds. Your best bet might be to lodge a WP:SPI report asking for an uninvolved admin to look into whether these accounts are linked based on behavioural evidence, with the report being supported by diffs illustrating the similarities. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll wait to see if this continues. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalingrad-class battlecruiser

Nick, I've reverted 94.213.112.113 twice now on this article. He's provided more detailed sourcing, but it does not support the change that he wants to make as far as I can tell. I've invited him to discuss his reasoning on both the article talk page and his own talk page, but I don't know if he'll respond in any other way than reverting me once more, which will break 3RR. Hope that you can keep a weather eye on this situation as a block may become necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Red Hat material move to MK/SEARCH?

Hi Nick-D. I believe I've determined where to move some of the biochemical research materiel in my Red Hat draft. I believe it belongs under MKSEARCH but many or most of the sources cited to support it do not directly mention MKSEARCH in relation to each of the subjects. I think I need some advice on whether it is a good idea to move it there or not or a better suggestion on where to move it to. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Indian naval air squadrons

G'day, Nick, sorry to trouble you. If you get a chance would you mind reviewing your comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Indian naval air squadrons and letting Krishna know if they have been addressed? In the spirit of helping out, I had a go at trying to deal with what looked like your final concern. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, I've just replied there. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Hi Nick, you probably saw this on my talk page (not sure why it wasn't copied here) but just in case -- I guess we'd better go through the links in the next few days to make sure they're still there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd missed that to be honest! I'll also run through the article to see if it needs a bit of a spruce up. I'm going to be out of town on Sunday and Monday, so I'm not going to be much use in counter-vandalism efforts I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find the new URL for the media release "Royal Australian Air Force squadrons celebrate new role", but the others seem OK Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find, tks for checking! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to see it today, "the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse", service in collaboration, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Julia Gillard edits

In relation to your message, it was not edit warring. Check the edits I made. They were not simple reverts; each time I added material or sources to address the concerns raised by the deleting user. Jane-526 (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

PS. I have now added a talk page section where the most recent basis for deleting the content can be discussed. Hopefully it can be resolved there. Jane-526 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New sock at Bain family murders?

Hi Nick-D, you may have noticed yourself, but a brand new editor has re-instated material you removed from the talk page which was posted by one of User:Offender9000's many socks. My guess is this indicates he is back again, but I wasn't sure how to re-open an SPI after it has been archived, so thought I would ask you if you are able to do so? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutralityadvocate (talk · contribs) another one. AIRcorn (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that User:Gadfium has blocked that account. I note that the blog of the person who Offender9000 has claimed to be (and who has seemingly confirmed this in the NZ media while trying to have another Wikipedia editor publicly named) has a very similar looking post on his blog [1]. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And another one. Whats the policy on protecting talk pages? Pending changes a possibility? Range blocks for that ip address? Or should I just continue to revert and ignore? AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've just semi-protected the talk page for a couple of weeks to stop this block evasion. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting Iazyges to FA

Hey, I know that you have a lot of experience with FAC, and was wondering if you would help me get the Iazyges article through it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help - though I don't know much about this topic. What kind of advice are you looking for? I'd be happy to provide a pre-FAC peer review if that would be useful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly you advice on if the article is ready to go or not, and if there's any specific things you think need to be added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll post some comments on the article's talk page over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South China Sea raid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article South China Sea raid 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Carter apparently hanging around at Norwegian Campaign

Hi Nick. Last year an anonymous user (using two different IPs) showed up at Talk:Norwegian Campaign (section "Pre-emptive strike?"), arguing for the addition of information claiming that Hitler "...had to invade before the British could seize control of the ports". Basically the wartime German propaganda tale. That, and arguing that British colonialism and the Blitz (who bombed whom first) is relevant in the context of the Norwegian Campaign. Now, another IP has shown up, trying to add the same claim to the article. Looking at the IPs, and their actions, this looks like it could be Harvey Carter. What do you think? Manxruler (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that does appear to be Harvey Carter for the reasons you note. I've blocked the IP. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

great white...

The thing about the Albany visit - it has been the only time that princess royal harbour had that number of ships of any form there at the same time - and I am not sure about the melbourne or sydney visits (not enough yet) to make separate stubs about the almost week long visits at each port - interesting is the coaling done at the albany stop - 4 ships of coal to get them stoked up for the trip to manila ! JarrahTree 03:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The visit to Sydney would probably warrant an article - it must have been the most powerful fleet to visit the city until the British Pacific Fleet in 1945, and the events around the visit were of a pretty significant scale. Great work with the Albany article. Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

nah scrappy stub (as always), trying to get some more Albany things up despite myself JarrahTree 03:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway

On 6 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that stockpiles of United States Marine Corps weapons and equipment are stored in caves in Norway as part of a Marine Corps Prepositioning Program? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article review process mentorship?

Hello Nick-D. I see that you have listed yourself as a "mentor" for people looking to obtain Featured Article status. I've written an article about Operation Grandslam, an uncharacteristically aggressive UN peacekeeping undertaking that decisively defeated the self-declared State of Katanga in 1963 and led to its reintegration into the (Democratic) Republic of the Congo, all part of the Cold War proxy conflict, the Congo Crisis. Altogether an obscure topic. It's already passed GA review and is currently being reviewed for A-class status, though the process has seemingly stagnated. Once it passes (or "if" it passes, to be politely skeptical) I plan on putting it through FA article review (it would be my first). It's already been looked over by a prose editor as part of the A-class review, and I've just about exhausted all the areas for which I can improve this article. There is perhaps some detail that could go into the "ONUC communications breakdown" subsection, but I'm not sure whether that is necessary... otherwise I've combed through every source I've found twice, and there is really little in terms of content and comprehensiveness that, in my opinion, escapes the article. A pair of fresh eyes would do it some good. If you have the time, would you care to assist? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to - with the proviso that I can't offer any expertise on the topic the article covers. I'll post some comments on the article's structure, prose, content, etc, over the next day or two. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Just like to let you know that I finished responding to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and sorry for the slow response to the review - I'll follow up later today. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-formal review request

Hi, per the excellent concept of FAC-mentoring, I wonder if you could have a quick read through HMS Levant (1758) and pass on any thoughts.

My last FA was about eight years ago, so I'm likely a bit out of date. I do wonder if the article is a little short, though there's plenty of recent FA's that are under this length. I also don't like ending any article with a quote, and appreciate there's varying views on how to represent elderly currency values in modern terms (eg. does inflation indexation have any meaning over 250 years, or should I find some relative examples like the cost of building The Greenwich Hospital, or an eighteenth century manor house).

On the other hand, the article passed Milhist A-class review, so perhaps I'm nitpicking. Views welcome on these or any similar points, if your interested and have any available time. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Sorry for the slow response: I'd be happy to post some comments on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no need for apologies, no particular hurry as there's a hundred more of these elderly ship articles for me to work on. Any comments on Levant very welcome whenever/if ever you have time. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

HarveyCarter sockpuppet

Hello, Nick-D. I'm pretty sure that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MikeyFinn is a sockpuppet of HarveyCarter. Interests, style, etc. He's been popping up like mad lately. If we counted all his edits as one account he would have lots, I'm sure. EDIT: found a IP address not blocked so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:638F:5000:E05A:7BA8:465C:A647 89.243.176.152 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that account does seem to be HarveyCarter Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Found a inactive sock -- aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MerillM and a recently used IPV6 address -- aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:638F:5000:807B:B579:8328:B324 Found an active IVP6 address today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:638F:5000:3901:6246:1DD5:8FB6 89.243.176.152 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

quack quacccccck

either a WP:SPA, or himself, or paid, or ?? [2] what would you do? I have left a COI template but have had to deal with so many individuals recently who seem to think they are in the position to fixup their own articles, not sure we dont need something extra to dissuade - a new template that is a hybrid COI/auto/whatever - JarrahTree 09:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That template is a bit wordy! I didn't know that it existed, and have previously written my own messages in similar circumstances (generally along the lines of 'it appears that you have a conflict of interest, please see WP:COI, and you may be blocked if this continues'. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it is found inside the drop down menu for talk pages of new users - and includes a range of templates - as part of Twinkle - 'welcome user' - which has about 21 various templates - some very useful, but ...

I have put the question at the national noticeboard - but suspect low interest JarrahTree 09:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

mail JarrahTree 07:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South China Sea raid

The article South China Sea raid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:South China Sea raid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation Leader - update

Hi Nick. Just dropped by to say that I've ordered some books which I hope will give some insight into the German perspective on Operation Leader. I should get the books within the next 2-5 weeks.

There are also some other books which I think might contain some useful info, and which I believe I already own. I'm currently looking around in my (slightly disorganized at the moment) book collection. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, excellent. I think that this article can be brought to FA standard with that material :) Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is the plan. :) Manxruler (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Got the books now. Just got to read through them and see what there is on the operation (going to take a while seeing as the indexing isn't very good). Will keep you updated. Manxruler (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Great :) Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands

After long attempts to reason with Johnvr4, he's split out of his userspace this section of the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat draft but continues to want his interpretation, wordings, and text to remain completely unchanged after it's been moved into the mainspace. Would you please mind taking a look at the article and, also, the end of the discussion at User_talk:Mark Arsten#Operation Red Hat again and advising me of any course corrections I should make? Cheers and best, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue rather than a content issue. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You both needed to notify me of this conversation like eight days ago! When did you plan to get around to doing that? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No we didn't actually. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Per advice from BrownHairedGirl, your response is technically accurate however, I would have appreciated it if you had.

What precisely are you basing your recent NOTHERE block suggestion on? There are sections above were you didn't respond to me (you don't have to). I've pinged you yesterday in several places for your review or advice as well. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope that you don't mind me being frank, but I believe that a block would be justified by your repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them (which is why I have ceased taking part in discussions concerning their content). Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff you want to publish, or that your approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your frankness. Now allow me to do the same. Stale complaints from back it 2013 when I was a rookie editor and didn't understand policy (including RSN) are irrelevant. Yes I used Nexus mag. I did that and I did not know any better then. What else do you want me to say? I was uncivil about it too. I am Sorry. Now there are sources to support nearly all of it and it's verifiable in reliable sources. So is the concern you have about Content or Conduct? A concern about conduct seems to be the concern of your focus but then throw "reliable article" that indicates some content concern.

Can you show me one unreliable article I created as a justification for your alleged concern? If you can't find one will you quit please repeating that assertion? I think what you are saying is that collaboration with editors who display an inability to listen and respond to the concerns...which is the very concern I have been raising and have pinged you in several places to review where that is happening now. Perhaps as part of the collaborative ethos, you could quickly help us resolve these problems?? The concerns you raised above had merit 4 years ago however the continued assertion of the same basic lack of understanding currently seems meritless and is unfounded unless you can show me where I made a recent attempt to publish an unreliable article or that material I want to publish, that another editor is fighting right now to put on the main space, doesn't belong on WP. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have in fact raised concerns about your recent articles in various discussions involving you. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that I in fact created a single one of the pages that you are referring to? Johnvr4 (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You should also know that Buckshot06 is content battling and edit warring in order to put BS into that article and I've stopped him (yet again). "From looking at the article's talk page" it "seems pretty clear" is that Mr. "But I have an advanced degree" has again pushed his POV while complaining about my editing. Above, you seem to be condoning it and egging him on. Since you said you've already looked and that you are basing your opinions on the fact that you did, Can we please take a fresh look at the talk page? The concerns (echoed above and elsewhere) seem...just extremely sad and pathetic and wrong given current discussion. Buckshot06's Strong views- which he's expressed on that content and on conduct appear at best misguided but remain meritless. Given the recent discussion below, Do you support his perception? You've consistently taken his side in our disputes and I need to understand why in order to proceed with that editor.

• Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands# Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV
• Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands# Confusion_of_1958-59_public_disclosure_policy_.28NCND.29_with_terrorist_cause_of_1970s_withdrawal_of_J-nuclear_weapons Johnvr4 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've warned you once about WP:PERSONALATTACKS, Johnvr4. Kindly please refrain from insulting me. WP:AGF is a core part of the way we do things around here. I would invite you to consider the possibility that Nick-D, BHG, Anotherclown, I, and possibly others have legitimate concerns about your editing POV and style. Please consider listening to BHG or Nick, even if not to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I warned you repeatedly about reading and verifying our sources!

Spectacularly, in your effort to correct me, you have only succeeded at insulting yourself. You raised the concern of MY POV and justified your own utterly faulty and repetitive edits citing your "strong views" and "advanced degrees". Quote: "And I have advanced degrees, so would be generally expected to be able to follow complex arguments." You were expected simply to Read the source and were asked to do that repeatedly! You apparently were wholly unable to follow that complexity and instead you posted a ridiculous message to my talk page (which I deleted) [3]

Given your repeated bogus assertions in using that source, the edit to my talk page appeared to be an exercise in absurdity which I wanted zero part of. If you took my reply to Nick as some personal attack then you should never had used that fact to support your own POV and failure to read our sources. Or respond. Or discuss. Or follow. Or understand.

Would you agree that you abused that source, then refused to read it further for verification and that responding to your message on my talk page would just be a waste of my time? (for emphasis)

"Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid. User:Nick-D, would you disagree? ... OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! " quoting [4]

You have destroyed your own credibility all by yourself.

Credibility destroying editing behavior is not all contained entirely in those alleged Terrorist threat links above either. Here is another example where simply verifying a source was entirely too complex for you... which resulted in yet another edit war and me having to hold your hand and then spoon feed you the sources that you claimed you had already reviewed- and which were already all over WP!! see:Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan# Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie Johnvr4 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

John, I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve through making serious personal attacks. You will likely be blocked if they continue. Please do not post on my talk page again. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth Police

Nick, I just stumbled upon the Commonwealth Police article, and saw the extremely long heading of A brief review of the world of the Security Service of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch! I wasn't intending to edit the article, but the heaading could certainly be shortened, though I'm not certain to what. The section is also no longer "brief" as far as the section goes, and should probably be converted from its current "proseline" format. Any thoughts or ideas? - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've had a go at shortening the title, though I'm afraid this isn't a topic I know anything about. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor issues

Nick, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Walther WA 2000#Article image is a fairly low-quality 3D rendering? This user has been replacing photos with his own renderings on several weapons articles, even restoring them when reverted. I haven't been active in non-aircraft military articles to know if all my reasonings in my responses their represent MILHIST consensus, and I may have missed some points too. I'm considering raising the issue at MILHIST if it isn't solved soon, so if I'm off, I'd like to know before that. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, My understanding is that this is a perennially-tricky article best handled on a case by case basis given that it's ultimately subjective (like you, I prefer a good photo in the infobox, but when these aren't available a graphic is great. But other editors have the opposite preference). In the particular example here the graphic does strike me as being superior to the not-great photo, though I might be missing something with the details of the image. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lucky Bastard Club

Dubious...yeah, just a bit. This is an educational assignment, and it needs work; the student needs to get on it. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

William J. Donovan

Hello, I noticed you removed the book, "A Man Called Intrepid: The Incredible WWII Narrative of the Hero Whose Spy Network and Secret Diplomacy Changed the Course of History" as a reference from William J. Donovan's page for being unreliable. Can you explain how this book is unreliable? Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, That book has long been discredited. There's some information on this at William Stephenson#Disputes. See also references such as [5] and [6]. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Gas as weapon - Allies

Re this revert.

Indeed. While the USA broke the Geneva Convention thereby (and thus producing the mustard gas and sailing this John Harvey ship was a war crime), it seems to have been widespread: Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I#Effect_on_World_War_II

So you were right. Zezen (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Commando

Nick please look at the 101st Airborne Division section I created on the Commando article talk page. I think I presented a good argument. Thanks.Fury 1991 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

Any argument needs to be supported by reliable sources, which isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nick the U.S. does not designate its units as commando. Don't you find it strange that the 101st is training commando units abroad? Look at the unit's mission. Any U.S. Airborne/Air Assault light infantry unit partakes in commando type operations. Besides, most of Russia's airborne units are in fact air assault. They are listed in that article.Fury 1991 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991.

Wong

Agree. (Thank you.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New Britain

G'day Nick, given your fantastic work on the Battle of Arawe article, I wonder if you have any plans for the Battle of Cape Gloucester or New Britain campaign articles? I've done a little bit of expansion on the latter today, although my efforts are pretty poor to be honest. I'd be keen to work on the New Britain campaign article with you if you have the time. It would be good to finally complete the topic (the campaign article and the final main battle). Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be very pleased to collaborate with you on the New Britain campaign article ...however, my editing activity is going to be a bit limited until mid-May due to RL commitments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick, no worries at all, thanks for your help so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I have finished on the article for a bit. Just saw your comment, hope I didn't step on your toes with the Cape Gloucester section. What I've written is pretty basic, so please feel free to rework it if you would like. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries at all! The article is looking great. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NAKFANS

Nick, as you've dealt with User:NAKFANS before, could you take a look at their edits to Henschel Hs 123 and my talk page? Competence in English appears to be a major issue. They aren't a new user, so semi-protection can't help here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've just posted a warning on their talk page. This seems an odd article to start a nationalist edit war in... Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! - BilCat (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Have you actually READ the comments and responses to her post? You're white-washing a major event and your editing presents an extremely false balance compared to the reality of *wide-spread* extremely strong opposition and anger in public opinion. You're doing Wikipedia readers a disservice to misrepresent reality with your overtly politically over-correct mischaracterisation of events. The request for more references is fine, but warrants tagging 'citation required'. It doesn't justify deletion. Given it's significance, it warrants its own section (apart from the fact it's a current event and can be moved once she says something worse again soon anyway).

[abusive comments apparantly sourced from Facebook removed by Nick-D]

14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and written in summary style. We also do not include material which is defamatory of living individuals, and block editors who violate this rule - please see WP:BLP. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Does not a claim of defamation, requires that it be a false statement? Can you identify the falsehood and please reliably evidence your claim? Your opinion otherwise appears at total odds with the plain facts available from the referenced link I provided in the comment above. A simple "citation needed" tag would have sufficed, or given how widely available the reference is, just to add it (as I'd intended to come back to do anyway). What more reliable source is there, than the platform that she made the public comment *on*, from her own verified account and the immediate replies in the same form and *on* the same medium? The almost universally highly negative responses are from a diverse range of accounts (including other Muslims) and number into the *thousands*. The source referenced the primary and a highly accurate source for the issue discussed. The link in my comment above references her original post and can be used. If my statements were factual (which I honestly believe them to be, and look forward to your explanation of why they are not), then is it not defamatory/slanderous/libelous toward me, to claim that I'm defaming someone with false statements? Regardless, my intent was to present facts, fully described. I don't see that it's emotive to simply observe, describe and capture for the record, the emotional response from the public that resulted and is clearly evident. An encyclopedia doesn't need to be devoid of such substance and factual observation. The requirement is that it's fairly balanced, on the prevailing evidence and importantly, avoiding of false balance - not completely sanitised and robotic. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

p.s. May I ask whether you're stalking me? I very rarely edit, yet appear to find you as the editor of my comments with extreme frequency, when it would seem appropriate to allow a diversity of editors. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that you're editing from a dynamic IP address I don't know who you are, and can't see how I could "stalk" you. Do you have a registered account? Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You avoided the original topic. But no I haven't had a registered account since Wikipedia first began and nor am I required to. Wikipedia editors are allowed a presumptive right to privacy, where they don't feel the need to seek personal credit for contributions. Content should be assessed on its merit without regard to its origin (unless originating from known open proxies, e.g. Tor exits, per long-standing policy). Regarding Yassmin and the ANZAC day controversy, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:WELLKNOWN "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". Yet even the subject acknowledged it. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page comment

Several years ago I asked you to leave my talk page alone because of your underhand conduct; you're at it again, stop it.Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm at fault for you posting totally unacceptable material, edit warring and getting called on it. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your allegations are false.Keith-264 (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your conduct was obviously not acceptable: [7], [8] [9]. It's highly concerning that you seem to think it's OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:game Do you deny the facts or do you want a citation for the term pogrom? Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

[10] ?Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? That article is referring to actions by Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and is a proper use of the term. The Flechette article references IDF military actions, not civilian rampages. - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That Olmert used the term pogrom is the point. Let Nick D speak for himself, it's his talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Olmert wasn't referring to military action. Since it's Nick's talk page, I'll let him tell me my comments are unwanted. - BilCat (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

OK Norman Pollack [11] Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's still not a neutral term. Usage of pogrom would be better discussed in an article specifically about Israeli incursions into Gaza, not an article about flechettes. If someone called the LTTE terrorists in an article on the IAI Kfir, I'd change that as being non-neutral, and have done exactly that on several occasions. If you honestly think "incursions" is too mild a word, then you're welcome to suggest a stronger but still neutral phrase. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion but I'm not interested in it, I have a bone to pick with Nick D for his second example of underhand behaviour and I want to resolve it to avoid a third. Comment as you please but I will wait for Nick D to respond. Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Good luck. - BilCat (talk)

Eythenkew! Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Irie. - BilCat (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add here: labelling the actions of the Israeli military a 'pogrom' is obviously inflammatory and unacceptable. Doing it under a misleading edit summary and then edit warring makes it even worse. If you want to ignore my comments, so be it, but do note that many admins would have blocked you for this trolling. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is it "inflammatory and unacceptable"? Is it because zionist crimes are immune to terms which describe them for what they are? You can fairly criticise me for reverting too many times, I was a bit lazy in my timing. Now you're digging a deeper hole for yourself by yet again treating your inferences and allegations as facts. Poor, very poor. Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a page

Dear Nick-D,

As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.

I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources:

If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.

According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia. Aozolins-golin-riga (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

So you want me to write an article for free for a company you're being paid to advertise on Wikipedia? (and which I note has had articles repeatedly created and then deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creamfinance). Do you think that I'm a moron? Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Who are all the MILHIST A-class coordinators?

Who are all the MILHIST A-class coordinators?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors elected by project members - please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I was hoping you're one of them, so you could close the A-Hist review. I'll ping a couple more, not everyone. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not at present. The coordinators page has details on how you can ping them as a group. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • No, that would be overkill. Forex, I know for sure that Dank stays pretty busy... I added a couple names. Thanks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"

Hello, I nominated "Battle of Prokhorovka" for Featured Article. Thought you might be interested. EyeTruth (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A-class review

I've pinged you at the A-class review of M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle. This is just to remind you of this just in case it did not pop up.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Today's values

Re your reversion of my Charles Bean edit: there were two reasons for my edit: the word "pound" is slightly confusing if not ambiguous, and most casual readers would have no idea whether ₤15 was miserly or generous, and giving a value of $4,000 (or $2,000 if you will) puts it into perspective. You're right if you say that such conversions cannot be precise, but not meaningless. Check the price of men's clothing in 1917 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/105383968 and for that commodity my figure is not too far off. Doug butler (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The Reserve Bank of Australia's inflation calculator actually puts the conversion of the currency between 1915 and 2016 at around $A1,500. But that's only inflation, and few serious historians attempt such conversions given that changes in the price of goods can be quite different (for instance, the price of clothes may have been relatively much higher or lower in 1915 than they are today). Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy

Hi you recently closed this discussion with the comment that there is no need to take redirects to an Afd. I had originally carried out a WP:BOLD redirect and was reverted by another editor. The article had already been edited as a redirect in 2004 and despite minor modifications stayed a redirect until April 2017 when unsourced content was added. I then recreated the redirect and was reverted by a user who opposed the redirect; There had been no discussion on the talk page before creating the redirect in 2004 until this user chimed in. My rational in creating the Afd was to have a discussion and a decision by admin and so end the problem. Is there another way of doing this so as to have a discussion and decision without going through Afd? Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, It would have been good if you had mentioned that history in the AfD nomination instead of presenting this as an uncontroversial redirect proposal (for which no discussion is needed, though WP:BRD applies). Unless someone asks me to, I'm not going to re-open the AfD as it's not necessary. More broadly, you could have used Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes to seek broader input before going to an AfD, which isn't really the most suitable place to consider things other than deleting articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right but seeing the comment this IP user left on the talk page "I oppose the merge. Embassy is an important article. It's like merging the article eagle with bird. Embassy exists in over 20 other Wikipedia languagues. It is unthinkable it doesn't exist in english" and his comment on the edit "Seriously? 2004 when Wikipedia was new... I oppose it now.." I was more or less convinced that it would end up in an edit war as his comments were so categorical and overtly confrontational. In my experience (a lot less than yours of course) a user that leave these kinds of comments and has not created a profile is rarely open to discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Answer

OK, I confess I have not disregarded what you told me to disregard. I confess I was bending over backwards to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible and to assume good faith where maybe there wasn't any. I understand your point, and perhaps it was a mistake to be so generous. I have amended my remarks, though it may be too late for that to have any effect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries James. Thanks for reviewing the unblock request. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Waleed Aly edits

hello, i noticed you edited my additions to Waleed Aly's page. whilst i maintain my opinion that my edits were appropriate to present an opposing side to a person who is a controversial figure, i understand that it may not have been well received, and i respect your decision as an experienced admin/editor so won't re-edit on that. could you please help me to understand your comment on OR/SYNTH? i found the wiki page on SYNTH but i don't know what OR is. thanks and appreciate your work and attention. Wenyewlee (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Wenyewlee: See WP:Original research. - BilCat (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please also see WP:BLP, and note how seriously it's taken. We don't add material to articles to "present an opposing side" to individuals: coverage needs to be balanced and proportional, and editors who violate this will be blocked. The material in question here was your own commentary alleging that Aly was mistaken in his views on ISIS' weakness as the organisation had mounted several terrorist attacks, not supported by any references making such a comparison (I note also that in the same timeframe ISIS lost most of the territory under its control and generally achieved nothing other than murdering innocent people). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarify

• 217.32.208.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Nick-D. When looking over your AN3 report I see that this IP has been previously blocked for evasion. Are you aware of him using other IPs or accounts that I should take a look at? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I'm not familiar with their earlier history I'm afraid @K6ka: can you remember who the alternate accounts are here? Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Probably this one 94.174.176.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the two IPs share an interest in military matters, it's easy to believe that they could be the same person. The first IP has no edits since February. If the person behind these IPs has moved on from one to the next, then there is little point in blocking the first. We will just have to be alert for similar edits showing up on articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Vichy North Africa

Thank you for your knowledgeable and smart comments about political and geographical distinction!

Have a wonderful day!Henia Perlman (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries - happy to try to help. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Australian_Defence_Force#Update in progress

Any thoughts on the status on the article? Would be nice to run such a high-level article at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I need to update some stuff for the recent Australian Government budget, and it should be TFA-ready. Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, it's too important to keep it off the MP forever! - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much. I've got it scheduled for 24 July. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Promoting Sarawak to featured article status

I noted you have experience in contributing to featured article on Battle of Labuan. Therefore, I decided to ask you for help on this one. Sarawak, located on the northwest Borneo, was a former British crown colony from 1946 to 1963. This article is just a few steps away from becoming the featured article status. Would you help to do either a general review/source review or an image review for this article so that it can achieve the featured article status as soon as possible? Any help is very much appreciated, thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, If time permits I'll try to look into this review on the weekend. As a quick comment, I'm surprised that the 1945 Australian-led operations in the region are now totally omitted: Operation Semut was largely conducted to prepare for them. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Australian forces carried out operations on Sabah, Labuan, and Brunei Bay through Operation Oboe Six. There is no documented operations by Australian forces in Sarawak except for the official surrender ceremony at Kuching aboard the Australian Corvette HMAS Kapunda on 11 September 1945 (one day after official surrender ceremony at Labuan) as shown in the article History of Sarawak. Would greatly appreciated it if you are able to find any info regarding the activities of Australian forces in Sarawak. Thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I might be getting my geography confused, but an under-strength Australian Army infantry brigade operated in the Miri region in the last weeks of the war. Please see chapter 20 of the relevant volume of the official history, which is available online here. It also includes some interesting material about local civilians who the Australian special forces had led to be believe were about to be liberated felt let down when the Army units didn't push far into the interior. The map in the Battle of North Borneo shows the movements of the Australian Army force. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will look into this. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not suggesting that the article needs much coverage of this at all by the way - a sentence would be the most justified given the level the history section is written at, and I imagine that it could be covered even more briefly. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added the extent of Australian operations in Sarawak and the liberation of Batu Lintang camp. Cheers. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe that all the comments you have raised in this FAC have been addressed, either by me or by Cerevisae – do you agree? Once again I apologise for any offence I have caused with my premature replies. Sorry! Parcly Taxel 00:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D#top and Parcly Taxel, thanks for helping in making this article a featured article. Sometimes, people to make mistakes. Cheers! :-) Cerevisae (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2017

Nick, I need another military history article for July, and Ian doesn't want me to run articles that rely on AWM sources for now (see my talk page). The only thing suitable at WP:FADC is McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk, for the 19th. I remember people were happy with the article; does it need updating? - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Btw, it will be the 50th anniversary of the first RAN flight of this aircraft. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good to me Dank, but wouldn't it be problematic running two Australian military articles (this and Australian Defence Force) in quick succession? I'd suggest running with A-4G by now, and delaying the ADF article a bit. The A-4G article is up to date, and I reckon it's one of my better efforts so I'd be very pleased to see it take this slot. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What would you suggest? - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest running the A-4G article on 19 July (to mark the anniversary), and bump the ADF article back by a few weeks. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

To what date? - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a preference Dank. Anything from mid August onwards seems sensible to prevent too many Australian military TFAs. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

How about 11 November? For Armistice Day, it would be nice to have a top-importance article that hasn't run before. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"German Reich"

I understand that the term "Third Reich" may be seen as a Nazi propaganda term not used by serious historians, which I don't happen to agree with. But the term "German Reich" is ambiguous. It could easily refer to the Holy Roman Empire or the German Empire after unification. In fact thee term Reich still today can refer to the Holy Roman Empire, like the term "Reichsfreiherr." I think we should take the matter to arbitration.

New account 2 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagreements about article content are almost always resolved through article talk page discussion. Let's keep this at Talk:Adolf Hitler. Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, when do you want to take it to dispute resolution? New account 2 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How can 220.101.15.161 still edit?

Hi Nick - just reverted IP:220.101.15.161 for more DOB changes on the Paul Hogan article. But I am confused. Isn't that IP blocked?Nickm57 (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The block on that account expired in May. I've just re-blocked. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF as TFA

G'day Nick. I've suggested No. 1 Wing RAAF as a TFA on 1 September, which is about to open for nominations. Happy to make a start on a blurb if you're busy. Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it already had been TFA! 7 October might be a better date - it's the 75th anniversary of the unit being formed in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it hasn't. There are several RAAF units that are still to run. 100th anniversary of its first creation or 75th anniversary of its second creation... I'll move it to 7 October as it was more of an operational unit in WWII. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer: I hadn't nominated this one as I thought it had already had a run. Thanks for the nomination! Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

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 review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hornet Syria strike statistics

Gday Nick. I think there may be an error in this sentence recently added to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service: "Overall, No. 81 Wing conducted 1,300 sorties over Iraq during which 1,209 munitions were released and 673 sorties over Syria in which 482 munitions were released." Specifically the number of sorties and munitions for Syria seems a lot higher than I think it actually is. I do agree that the cited source (the current version of the Department of Defence Okra website) supports what you have written; however, it seems there is actually an error in the source itself. A while ago Defence seem to have split the statistics from one multi-year page into one page for each year and at the time the titles of a couple of the tables seem to have become muddled (I noticed it then when they changed it). For instance the 2015 ATG Statistics here [12] includes a table here titled "F/A-18A SYRIA" which lists 653 sorties and 444 munitions. Yet I think it actually is meant to be for Iraq. Likewise the table on that page labeled "F/A-18A IRAQ" which lists 28 sorties and 23 munitions is probably actually for Syria. Compare these statistics to an archived version here [13] to see what I mean. This would make a lot more sense given my understanding that the ATG main effort is Iraq. Not sure what exactly can be done to rectify the issue given that this is the only source available as far as I can tell. I hate to identify a potential problem without providing a possible solution but I'm no longer in a position where I could easily contact the appropriate people to clarify the source, anymore than any other member of the public that is. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Its a bit of a tangent, here is a source [14] for Iraq being the ATG's main effort. Anotherclown (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this - I agree that the figures seem to be jumbled up, with the 2015 figures for Syria almost certainly really being for Iraq (I remember seeing some stories noting that the ATG ended up flying few missions over Syria after the Government announced that they had commenced. As there is only one source on this topic, I'll tweak the text to combine the figures for the two countries. I might also see if Defence has an email address to use to report problems with their website... Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, that solution looks good to me. I guess I should have done something about it when I first noticed the issue on the Defence website a while back but I just assumed those responsible would have noticed (proving what they say about assumptions and posteriors). Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

For what its worth I've contacted them about it now. Will see what comes of it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

From my (limited) experiences in government website publishing, it does seem surprising that this slipped through the approvals process! Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW it looks like the error has now been corrected [15]. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent - I'll update my Excel, and add the correct numbers. Thanks for following this up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 17 Milhist article reviewing

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 9 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Quick question

Hello, Nick-D,

I recently reverted this edit as vandalism and marked my revert as a minor edit, but @SPECIFICO: admonished me for doing so: "Marking substantive edits as 'minor' is disruptive. Please also review the meaning of WP:VANDALISM and do not misuse the term in edit summaries." Therefore, I decided to ask for an admin's input. Is the IP edit I reverted not the textbook definition of vandalism? Was I pretending to revert vandalism and marking my edit as minor as a mere pretext, thereby being "disruptive"? Or should SPECIFICO try harder to assume good faith? Thanks for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit in that diff is obviously vandalism, and can be reverted at any time. Using the rollback tool in this circumstances would have marked the edit as minor, so it seems OK for similar manual edits to be marked as minor. I presume that SPECIFICO's concern is the re-addition of the paragraph of material stating the book's argument - it would be preferable to clearly this material as such rather than leave it for readers to try and work out. But they appear to have missunderstood your edit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nick, I've been pinged here, so I am going to comment. While some of the IP edit is either incompetent or vandalism, the IP's removal of the dustjacket blurb in WP's voice is not vandalism. The edit comment of "revert vandalism" would mislead editors into skipping scrutiny of the reinsertion of that paragraph. Marking substantive edits as "minor", even if parts of them are obvious improvements or uncontroversial, is disruptive and misleading to other editors who are trying to monitor and improve the articles. I don't suggest that you disagree. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I do disagree with you to be honest. I don't really understand why you're construing TheTimesAreAChanging's edit in such a negative way ("disruptive" "misleading to other editors", etc), especially as the first part of the article appears to comprise this kind of stuff. Simply re-remove the para in question if you don't like it - I'd also suggest revising the similar material while you're at it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Gloucester

G'day, Nick, hope you are well and having a relaxing weekend. I'm trying to get myself out of my writing funk at the moment, so I've tried to expand Battle of Cape Gloucester today. Given your work on Arawe, Jacquinot Bay, and the campaign article, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a quick look at my efforts? If you have anything you'd like to add or correct, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is looking in good shape. I only know a little bit about this particular battle, but have made some tweaks. As a comment, the 'background' section could make it clearer that the Allies planed this operation well in advance as one of the key elements of Cartwheel: it reads like it developed fairly quickly at present. The article could also make the Japanese intentions clearer: they regarded western New Britain as not worth defending due to the mistaken expectation that the Allies would assault Rabaul (from memory, the US Marine official histories make particularly good use of Japanese sources). I'm going to be out of town for a week from today, but will be happy to contribute here when I get back if it would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, safe travels. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your block of User:Mypuppywinston

Hi Nick. I'm a bit bewildered by this block and am wondering whether I'm missing something. As far as I can see, you blocked this user without discussion for a single edit (actually two combined edits) which described the journalist Malcolm Farr as "left-leaning". Blocking for WP:NOTHERE seems to be a bit of a strong response - usual practice would have been a warning and a revert. I also can't see any noticeable history of disruption on that article, which might have made this user's edits part of a larger effort to brand Farr as a left-wing journalist. I'll confess to being unfamiliar with Australian politics (it may be that Farr was the subject of some sort of right-wing harrassment or something) but at face value this block seems disproportionate to me. Would you mind elucidating on the thinking behind it? Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

From memory (given that this block was imposed about 9 months ago), I imposed this block as it was a BLP violation-only account. Their only edits were to declare a prominent and well regarded political journalist to be biased, providing no sources to substantiate such a claim. I think that some similar disruption was going on in related articles at the time. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see that this editor is appealing the block, and continuing to violate BLP as part of it (the references provided are to an obscure self-published work, and the not-reliable crikey.com). This is a SPA whose only purpose for wanting to edit Wikipedia is to attack this journalist. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged. Being something of a filthy socialist myself I don't regard being called "left-wing" as an insult, but I see your point about accusations of bias (and yes, those "sources" really don't cut the mustard). I've declined the appeal, with the proviso that they can re-appeal in future with more information about their intentions. Thanks for your help! Yunshui ^雲_水 08:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Und wieder Ich gebe auf

Again- I give up. I have other WP projects so I don't want trouble. Hopefully the article will improve with others less obtuse than me. I do appreciate that you let me change one little thing- moving the "fan-boy" reference. Cheerio wherever you are... Jeff ThurstonMakumbe (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

COI on Ukraine Air Alliance

Nick, do you know of an admin who is good at handling corporate COIs? An editor, User:Denis uaa, claiming to be the CFO has been edited at Ukraine Air Alliance. I've reverted, and given a COI welcome, but further help may be needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That edit summary is pretty eye-popping! I'm not sure if I'm 'good' on these issues, but I am experienced with them. Your response is spot-on. I've watchlisted the article, and would be happy to follow up if necessary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that summary got my attention too. Thanks for whatever you can do. I'm going to offline for several hours. - BilCat (talk)

From looking at the website for the list of airlines banned in the European Union, no firm of this name appears on it at present. I can't find a reliable source confirming that the ban has been lifted though. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation Falsificaiton

[16] Inserting silly claims into an article about 400 Chinese laundrymen in the task force. The citation is clearly false as it covers the RFA from 1905 - 1950. What do you suggest we've had problems with this editor before and he always edit wars. WCM_email 16:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest reporting them at WP:AN3 if the edit warring continues. The reference (a reliable source), says that there were 400 HK citizens in the RFA in 1982, of whom "most" were involved in the war, so the figure isn't correct. As I understand it, the Hong Kongers made up part of the crews of each vessel, and not the entire crew as this text implies. They also served in more roles in the RFA than just laundrymen. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Review of Kingdom of Greece

Hi! I recently saw that you're a mentor, and I was wondering if you could take a look at this and suggest any improvements regarding everything. I have nominated it for Good article (I was planning to nominate it for Featured) and your help is needed, since you are interested in history.

Thanks a lot. --Morretor (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post some comments on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

MfD debate

At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat I have nominated Johnvr4's stale userpage for deletion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Taste, opinion or policy

Not sure which tagging is the most appropriate for Australian current or historical items, and am wondering if you have any ideas:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Military_installations_in_the_Northern_Territory
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Military_installations_in_Western_Australia

- there some that have task force inside australia tag, and the larger project as well - and some with no task force inside australia but the larger project and so on - the problem is whether it matters; or whether one is better than another - and as title says it is specified or not.JarrahTree 00:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Those tags look fine to me (though I can't say that I've ever tagged a category). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry the question should have been stated better - is it ok to include the larger milhist project as well as the task force, or is the task force sufficient in itself - or do you know anyone who is into project tagging in milhist who might have an opinion ?

There is an inconsistency on my part and others - as the variants might confuse an outsider/uninvolved person - as to whether to direct a query to the task force or the larger project - may seem trivial - but a consistency helps the general ambience of things in the end JarrahTree 01:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The task forces should probably be tagged, though most are defunct at present. The force talk pages have been redirected to the main WT:MILHIST talk page, where any queries will attract a prompt response. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting the same in Med - basically the task forces were set up but were more or less abandoned on set up - which makes sense of the incomplete nature of the 'back end' of the task forces - thanks for your explanation - this indeed will help project tagging - thanks JarrahTree 01:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The task forces were active many years ago, but were basically disbanded when most became inactive and queries on their talk pages were going unread. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Page - Julian Langworthy

Hi Nick. A page that I had begun to work on last night was deleted. This One. It was stated as not being of relevance or importance. The page was about a person who is an Australian winemaker and who recently won the highest honour in their field, the Jimmy_Watson_Memorial_Trophy. Other pages such as Peter Gago are listed for people who have not won accolades of this importance. can you please explain what i can do to get this over the line?

Thanks a lot. --oldpapacrawfs (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The article did not make any claim of notability concerning Mr Langworthy nor (and more importantly) indicate that he has received any significant coverage in good quality and independent reliable sources as is required by the relevant notability criteria, WP:BIO. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Wiki states that the following is an acceptable indication of notability "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." so i feel that the award I'm talking about satisfies the notability criteria. If i can reference a number of other articles online from industry sources about his success and other accolades that he has been nominated for, does that satisfy your second issue? Oldpapacrawfs (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability is dependent on sufficient coverage of the person in reliable sources which are independent of them, and not mentions of them. The website for the trophy indicates that it is awarded to wineries, not individuals: [17] with media coverage also reflecting this (Eg, [18], [19]). As such, I don't see how it helps establish Mr Langworthy's notability for Wikipedia purposes. It's notable that the WA Today story on the 2016 award only contains a photo of Mr Langworthy, with its caption stating that he's pictured was with the wine which won the trophy, not that it was awarded to him personally [20]]. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

FAC review request

I was wondering if you'd be willing to provide feedback on the German destroyer Z39 article FAC, because you were a reviewer in its A-class nomination. Thanks! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Request block of User:Johnvr4

You may wish to comment at the AN/I. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Split Focus Films

Hi Nick-D

I'm new to using wiki, so was wondering if I could get a detailed explanation for the deletion of my post?

Many Thanks,

--Andynile95 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The article provided no indications at all that this company met the relevant notability criteria, as set out at WP:ORG. On further examination, it is also really spammy and I will block this account as being an advertising only account. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich

Hi, why do you consider the phrasing to be inappropriate? I actually copied it from the work of William W. Momyer, "Case studies in the achievement of air superiority" 2005, p. 299 :

In the first quarter of the year, the Luftwaffe lost 4,107 airplanes destroyed or missing on all fronts; in the second, 5,541. Luftflotte Reich and Luftflotte 3, the organizations defending Germany and occupied western Europe, lost 733 aircraft in January. The total rose steeply in the ensuing months to 931 in February, 1,070 in March, 1,216 in April, 1,267 in May and 1,431 in June. In March, the worst months for German fighter losses in all theaters, no less than 56.4 of the total fighter establishment on hand at the beginning of the month was destroyed. Regards Dircovic (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, My concern is that the Luftwaffe wasn't 'defending' western Europe: it was part of the murderous German occupation forces which the locals desperately wanted rid of. As such, it's best to avoid such wording. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. It was not in my intention to stating it otherwise. However, I still think that the current choice of wording is suboptimal; Allied Air Forces already operated deep in German homeland, and German fighter pilot losses were about equal as heavily as over western Europe. Regards, Dircovic (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion over Johnvr4

The debate over the topic ban on Johnvr4 appears to have been archived without a decision being taken. Can I appeal for a formal closure, do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea - there was sufficient consensus for a topic ban. WP:AN might be the right forum to ask for an admin to action this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the No. 1 Wing RAAF article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 7 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 7, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick, for "the best-known Royal Australian Air Force fighter wing of World War II"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Fringe?

See this. I haven't reverted, as I imagine it'll be edit warred over and I don't feel like getting into that tonight, but someone else probably will. - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely fringe - I've just revert it. Australians of all faiths tend to not be keen on the notion that God is responsible for the design and symbols of our federal government ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Collegiality

You wrote: "As you should know very well from countless AfDs and ANI discussions of biographies you've created..."

I am a prolific contributor, of long-standing, who has created thousands of articles, on all kinds of topics. A minor fraction of those articles were on controversial topics, and I have received counter-policy nasty personal criticism of my judgment, character, intelligence, for working on those topics.

One person wrote something like I "was a serial creator of counter-policy NN bios", and multiple critics said something similar. My position is that those criticisms are quite unfair.

The wikipedia inclusion standards of 2010, 2012, 2017, are different than the inclusion standards of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.

Most of the articles related to Guantanamo, that have generated so much animosity, were started in 2005-2008 period, and measured up to the inclusion criteria of the time. Eleven of the first twelve AFD on Guantanamo captives were kept, even though they relied largely on DOD documents that current thinking has deprecated. Inclusion standards were different then. And, given that the early challenges failed, I don't think I merit any criticism for going and writing similar articles on other individuals.

If your comment on the recent AFD is a reflection that you, Nick-D, see me as some kind of wrong-headed bad contributor, I encourage you to show more collegiality. If you see an AFD on an article I started, I encourage you to approach each one without any prejudice due to your opinions on articles I started a decade ago. Geo Swan (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You've asked me this before, and my answer is the same: your history is highly relevant, especially when you try the kind of arguments concerning the notability of individuals that you're trying in the current AfD. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for your reply, such as it is.
• I asked you this before? I can't be sure what you mean by "this". And I don't know what you mean when you say your answer is "the same".
• Are you suggesting I look at this previous answer? Would it be possible for you to help me find this earlier exchange? Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

[21] is one example from this talk page, with my response being [22]. [23] is also relevant. I'm pretty sure that there have been similar exchanges in article talk pages and/or XfDs. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

CTSFO talk

Hi, I would appreciate your opinion on a Talk discussion regarding stating equipment in articles for police tactical units similar to military special forces units [Edit]. Secondly, stating if a unit has female operators [Edit]. This will occur more often in military special forces units as they are opened up such as [Ranger]. In this case, it is a police tactical unit however. It is [rare] for females to serve in this unit and that was before training standards were lifted which required re-certifying. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Amphibious assault ship dispute

Nick, an IP user is adding unsourced claims to the Amphibious assault ship, claiming that British LPDs are also considered "Amphibious assault ship". I've reverted 3 times, as these claims contradict the existing citations in the article. To my knowledge, "Amphibious assault ship" is primarily a USN term for LPH, LHA, and LHD. The user refuses to add sources for their claims, stating instead that I need to cite sources that LPDs are not considered "Amphibious assault ships". Any help would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your approach Bill. If LPDs are classed as this kind of ship, a reference is needed to support it. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's been long enough without sources for these claims, so I've removed them. We'll seen if they come back without sources. - BilCat (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good move Bill. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And the user reverted per this diff, without providing sources. Can you semi-protect to encourage discussion? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As this person is an edit warring only account, I've blocked them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The IPs locate to Paris, so it's possible we're dealing with some translation issues too. - BilCat (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Jul to Sep 2017 Milhist article reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Jul to Sep 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not taking the beyond-obvious fresh bait

It is hard to see the latest mass article image change development in anything but provocative light for the sole motivation of being provocative. Due to the unmistakable negative motive this time around, rather than be a fool and fall in to the obvious trap which they are seeking, i'm not going to engage. Additionally, I know that based on previous experience, engaging in discussion with the user would fall on deaf ears. So, as the admin who gave him a warning, i'm coming to you in the hopes that you might be able to suggest the best way to approach this user's reaction-seeking behaviour. Thanks for your input. Timeshift (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to discuss this on talk pages rather than edit war: is there a central discussion somewhere? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI. Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated the photos of Keating for deletion on Commons BTW. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Look through my contribs in the past 24 hours... ive removed some even clearer copyvios from articles that also need deleting from commons. Also there are several recent GGs with copyvio images uploaded and added to bios that i havent touched. If you could deal with them that would be good. Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please give me examples of the copyright violations? Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You'll find links to the copyvio images in historical revisions at Nick Greiner, John Fahey (politician), Kerry Chikarovski, Robert Askin, and still in current revision at a range of past-50-years images in bio articles of Governors-General of Australia. And when looking in-depth for examples, of late there seems to be a flood of new red-linked user accounts all doing the same copyvio uploading and/or adding - beyond coincidental... Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Formosa Air Battle Review

Nick-D, I was hoping since you're part of the Japanese MilHist Task Force that you'd be able to check Formosa Air Battle for B-Class specifically for WikiProject: Japan/MilHist. The article was already reviewed for B-Class by someone in the general MilHist Task Force and it was passed, but for some reason it was never upgraded from C to B-Class as far as Japan/MilHist is concerned. I don't know if that was intentional or oversight, but either way I'd appreciate someone who knows what they're looking at clearing the move to B-Class. I nominated the article for GA so I'd like it to be fully rated B before its review. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, That actually seems to be a military history part of the Japan Wikiproject. As the article is clearly comprehensive and referenced (though I'd suggest moving away from the wartime reports), I've assessed it as B class for that project as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I think there must be something wrong with the coding on the page because I can see that the assessment has been changed to B class, but the C still remains under the Japan/MilHist project tag. I'm not too worried about it, however. And I agree with you about moving away from the U.S. military documents/primary sources! I'm trying to take that tack with the work I'm doing in my Sandbox on Operation Hailstone. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

List of disappearing gun installations

Given your comment here, would you mind weighing in on the discussion at Talk:Disappearing_gun#Significant_installations? Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A-Class medal with Swords

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History WikiProject, I hereby award you the A-Class medal with Swords for your work on Operation Inmate, Vultee Vengeance in Australian service, and Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service. Congratulations! Biblio (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ANZUS

With regards to ANZUS and specifically with regards to New Zealand, with respect, you might be flogging a dead horse here, mate! Your own Government tells you you are wrong here! (Kindly, read the marginal notes at the bottom! ("[The] USA announced on 11 Aug 1986 the suspension of its obligations under the Treaty in respect of New Zealand. By exchange of letters 11 Aug 1986 [the Commonwealth] Australia and [the] USA reaffirmed the commitment between them under the Treaty.")) [24] The Lowy Institute (aka RUSI Australia branch!) or BAE Systems Australia hasn't been sending people here to revert out the blatant obvious, I hope not! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, or you will be blocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not edit-warring. Someone seems hell-bent on asserting that New Zealand remains a member of ANZUS here, despite clearly incorrect and not supported by all kinds of sources available on the Internet I cited. Debate on the substance (on why I am wrong to assert that New Zealand is not a member of ANZUS), instead of accusing me (and me alone) of edit-warring without giving evidence (that I am wrong)! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Command positions in 1st SFOD-D

Dear sir, I am Urloiu Radu, the one who edited the text concerning the command positions in the 1st SFOD-D. I've added the Captains (O-3) to the Majors (O-4) as qualified for Troop command in the Unit. I've seen you reverted the text. I've sent you an e-mail where I've argued my case. Actually, captains are allowed to command Troops and they did. I've adduced in the mail a few cases which supports my statement (Austin Scott Miller etc) although there are a few more. I did it according to the information surfaced on the net and the books published by a few members of the Unit. Could you enlighten me, please, if you know more? I would be glad to find out new things. Thank you.

Hi, I didn't undo your change. I'd suggest starting a discussion (posting what you sent me by email, for instance) at Talk:Delta Force. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Beersheba 100th anniversary

Hi Nick, it is a bit sad that Battle of Beersheba (1917) is not on main page today. It was eligible per Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 31. Is it worth mentioning to someone? JennyOz (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

All okay, is now appearing. JennyOz (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Good to see. I think that the statement that it's "often reported as "the last successful cavalry charge in history"" is misleading though - it wasn't, and this kind of phrasing is confusing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

As the article explicitly says that it wasn't the last successful cavalry charge, I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If you've got nothing else to do

I believe Major Carol Vaughan-Evans RAAMC is notable for receiving the Medal for Gallantry in the course of the Kibeho massacre. I think she was the senior Australian officer present. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, she does look to be notable. The apparently soon-to-be-released official history volume should provide further useful coverage. I'm going to be out of town for most of the next month though, so I won't have the chance to work on this topic in the near future. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd AIF in the UK draft

G'day, Nick, hope you are well. Regarding your citation needed tag and "X" on User:Nick-D/Drafts3, I believe that the War Diary of the 18th Inf Bde has them putting to sea on 5 May 1940: [25]. Not sure if that helps or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - it's largely a placeholder reminder for myself at present, and that helps. As a bit of an obscure question (and perhaps one better directed at Hawkeye), are you aware of any sources on the AIF officers who were posted to the UK as liaison officers from 1940 onwards? I have material on the team sent there in 1944 to gain experience in the European theatre, but can't think of anything on the officers with desk jobs at Australia House and the war office. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah sorry don't know of anything off the topic of my head. I know Ronald McNicoll deployed later, and I think Jo Gullett did also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very obscure topic! I think those two officers were part of the 1944 team. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Italians deserted in mass

On all fronts.Above all in mainland.One of my grandfather escaped for istance from Verona to join home.Nobody cared about war after armistice.This was the real situation. Germans entered by italian fascists help and a ghost Italian Army.With a "normal " Italian Army Germans wouldn't have ever entered (Vallo Alpino later used also in the Cold War) and nevertheless in a short time.Kingofwoods (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:World War II. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Have i to add more references?Kingofwoods (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please gain talk page consensus. You will be blocked if you continue edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've references.Germans seems to be presented as strong .In Italy they did what they did because of fascist help and the strongly weakened Italian Army.Kingofwoods (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, please raise this on the talk page and stop edit warring. You may also want to reflect on whether your English language skills are sufficient to be editing one of this Wikipedia's most prominent articles, and discussing this matter on the talk page will provide an opportunity for other editors to consider the issue and how it could best be worded if it was included. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pollie pics

What's the situation with politician photos User:GTVM92 seems to be taking issue with? They seem to be hitting articles quite widespread, even as far across the oceans as Jacinda Ardern. I've already warned them for edit warring but feel there's more to the issue here, namely a consensus on photo usage I may not be up to speed on? -- Longhair\^talk 10:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all those photos were selected after (often lengthy) talk page discussions. Crashing around changing them all, including for obviously worse photos and photos which have been nominated for deletion as copyvios, is not helpful. This is fairly common behaviour though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fanboys"

Tangentially related to the topic of “Nazi fanboys”, I’m seeing a lot of them in the contemporary far-right, with disturbing connections to violence and hate speech. For example:

• Alex James Fields, charged with the vehicular attack at the Unite the Right rally, reportedly had a fascination with Nazi Germany in general, and with the Waffen-SS in particular.
• A suspect in the shooting at Richard Spencer’s speech at the University of Florida was spotted wearing a pin with the insignia of the SS Division Totenkopf.
• At the White Lives Matter rally, members of the neo-Nazi Traditionalist Worker Party were wearing German WW2-style helmets and sported SS runes on their collars, while their leader discussed the need to preserve [white Americans’] “blood and soil”. Etc.

Specific to the “Panzer ace” article, I proposed an alternate version on the Talk page, for the sake of peace. Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is upsetting that what seems to be a growing sub-set of people in a country which did so much to defeat Nazi Germany and liberate Europe are idealising murderers. I don't see any reason to give an inch to that troll, who's taken to falsely claiming that Norman Davies supports their position (Davis does no such thing - he's critical of western self-congratulation over the war on the grounds that it overlooks the way that it ended with Stalin's USSR dominating much of Europe, and not any kind of viewpoint that Germany is getting a rough deal from historians - quite the opposite if anything given his focus includes emphasising the scale of Nazi war crimes in Eastern Europe and the key role the Soviet military played in Germany's downfall). Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RE: World War II - Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017/Suggestion for text outlining creation of Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American

RE: World War II -Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017/Suggestion for text outlining creation of Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs

Hello Nick-D ;

Many thanks for your comments regarding the proposed changes to the article World War II as described on the article's talk page (See Below). While it is possible that the suggested additional content is irrelevant or largely unimportant as you suggest, I thought that you might enjoy reviewing an example of primary source material from the National Archive before dismissing the proposed content entirely. The original source material indicates that FDR established the Office of the Coordinator for Inter-American Affairs as part of a broader strategy for preventing Germany and Italy from establishing a military presence in South and Central America. In addition, it illustrates actions taken by Nelson Rockefeller to implement this strategy during the 1940s. I hope that you enjoy reviewing the material and that you are able to share it with your fellow editors in order to ensure the highest degree of accuracy in the article. See the following link for further reading. Thanks again for your input and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia.. Regards 72.69.152.90 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)JJ See Records of the Office of Inter-American Affairs at the U.S. National Archive Online at www.archives.gov

Kindly consider amending Section 4.0 Course of the war/4.2 Western Europe shown below to include additional text outlining Roosevelt's creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs

Although Roosevelt had promised to keep the United States out of the war, he nevertheless took concrete steps to prepare for war. In December 1940 he accused Hitler of planning world conquest and ruled out negotiations as useless, calling for the US to become an "arsenal of democracy" and promoted the passage of Lend-Lease aid to support the British war effort.[101] In January 1941 secret high level staff talks with the British began for the purposes of determining how to defeat Germany should the US enter the war. They decided on a number of offensive policies, including an air offensive, the "early elimination" of Italy, raids, support of resistance groups, and the capture of positions to launch an offensive against Germany.[108]

Additional text (or an additional paragraph) might be included at the end of the paragraph shown above to outline additional steps taken by Roosevelt to prepare for the war while also encouraging the peaceful resolution of conflict:

By July of 1941, Roosevelt also authorized the creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, in an effort to respond to Italian/German propaganda in Latin America through the use of news, film and radio broadcast media. In the process, Roosevelt also sought to enhance his Good Neighbor policy, promote Pan-Americanism and forestall military hostility through the use of cultural diplomacy. [1]

References

1.Jump up ^ Media Sound & Culture in Latin America. Editors: Bronfman, Alejanda & Wood, Andrew Grant. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, PA, USA, 2012, Pgs. 41-54 ISBN 978-0-8229-6187-1 books.google.com See Pgs. 41-54

References

Bougainville counterattack and New Britain campaign articles

G'day Nick, one for when you get back... wondering if you would be happy for Bougainville counterattack to be nommed for ACR? I am about to go on Christmas holidays and need a project to work on, so was thinking that might be something we could work on together. Please let me know what you think. Anyway, I hope you have a safe trip. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Also thinking about nominating the New Britain campaign article for GA, but I'd probably need your help with this one also. Would you be keen on a co-nom GA effort with this one? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Yes to both. I was going to suggest this to you when I returned, and would be very pleased to help with these nominations. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick. The ACR is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bougainville counterattack, and the GAN page will be here (eventually): Talk:New Britain campaign/GA1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting these. I'm a bit too zonked to contribute anything useful today, but will get stuck in from tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Nick. Would you mind if I nom New Britain campaign for A-class review? I would, of course, include you as a co-nom. I don't usually like to have more than one ACR open myself at any one time, but I figure I have the time now I am on leave until mid-January. (I have to go back in to work for a little bit next week due to a minor flap, but it shouldn't take up too much of my time). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I might be out of town for a few days after Christmas, but will otherwise be around to help with it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, the review page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/New Britain campaign. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Thanks for your message. Where would be the best place to report this? Twinkle doesn't have a personal attacks section and it's been a long time since I've had to think about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The best place would probably be WP:ANI. Short and simple reports tend to work best there (eg, person X has made these personal attacks on me [examples] and edit warred for no good reason [examples] and this is continuing despite several other experienced editors telling them bluntly that they're wrong and it should stop [examples]). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

World War II deletion

Hello. Could you explain why you deleted this from the "European occupations and agreements" section of the World War II article?

Throughout the mid-1930s, the Soviets had been disturbed by Western Europe's policy of appeasement toward aggressive fascist states. This policy had partly arisen from fascism and capitalism's shared hostility towards communism. While the West had declined to join the Anti-Comintern Pact, it also rejected Stalin's repeated calls to form an anti-Nazi alliance and strengthen the League of Nations. Russia sought to join the Munich negotiations (being an ally of both Czechoslovakia and France) but was banned from the meetings at Hitler's insistence.

Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello, Given the prominence of the World War II article, there's a long standing convention (as stated in a note which appears when you edit the article) that all significant changes be discussed and agreed on the talk page before being made. Please start a discussion of this material there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4 again

Hi Nick, Johnvr4 is evading his block and sockpuppetting to try and raise things at ANI again: [26]. Should we do anything? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Blocked the IP for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by bizarre (referring to the category I added for Australia). Would it be better if it was called "Category:Countries located in the Australian continent" or "Category:Countries located on the Australian continent"? Howpper (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That might work better. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Manchuria

In truth, I don't know very much about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. I returned the page to its original condition before the edits on Dec 16 & 17. I'm taking the page off my watchlist. :)

Australian Defence Force

Hi, you nominated the ADF here as a TFA candidate for 26 January 2018, a month I am currently scheduling. A quick check showed a number of dead links. Will you be able to fix these? There is more than a month before it's due, so there is plenty of time.

Can you let me know as soon as possible whether you think you can get the article in shape by then, otherwise I will need to find another FA for that day, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'll fix these up (and finish updating the article) over the Christmas break, so the 26 January TFA should be fine. @Anotherclown, AustralianRupert, Ian Rose, and Peacemaker67: given the breadth of the subject matter, I'd be grateful for any contributions (including talk page comments noting stuff I should fix) you might be able to make to updating the article, as your time over the Christmas and holiday period and any COI-related issues permit of course. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and schedule it. I'm not anticipating any problems, but let me know if anything major crops up. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

G'day Nick, hope you are well. I had a quick look and suggest a couple of tweaks. The current ops section probably needs updating as it mentions Sep 15 stats. Also, this statement (in relation to the 1st Division) is no longer correct: " It does not have any combat units permanently assigned to it, though it commands units during training activities and the Land Combat Readiness Centre reports to the divisional headquarters." 2 RAR is now a 1 DIV DCU. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force scheduled for TFA

No pressure, but this is to let you know that the Australian Defence Force article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 26, 2018. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 26, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

If you prefer one of the other free-use images to the one I've used in the TFA page, feel free to choose another Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Same to you! Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your content work and continuing efforts as one of The Bugle's editors I am pleased to personally award you with this barnstar and add you to my 2017 New Years Honours List. Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Military History. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

--Woogie10w (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Same to you Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The same to you from summer in Australia! (it's 35 degrees Celsius here today). Nick-D (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom

The article Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

List of equipment of the Estonian Defence League

Thank you for understanding. I truly appreciate the diligence, but I did put a lot of effort into sourcing everything properly. In any case, I wish you a happy New Year! May the next year be an even better one. :) --Estonian1885 (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The same to you! Nick-D (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)