User talk:Nick-D/Archive 5

Operation Moshtarak

please unprotect the taliban casualty info needs editing to 100 killed or edit it yourself. Here are the sources http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/about-100-taliban-fighters-killed-in-marja/day-3/, and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/15/MNFJ1C1VKG.DTL (the second source is a better source... (USMCMIDN (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

The SFGate story says that Taliban fatalities are "about a quarter of the 400 Taliban estimated to be in Marja", which doesn't translate to exactly 100 to me... Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq war

stop changing the insurgent casualties and pkk casualties back to biased and old sources. I have provided the correct sources and they are NEUTRAL. (USMCMIDN (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Zulfiqar / Zolfaghar tank

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

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

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

Abbott pic

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

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

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

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

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

Interested / Slightly puzzled.

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

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

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

Re:

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

Hoax/vandalism

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

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

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

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

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

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

I have counting the facilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop reverting me

I have commented on the talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autoblock

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

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

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

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

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

SPI question

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

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

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

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

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

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

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

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

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

Please help

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

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

• January 10, 2010 - An Afghan soldier killed alongwith a US soldier and a British journalist in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34790930/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/</ref>

• January 12, 2010 - An Afghan policeman has been killed and two others wounded in a suicide attack at a police station in south-central Afghanistan.<ref>http://www.realclearworld.com/news/ap/international/2010/Jan/12/afghan_police__policeman_killed_in_suicide_attack.html , http://www.newsday.com/news/world/afghan-police-policeman-killed-in-suicide-attack-1.1694992</ref>

• January 13, 2010 - Various Taliban attacks in the country killed five policemen and 4 Afghan soldier.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/01/blast_kills_two_american_soldi.html , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_180, http://www.canada.com/news/Factbox+Security+developments+Afghanistan/2436264/story.html</ref>

Afghan private security guard losses

• On January 7, 2010, seven PMC's including the commander of Afghan security guards killed by a suice bomb attack in Gardez, the capital of Paktia province.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34752416/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/</ref>

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

IP block notice

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

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

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

IP 212.235.34.112

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

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

Iraqi Air Force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milhist task force reorganisation

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

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

Why you always said to me to make a account?

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

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

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

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

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

Request at RPP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please sorry and forgive me and give me one more chance

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

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

Republicanism in Australia

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

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

Re: usertalk page protection

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

Thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Mujahid1947

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

Viceroy again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi protect on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

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

No, they're definitely the indef-blocked editor Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) (AKA User:Akhlaque1947) - see: [1] where they admit this. The admin who indef blocked them placed the standard template on their talk page with instructions on how to request an unblock and they've been told what to do by myself (see above thread 'Please sorry and forgive me and give me one more chance') and other editors, so their claim that they don't know why they were blocked or how to request an unblock is bogus. The reason given for their indef block is 'Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username' so their editing is not harmless. As I noted above, I wasn't the blocking admin, but I concur with the block, particularly given the rampant block evasion. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Mass prodding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom courtesy notice

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

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

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

This ArbCom case doesn't seem to have gone anywhere - good. What utter nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw that ArbCom basically endorsed this crusade in an interim decision. I normally agree with their decisions, but this is just silly. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This AfD and unreferenced BLPs in General

Hi Nick. I saw this AfD, and was concerned by a few things. Firstly, there was some incivility, but that can really be dealt with separately. After the AfD was closed, this conversation took place. I was concerned about the deletion nominators use of AfD to improve an article rather than offer for deletion, which is, after all, AfD intended use. I was also concerned about the noms reluctance to look for references and add them before going to AfD. I noticed that you had commented on this and this similar occurences. I wanted to ask for more eyes, but didn't know who or where to ask for comment (lot of choices really!), and when I saw you were an admin I thought you'd be just the person to ask. Thanks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There's now a request for comment open on whether unreferenced BLPs should be deleted, and that's probably the best forum to continue the discussion. I personally don't plan on getting closely involved: the people trying to mass delete articles don't seem to be very receptive to common sense (eg, that you at least check to see if someone is notable before nominating the article on them for deletion!). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to change my name

Please watch my talk page.And tell me that my new name(gameboy1947)is normal and tell me when my username change.I request on wikipedia change username yesterday but no response.I think like unblock service is slow so this service is also slow.So for now please dont block me for my name because i request to change username but they are slow, so thats not my fault. Sorry for my poor english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A request(How can i update this page)

If you read this page.Their is a huge puzzle their espacally in starting of page.Esrtimate headline with small words and too much long explanation with different different refrences.And N/A, etc.Which is impossible for understand of a normal user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

Can i update the page with this only refrence. http://www.brookings.edu/foreign-policy/%7E/media/Files/Programs/FP/afghanistan%20index/index.pdf

I am now update that page.And after update tell me that page is much better or much worse.

Edit that headline is also a headche.

I cant update that pae because of unlimited puzzles.

The article is semi protected only - you should have no problems editing it. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he is having trouble with the wiki formatting in the article? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User page quote

Nice quote. Need to add this to it: "And because they break all the rules, and you don't, they will always win!" :) - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: they either wear you down through persistence or sheer weight of numbers ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your oppose

One strategy that WMF chapter representatives are finding effective (in the UK, The Netherlands, and Sweden) is to show Wikipedia's featured pictures to librarians and museum curators, and say "Our heritage is being represented to the public through an American collection; you can do better." That featured designation makes a difference when the cultural institutions understand the Picture of the Day program and the traffic statistics for Wikipedia's main page. In the long run that's our best chance of coaxing better digitizations from Australian collections. Durova⁴⁰³ 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Wikimedia Australia is in contact with the AWM and other major national institutions - the Australian War Memorial hosted the GLAM-WIKI conference last August, and their decision to clearly mark the copyright status of their online photos a few months later was very Wiki-friendly. I suspect that the basic problem is that it would cost the AWM money to post larger versions of their photos, and doing so would also end the revenue they make from selling full-size versions. The National Archives and National Library also have similar policies. I might drop Wikimedia Australia a line though to see if there have been any direct approaches and if so what the results have been - the AWM's collection includes many outstanding photos by Australia's most famous photographers of the first half of the 20th Century, so it's a potential FP goldmine. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, and from what your colleages at WMF Australia tell me the most receptive individuals on the institutional side who attended that conference also tended to be the youngest and most mobile. So the best contacts moved on to other jobs and the chapter needs to reestablish relationships. That was one of the specific reasons I undertook this restoration. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this editorial which I coauthored with two Australian Wikimedians last July spells out some of the issues and alternatives. It does not necessarily lose income for an institution to cooperate with free culture, if they do it right. Bundesarchiv actually gained income. And examples such as the Coles Phillips restoration show that previously unsaleable items can be suitable for posters, calendars, etc. after a high quality restoration. This can be win-win, but we have to be smart and active about it. You might want to discuss this further with GerardM. He's the key individual who negotiated the Tropenmuseum exhibit, which made national news in The Netherlands and received a head of state visit from the president of Suriname. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those leads. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Nazi Germany"

Nick, could you look at the Talk:List of aircraft carriers by country#German Reich is not Federal Republic of Germany discussion, and comment there? It concerns this edit and several others. I assume that this has been addressed my MILHIST or WPSHIPS before, and though you might know of the relevant guidelines or consensus. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bill - I've commented there. There was also a recent discussion of this in the World War II article's talk page. It seems that some editors are attempting to push a POV that Nazi Germany was a totally separate entity from modern Germany, which I consider to be total nonsense at best and revisionism at worst. Nick-D (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to undelete userpage on HMAS Sydney (R17)

Thanks for your comments so far. However, the ship's company/airgroup question is starting to worry me, mainly because every work I look at gives a slighty different figure. Is there any chance you could undelete User:Saberwyn/HMAS Sydney III so I can figure out where I originally acquired the current figure from? -- saberwyn 10:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done -MBK₀₀₄ 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn talkpage stalkers :P -- saberwyn 10:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Saber, do you want one of us to histmerge that into the Sydney article? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm indifferent either way. -- saberwyn 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that MBK! Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That darn Dutch 1913 design

I'm done adding information to it at long last; the only other thing I am considering is a table (I know, I know) of the weight distribution of the B&V, V and G designs (or maybe just G) between the hull, armor, engines, armament, fuel, and equipment. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I now think that a table would be a good idea: I find the technical language somewhat heavy going and this would be a good way to present the same info in a more reader-friendly fashion. The table needs to have a note saying that the info is limited to the designs for which records survive though - I can add this once you do up the table if you like. regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is what I was originally thinking: User:The_ed17/Sandbox#Table for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal. Not sure where to put a reference, but it's from Breyer p. 452 (I don't believe you can claim copyright over a reproduction of numbers, right? Because otherwise it's about 95% copyvio :/ )

As to your point, I realize it's heavy going. I think we could safely move the belt sentence into the notes, and we can also remove the protection % part as well (if we add the aforementioned table), which would make it a bit shorter. Think that would be enough? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I like that format, but the information on weight distribution is a bit dry - does your source include details like the ship dimensions, armour thickness, etc? Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It has armor thicknesses for sure, but I'm not sure on the dimensions (I'm at home and can't check the source, as it is at university). I'll be back there on Sunday though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

I've attempted to address some of the FAR comments made concerning the article, I would appreciate it if you could update your edits accordingly so I could figure out what still needs to be worked on. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom - I'll review this tomorrow (it's getting close to bed time here). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Dark Nebula

This page has been deleted by you despite the fact that I tried to notify Wikipedia that I am the creator & copyright holder of The Dark Nebula, thereby no copyright could possibly be infringed by me. I believe on that basis the article should be reinstated. I hope this is the right place to put this information as I have tried to follow Wikipedia Protocols but not being that Wiki-savvy apologise if this is not the correct forum. My user name is The Dark Nebula.

Best regards,

Tad Pietrzykowski, http://www.thedarknebula.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dark Nebula (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:FAC

You might want to check the proposal there. One of the provisions there would restrict you, and me too, and a lot of Australians. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've commented on the proposals I have views on. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of non-flying squadrons

There are an awful lot of USAF non-flying squadron articles accumulating. I don't really think they're all notable. Would you support a test case AfD? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done - your opinion welcome. Would you mind also give your opinion at the Field Army insignia AfD? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I jumped in on the Combat Camera discussion too, I'm combat Camera in the Marine Corps and it caught my eye. Can I help with anything for these articles or some of the Marine Corps ones? Marine79 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What they're most in need of is references to sources independent of the US military to establish their notability. If that's not possible, they could be redirected to a list (eg, List of United States Air Force combat camera squadrons) or article on the military's PR/historical units. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

possible copywright issue

I know this isn't a MILHIST issue but regarding a article I tagged for a copy and paste issue, Epitaph Two: Return, the author deleted my tags and said i should have left a message in the talk page instead of tagging the article. I selected a few random lines and got an exact match on www.scriptedtvfans.com . I have military firewall restrictions that won't let me on that site to see if they allow coping of their plot descriptions which would keep the author in the clear but that site is not even referenced in the article. I don't want to be a pain in the ass but I don't want that article to be full of plagiarism.Marine79 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right - it was a straight copy and paste. I've removed the material and warned the editor who added it. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to talk page of said article. I have addressed the issues there. I will be restoring the article. Meowies (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us examine the time stamps of the article said to be in copyright violation. From the RSS Feed - http://www.scriptedtvfans.com/feed/:

"Dollhouse 1/29/10 “Epitaph Two: Return” Series Finale Episode Recap Sunday, 31 January 2010 5:35 AM" Article Created on Wikipedia: 14:11, 30 January 2010 Please note that the initial creation of the page was for a redirect link to List of Dollhouse episodes. All content was added at the above time.

I leave to you to decide whether to restore the article in question. Having said that, please understand that I have been responsible for creating ALL of the main articles for each episode, in the Dollhouse series, and it stands to reason I have NO REASON to copy and paste from a another site. Meowies (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded on Meowies talk page - the this appears to have been copied from Wikipedia rather than vice-versa. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Should anons blank their talk page?

I had a short discussion about an edit with an anon on his talk page, and then I noticed that he blanked the page after it was concluded. I looked in the history and he had previously been warned about an unconstructive edit to a different page before. I know that editors are given a lot more freedom on their talk pages, but I frequently check an anon's talk page to see if they've been warned about stuff before when considering whether or not to report them. Should he be allowed to blank his talk page? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can - Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages states that this is permitted, though removing a message acts as an indication that the editor has read it. As a tip, in almost all instances where an IP account has a pre-existing, but blank, talk page it's because they're removed previous warnings. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Anons it's a bit more problematic though, since the person removing a warning might not be the person the warning was intended for. Taemyr (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

12d Model

Nick you have deleted my page on 12d Model. I have only just commenced this page and spent many hours on it only to have it removed by you without any constructive criticism or feedback. I had looked at other software programs and how their articles were written.

I feel that this particular subject does have a place in Wikipedia. Why would other software like Microstation, AutoCAD, HEC-RAS etc not be deleted, and other companies such as Autodesk and Bentley not be deleted either.

The information was factual that I had put up. It was technical and relevant to the civil engineering industry, in particular to people who would like to understand the types of software available in the industry.

Did you even read the article? and look at the other software I am referring to and tell me your thoughts.

I feel that a complete deletion was extreme, modifications would have been more constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duo535 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was nothing but advertising for this software, complete with the positive case studies from the software's website. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: No. 1 Wing RAAF

You're welcome. I make an honest effort to read through the entire article to catch these little things in hopes that the improves that come out increase the chances of an article gaining an FA star with a greater degree of ease. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

5/7 RAR article

Hi Nick, recent edits on 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment seem to be getting out of hand. I'd welcome your input if you have the time. Sorry to drag you into this, but it seems to be getting silly and I'm not sure I'm handling things right. I want to encourage User:Bondigold, however, I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Two up, one back is the template solution so maybe that would work here? — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, I've got this article on my watchlist, and thought that you were handling it well. The comments by that editor are pretty awful though - I see that Tom has warned them. I've posted on their talk page suggesting a couple of sources they could draw on. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick. I appreciate it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Davrosz and Republicanism in Australia

Nick-D - Some time ago you protected Republicanism in Australia for one week in the hopes that there'd be some resolution to an, as you put it, "slow-paced edit war." In that time, the other user involved, Davrosz (talk · contribs), was missing in action from Wikipedia, and, now that the protection has expired, is back to make his usual revert. He still refuses to acknowledge either the notes I left at his talk page or the discussion you started at Talk:Republicanism in Australia, and seems to be a single purpose account. Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with what to do with an edit warrior such as Davrosz. Should he be reported at WP:AN3, despite not breaching WP:3R? Could you advise? Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning on that editor's talk page asking them to participate in the discussion. I don't think that the level of edit warfare is sufficient to justify sterner action at present. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block request

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

:Hi Bill - User:Materialscientist has beaten me to it, and the vandal has been blocked for 31 hours. I've watchlisted the articles though in case they come back. As a random aside, I've only flown in a DC-10 once (between Houston and San Francisco during a trip to the US), but I thought it was the second worst aircraft I've ever traveled on (the United Airlines 747 which took me across the Pacific on that trip has proven impossible to beat!). Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Allied submarines

On the politics, it's opinion, so not added... As for the formatting, I don't know where that's coming from; looks like the browser is screwing it up, or maybe the Mac is... (It just started...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was a software update issue... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

23prootie

Hi Nick. Since you been involved with 23prootie a lot, would you mind examining this user, Reincarnata (talk · contribs) so I can get a second opinion? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on their contributions it appears that they're 23prootie, and I've blocked them. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for reporting them. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

tks for all you do!!

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

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

Thank you - that's very kind. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

I update this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan#Fatalities_by_country_wise And making the table small and easier.I think that i should remove that table and write them as normal without table.Tell me your sugession. And please dont undo my update on that page because previos table is impossible to understand.Too much big tablle with a lot of countries and a lot of puzzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameboy1947 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan

I update this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

I update the totals casualties in 2010.Please do not undo my update because i count the casualties several times and then i update the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameboy1947 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

refs

i will do later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

this are the primary sources which are used by the secondary source. should i list the secondary source? in this cases the secondary source is only citing the primary source and not interpreting thats why i list the primary source , its the same. u want the secondary source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 09:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

in this case the historian is only looking on the primary source and copying what he reads. thats why i thought i can list the primary source instead of listing the guy who copied the primary source. thats the big problem of many bad normandy articles. the editors there cite 20 unimportant historian who all cite the same wrong primary source, so u can support wrong facts.... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wings of the RAAF

Seen your hard work on these formations. I talked to a RAAF (wing commander?) at an airshow at Ohakea in the 1980s or in the 1990s, (probably 1990s), and he said there were a number of contingency wings. I believe they're 'composite,' 'mobilization-only,' maybe along the lines of the 366th Wing if they had to assemble it in a hurry. 90-series numbers is my memory. Maybe No. 96 Wing RAAF may be among them. They may have used one or two of the them under the JFACC for Timor. Anyway, you'd probably have to write to the RAAF, make an official request, and then upload the letter to show the source. Also, the system may have changed!! Just thought you ought to know though. Cheers / Essayons Buckshot06 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good call, Buckshot, though Nick may have already caught a number of them. No. 90 Wing, for instance, was a composite wing formed in 1950 for the Malayan Emergency to try and ensure our air contringent operated with a degree of autonomy, rather than being spread through other Allied groups. Another point, however, is that the support units for major RAAF bases have also been called wings, e.g. Base Wing Richmond (at other times they've been numbered along the lines of the associated operational wing, e.g. 581 Wing for Williamtown, but they're currently called Combat Support Units or some such). Since it appears you're not restricting this to operational/flying wings only, you might want to consider such units as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments gents. The list certainly isn't complete (I can't remember the template to be used to mark this), but it includes all the wings whose existence I can verify from the references on the RAAF I own. The air base wings are a significant omission, and I think that there have also been some maintenance wings in the 400/500 series. I suspect that there were also a lot more WW2-era wings than got mentioned in the official history (the 20-series wings were base wings at major bases, so I'm sure that there were more than two of them!). On a similar topic, I think that I've read that one of the RAAF's wing HQs deployed to the Middle East during the first part of the Iraq War, but can't remember where I saw this. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia

Nick, I've added the technical stuff and am thinking about putting it up for GA with you as a co-nom since you did the basic work, but thought that you might want to give it a read through for style, consistency, etc. And if you're aware of anything that describes her activities post-Jutland that would be great, because the official history doesn't have anything of significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Saberwyn is actually the editor who's done the most to improve this article - my contributions to date have been rather limited, so he deserves the co-nom, not me. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gameboy1947

Hmm, you might try a very short softblock on 119.152.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (6629 addresses), although I'm not sure if that'll catch them all, don't really want to go much wider than that though (use your own discretion >.>). Also note: 119.152.25.99. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't know how to calculate IP ranges for range blocks, but I've blocked the range you suggested and the above account. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, lets see how this plays out now. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War Insurgent Casualties

Why do you keep changing my 2010 count back to 2007? It is a reliable source. Yours is outdated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.70.171 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ps i added 4 more sources also so please do not change back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.70.171 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources - please do take the time to review WP:RS and stop adding references to self-published websites Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Taliban Casualties

I agree with your logic on deleting the final count but my 2008 source in from official DOD estimates. Do not remove it. That is as good of a source as your going to get as to receiving a accurate enemy death count! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.71.50 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

need help

u saw my bad english so maybe u can help me and improve my text Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be much better if you took the time to write it so that other editors didn't need to fix your text up. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noted

Point taken. I'm taking a break from Kursk.. Dapi89 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

battle of kursk

i responed to the accusations, i would appreciate when u take part on the discussion Blablaaa (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC

Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll look in on the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks

Thanks for info. I had hard time comparing official number vs his summed up number. Kadrun (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Based on their history their number is probably something they made up themselves. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

About HoppingHare

Seems she will never stop disruption in Wikipedia, and she's really really mad at us. She's doing everything like personal attack there and there. I suggest global block? She's accusing every bit of us, like she's saying there's a conspiracy happening. (Don't know how I get involved). Oh, by the way, both links to the Tagalog Wikipedia. I don't know if you understand Tagalog, but I am very happy to assist you in understanding it. :)--JL 09 ^_q?c 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't read Tagalog and wasn't able to find an internet translator - what are they posting? He/she (is it a she?) has repeatedly claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy against editors from outside the first world here (along with being the victim of an Australian cabal at one stage), so at least they're consistent ;) I agree that global blocks would be in order, though I'm not sure how to request one. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick, the GB page says that it is applied by stewards, so why not ask one? -MBK₀₀₄ 19:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The requests board at Meta requires their IP address, which I don't know (other than its dynamic - unfortunately). Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He/she seems to be mad at us for opposing in his RfA. I added a comment too. I thought I was being considerate, but apparently, he/she didn't like my comment. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the RfA was going nowhere anyway (which is just as well!). I feel sorry for the Tl.wiki people - I've heard that they suffer from a high level of vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

This user is slowly destroying the article and I'm finding it impossible to work with him. He's missusing sources and clearly driving an agenda. User:Hohum seems quite happy to sit by and do nothing, despite pointing out some of the same things (misquoting for one). I'm tempted just to leave the article altogether, and then it will descend into something akin to a German propaganda newsreal about how many Soviet tanks the Tigers wiped out. Also there is the Operation Bagration page, he is doing the same thing with casualties there - doubling up sources he has not seen. Dapi89 (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

you re lieing i pointed out on kursk discussion page. iam open to discuss every edit i make, iam open to dicuss every source. u are simply pushing for russian point of view. its everything on the discussion page. instead of deleting everything u wrote i only mixed german POV and russian POV . u are simply saying russian were cool despite their enormous losses of life and tanks. nick i would appriciate your help for the kursk dicussion Blablaaa (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note more gross incvility in the above and here and here - Apparently I'm faking sources. I have reverted him in the latests edit as his citations are not citations at all, and once again have been stripped out of other books he has not seen. Dapi89 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

now u want me blocked? it is incivil when i say that u lie? please look discussion page of "battle of kursk" for further informations. the sources u added are faked because the exlude the steppefront. this is explain on the battle of kursk page too...Blablaaa (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D

Please read my reply of your message on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AzureFury#My_user_again_blocked Please tell me is my message is right or wrong.And really this time i write the message honestly.I really first want to understand rules, then improve my english and then i edit any article.This time i am really serious about this.

Nick-D, i want a help from you.It doesnt related to wikipedia.

I explain, now i mostly go to my medical store alongwith my father.As now-a-days i am interested in medicines.But my father is not expert in medicines.So we use a book named Redbook which contains all information about medicines but that book takes 10-20 seconds to search a medicine.As customer is always in hurry so he disturb with this searching.So i search on internet and find this amazing most easiest, one click and all infrormation website.

• http://epharmaguide.com/RBOnline/Default.aspx

But after a weeks our internet will cut off, befor cut off we want that software, website or whatever it is.Please tell me any link where i can download that.Or tell me any software which download that website in fast speed.I already use a website downloader software(httrack) but that is too much slow after 8 hours 900Mb (my internet speed is 1mb which means approx. 3gb in 8 hours).And then load shedding and when light returns i cant resume that because no resume facility in that software.Please check that software.Maybe their is any resume facility in that software.If so then please help as early as possible. I just want that website either in software style or in website style or in any other style.I want to download that thing which is really too much important for us.Please help.119.152.154.240 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you know any software which is used to download a whole entire website.116.71.174.57 (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, and this isn't the right website to be trying to find that out - try Google. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

I believe I have an agreement now. Can I request an unblock I want to seize on this progress. Dapi89 (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Please see our conversation on User talk:Blablaaa's talk page. I have no interest in looking like the bad guy. Dapi89 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just unblocked Blablaaa (talk · contribs), per the agreement reached between him and Dapi89. If you feel I missed something in my reasoning, I won't consider reinstating the block to be wheel warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As Dapi89 was the main target of Blablaaa's abuse, unblocking them after they struck a deal to work constructively with Dapi89 seems reasonable to me. I'll keep an eye on the situation though. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

Can you please actually clarify your concerns or edit alledged weasel words int he Julia Gillard article before simply removing an entire section of the article when there is an ongoing discussion attempting to resolve it Rotovia (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF

Hi mate, you about ready to take this to FAC...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should ask... I just logged on to copy edit the article and nominate it. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Great minds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The FAC is now live at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 1 Wing RAAF/archive1 Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

On a similar tangent, is there a reason you never took Australian light destroyer project to FAC? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about whether it's comprehensive enough - while it includes just about everything which I think has been published on the project, its still a bit sketchy. What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems comprehensive enough to me, but perhaps it would be beneficial to nom as a GA first. GA and A can coexist, so it would get an uninvolved and new set of eyes on the article (since I reviewed it at ACR). -MBK₀₀₄ 07:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Service Flying Training Schools

Nick, Thought you might like this page, http://mallala.nowandthen.net.au/index.php?title=RAAF_No._6_Service_Flight_Training_School. Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that you pulled image from the article. I also notice after looking at pics of Wirraways on Commons when I noticed that the planes in this pic are the same as . Hmmm??? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; it seems that the AWM wrongly labeled that photo as being from 1943 when it was actually from 1941... Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

self-indictment

[[2]] maybe only a short block ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion pages are not chat rooms or discussion forums. While that exchange reflects poorly on both you and EnigmaMcmxc, I don't see anything which justifies a block unless Keith objects to his talk page being used for that kind of nonsense discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong

I have a hunch about this guy → 91.55.97.142 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), I think he is related to 91.55.112.142 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and he was caught thrice screwing the C-135 Stratolifter article which was promptly reverted by BilCat (talk · contribs). Also, his current request for review to unblock seem to be pointing towards further trolling too. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's just admitted being that editor as part of a request to be unblocked at User talk:91.55.97.142. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I knew it~! And now, a word from our sponsor... "he who smelt it, dealt it". Thanks and cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS Lion (1910)

Can you see if my recent revisions to this article are enough to satisfy your concerns with its late-war history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at the FAC. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

M2A2 howitzer at the AWM

Thanks Nick for the pics. I have placed one upon the page 102nd Medium Battery, Royal Australian Artillery. Thanks for your efforts, therefore this in order.

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For his esteemed dedication, devotion and initive in venturing out in order to capture File:105mm gun AWM1.JPG with a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 80 IS, I am please to bestow the Photographer's Barnstar upon Nick-D as a token of my appreciation. Cheers, User:Newm30 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_Admin_Privileges_by_User:Nick-D_and_User:Blueboy96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.83.124 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Hey Nick, just asking here... is this kind of reference allowed? I mean, it's in Italian so we can't really verify it. Plus, I'm sure I've read this passage somewhere before but it doesn't register on me right now but one thing is for sure... what the IP editor wrote is IMO a verbatim copy of the text from that very book I can't recall! I have reverted the text a few times now, so there's a possibility of me committing 3RR here if I revert it again for the lack of clear WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with foreign-language sources per-se, though English-language sources are preferred when available (particularly for topics about English speaking countries). I just searched for chunks of that text in Google and Google books but didn't get any direct hits so there's not much I can do about it being a copyvio unless you can remember where you saw it I'm afraid. The vague and informal tone isn't very encyclopedic in my view though, and I agree that it doesn't appear to be something which a new editor would write themselves, particularly as it appears that they're from a non-English speaking background. One option could be to re-write the material to remove any potential copyright violations. The material is sourced to an Italian defence magazine, and could easily be an extract from some other source or a reprint from another magazine, as is common in the defence magazine trade. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army Air Force - persistent bad sourcing.

Hello. Hopefully you can provide some help. An editor on People's Liberation Army Air Force (and a few other Chinese military related topics), has added unreliable sources many times over the last couple of months. He ignored the escalating warnings on his talk page, and hasn't said much substantive on article talk pages. When he has edited, he appears to have a decent command of English, so I don't think the lack of communication is from lack of language skills. He has also, however, provided some sources which appear to be better than marginal, which have been kept - so he is adding some useful content. (Hohum ^@) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've given them a final warning - this looks appropriate to me, as some of their contributions are useful. Can you please let me know if they continue this behavior? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, once more: This edit (~30 references, mostly duplicates), among several sites which I have suspicion of being self published, some fairly clearly are:

• [3] - translated - "Source: CHN Strong Nation Forum"
• [4] - translated - "Source: Military Forum - Sina type: Military News"

The rest don't look much like news sites - more like social sites, but I can't be sure. (Hohum ^@) 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked them for 31 hours. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, Hohum... you got it right, those are what we would call BBS (Bulletin Board Services) website, no different from Forum. Those two, along with QianLong are typical Chinese websites with forum rooms discussing Chinese military matters. Personally, even though I can understand what they are saying, I find them a lot like tabloids at times... too much hearsay and rumours flying around in them, typically by bored teenagers/workers/uni-students studying overseas. Lacks credibility, totally. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly he's at it again at various Chinese military related articles. [5], [6], [7], and [8] - BBS, self published sources, and a wiki. He doesn't reply on his talk page or the article talk pages. (Hohum ^@) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for a week Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And again Special:Contributions/TomahawkHunter. Won't communicate, shows no understanding that they are being warned, and no intention of correcting their repetitive bad sourcing. (Hohum ^@) 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The carrier Sydney - ready for A-class?

As the only person who commented at the HMAS Sydney (R17) peer review, do you think the article is ready for a run at A-class? -- saberwyn 07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's easily A class in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

TPS'ing, agreed with Nick. I love the referencing, but one question: for ref 12 ("Cooper, in The Royal Australian Navy, opp. p. 160"), what is the "opp." for? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Opposite...the cited page is an unnumbered foldout. -- saberwyn 09:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that makes sense now that you say it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent talkpage comments

Sorry Nick, i shall try to keep it more civil from now on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

current conversation

dont block please, i dont want to disrupte wiki or something else, i didnt edited the article, i tried to explain my future edits before. same on kursk. Blablaaa (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

problem

i dont want to sound like a kid but before i do anything wrong. whats your advice at this situation. i know u read my conversations so u have an opinion. conversation is fruitless. what now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversation is not fruitless. Stay calm, and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, keeping an open mind at all times. It would be helpful if you didn't create large numbers of discussions at the same time. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

okBlablaaa (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

and now?Blablaaa (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

to the conversation. Blablaaa (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea which of the several conversations you currently have going which you're referring to here or what the issue is. Please stop wasting my time. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

when i insisted on correct casualties figures before than editors explained me that all range of reliable historians should be included, now on normandy article another editor explains me that one figure is correct before more historians support this . i changed my "style" and wanted to establish this reliable range for charnwood... see my talk page Blablaaa (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The book by Wood appears to be a collection of wartime German reports in which British casualties could have only been estimated, and as such is basically a primary source. Per WP:PSTS Wikipedia articles generally shouldn't use primary sources, particularly when reliable secondary sources are available, as is clearly the case here. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i can copy the pages and upload on a imagehoster for a short while showing that glantz did not mean this. i see no other possibility my words are simply not enough i guess :-( Blablaaa (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

hello. again i dont want to sound like a child but i dont want to make it false. i reverted somebody who reverted me, i gave detailed information why. i also gave information for my first edit. this was not noticed. the version which i reverted includes misquoting for example so i think its correct. i hope this was ok, when it will reverted again i will not revert to avoid edit warring. Blablaaa (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

please tell me if i waste your time, i was reverted again and dont want to edit war now. what can i do i explained on talk page and on the user talk page. i can give exact statement which show the statement is a misquote. i added a cited table with strenght numbers which is deleted two. what shall i do now. Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss it, of course. You should know this by now. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah sure i discussed it so often i explained it so often. i copied text from books to show whats wrong. but everything is reverted. i added a table with sourced numbers but its deleted, and now i have to wait until he says its ok ? he misquoted an historians, when he accused me of doing this u asked for example, so now i say the same, are u interessted in explanation? i didnt want to bring him problems i told no admin... Blablaaa (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

it costs me more time to explain my edits and search for help than editing the article. i ordered the newst book of glantz had have his newstes numbers here and the old numbers are wrong but i cant add because i get a edit war then. u losing time too. i see exactly that the article now dont says what glantz says but i can edit even after i explaind 7 times with hundreds of words and quotes .... Blablaaa (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I own When Titans Clashed and Kursk by David Glantz and Jonathon Houses, and the references appear accurate, though some of the material cited to pp. 175–176 of When Titans Clashed refers to the entire second half of 1943 (including Kursk) rather than just the Battle of Kursk. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yes ok and i have his newest kursk which has a chapter for the fialure of zitadelle and hes saying numerical superiority. and by the way i never disputed glantz says "often exaggerated numerical superiority" , but taking this out of a greater context and saying he disputes frieser is misquoting because glantz never says without superior numbers soviet had won. he grabed a statement of glantz and formed an opinion which is contradting his newest book and with his final exact statement so the reader can jugde himself.. even before i was blocked for a week i explained this on his page he did not respond , i repeat myself over and over. . and his book when titan clash is not perfectly up to date he didnt count steppe front now he does. so whats now i explained this glantz never says numbers werent improtant but the text now tries to imply. i dont even mention that glantz updates his 320 lost tanks on prokorovka. now i have to wait that he acceptes my changed regardless i have the most recent literatur and explained everything. can i rebuild the table without doing edit warring is this ok for u ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

because when i edited the sandbox he told me what i have to edit first what i have to do, i didnt knew that i have to follow somebody, nevertheless i did and it was disappointing result for me, u can check if u want. and yes it sounds odd when i ask if i can edit the table, but i dont want to be blocked again because somebody says then this is 3RR. i have the book in front of me and see misquoting and wrong statement and cant changed because i need the permission to edit, by the same user who did the "misquoting". that zaloga and overy are not even talking about kursk ( like i explained, like i explained everything ) doesnt madder i see. misquoting too... that frieser points 3,4 and 5 are deleted while sources doesnt madder too. all my edits are reverted and the user has gone to bed i cant edit because i will get blocked than. nice move of him, his last edit is a complete revert of me. maybe u remember , its not the first that i got maximum reverted regardless what edits were done. and now i ask u as admin again can i make the table to improve the article battle of kursk without getting blocked for breaching 3RR ? by the way its unpleasent for me to stalk your talk page and annoy u with such unimprotant **** but my options are limited, sorry.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• ":I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? "

i think there is no real dispute. the article is quoting an opinion of an historian but not correct, thats no content dispute this is false and not allowed on wiki i guess. i think even a email of mister glantz himself would be not enought argument... :-) Blablaaa (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline for working on Wikipedia articles. As I and several other editors have suggested to you previously; slow down, stop creating large numbers of discussions, acknowledge that different reliable sources reach different conclusions and work with other editors. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i create discussions to explain myself and solve disputes , other editors dont do this. i create discussion before edtis so that everyone can check why i do this. and no in this particular case the sources dont differ somebody misquoted. he avoids the discussion for every neutral reader its obvious why he avoids answering the question. i didnt want to accuse him but here it comes.

the battle of kursk article quotes Glantz with saying this:

• "On 11 August, the 1st Tank Army engaged Waffen SS units near Bogodukhov....The 5th Guards Army sent reinforcements, and between 13 and 17 August the Germans were fought to a stalemate. For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force"( i added big letters)

and no look of glantz exact words Page 249:

• "Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies"

this is the same what i have written before and sourced with Frieser, he deleted and put "his" version in it. hes citing glantz but glantz is not saying anything like this. arcoding to losses, the soviet armies lost hundred of tanks against the 2 SS Divisions. i explained this more than one time but i will be reverted when i change this in the article. its the same editor . Blablaaa (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

only as addition here glantz final statement about the whole battle of kursk, its the end of book:

• "Red Army was rapidly developing the skills to match its enormous numbers. The resulting combination proved fatal to blitzkrieg and, ultimately, lethal to Germany"

regarding the number issue. i told this dapi before he ignored... Blablaaa (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above comment about not adjudicating your dispute. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ok i understand. i dont want to be the guy who annoys all. i will let the issue of his misquoting. iam not sure how wiki normally deals with people who cite reliable historians and creat their own statements which are not supported by this historian . i explainded here on an admin page and its archived. i will no longer edit against this misquoting to avoide problems. i thank your for taking time to respond. Guten Tag Blablaaa (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the text, and page 170 of When Titans Clashed says exactly what the article text referenced to it states (the page number had been entered as page 70 rather than 170), so your claim that the source has been misrepresented is clearly baseless. The subsequent pages of The Battle of Kursk also describe how Soviet units eventually pushed the Germans away from Kharkov and liberated the city, so it would appear that you're cherry picking sections of the book. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

nonsense iam not cherry picking i can copy the book page. nevertheless his most recent book says what i wrote, do u want a picture of the site? when this really is there that its only a good proof for my concerns about the reliabilty of "when titans clashed" u can look the board for reliable sources. everything i disputed is not longer in his newer book. funny is that i already expressed my concers about this book weeks ago and this exampls only highlights how glantz changed his sources. and i really doubt that glantz in his older book not even mentions that the two soviet armies were destroyed. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

and i repeat myself, i claim the text now doesnt fit with Glantz opinion of his newest book. and when i see that the articles says something totally different than its high likly that the user misquotes rather the historian changes his opinion180 degree. this is not my fault. Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

page 249: "MEETING ENGAGEMENT AT BOGODUKHOV

• "On 12-13 august , three combar groups of Totenkopf were finally able to conduct a oncerted attack against the by now overextended forward detachments of the 1st Tank Army, which had severed German rail communications with Kharkov. Katukov lost 100 tanks when three of his forward detachments were sourounded , although some of the soviet troops escaped on foot. Yet unlike previous german counterattacks, this success did not cause the red units to collaps and withdraw. Instead, the 6th Guards army, reinforced by the 5th guards mechanized corps of the 5th Tank army, counterattacked totenkopf on the 13th, penetrating to vysokopole, another small village located on the key Kharkov- Poltava rail line, along which vital german reserves were moving to reinforce the Kharkov defense. At the same time, elements of Das reich and wiking launched a concerted attack on the weakend elements of of the 1st tank army south of bogodukhov, reaching almost to the town itself. Rotmistrov committed the remaining two tank corps of his 5th guards tank army to extricate Katukov. for three days the opposing forces maneuvered around bododukhov, while tank strenght of both Katukov and Rotmistrov declined alarmingly .( here he puts a note, the two tank armies lost about 800 tanks , only my opinion, interesting who the red army can lose so much tanks against some ss battlegroupds constinng of less than 100 tanks. ) Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies. ( here break new block )

• "While burning german and soviet tanks( my opinion: nice who the author not mentions that german lost some tanks and soviet hundreds) littered the landscape around bododukhov, the soviet advance on kharkov continued inexorable..." now he explains kharkov. u can take a map and look were these both towns are, to different settings. this is everything he says about the battle around bogodukhov, i hope u see now. Blablaaa (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D and Blablaaa, excuse me for butting in. I wonder if this is a case where a note (nb type) could be added to the article pointing out differing sourced viewpoints (perhaps even from the same historian) regarding the engagement in question? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem another opinion is good. the older statement is out of a book which deals with a much larger time frame. ten years later he wrote a new book especially dealing with kursk, so the statement now is much more detailed and maybe he changed is opinion. if u are interessted u can check the reliable soure board. i explained my concerns about "when titans clashed" then i bought glantz most recent book and see everything what i doubted is changed. for example numbers. so i cant see a reason to include his older views which are obvious more influenced by semi good primary sources. and his newer books is much more like Friesers work. Blablaaa (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this, p. 252:

Although Soviet forces failed to destroy the German Fourth Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf in the Belgorod-Khar'kov operation, they added insult to German Citadel injuries and subjected the Wehrmacht to a blood-letting that it could no longer withstand. German infantry divisions eroded to mere shadows of their former selves. The 255th and 57th Infatry Divisions emerged from the operation with 3,336 and 1,791 mean respectively. The 322nd was reduced to 322 men. One regiment from the 112th Infantry Divison had one officer and 45 men.

• 11 Panzer Divison reduced to 820 Panzer Grenadiers, 15 tanks and 4 assault guns.
• 19 panzer Division - 760 and just 7 tanks

The SS Panzer grenadier divisions fared somewhat better but were heavily damaged. By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns.

That, I believe puts things into better perspective. Blablaaa mentions none of that - just 3 pages down the line. Dapi89 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

omg dapi u call the destruction of hundreds of russian tanks a minute engagement, a brief engegament ^^. your knowledge of this battle is based on a 15 years old book which has so many errors that even the author updated it multiple times. why should i mention the german generals when i talk about this counterattack. what a nonsense. and to support the picking argument i copied the whole text lol. and while u talk about cherrypicking u bring a german division which was heavly mauled ....... Blablaaa (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• "By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns." lol this division banged two soviet Tank ARMIES and had 116 afv'S left. ^^Blablaaa (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

u list casualties of single germna divisions, while all know soviet suffered always much heavier losses, 7:1 tanks and 4:1 in men . where is your logic dapi, where? Blablaaa (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for getting in, but 7:1 loss ratio was simply not possible in 1943. No matter how hard it tried, in 1943 USSR made only 3 times more tanks than Germany, so unless the source explains the common sense discrepancy here (did Red Army advanced tankless for the rest of the year? was there in 1943 another major battle with the opposite tank loss ratio to offset Kursk?), the 7:1 ratio mentioned simply indicates to me different approaches of counting losses for both sides. Dimawik (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

glantz says at least 5:1 ratio, frieser says 8:1. the different counting of losses is not the reason in 43 the tanks losses proportions were very high on the whole front. germans maybe counted losses in a battle a bit strange but not over months, and the statistics for months show very high tank loss ratio in 43. dont forget in 43 tiger started to have major impact. Soviet lost 6000 tanks on kursk thats 3 times the german tank strenght on the entire front.....And german did no only build tanks for eastern front....

Concur. I've made comments to this effect before, but casualty and loss figures for many battles are notoriously disputed. What if one side knocks out a tank but happens to be the side that retired from the battlefield? They chalk up one enemy loss. The other side, meanwhile, may recover the tank and have it back in fighting order in several days -- a common enough occurrence in the Second World War. Those of us who are students of military history understand this, but casual readers probably will not. How many of the vehicle losses figures for any armored battles account for recovery and repair -- I'd bet most use period reports, and that the better estimates attempt to locate accurate inventories of a unit's vehicles just before and after a given battle as a check on the unit's reports. One approach is to select what appears to be an overall solid source for a loss citation, but to include other loss citations as information notes to the article. To my way of thinking, this is probably the best way to inform casual readers of how loosey-goosey these figures can be. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

my simple opinion about this: The wehrmacht had 50,000 tanks and assault guns and self propelled artillery. this includes tanks I and II, this tanks were not even destroyed in battle thousand were pulled out of the line. same with panzer38. multiple 1000 tanks of germany were staying around at the end of the war. so the lost in combat is maybe 40.000 ???. than we see that heavy tank battalions( all tigers I and tiger II) had up to 50% mobility kills and panther examintions on western front showed that more than 50% of this tanks were destroyed by crew or abandoned. if we say 40$ mobility kills ( only as example ) , than we have ~25,000 german combat losses. soviet lost 100.000 ( not alle combat losses ) and western allied 15´.000-20.000 ( ?). so we see the german combat ratio was extremly high, and on 43 the german were able to recover most of the light damaged tanks so there were only combat losses. and when we think that in 43 the red army had no counter for tiger, the 6:1 or 7:1 or maybe 5:1 fits perfect.Dimawik u should not forget that germany, even when they didnt used them, had thousands tanks in western europe italy and so on. according to archivs of both armies the germans lost 1,331 tanks in july and august ( this is the overall figure and so their is no "strange" counting , all damaged which were abonded while retreat are already included) , soviets reported show 9,294 tanks lost for this two months, makes 7:1. but all tiger and other heavy machienes were in the kursk sector, so the ratio here is propably higher... Blablaaa (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe we start now improving the article and discussing valid points ?Blablaaa (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have blocked Blablaaa (talk · contribs) for a month for reasons explained on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if discussions of the Battle of Kursk article could be continued on that article's talk page rather than here. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Nick-D's Day!

User:Nick-D has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nick-D's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nick-D! Peace, Rlevse 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Achoo~! I know, I know... but its just my nose being sensitive here... anyway, happy your day~! ;P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai

Since I am just working from sources, I admit that I may have been in error regarding Pitoe Airdrome. Or it may be a matter of semantics (not to be Clintonesque, but it might boil down to a definition of "began construction"). However, my source was photostats of orders to the 38th Bomb Group, which had a mission of spraying Pitoe with DDT on the first two days of the operation. The Frag Order issued by V Bomber Command at 2100 of 9-14-44 to its groups read in part:TWO ROGERS CALL BATMAN SPRAY PITOE AIRDROME AREA TOT 1100/I, followed at 2240 by the Field Order:TWO SQ, 12 B-25 (38TH BG) CONDUCT SPRAY MISSION PITOE AIRDROME AREA 15 SEPTEMBER. The final mission report of the 38BG S-2 sent 1519 on 9-15-44 reported: PITOE STRIP IS OVERGROWN WITH NEW BRUSH TO A HEIGHT OF 4 TO 6 FEET., and on the second mission on 9-16: EQUIPMENT ON SOUTHWEST END OF PITOE STRIP BUT WORK HAD NOT YET BEGUN. TWO NEW ROADS FROM RED BEACH TO PITOE STRIP. I drew the conclusion that Pitoe had been begun by the Japanese quite some time before the landings, cleared to some extent, but that work on the strip had been suspended for some time. The 38th itself moved into Pitoe on or about October 15 and flew its first combat mission from there on October 19. Cheers.--Reedmalloy (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources I found (and used in the article) stated that while the Allies originally intended to complete the abandoned Japanese airstrip, this didn't go ahead as it's flight paths would have caused problems with the airstrips which were built from scratch and designated Pitoe and Wama dromes. I'd guess that the 'Pitoe Strip' referred to in the records you've found was the uncompleted Japanese air strip as the sources I've found didn't mention any other attempts to build an airstrip on the island prior to the Allied invasion and the pilots' description of its status is in line with how its described in the works I consulted. The Allied Pitoe Drome was opened on about 17 October, so it's probably the one the 38th Bomb Group flew from. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFA/R

Hi Nick, given your comments about getting good sources recently, and recentism as well, could you look at the last entry on that page. You could probably explain the recentism thing more rigorously than I could YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:TFA/R. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi security forces

Would you mind reviewing the last few edits to this page, and giving me your view on (a) whether the tags at the top are warranted, (b) if so, what should I do about it, (c) suggestions on further improvements, and (d) after looking at the talk page, what do you think about the correct name of the page? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for this. I am considering trying to upgrade the page to match the model of Australian Defence Force. Would you mind giving it a small peer review? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure; I'll to this over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

Made major cuts per WP:Recentism on [Wikipedia:Today%27s featured article/requests#April 10 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines]. The history section is currently 3,988 words. 2,160 of them deal with 1942-1969 and 1,820 of them deal with 1969-2009. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that you have time for it, I don't see why you shouldn't run. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 BB

Hey Nick, I finally got to uploading the line drawings and adding in the table from my sandbox. Think it's ready for FAC? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - the article looks great. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC started here. If no one else has done it (read: MBK) by the time I am back from class, I'll notify the WikiProjects. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - I've posted all the notifications. FYI, I'm going to be out of town from Sunday to Tuesday (Australian time). Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries, if it really requires you it'll just have to wait a couple days. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, at the time I was taking a mid-term on World War II. A two-essay exam dissecting the Battle of the Java Sea and the Battle of Crete respectively. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about multi-essay exams, but now those repressed memories are back ;) (I did a lot of them during political science subjects). Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds painful. I haven't had to take any of those yet, thankfully. What class is that? Sounds like something I would absolutely love (...outside of the exams). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

300-level writing enhanced history course entitled World War II ... :P -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs CTOL Iraq Russia United States Canada Art of War Otsu Nuclear strategy Superpower Pressure suit Commentarii de Bello Civili No. 31 Squadron RAAF Joseph Stalin New Zealand Patton tank Zhukov Canberra People's Republic of China Gona

Cleanup 2003 invasion of Iraq World War I Vietnam War Merge Effects of World War II Technology during World War II World war Add Sources Battlegroup (army) Military awards of World War II World War II cryptography Wikify Military history of the Netherlands John Pedersen Casma Valley Expand Home front during World War II Aircraft carrier Participants in World War II

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban evasion.

Linksnational appears to be evading his ban with IP edits to War crimes of the Wehrmacht. (Hohum ^@) 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Image discussion for Australian light destroyer project

With the recent edits to Australian light destroyer project, in relation to the image File:DDL Kokoda 01.jpg, I think its time all involved took a pause and used discussion to come to a consensus on the way forward. I think your input would be useful (because of your involvement in getting the article to its current condition): could you please comment at Talk:Australian light destroyer project#Model image: in? out? shake it all about?

Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 09:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have run for coord

Needed more non-PC coords YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have enough free time to do justice to the position anymore :( Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Morotai Mutiny

Hi mate, just letting you know I've nominated Morotai Mutiny for TFA, so we'll see how that goes. I claimed 3 pts for first TFA, 1yr+ since promotion, and date anniversary, but left open the question of another for no similar article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just added my support. I've been meaning to nominate some of 'my' FAs for TFA - I might try Take Ichi convoy for 6 May (the day the convoy experienced its heaviest attack) or Military history of Australia during World War II for 3 September. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great, cheers - and I'd sure like to see one of those two you mention on the main page, particularly the latter, which was a serious effort on your part. Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Controversies" articles

Hello, I saw you are part of the Military History project. I ran across a couple of articles today and am not really sure of where to address concerns about them, but I'll start here and see what your suggestions are. The articles I am referring to are:

• Central and Eastern Europe, and
• Controversial command decisions, World War II
  

It should be noted these both spawn from a recently deleted (and controversial) article, Western betrayal. The first of these new articles is incredibly badly titled as its real topic is military and political controversies of World War II as they affected central and eastern Europe. I have placed a comment on the article's talk page regarding its title and introductory paragraph. I also think the scope of the article is too broad and probably rehashes material in other articles. The second article is a good topic for discussion but is quite one-sided in its approach to the few controversies it identifies. This is not to say that either article can't be brought to a better status, but I am concerned that the history being discussed in these articles does not appear to balanced and that certain major aspects of at least the first article do not conform to the manual of style for article writing. Anyway, my guess is that the best group of editors to provide guidance and ensure an NPOV approach is the Military History project. As I've said, I've left some comments about the articles, but I am hardly qualified to address all of the issues alone. If you could give the articles a look and let me know if I am in left field about this, it would be appreciated. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they replicas of the Western betrayal article? If so they can (and should) be speedy deleted. For some reason I can't see the pre-deletion version of Western betrayal, even though my admin privileges should let me. Both articles should be nominated for deletion if it they aren't a recreation of the deleted article as they're not encyclopedic topics and will only ever be POV messes. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Western betrayal article was trimmed and moved rather than deleted and the Central and Eastern Europe article appears to be a recreation of something similar to this version of the Western betrayal article. Both articles should go to AfD as they're POV disaster zones. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Something might be able to be done with second article if a balanced approach is used. The first, though, is far too broad in scope -- the issues mentioned should have their own articles which address all aspects of the decisions in detail. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Army

I did a full update of the Australian Army according to the info found in the link you provided: see Structure of the Australian Army for all the changes; if there is anything else that needs to be done, let me know :-) --noclador (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kelly

My but you have a busy talk page!
My 2c worth (which in Australia, as you know, rounds down to zero): To me it seems that the fact that the citations are sloppy is a red herring - there's enough information in them to enable someone to make them "non-sloppy" if needed, and to focus on that seems a bit "picky".
More importantly (in my view), I feel it takes attention away from the important points you are making. If someone is inclined to "counter-attack" you, they could focus on that issue rather than on the important points.
Otherwise, I agree with you, and I think you are on strong ground. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For BLP issues information about living people, and particularly what's claimed to be critical information, needs exact citations, so it's not a 'red herring'. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess on that point we have different priorities. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More Dutch BB stuff

Hey Nick, I just stumbled upon this article on the 1913 battleships. It's not reliable, but it does include some stuff we didn't. It also has scans of two earlier Germania designs; if you can supply (a) page number(s), so you think we should add one or both? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, what page numbers are you after? Given that the design sketches are of preliminary versions of the design, I'm not sure if we could sustain a FA-level fair use claim given that the article already has a good fair use image of the final proposals. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just the ones for the images if you thought we should upload them, so never mind. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the time you put into this article. Hell, you wrote most of it; without you, it wouldn't even be a GA right now. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well for your excellent contributions Ed. I've enjoyed working with you on this article, and its pleasing to see that the Netherlands is now the first country to have its entire battleship history at FA class thanks to this article and your excellent Design 1047 battlecruiser article. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed working with you as well. You're a jolly good fellow Nick, and I'm not very happy to see you departing the coordinator role! Yeah, it's nice to see that the Dutch are first, but it's not like this wasn't low pickings. ;) Out of curiosity, do you think it would be possible to make a FT out of this, perhaps by creating a parent summary article (Dutch capital ship designs)? We'd have to include a significant amount of background historical information, which I think could set it apart from the other two articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but there may not be sufficient material on the relationship between the two design proposals to support a FA-level article... Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How about GA, since you already have two FAs, all you would need is GA for the featured topic. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the GA criteria and process, I'm afraid, but that does sound like a distinct possibility. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GA criteria, process and nominations. GA is in-between B and A on the scale, so you should not have a problem getting there. Ed has some experience with the process. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"don't be silly?" - Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland

There's nothing in the "states" article that supports it being listed as a belligerent. What's wrong with requesting clarification on this matter? Other entities such as the Russian Liberation Army contributed far more in the conflict than the Polish RTRP. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force

I don't have time right at the moment, but it will be done within the next 2-3 weeks. I will get to it, don't worry! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tom. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia FARC

Hi Nick. A personal call for more hands on deck, otherwise the flagship will get sunk; rather embarrassing if that happens I think. WP:AWNB seems a bit jaded YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was at FAR! I'll help out. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your uncivility: admin comment requested

You are advised that an RFC is posted on admin notice board concerning your arbitrary AFD notice posted for Controversial Command Decisions, World War II. You did not bother at any time to enter into or participate in recent or current discussion on the relevant discussion page, nor did you post any gripe on my user talk page. POV issues are supposed to be resolved through editing processes, not via arbitrary and inappropriate AFD notices. Get over it. (See policy guidelines)Communicat (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Responded at WP:ANI. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to both of you on your successful election - it's well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your long and distinguished service as a coordinator of this project from February 2008 to March 2010; your sterling efforts on "big picture" subjects, including ten featured articles; and your tireless participation in discussion and review. For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great honour. Thank you so much. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You completely deserve it, Nick. Thanks for everything you've done, and I'm looking forward to reading any future FAs you have in store. I hope that you will continue to participate in at least some discussions on WT:MHCOORD, as you always seem to give insightful input to any discussion you take part in. Your friend, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Cap badge of the Royal Australian Artillery from articles

Hi Nick, can I get your opinion on whether you believe that User:Rettetast is right in removing the image of the cap badge of the Royal Australian Artillery from 2/5th Field Regiment (Australia) and 102nd Medium Battery, Royal Australian Artillery due to because "No rationale for this use. See WP:NFCC#10c"; using WP:TW? I would of thought that being in the lead article Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery would be fair rationale enough said. Let me know what you think and tell me if I need to be including soemthing in any article I wish to use the cap badge of the Royal Australian Artillery image. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As that's a non-free image, a rationale for using it needs to be provided for every individual article in which it is used, so the removal looks reasonable to me as there's no rationale provided for the two Australian units. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections, and for all you've done for the project during your tenure. – Joe N 13:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and congratulations on your well-earned election! Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Apr Fool

Happy AFD. :-) You now have a license to go nuts. (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 04:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that you posted this here well after 12pm Australian east coast time? Under Australian traditions that makes you the April fool ;) Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid time zones. :P 1am here. (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Italian battleship Re Umberto

Hi Nick. Sturmvogel and I tracked down some pre-WWI info on the ship's career. Can you look the article over again and see if it meets the B-class criteria now? Thanks a ton. Parsecboy (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the obscurity of the ship, that seems sufficient to reach B class to me - I've just reassessed the article. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review Organization of the Luftwaffe

Thanks a lot for those detailed points. The overlinking was on my to-do list. Should have said so. Rest are very useful insight. Exactly the third person view I wanted. Question though, If you feel that the part about color schemes need to be moved out, then what do you think of the Finger Four Strategy development ? Do let me know. Thanks again '  Perseus 71 ^talk 03:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I hope that the comments are helpful. The discussion of the finger four strategy is a bit more in-scope as it discusses how Luftwaffe air units were organised during combat, but it isn't at the core of the article's subject, and I'd suggest that you remove it to give the article a tighter focus. Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gameboy1947

I noted you have blocked several Gameboy1974 Sock puppets and usernames. I suspect the following IP's to be the same person's Sock Puppets due to the nature of their disruptive edits to the same articles:-

• 119.152.29.219
• 119.152.95.65
• 119.152.83.251
• 119.152.64.252
• 116.71.153.139

I tagged them as confirmed sockpuppets of his, but perhaps I should have tagged them as suspected and then put them on AiV. Could you check them and correct me if I was in error. I did notice the talk page edits placed by 119.152.83.251 and started to remove them from the talk pages but Againme 'complained' so I reverted my edits to the other ones I had done. As the two main articles he edits, Operation Strike of the Sword & Operation Panther's Claw, are on my watch list I will quickly spot any further dynamic IP edits he does and confirm them as his (Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited) and let you know direct, if thats okay with you?. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. I've had all those articles watchlisted for the last few months, and Gameboy is the only editor to have edited them from those IP ranges (and pretty much the only IP editor, period, to have edited those articles). In addition, his editing style and focus is obsessively consistent. As there's little interest from other IP editors in the articles Gameboy1947 targets I've been semi-protecting them when he takes a fancy to one per WP:DENY as there's not much risk of collateral damage. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruiser Australia

Sturmvogel and I have pretty much finished the drafting of the new HMAS Australia (1911) article (see User:Saberwyn/HMAS Australia I). Any observations or comments before this beast is released into the wilds of mainspace? -- saberwyn 23:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me, but I'm currently editing it - the fact that the ship was somewhat obsolete at the time work started on her needs to be covered. I'll read through the article as well. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Gameboy1947

Just reverted some more edits by four new socks of his:- 116.71.152.198, 119.152.28.180., 119.152.83.252 and 119.152.132.16 Richard Harvey (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work - I see that PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) has also protected the articles this guy is targeting. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

[9] - "tjamls"? ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That word makes perfect sense to Australians. Coincidently, it was also the result of me striking the wrong keys when attempting to write 'thanks'. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot you had a different language down under. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the people I met when I was in the US last year had no doubt that I was speaking an entirely different language to anything they understood as English... ;) Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

People from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan get the same reaction. (Yooper dialect) :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assure me that this photo is a fake. I'm getting cold from just looking at it. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahah, nope, it's real. Marquette, where I go to college, gets ~141 inches of snow every winter. Among large-enough cities, that's third if you don't count Alaska: [10]. Houghton, which is small but is where Michigan Tech is located, gets ~208 inches. How much do you get? ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We get a few minutes worth of snow on one or two days most winters here in Canberra, but it usually melts as soon as it hits the ground :) Most Australians regard Canberra as being unspeakably cold, and I know several people who flatly refuse to visit in winter. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At an average of 44 degrees? Honestly, that's warm here LOL. During the winter, it's almost unheard of to have the temperature at or above 32. Think more like 15–25 degrees. :-) At the beginning of spring, when it gets above 32 for the first time in weeks or months, you will probably see at least two students walking to class in t-shirts and/or shorts. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and your question of snowfall? Check out this image for the 08–09 winter. [11] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's frightening! At least you shouldn't have Australian-style anxieties over water shortages ;) I should note that I have been to North America in December and Europe in February, so I do understand the difference between Canberra and places which are genuinely cold in winter. It should also be noted that Australians don't believe in heating, so our buildings are colder in winter than yours are ;) (to the eternal disgust of the Canadians at my university). Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not that, but we do have dry Southern states crying to us to fulfill their water needs. North America is one thing, Canada/the UP is another. ;) Heh, the heat is almost always on here, and insulation to keep said heat in is a big deal; if you don't have good insulation/windows/etc., you are going to end up paying a rather large heating bill.

I'm surprised that you don't have any heating, though. Poor Canadians.

I think I would love Canberra. I hate temperatures above 80 and below 35, so 67–44 would be fine with me. And yes, I realize the irony of saying that when I live in the UP...no, it was not my choice to move here, it was my mom's. :P

Random side thought: my cousin is studying at the University of Sydney this semester. I should email him and ask how he likes it there... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We do have heating and insulation, just not enough of it! Canberra gets quite hot in summer - it's above 30 degrees Celsius most days in January and February and is getting warmer as the climate changes. It's very nice otherwise though. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahah -- well either way, sucks for you. ;) If what you say is true, you should go fix Canberra's infobox ! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are the means - Canberra's standard range of temperatures varies from -7 Celsius in winter to 40 Celsius in summer, so the annual means are going to be a bit wacky. There's a reason that article also has a very detailed climate chart! Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Swissôtel Sydney

Hi Nick,

i have been told to contact you regarding the restoration of the Swissôtel Sydney page - this page was built with no advertising intention at all, it was simply a page that told people like myself about the hotel and where it is and what it has to offer. can you please look into restoring this page as soon as possible as i feel it does not demonstrate advetising language at all and has the sole purpose to contribute factual information about the hotel to the people.

sorry didnt sign off 68marketstreet (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC) (68marketstreet)

No; from your above post it seems that the only reason that you want to create an article on the hotel is to promote it and this and the fact that your user name is the hotel's address indicates that you have a conflict of interest. The hotel has a perfectly good website already, and Wikipedia is not either a hotel directory or a venue for advertising. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan

We have a vandal problem here posting unsourced equipment numbers. Problem is I do not have IISS MilBal 2010. Did you make a comment saying you had it? If so, could you pass over, or post equipment numbers for Kazakhstan so we can get a consistent, up to date source in place? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

E-mail rcvd. Am a little busy right now, but will remember your restrictions on the document. Thanks a bunch! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Dutch 1913 battleship proposal, No. 1 Wing RAAF and Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short; promoted to A-Class between December 2009 and April 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. -MBK004 05:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP: 71.111.129.147

Hi Nick. IP user 71.111.129.147 has made persistent unconstructive edits to AK-74, Makarov PM, Type 56 assault rifle and other articles. Specifically, the users lists in those articles. He is adding text along with a citation that does not support his text, and removing chunks of text that actually are supported by the same text. For example, at Makarov PM he removed at least 6 countries that were supported by the cited book and then added countries (specifically, Vietnam) that are not supported by the cited book. I had added the citation and information to the article at an earlier date, using the same two books he is trying to pass as citations, and the books do not agree with any of his edits. He has been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page]. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page, and he immediately reinstates any of his edits that are reverted. ROG5728 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for 31 hours. Please let me know if they come back. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. I'll be watching for him. ROG5728 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Another IP user (possibly the same individual, but under the IP 76.184.84.73 this time) has been adding chunks of uncited text to the user lists in some of the same articles. As with the other IP, I posted a notification about him at ANI a few days ago but he stopped editing for a few days and the issue was archived. Starting today he has continued editing Type 56 assault rifle and Luger P08 pistol. As with the other IP that was recently blocked, he has been warned by myself (and others) on [his talk page] and he persistently adds the text back without explanation. As in the other case, I personally added the citations in the user sections in both of the affected articles, and I have not been able to find sources supporting the text he is adding. ROG5728 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The block on 71.111.129.147 has expired and he has already made a large number of edits in the same fashion, at the usual articles. This time it's obvious he is (and was) faking sources for his edits because this time he used online citations that do not support his text. Specifically, in his newest edit at Type 56 assault rifle he added two countries with a cited website that does not support either addition. On other articles such as Vz. 58 and Makarov PM he has continued to remove countries with actual citations and simultaneously add new countries citing books that do not agree with his text. ROG5728 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I've blocked them for a week - hopefully they take the hint. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Following his block expiration he has continued the same behavior at the usual pages. In the user lists at Makarov PM and AK-74 he removed countries supported by the book cited, and added countries that are not supported by the book cited. I warned him again in edit summarys and on his talk page but he has continued without an explanation. ROG5728 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. This user is editing again in the same manner at the same articles, blanking countries with valid sources and then adding countries with sources that do not actually say that said countries are users. As usual, he has not made any attempt to explain his behavior. I gave him a level four warning on July 20, but he has proceeded with the same behavior today. Some example edits from today can be seen here, here, here, here, and here. ROG5728 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've just blocked this editor for two weeks (again!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

War crimes of the Wehrmacht

The person who re-added that material was myself, I had logged out and forgot to log back in. What exactly is dubious about the material? I checked the sources and they appeared to be fine, sorry for any inconvience. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; as I noted in the edit summary, the material was added by a pro-Nazi POV-pusher who's since been blocked but is occasionally still trying to re-add their material under IP accounts. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Military history of France

Hi Nick. As you have an analogous FA, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Military history of France/archive1 please? There is a big stalemate between two editors and nobody else is participating. It is about whether the contents are focussed and cover the nominal topic. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented there Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good faith

I should assume good faith? What about that one? For a harmless suggestion such a accusation? That is really ridiculous. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want other editors calling you names then you shouldn't call them names in the first place. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the topic is over for me for this time. Next try: 2015. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Nick, I'm really not sure what to make of this disruptive edit by Sukarnobhumibol... Anyway, he's been templated by me for that nonsensical bit and I thought it is only proper to inform you of his childish behaviour. Next time he does that, I'm taking him to ANI. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Nick, per this latest name calling by him, should I take him to ANI now? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not going to the Supreme Court? Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, I'm going to drop this per your intervention at ANI and go back to my work at WP:MILITARY... but if he resume stalking/harassing me again, you know where my stand is. Cheers and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, I have disengaged from Sukarnobhumibol like you told us to but this latest edit by him isn't exactly helping to improve the situation... in fact if you look at it again, he is "stalking" me! Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you ignore them. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I'm dropping the stick... please, just keep an eye on him before he gets banned. Cheers and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've warned them. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks and like the statement I've said before, his trollish comments reminds me of someone and I'm really tempted to WP:RFCU for his relation (if any) with 23prootie (talk · contribs). But again as before, I'm leaving it as it is now because I'm not going to be the sheriff, judge and executioner, all rolled into one. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

23prootie socks are uncovered fairly regularly (I have the SPI case file on my watchlist), so they may well be worth reporting. The article edit pattern is different, but their personal conduct is similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hence, my educated guess. Toodles~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The War Crimes article

I would love to Nick but i have very little in the way of sources that deal with the issue. I could track down the info i was thinking about attempt to even the playing field in regards to Burma. I recall their being a few allegations by Meyer in his book in regards to Normandy but thats about it i think. If i come across anything though i will add it.

But i agree with you, the article is a shambles at the moment.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re the last edit to this article. Seems the information came from the articles of the two divisions in question. But only a single source and no page number: Iron Fist: A Combat History of the 17. SS-Panzergrenadier-Division "Götz von Berlichingen. Cant get a preview on google books and no copies in my local library to check out at some point.

The way it is worded seems rather strange, the 42nd captured them. They were found dead years later hence the 42nd murdered them ... the source might word it better though?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that detective work! As that book was published by Axis Europa, it can't be assumed to be either neutral or reliable and a better source is needed. (I just found a post on this forum page in which someone claiming to be the author of the book in question here (Antonio J. Munoz) admits publishing some low-quality works). If this actually happened there should be lots of sources covering it. Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In comparison, i currently only own the 12th SS divisional history (official that is) and that was produced by Stackpole books - they print alsorts and seem rather balanced with what they print in regards to the Axis and allied side of things. It does seem from your own PI work that the source doesnt seem that terriblely reliable and if it did happen, as you point out, it should will well covered.

The stuff currently on wiki just seems to much like 1+1=3 million ... --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kongo ACR

Hey, Nick, I think I've dealt with most of your issues with regards to the ACR for Kongo class battlecruiser. Could you check back in some time in the next few days to see if there are any big issues still to deal with? Cam ^(Chat) 03:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1‎

Hi again Nick. Can you look at this FAR? I only know about the Indochina stuff, but judging from the stuff in that section, and the generally odd weighting to various things, the content seems to have been put together in an ad hoc way. I think you would know a lot more about the whole geopolitical stuff in there especially the Cold War/Korea/end of WWII etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know much about Truman or that era of American history. I do agree that the content and structure are a bit odd though. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

i put more refs behind. if u find something more that is wrong in your opinion, than maybe mark it with "ref needed" instead of reverting. i will bring the ref then. if u find the wording bad than maybe u can change it. when u revert i dont know what exactly u dont like. Blablaaa (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I would be happy to copy edit the material if it is to remain in the article but if it is to be removed I will not bother. Please look over the diffs when you have a minute and let me know. Thanks. Diannaa ^TALK 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa, if you continue to add material not supported by the citations provided or written in bad English again you will be blocked. You do not have the option to see if other editors pick up on your mistakes or correct your bad grammar as you have been warned and blocked repeatedly for this kind of conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the material now is sources. do u want more refs? please tell me for what , i will add than. Blablaaa (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice of AN discussion involving you

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blablaaa. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your block of User:Blablaaa

Hi Nick-D. I was asked to look into your block of Blablaaa. As I read the reasons for the block, I can't help but feel that you've been a bit harsh on the user, especially given the fact that you have blocked the user several times before and the block itself was of a non-time critical nature. The user has questioned the block, as have a few other users, and I agree that there are concerns.

Could you please post a few more diffs regarding the behaviour that led you to block the user? If I'm frank, as it stands, your block reason is rather flimsy, though I agree that there may be cause for concern with regards to the behaviour of the user. If you could provide some more diffs for me to look at, I'd appreciate it.

I also think it would be good if you refrain from blocking this user in the future. LessHeard vanU pointed out (quite rightly, I think) that having one admin repeatedly applying sanctions to the same user isn't good.

Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding at WP:AN now. I'd suggest that you take the time to review this editor's conduct. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a point of doing that before I commented here, and I must say, I don't think an indefinite block was appropriate, especially with the reasons you gave on the talk page. This was their last edit before being blocked, for example. Yes, it's using the talk page as a forum, but an indefinite block for that seems excessive. Anyway, I'll read your response on WP:AN. Thanks.--Deskana (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the long-running pattern of disruption, not the individual edits in question here. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see the disruption. I've looked at the diffs you gave in the block reason, and they're definitely not sufficient, as far as I can see. Can you give a few more? The burden is on the blocking admin to justify the block, not the people who look at it afterwards, after all. --Deskana (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D. Although User:Blablaaa really seems to push some POV (as well as many other users do), he is doing that based on reliable sources. I agree that he is not always polite, however, his arguments do have some ground (at least he forced me to look through many sources and partially re-consider my point of view on some WWII events). You probably noticed that he is my opponent, and, based on that, my opinion has more weight than that of other users. I am convinced that his block is unjustified in this particular case and I propose you to re-consider your decision.
Sincerely,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a supporting comment at WP:AN#Blablaaa. Diannaa ^TALK 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to post this at WP:AN but got an edit conflict. I am posting here instead, as you may want no further posts on the other thread: He is also probably 188.192.127.100 (talk · contribs) who was blocked twice in his short career. Apparently he was in Hamburg on Dec 10 85.176.148.111 (talk · contribs); at lease EyeSerene seemed to think so. He may also have been user:HROThomas, who edited from 1/31/09 to 10/18/09. Here is a diff I clicked on at random. HROThomas's first edit on de.wikipedia was to change casualty figures on Unternehmen Zitadelle (Battle of Kursk). This is not a new user. By the way Blablaaa is editing de.wiki as well Diannaa ^TALK 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've posted a note about the pre-registration history I'm aware of at WP:AN. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just also posted a note to your above comment - I think that the block is justified, and am sure that the discussion will continue. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I support your block. Based on my rather limited experience, it was frustrating dealing with the user because he did not cite reliable sources to support his arguments. If we could get a firm commitment from the user to in future back up his assertions with reliable sources then I would support an unblock. Also, I promise to refrain from using German myself on Wikipedia in the future. I will continue to follow the progress of this dispute.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not intended to comment on alleged User:Blablaaa's sockpuppetry, usage of multiple accounts and similar violations. However, based on my rather limited experience I conclude that his contribution might be useful. Thus, his arguments forced me to look again at the sources and to re-word the WWII article's statement on the Battle of Kursk (according to some recent sources it was one of the most important battle, but not a turning point, soUser:Blablaaa appeared to be right), and to add the reservation on the Soviet conscripts died in German captivity to the Eastern Front article.User:Blablaaa is definitely a German POV pusher, however, since I have an extensive experience of contacts with really problem editors (who, by mastering some civil POV pusher's trick successfully evaded blocks), I conclude User:Blablaaa's behaviour is more polite and constructive than that of real problem editors. In addition, I am afraid that German POV is underrepresented in WP, so the User:Blablaaa's activity, although sometimes non-polite and annoying, may be useful to make WP more neutral. Since I myself by no mean can be considered as a pro-German editor, I believe I have a right to make such a statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul, sorry for not responding yesterday. I blocked Blablaaa for their disruptive conduct, and not his German POV. I agree that the English-language Wikipedia needs to make better use of the many excellent German sources which now exist on World War II, but the way Blablaaa was trying to do this was totally counter-productive as it disrupted work on the articles, sought to discourage other editors from contributing (eg, by falsely claiming that they misrepresented sources of claiming that they'd been taken in by propaganda) and sought to dismiss what are actually quite reliable English-language and Russian sources rather than include them alongside the German-language sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, probably this short time block will help to resolve the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, your point is well taken, based on the users edit in German I believe him to be a serious and intelligent person. His limited skills in English and failure to follow the Wikipedia rules has contributed to his being blocked. As a new user he tends to treat Wikipedia as a blog rather than a project to build a source of knowledge. Nick and yourself have a better appreciation of his editing history and his future potential as a serious rather than a disruptive editor. Bear in mind that prior to the publication of the data in Krivosheev and Overmans our understanding of casualties on the Eastern Front was limited to the OKW reports from the war. American as well as German historians used this flawed OKW data and rated the German Army as being far more effective against the Soviets than it actually was. I suspect that most users of Wikipedia do not have access to the Krivosheev and Overmans data and might still have a “German POV” with regard to the relative effectiveness of German vs. Soviet forces.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 76.116.25.74

Dear Nick,
The IP 76.116.25.74 repeatedly replaces the term "Soviet" with the word "Russian" in the Eastern Front (World War II) article (the most recent diffs are [12] and [13]), leaving no edit summaries and acting against the talk page consensus. Can you please consider a possibility to block him?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As they appear to have a stable IP but haven't been warned, I've warned them. Can you please let me know if this continues? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

quick question

Is this a photo of your front door at the moment? lol --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No; things are very placid in the real world (though my boss is stranded in Paris and I'm filling in for her). It is a good representation of the front door of my Wikipedia account though ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems allot of blinkers were being worn in that discussion ... the ball breaking continues!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On the plus side, several admins have volunteered themselves as contacts for the articles and editor in question by commenting in that discussion. I hope that they have as much fun keeping an eye on those articles as I haven't ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Message for you

Hi Nick. Please read this? Please consider having a conversation with Blablaaa. Thanks. Caden ^cool 08:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The block has been reviewed by other admins, and I have no intention of engaging with this editor, or yourself, any further. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Truth hurts, I know. I stand by every single word I said. And no worries, I have no intention of ever speaking with you again. Caden ^cool 09:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Three clichés in a row in the one passage is impressive work. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Caden has suggested that BlaBlaa ask for adoption, but I am unsure if s/he will do that. I feel that on sock puppetry grounds alone this user should have been blocked, but I digress: whats done is done. From Blablaa's reply to my question on s/he's talk page I think that some of the problem stems from a poor understanding of the English language. I have advised Blablaa that it would be a good idea to leave the milhist articles alone for a while and edit elsewhere so as to get a better feel for the site and the operations and such, but I have no idea if that advise will be taken to heart. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Nick. Historybuff1930 is edit warring the article Massimo. He's doing this since february 2010 with removal of text, sources and references, pretending being irrelevant [14] - this is just one of the many now almost daily reverts. The issue is about titles in the Massimo family. Historybuff1930 disregards official authoritative sources deleting references to other wikipedia's articles and to outer links, with personal attacks on me via edit summaries [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. I think this is an inappropriate and incivil way of behaving. It is not even scientific: Historybuff1930, although claiming to be an historian, simply deletes the references and sources which go against his theories, refusing to investigate them. Could you please have a look? This is his latest revert [20]. Thank you. Fabritius (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see very little evidence that you and Historybuff1930 have attempted to discuss your edits. I've protected the article to stop the current edit war, and urge you to discuss this disagreement in the first instance. Useful guidance on dispute resolution is available at WP:DR. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Nick. Blocking the article this way makes it incorrect. The titles listed in the article are not correct. The only authoritative source for italian titles is obviously the italian college of arms, Consulta araldica and its official directories, as for any other country. Historybuff is referencing german directories. I'm the head of the Massimo family and I now who bears and which are the titles in my family. Here is where I asked Historybuff1930 to have a look at the authoritative italian sources here (on edit summaries) [21] [22] [23]. The references can all be read on line (in italian). This is one of his answers [24].Fabritius (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Article protection to allow for dispute resolution is not in any way an endorsement of whatever the current version of the article is or vice-versa. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, following Historybuff's reference number 8 [25] in the now incorrect article, demonstrates exactly that Historybuff is wrong: the titles are not borne by all the members of the family, in particular Valerio Massimo which I suspect is Historybuff himself, has no titles. Please revert the article to my edit.Fabritius (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Massimo

Dear Nick. Thank you for the note on my talk page. I will certainly try to discuss the issue with 'Fabritius' and will review the page you have cited for guidance. While I am not going to respond to what is written above, it is worth mentioning that I have never actually added any content to the article that wasn't already there for years before I first edited. I have only reversed the new edits by made by 'Fabritius' in Jan 2010 (and subsequently) and added authoritative, original online sources to back up the original paragraph. The paragraph in dispute has remained essentially unchanged since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06), apart from 'non-structural' changes (such as a person passing away and being replaced by their heir). Between September 2006 and January 2010 many editors have altered content on the page, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Massimo and Historybluff1930

Historybuff1930 is biased and here follows the proof: in the Colonna article (another roman princely family) he cites exactly the one and only authoritative source for italian titles ('Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana. Rome: Archivio di Stato and Collegio Araldico')[26] which I'm referencing in the article Massimo [27] and he's canceling and denying [28], saying in his edit summary '...Also, the 'Libro D'Oro' is known to be an unreliable source, including many fake titled families'. This source is the issue. According to Historybluff it is genuine in the Colonna article but at the same time unreliable in the Massimo one. Thus, having proven that he's biased (he probably has a conflict of interest - I suspect he is Valerio Massimo) I ask you to block Historybuff1930 and revert the article. Thank you. Fabritius (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick. Again I do not intend to respond to what is written above on this page. However, 'Fabritius' does make a valid point. In my edit to the 'Colonna family' article this morning I overlooked the fact that the reference source in question ('Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana. Rome: Archivio di Stato and Collegio Araldico') which is not available online and is not 100% reliable, was still there, so I have now removed it from the article. Thank you to 'Fabritius' for pointing out my oversight. The 'Colonna family' article still needs some work on the links and sources which I will complete in due course. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick, Hystorybuff1930 is unable to respond because he has no arguments. But one he did very well, he just proved on the net of being a liar. In fact the diff I pointed out (here it is again [29]) has a time stamp of february 23rd 2010, he just removed it once he read my observations. In his edit of the Orsini family article, Historybluff forgot that he inserted the same reference again, together with the other references he is using. Maybe you shoud check, even because he arbitrarily deleted some historically correct text here [30] (about the Colonna and Barberini families). Maybe Historybuff will delete even his reference number 8 [31] in the now protected but incorrect article, because it demonstrates exactly that he is wrong: Valerio Massimo which I suspect is Historybuff himself, bears no titles. Truth hurts. Fabritius (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that I don't have any familiarity at all with the topic of this article or geneological history in general so am not in any position to comment on the content of the article or references being used. From what I could tell reviewing the diffs, this seems to be a content dispute and allegations of 'bias' and being a 'liar' aren't at all helpful in resolving it. I'd suggest that you attempt to have a good-faith discussion of this issue, and post messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy asking for editors who have some knowledge of these topics to comment on the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I really don't have time to waste on such vain disputes with a biased person, but, to settle this issue is very simple:

- Historybuff's only contribution to the article is his conjecture 'The family all bear the Princely title' and 'Prince Valerio Massimo' [32] all his subsequent edit warring is about Valerio Massimo bearing a title;

-you could then check very easily the reliability of Historybuff by taking a look at his reference number 8 [33] and searching for Valerio Massimo and you will see he is listed with no princely title, in opposition to Historybuff's conjectures. This even without being an expert. In my opinion, this should resolve the dispute. Fabritius (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to need to settle this among yourselves or with the input of editors knowledgeable about this topic. I don't know what an Italian princely title looks like or why that self-published Angelfire website is authoritative (it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source). Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all written in english. The title looks like this: 'Pr' for prince followed by the name of the person; thus 'Pr Valerio Massimo'. You will see there's no evidence of it, the list says just 'Valerio Massimo' and this goes clearly against Historybuff's conjectures. That source is reliable just for Historybuff that keeps on referencing it. Fabritius (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank: this appears to be a content dispute concerning a topic I have no knowledge whatsoever of and hence am in no position to comment on. Now that the article is protected to allow for dispute resolution there does not appear to be any need for administrator intervention at present. As such, you need to discuss this matter with Historybluff1930 and other interested editors using the dispute resolution process rather than ask me to intervene - I do not see any need for me to take further action here. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted notifications asking for other editors to comment on this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy and WT:BIOG. Please note that seeking other editors' views in this way is a core part of the dispute resolution process. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. I'll be waiting. In the meantime I've posted on the Massimo discussion page. I was glad to find out that somebody read some text and digested it (an administrator responding to Historybuff's request for advice [34]: ' TBH, you need to have a heart-to-heart talk with him as you two are from the same family (obviously!), thus both of you has got a potential conflict of interest issue with the Massimo article... --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)'

I hope now he will be stopping talking about conflict of interest as a way to resolve the dispute by keeping me from discussing. - Fabritius (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Dave1185: As per below, regarding your point that 'we are from the same family (obviously!)', I must repeat what I posted to your page earlier (see this post). I am really not a member of this family. I have no idea what the issues are in this family that would make Fabritius want to 'accuse' me of being his cousin over the internet, but it is simply not true. From a personal standpoint, coming from a close family myself, I cannot imagine resolving an 'issue' like this (despite not being able to imagine having an 'issue' like this in the first place), over the web. I have no way of reaching out to Fabritius other than over this forum. While I respect your advice to seek a compromise and consensus, and will do so, please do not imply again that I am a member of the Massimo family with a COI as I am categorically not. I think after my second post you have accepted the point I am making.

And Fabritius - I am happy to have a discussion with you to try and reach a consensus, based on sources and research, but I am not a member of your family and I urge you to stop implying that I am, as is it just incorrectly turning this into something personal which it actually is not.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

'Massimo' family article - request for advice

Dear Nick, I post here to ask for your advice and counsel about how to resolve the issue at hand and to ask for more time for the dispute resolution process to take place.

When this page was protected, you asked Fabritius and myself to start a discussion regarding the disputed last paragraph of the article. As I indicated in the note I left on your talk page (see this post), and a subsequent note I left on the 'Massimo' article talk page (see this post), I am happy to lay out the arguments and discuss the differences with Fabritius in a calm, fact-based and non-personal way.

By way of background, while the page was blocked for repeated 'edit warring' over the last paragraph, I would like to point out that I have never actually added any content to the article that wasn't already there for years before I first edited. I have only reversed the new 'vanity' edits by made by 'Fabritius' in Jan 2010 (and subsequently) and added authoritative, original online sources to back up the original paragraph. The paragraph in dispute has remained essentially unchanged since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom), until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom), apart from 'non-structural' changes (such as a person passing away and being replaced by their heir). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors have altered content on the page, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same.

I am not trying to push my own content or views, I am simply trying to revert the article to the state it was in before my first edit, after a sustained and repeated attempt by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (Fabritius has admitted that he is a member of the family and writing about himself - see conflict of interest link below), from changing the article to focus on himself, without providing the source back-up required.

I also saw The DJ's advice to Fabritius about familiarising himself with and following the dispute resolution process, and trying to achieve consensus (see this post). I agree with this and your advice to Fabritius, and have begun to lay out my arguments in a researched, sourced and referenced way - easy even for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand - on the 'Massimo' talk page. For example, I have answered Fabritius's key argument - that only he is entitled to the Princely title and the other members of the family are not - with a detailed response, with multiple references and links to an original and universally-recognised source. Fabritius presented his key arguments in the following posts: his request for an edit to the protected page (see this post), and his second request for an edit (see this post). In response, I have replied with a comprehensive answer (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument.

I am genuinely trying to have a civilised discussion, based on scholarship and facts, but I am not getting a reasonable response on the other side. Instead of Fabritius providing me with his counter arguments and trying to reach a solution, I am the subject of insults - being called a 'liar' (see this post), 'ridiculous' (see this post), and 'biased' (see this post). I am genuinely trying to work according the the Wiki guidelines on dispute resolution, yet I am finding it hard to have a reasoned exchange.

I fear Fabritius's clear conflict of interest (see this post on 'Fabritius's conflict of interest' for details) is making him unable to make clear, concise arguments based on real research and sources/references which (and this is key) can be verified. Fabritius has been very active since the article was protected, repeatedly trying to appeal to you on this page (above), yet since I have posted my detailed response to his questions well over 24hrs ago, he has been silent. As the 'conflict of interest' link above explains, I am a neutral editor, am categorically not a member of the Massimo family (despite Fabritius's strong insinuations) and do not have a conflict of interest. Given Fabritius has a clear conflict of interest, by his own admission, should he be allowed to edit this page at all?

Despite this obvious issue, I would welcome a debate with Fabritius in order to find a solution. I would also particularly welcome comments from other Wikipedia editors on the points I have made and the sources I have used to prove that my reversal of the last paragraph in the article to its original form is correct. I noted your posts on the Biography and Italy forums, but as yet there has been no input from editors active on either forum. I would very much welcome comments on the arguments I have put forward.

My concern is that the remaining 4/5 days of the article's protection is not enough time for this discussion to take place, and I am convinced that if/as soon as the protection is lifted, Fabritius will simply start repeatedly reversing the current edit again, having ignored the detailed arguments put forward on the talk page.

May I ask that the protection on the article to be extended back to 'indefinite' (as you originally protected it - see this link), in order to allow enough time for a proper discussion, ideally with Fabritius, but perhaps more importantly with other editors, so that a reasoned consensus may be reached?

I would very much welcome your thoughts and advice on my talk page and would very much appreciate the 'indefinite' (for now) protection of the article so that we have time to reach consensus with the benefit of a proper discussion.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If edit warring continues when the protection expires I'll re-apply it (I've watchlisted the article). Indefinite protection is only appropriate for long-lasting disputes, and that's not the case here (setting this article's protection to 'indefinite' was an accident which I quickly fixed up, not a deliberate action). As I've noted above, I have no knowledge at all of this topic or sources in this field, so am unable to comment on the content being discussed here. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick - thank you for your response above and I appreciate your position.

You noted that indefinite protection is only appropriate for long-lasting disputes. I genuinely believe this qualifies as a long lasting dispute as the article has been subject to almost daily revisions (back to the original by myself, and to Fabritius's version by Fabritius), since the end of January (27/01/10) - almost three months now on an almost daily basis, and I have no doubt Fabritius would start this again if the article were unprotected before consensus is reached. After all, rather than presenting clear arguments on the 'Massimo' talk page as suggested, he has repeatedly been asking you to simply revert to his edit, and has twice issued 'Protected article edit requests' without the seeking the consensus that they require.

While I appreciate that you are unable to comment on the content (and am not asking you to do so), my experience over the past three months and this week would suggest that Fabritius - rather than putting forward well sourced and presented arguments - is simply going to game the system by ignoring your advice to seek consensus and just wait until protection is lifted before reverting the article to his version, hoping that when you re-protect it, it will be his version that is protected.

Given I am genuinely trying to follow the dispute resolution guidelines and trying to seek consensus via research, discussion and proper sources, I think this would be grossly unfair. I have been effectively communicating my reasoned arguments (via edit summaries) for months now, and have now laid out clear arguments on the 'Massimo' talk page (I realise I should have used the talk page earlier).

Given the length of time this dispute has been going on and the lack of any real attempt on the other side to engage in constructive discussion, may I request that you treat this as a long-lasting dispute and set the article's protection to 'indefinite', at least to allow progress to be made and to avoid what I see as inevitable 'edit warring' to start up again. I think three months of almost daily revisions is a long lasting dispute - it certainly feels like one!

Clearly I am not asking for a permanent protection of this edit, but merely that a genuine attempt to follow the guidelines not be ignored and that the system not be 'gamed' as I fear it will be. Clearly once consensus is reached, the article should be unprotected.

Your consideration of this request would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, if there's a need to renew the protection once it expires this will be done. You can do your part in ensuring that this isn't necessary by not edit warring in the article. As I noted above in response to a message by Fabritius, page protection is in no way an endorsement of whatever version of the article is protected or vice-versa. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick - I understand your position. May I ask your advice? If despite my putting forward reasoned, well sourced arguments on the talk page, consensus is not reached by the time the article becomes unprotected, and then Fabritius simply reverts the edit to his version (as I suspect he is waiting to do), what do you suggest I do then? To leave his 'vanity edit' (given his conflict of interest) in place would make the article incorrect (and reward persistent, non-compliant behaviour), particularly if he continues to fail to provide verifiable supporting evidence/references for his changes, while I am following dispute resolution guidelines, backed up with detailed, sourced/referenced arguments (and investing much time in to do so properly). What would you then do in my position? Your advice would be much appreciated. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask for editors with an interest in the topic to comment. Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick - thanks, I will try and get input starting now on the arguments I have put forward - i.e. ahead of when the article becomes unprotected - and see if I get a response. I will let you know how I have got on prior to the article becoming unprotected - hopefully there will be some responses and some progress. Given we have had no response (as yet) to your posts on the Italy and Biography forums, where would you suggest I find these editors? I can start by looking at the edit history of the 'Massimo' page for past editors of content, but where else would you suggest I look? Thanks again for the advice. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You could try registering a request for comment or post at Wikipedia:Third opinion asking for another editor to examine the disagreement if you can't resolve this among yourselves. Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Historybluff: Did you overslook even this? ' TBH, you need to have a heart-to-heart talk with him as you two are from the same family (obviously!), thus both of you has got a potential conflict of interest issue with the Massimo article... --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)' [35].

I hope now you'll be stopping talking about conflict of interest as a way to resolve the dispute by keeping me from discussing. - Fabritius (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Dave1185: No I have not overlooked this, I have taken Nick D's advice. You can clearly see from the exchange above that I am looking for a way to reach consensus and for the time to be able to do so. Input from other editors is very welcome.

Regarding your point that 'we are from the same family (obviously!)', I must repeat what I posted to your page earlier (see this post). I am really not a member of this family. I have no idea what the issues are in this family that would make Fabritius want to 'accuse' me of being his cousin over the internet, but it is simply not true. From a personal standpoint, coming from a close family myself, I cannot imagine resolving an 'issue' like this (despite not being able to imagine having an 'issue' like this in the first place), over the web. I have no way of reaching out to Fabritius other than over this forum. While I respect your advice to seek a compromise and consensus, and will do so, please do not imply again that I am a member of the Massimo family with a COI as I am categorically not. I think after my second post you have accepted the point I am making.

And Fabritius - I am happy to have a discussion with you to try and reach a consensus, but I am not a member of your family and I urge you to stop implying that I am, as is it just incorrectly turning this into something personal which it actually is not.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You Know What?

I don't mind if it gets deleted. You know, Park Plaza Apartments (Sydney). I, Philip Graham, allow premission to delete my article. I'm not really made to make articles on Wikipedia. I'll just go back to what I am best at, helping other wikipedia articles. Nice knowing you. Channel 11 Australia (User talk:RotMS) 10:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II

Thanks for your advice on the article Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II. As a small token of thanks, do accept free admission to the National Maritime Museum of Ireland valid until the end of 2011. (which you can add to your awards) ClemMcGann (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you can use it ClemMcGann (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Caldwell

Mate, just thought I'd sound you out on something given your experience with No. 1 Wing and mine on WWII RAAF bios -- did you want to collaborate on getting Clive Caldwell to GA/A/FA? No pressure, I've got one or two other things on the boil now anyway, but reckon there's one going begging there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'd be happy to work with you on that one. I own Kristen Alexander's biography of Caldwell and can access most other works on him one way or the other. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good, hers seems to have the better reputation of the two dedicated bios. In fact I think I was responsible for putting in a few citations from Alexander as well as Watson in the past. I might start a list of references on the talk page comprising those that, if already utilised, could be mined further, and others that haven't been used yet; then we can mark which ones either of us can readily access. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I leafed through the other one in a library and put it back on the shelves - it was much less reliable looking (it consistently refereed to Caldwell as either 'Clive' or 'Killer', which is never a good sign, for instance) though I think that it got OK reviews when it was released. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-Jutland careers

Nick, I've finally gotten a hold of the RN's official history for WWI and have confirmed that there are only two major sorties of the BCs post-Jutland, plus the cover mission during 2nd Heligoland Bight mentioned therein. Is this enough to satisfy you if I resubmit HMS Lion (1910) for FAC, since you'd opposed on those grounds earlier?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Australian official history also states that at least the 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron (of which HMAS Australia was the flagship) was engaged in protecting minelaying operations and convoys in the North Sea during 1918. Do you know if Lion took part in these operations? Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd BCS was covering the Scandinavia convoy in April 1918 when the Germans sortied to intercept it and there's no other mention of it during 1918. 1st BCS, including Lion, sortied December 1917 to intercept the destroyers that sank the Scandinavia convoy, but there's no mention of it at all in 1918.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine by me. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mutilation of Japanese corpses

Regarding this undo, please point me to where exactly on the reference you use, Harrison page 827, where you find support for claiming but this was rare. in reference to the use of bones for creating artifacts. This since you undid with the self assured text, "clearly in the source", but I cant see it.

I see instead on page 826 the text "often taking leg bones from those they killed and carving objects". Shouldnt take you long to provide me with a quote of the text you base this on, I hope.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 08:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to post a message on your talk page. Page 827 of Simon Harrison's article states "Undoubtedly, only a minority of men extended souvenir-taking to body parts, and of those, fewer still went so far as to collect trophy skulls or carve bones into desk ornaments", which clearly supports a statement that bone carving was rare. The reference provided in the article was for p. 827, not p. 826. The statement on p. 826 refers only to what Lindbergh heard was occurring on a single island while the statement on p. 827 is much more general. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, apologies, I guess I was up too late yesterday, I didn't see that somehow. Still, looking at it now I think you are pushing the use of that cite by making the qualifier "rare". How much is "rare"? Usually it means very small numbers. But from the quote we could likewise derive that; a bit less than 50% of U.S. servicemen collected body parts, and not all of those who collected did carvings from them. I think you should change your text to something akin to "but this was not done by all collectors" as this better reflects the imprecise information available from the source on this particular issue. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. The key words seem to be "fewer still" of "a minority" of US troops and it seems reasonable to label this "rare" among US troops. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force

Could you put a block on the List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force article? To stop unregistered users from Vandalising the article. Administrator User:Buckshot06 was going to do it, but instead gave me your name as he was busy. Recon.Army (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force

Hi. Administrator User:Buckshot06 gave me your name, to see if you could help me out with a little problem. On the article List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force Buckshot06 and I agreed upon a single wikipedia:Reliable source to help and prevent the severe Vandalism from unregistered. He suggested that after a week of overhauling the article with the single source, if the vandalism hadn't stopped he would most likely put a block the on the article stopping unregistered users from vandalising the article. You may ask why Buckshot06 gave me your name for help, but Buckshot06 recently informed me a while back he was busy and you could help me. It has been more than a week now and still the vandalism hasn't stopped, I still have to keep reverting many edits made mu unregistered users who do not provide any source for their edits either. Could you possible put a block on the page? Recon.Army (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to where that discussion took place? I can't see it on the article's talk page or you or Buckshot's talk pages. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Walther WA 2000

Hi Nick. New user Lbrad2001 is being disruptive at Walther WA 2000 and Talk:Walther WA 2000. His additions to the article disregard the firearm project guidelines, which state that only highly notable pop culture appearances should be included in gun articles. The project guidelines also state that if the notability of the appearances is disputed (as it is in this case), a source must be given showing the weapon gained fame or notoriety because of the appearances. The only source he has given is IMFDB, which doesn't establish notability because it is a freely-edited trivia list of guns in films and games. The source also does not actually say the weapon's popularity was increased by these appearances, it simply lists guns' appearances in films and games. I have explained the guidelines to him, but he refuses to believe it isn't highly notable that the weapon appeared in one James Bond film or a Call of Duty game. Since he is disregarding the project guidelines I reverted his edits several times, but he quickly reverted mine. ROG5728 (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rog, I've protected that article for three days to allow for dispute resolution. I note that discussions of this started today, so hopefully a three day cool down period will help things. Please let me know if it doesn't though. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he still refuses to believe it isn't highly notable that the weapon appeared in one James Bond film and a Call of Duty game. The Walther WA 2000 article is not popular so no one else has commented on the discussion. This subject has been discussed extensively on the firearm project talk page and many individual gun article talk pages. Consensus has always been to remove the trivia, even in cases where it was more notable than what this user is persistently adding. ROG5728 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by that editor since 2 May, but I'll keep an eye on the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When the article was protected, his edits were still intact. Prior to that I reverted them several times but he reverted mine. At Talk:Walther WA 2000 he has stated his intention to keep adding the text back, even after I made it clear to him that his edits are not supported by the firearm project guidelines or the consensus reached on other individual gun talk pages. ROG5728 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protection doesn't endorse the current version of the article or any alternatives to it. Feel free to remove the material - I agree that this is in line with the project's conventions. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material again and he has already added it back again. He also removed the previous warnings on his talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 48 hours for personal attacks. Please note that editors are welcome to remove any messages, including warnings, from their talk page but doing so is assumed to mean that they've read the warning. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The block has been reviewed and declined by several administrators, one of which decided to remove his talk page access and extend the block 2 days. Now that the user's block was extended, it appears he has created a sock account, Special:Contributions/Jakebradson. In addition to the name similarity the new "brad" also signs his comments in the same exact manner as the previous "brad", and the new "brad" has not edited except to add and argue for the inclusion of James Bond trivia at Walther WA 2000. I left a message for the administrators on the first "brad" talk page (User talk:Lbrad2001), but in case it isn't noticed there, I'll leave a heads-up here too. ROG5728 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Given this editor's newness, they may not be aware that using multiple accounts is not allowed. They've sent me a very encouraging email, which I've responded to on their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what he knows about Wikipedia policy, I would think it's common sense that it is not acceptable to use a sockpuppet to evade a block, continue an edit war at Walther WA 2000, and then fake support on the article talk page. In his email to you he did not address his obvious use of a sockpuppet, Jakebradson, for two edits during his block extension. At the same time, you will notice he took care not to explicitly say he didn't use a sockpuppet. Instead, he simply defended himself by saying he never accused me of using a sockpuppet, and he went on to try to twist my accusation into a "personal attack" on my part. ROG5728 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Allowances need to be made for new editors, and it it is them (and I can't be 100% sure that it is given that the edits are a bit different) the use of a sock has been very limited and basically harmless. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

More of the same edit-warring has started at Walther WA 2000 and another article protection may be necessary. This time around, User:Caden is adding the text without a source. He has also accused me of sockpuppeting on the talk page there despite the fact that my views have only been posted by myself, and no other editors, on that talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that qualifies as edit warfare just yet. I'm not a neutral admin concerning Caden, so you may want to seek another admin's views on that post (possibly via WP:ANI) - for what it's worth I agree that it's uncivil and totally uncalled for. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a question for you. If pop culture information is unimportant then why is this up on The Model 1887 page. "The Model 1887 was famously featured in Terminator 2: Judgment Day when it was carried by Arnold Schwarzenegger as the T-800. In the film, the T-800 is seen spin-cocking a version of the shotgun with an enlarged lever loop. It has also made an appearance in the widely popular first-person shooter game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." Seems like almost the exact same thing I was brow beaten for in the WA 2000 article. LIGHT DINAMITE 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs)

According to toolserver the article has a small number of watchers (less than 30) and I was not watching it myself. I removed the text you quoted because it's not highly notable and doesn't have a source supporting it. Looking at the section titled Why purge the trivia list? on Talk:Winchester Model 1887/1901, that text was actually discussed by several editors in 2007 and consensus was to remove the text for lack of notability. Apparently the IP editor that added it recently did not see that discussion. ROG5728 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Surrendering Japanese at Guadalcanal

Hi. Re this I added it because you answered my question at talk like this.

The only interpretation you make possible here is that it is not the author Bergerud that makes this connection, it is USMC veteran Donald Fall that Bergerud quotes in his book. And since the original quote that Bergerud, according to you uses, states exactly that (attrocity stories caused them to take no prisoners), then it makes sense to include it. Note that in your revert you admitted this, and clearly are aware that this is what the veteran said. Now, either Bergerud was not faithful in retelling what the veteran said, making him a dubious source for inclusion here, or you did not include the data from his book faithfully. You also added further "revenge" info without showing the connection to the trophy taking.

You have left in "For instance, Bergerud states that the U.S. Marines on Guadacanal were aware that the Japanese had beheaded some of the marines captured on Wake Island prior to the start of the campaign." And you make it look like this is directly responsible for the trophy hunting. You deliberately left out the section where the US marine Donald Fall states that they thought that all the US soldiers on wake island had been killed, and that as revenge they killed all Japanese that tried to surrender, and that had they known that the Japanese had taken prisoners they would have let some of the surrendering Japanese live. The only connection with a solid source available to the trophy hunting is the very vague statement by Donald Fall that soon after pictures of atrocities conducted on wake island were found, marines were seen wearing ears on their belts. The other information you have added, e.g. about booby trapped us marines, is just further noise that you have added without it being reliably connected to the topic of trophy hunting, but added in a way seemingly to make it look as if the author connects it. The synthesis tag on the article is indeed justified.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What page numbers of the book are you referring to here? The pages numbers you said stated that the marines took no prisoners because of what they'd heard happened at Wake Island says no such thing (it actually says that the Japanese refused to surrender) and these pages are a general account of the troops' attitudes rather than personal accounts. I can't see where in the book it states that the marines killed Japanese trying to surrender The account by Donald Fall in which he talks about Marines taking ears on the second day of the landing goes on to explicitly state that marines later also mutilated corpses in response to Japanese doing the same ("You'd see what's been done to you. You'd find a dead Marine that the Japs had booby trapped. We found dead Japs that were booby-trapped. And they mutilated the dead. We began to get down to their level") (pages 411-412). Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I mistook Fuchs and Fall following seeing your gratuitous deletions from the article. Part of what you deleted contradicts Bergerud, which I presume is the real reason you deleted it. The full quote from a veteran from the Guadalcanal campaign, if you want the source, just check the cited material you deleted.:--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Several times [there on Gavutu], two or three Japs tried to surrender, but we cut them down. We had the battle cry, "remember Wake Island", As far as we knew all Marines were killed on Wake [and we] were not going to take any prisoners. If the Japs [had] announced they had taken prisoners on Wake, it would have saved some of their men."

Warship International

Hey Nick, would you happen to have access to "The Riachuelo (Brazilian battleship)" by Alan Vanterpool in these two Warship International issues? N2/69:140, §N3/70:205. If so, would you be able to scan and email them to me? Thanks muchly :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should have access to those articles, but it will take me a couple of weeks to visit the relevant library (it's on the other side of town and I'm a bit busy at the moment [work + university + multiple trips to Sydney]). Could you please ping me a reminder in a couple of weeks? (say, 13 May your time?). Are there any other articles you have your eye on by the way? Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can do that! I do have more issues I am interested in, but it's a long list. ;) I'll pick out the ones that have few or no other sources tonight or tomorrow when I have more time. Good luck with everything, and don't get in any more of a rush over this; I completely understand. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's my list:

• Details of Japanese battlecruisers B-65 design. Hajime Fukaya. N1/69:48.
• The Brazilian dreadnoughts, 1904-1914. David Topliss. N3/88:240. §N3/94:221.
• The Riachuelo (Brazilian battleship). Alan Vanterpool. N2/69:140. §N3/70:205. - if it's on the ironclad, don't bother ;)
• The Lexington class battlecruisers. Robert S. Egan. N1/66:13. 1/66:4.
• The U.S. Navy's battlecruisers. Christopher C. Wright, Samuel L. Morison and Robert S. Egan. N1/71:28. §N/71:326.
• Oklahoma, BB-37. John S. Rowe. N1/67:27.
• The Rurik � Progenitor of the armored cruisers. Edward C. Fisher, Jr. N4/67:263. �N1/68:8; �N1/68:10(2); �N3/68:117 (for Sturmvogel 66)

Wishlist (ie if you have the time...)

• An assessment of the Espana class battleships. Alan Vanterpool. 3/65:65.
• Spanish dreadnoughts Espana, Jaime I, Alfonso XIII. Richard M. Anderson. N8/64:151. (R/64:72); §N9/64:170.
• The story of the Spanish dreadnought battleships. Miguel D. Sotelo. N1/64:17. (R/64:68); §2/64:26; §(R/64:6)
• The Dutch naval shipbuilding program of 1939. John D. Spek. N1/88:68. §N3/88:225; §N2/89:107(2).

• You may want this: The battlecruiser Australia. Staff. N1/68:39. §N2/68:86.
• This may have something on Goeben's post-war service... SMS Goeben/TNS Yavuz. Martin H. Brice. N4/69:272. §N4/71:327; §N3/73:235; §N2/74:171; §N3/74:282; §N4/74/382

Thank you so much, Nick. Whenever you can get to this would be great; I can wait. :) In case you wanted to find one or more articles for yourself, look here (they are separated by country near the bottom). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I actually copied the first two articles you asked for today - could you please ping me an email as I don't think that I have your email address. The others may take some time but should be doable :) cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You. are. awesome. If you weren't 25398375609 miles away right now, I'd probably hug you. :) Sending an email now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Another poke. :) Can you just get these?

• The Brazilian dreadnoughts, 1904-1914. David Topliss. N3/88:240. §N3/94:221.
• Details of Japanese battlecruisers B-65 design. Hajime Fukaya. N1/69:48.
• The Lexington class battlecruisers. Robert S. Egan. N1/66:13. 1/66:4.
• The Rurik � Progenitor of the armored cruisers. Edward C. Fisher, Jr. N4/67:263. �N1/68:8; �N1/68:10(2); �N3/68:117 (for Sturmvogel 66)

Tried to narrow it down some; there's a book out on Oklahoma, so I may as well just get that, etc. Also, according to [36], Warship International published an article titled "Operational histories of South American battleships" in 1972. Is there any chance you could get that too? Many, many thanks. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I'm currently working on my last university assignment for the semester, so should be able to get stuck into these from next weekend. Given that it will cost me time and some money (for photocopying) to copy these articles, could you please sort them into the above important and 'wishlist' categories? I'm experimenting with a document scanning app on my iPhone, but it seems to be more trouble than its worth. I hope that the snow has started to melt in your part of the world! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed that the articles are already in the list above. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as in just get those four (or five, if that last one is a real article). :) The Spanish ones aren't really needed, and I have the "U.S. Navy Battlecruisers" article on my computer [found it online by accident, and it's about the Alaska's anyway]. So, if you could get just these, it'd be great. Thanks a lot Nick; I know that it'll cost you a lot of time to just track them down, not to mention the copying. The snow melted last month, although we did get more than a foot in April. Now it's 60s/70s all the time—perfect tennis weather! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On the flip side, you could always use a digital camera unless there was a really useful line drawing... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The iPhone app converts pictures to PDFs and does an OK job of this, but is limited by the phone's poor camera. Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, a camera probably = the app if one isn't being problematic; I would assume that each take one button click. Both are much easier than actually copying or scanning though... :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother with the Brazilian BBs; I've just gotten that one out of storage and can scan it easily (with the scanner that I got out of storage). Just send me an email saying what limit your email account can handle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and same with the Dutch building program.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sturm, that takes some pressure off of Nick. ;) I've sent an email —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys - I've struck those articles. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Hey Nick, could you have a squiz at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Douglas MacArthur/archive1? I'm trying to get the five-star general promoted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The article stinks; I have said so. It has been written from an extreme and disputable point of view, from two sources which share it, on a subject on which there are innumerable sources of other points of view; it contains statements which can only be explained as partisanship or ignorance. That is not uncivil; it is a defense - and the only defense - against Wikipedia being publicly embarassed.

It would be regrettable if your involvement in the same Wikiproject, or the same nationality, were to create a cabal to defend bad work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have revised one comment.

I believe, however, that I have done a service to Wikipedia in derailing this piece of log-rolling; Sandy (who also agreed with me on the merits) is quite right to ask for non-Milhist regulars - although I am a member of the project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of John Braithwaite

Hi Nick,

I think the entry did state why he is a person of significance, namely his Crime Shame and Reintegration book and the contribution it made to to criminology; and development of a responsive regulation framework. If you follow links that are provided you will see evidence of him being an academic. Please explain?

I am also meant to have the opportunity to change my entry based on feedback received- why did you delete my article without giving me feedback first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macregnet (talk • contribs) 04:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Kate 150.203.227.251 (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kate, I deleted the article as it didn't make any particular claims of notability for Mr Braithwaite. Being an academic and/or writing a book isn't enough by itself to satisfy the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Under the criteria for speedy deletion there also isn't a requirement for admins to provide feedback before deleting articles about people which don't make a clear claim about their notability. Please note also that Wikipedia takes a conservative view of the notability of people in order to protect their privacy. I note that you still have a copy of the article on your user page at User:Macregnet/new article name here - I'd suggest that you expand it to demonstrate how Mr Braithwaite is notable under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria (eg, by providing references that show that he's either received extensive coverage in independent sources or has made a very significant contribution in his area of expertise) and then recreate the article - I'd be happy to comment on an expanded draft if you'd like, but this is by no means a requirement. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks Nick for the information. I didn't realise that I still had access to a draft so was concerned doing the work all over again! Cheers. Kate Macregnet (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

I've updated John Braithwaite's profile. Can you please tell me if the content meets wikipedia requirements? Once I get the go ahead and I'll spend time formatting the page properly. I appreciate your feedback. Cheers, Kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macregnet (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kate, the article at User:Macregnet/new article name here (which I assume is what you're referring to) looks great to me. From what's in the article now Wikipedia:Notability (academics) looks to be easily met. As a suggestion though, you may want to format the references using inline citations so they produce hyper-linked endnotes - instructions on how to do this are at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources. This also avoids potential problems with the article being updated or content being moved around and messing up the references. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Canberra and Australia FAR

Dear Canberran and decorated FA writer, please lend a hand YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look in, but I'm rather busy at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Whats up!

Hey,I got your message.So can you give me advise about uploading images? Iznor19 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In short, only upload images which you are certain are free of copyright - you can't upload most material you find on the internet. This is best explained at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So I need owners permission about all the copyrights? And if I created a content that means I owned the copyright? anyway thanks for telling me that! Peace dude! Iznor19 (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a picture that can make you in peace!

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gameboy1947

Hi. Please direct your attention to the subject category, which has been growing. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest that I do about this? I've watchlisted the articles this guy is targeting and am playing whack a mole with him/her. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Madomann

Hi Nick. New user Madomann (and previously, his IP 41.233.122.130) is making disruptive edits at CornerShot and Corner Shot. He is removing valid, sourced mentions of the weapon's Israeli origins, as well as the company's origins. For example, the source given in the article says that the weapon was invented by Amos Golan of the Israeli Defense Forces. He has persistently changed the text to say that the weapon was "invented by American investors", even though the sources do not say that. Similarly, at Corner Shot (the article for the company itself) he has also removed all valid, sourced text of the company's Israeli origins, even though the CornerShot international website clearly says the company was founded by two former officers of the Israeli Defense Forces. He has also persistently added poor quality links to a supposed european Cornershot company (a competing weapon maybe?) and even created a speedy-deletion article on it, Omega Cornershot France. Other text he has added to the Cornershot article, such as "it's a must & essential asset for Special Troop Forces in most advanced armys" indicates he is not interested in using a neutral point of view and despite being warned several times he has continued in this manner. ROG5728 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rog - I'll look into this later today. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator tasks

In response to your edit summary here: [37], Nick you are more than welcome to do those tasks. If you remember, I did them before I was a coordinator. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MBK - I don't want to creat work for the current crop of coordinators, but I also don't want to step on their toes :) Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Warship International

Nick, If you have access to old copies of Warship International I'm hoping that you might be able to scan this article and the follow-up comments for me whenever you get around to it. The Rurik � Progenitor of the armored cruisers. Edward C. Fisher, Jr. N4/67:263. �N1/68:8; �N1/68:10(2); �N3/68:117--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure - I've added that to the list above. It might take me a few weeks to get up to this though. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine, I'm in no hurry. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User boxes

Nick, I'm pretty sure I havn't personally attacked anyone, and certainly not intentionally - the wiki page on userboxes is quite clear, and I quoted it. If you think I have overstepped my mark I defer to your greater experience and administrative power and will happily recind. To be honest I just didnt want to trouble WP admins with fairly frivolous stuff so I (apparently erroneously) sorted out the offensive stuff myself. Could you let me know what, if anything, I can do when I come across userboxes I find offensive and are against the rules? Thanks in advance Sam Lacey (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You can nominate them for deletion via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Improper username?

See User:MalGAYsial, and their only edit here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've blocked that account as a vandalism only account. I'm not sure if the user name is offensive to a blockable degree by itself. regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Hi Nick! Is there any chance that you can put an idefinite, or at the least a 12 month block, on this persistent Vandalism only account:- 62.8.126.134, which is becoming active again? Richard Harvey (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Two acts of vandalism a over a month after the most recent edit (which appears to have been OK) aren't enough to justify a block of any length. I've watchlisted their talk page, however, and will block them if the address continues to be used for vandalism - it looks a bit like it might be a school account or equivalent. Cheers Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Muschu Island

I am interested in creating a page of Muschu Island and it's puting it as part of the WikiProject PNG and have the participants from WP PNG to help with it. I feel that we should have part of the article during World War II and include the Z Special Unit section to it. We can even have information about the island since World War II until now on that page. Feedback is appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to discuss that at Talk:Z Special Unit, but it may be best to create another article on the World War II combat on the island in isolation from the article on the island as a geographic feature. Nick-D (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

State Library of Victoria

Since you have a knowledge on Australian copyright policy, then what do you think about using Allan Green's photos from State Library of Victoria, like this one File:HMS_Kingston.jpg? They are marked as "out of copyright ", nonetheless they say in general copyright notice, that: Unaltered images or text may be downloaded, saved and printed from the State Library website to use as reference or study material for personal use or illustration in a project, assignment, essay or thesis and not for any publication in any medium. All of the accompanying caption information must be included without alteration. (...) To use images ...for all other uses ... you must contact the Library to seek prior written permission. ... A reproduction fee may be charged depending on the nature of the proposed use. [38] When downloading high resolution photos (I've only uploadad several low-res ones), there's a notice: Although there are no copyright restrictions on this work, the State Library of Victoria does not endorse or support any derogatory uses of this work. In using this work you agree to acknowledge the work's creator and the State Library of Victoria as the source of the work. Pibwl ←« 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pibwl. My understanding is that if something is out of copyright then no-one can impose any restrictions on how it's used. The problem here seems to be that the SLV's general copyright notice isn't in line with items for which it does not assert copyright so it can be safely ignored in those instances. Wikipedia and Wikicommons upload requirements are in line with the level of attribution the SLV requires for out of copyright images, but my understanding is that such a requirement for out of copyright (and hence public domain) works are unenforceable. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Poke

Hey Nick, consider this your requested Warship International poke. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I'm afraid that I'm probably going to be busy for the next couple of weekends though, so I may need to be reminded again. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not pressed for time. Thanks again, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

War Related Famine Deaths

I posted the disputed text to the WW2 Casualties page.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review my post.

So it will be Australia vs. Germany in Durban on June 13th May the best team win. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as Australia struggled to beat New Zealand in a warm up game a few days ago, I think that Germany will turn out to be the better team ;) Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This Rwanda row has spilled over to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-28/World War II Casualties Since you commented in the discusion, I thought you should be aware of the dispute.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - going to mediation after only a short discussion on the article's talk page seems over the top! I'll comment there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a chance to do some research today at the NY Public Library and found that there is some scholarly support linking the Ruanda famine to the WW2 famine in Bengal. I put it in the footnotes for readers to ponder over. At times I want to leave Wikipedia and persue other interests, however I do learn quite a bit around here.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I appreciate your taking the time to review the wartime famine row. I lived in the world before the internet and own quite a few in print sources on WW2 and I have access to the New York Public Library. In future, should you or other editors on the military history project have a need for sourced information please drop me a line. Wikipedia should not have to depend solely on Google books and private unverified web pages.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I suspect that I'll take you up on that offer. I live in Canberra, Australia's capital city, and have access to the National Library of Australia and several major university libraries so please also let me know if you're having trouble finding something. Out of interest, are you referring to the New York Public Library's main building or its branches? - I ask as I visited the magnificent main building when I was in New York last year, and was very tempted to try to think of something to look up ;) cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I go to the New York Public Library's main building. BTW I recently retired and have the time to go there, It is very close , I can see Manhattan from my window in Brooklyn.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo, the National Library of Australia has your sources to verify

• Behind a curtain of silence : Japanese in Soviet custody, 1945-1956 / William F. Nimmo

• War without mercy : race and power in the Pacific war / John W. Dower

--Woogie10w (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I actually bought a secondhand copy of 'War without Mercy' today. Nick-D (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

GAR for Type IXA submarine

Nick, would you be willing to take this (Talk:German Type IXA submarine/GA1) on because I don't think that I can be neutral?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel, I haven't actually done a GA review before and am a bit pressed for time at the moment, so probably not I'm afraid. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just check it compared to the GA criteria and tell me (the one who wrote the article) what I need to do to get any isues fixed. And once I fix it, you can pass it or fail it. It's that simple. If you still don't want to, can yuo try asking another person to review it for me? Thanks.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello White Shaddows, I'm afraid that I don't have the time to do that at present. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, Nick, I'll take care of it shortly. Thanks anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for relpying :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Craftyminion block

Who was he attacking or harassing? --Surturz (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently posting the block message now. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've made the wrong call, please see this diff. Observoz' edits, six more-or-less POVvy edits, followed by two trojan horse noncontroversial edits is not technically vandalism, but I can't blame Craftyminion for saying that. Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the block rationale this editor was reverting OK edits across a few articles and a talk page post as 'vandalism' accompanied by insulting talk page posts and edit summaries. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks re:(Japanese war crimes)

I don't know if you are familar with modern history of China. You see, the China page includes Taiwan, but back in 1938 Taiwan was part of Empire of Japan and fought on the Japanese side. Putting a China link there (and any articles that deals with events happened from 1911 to 1949) creates a technical problem because the the Japanese Empire didn't have war with Taiwan in 1938, they had war with the Republic of China.

My impression is that, the China page is portrayed the current purposefully ambiguous way to provide a neutral link for articles that deal with issues and events that regards the whole China (include both the Mainland and Taiwan), such as cultural, civilization etc.

But this is not the case here, China, in WWII sense, clearly excludes Taiwan. That's why I suggested a more precise term that is closer to the truth, I hope you understand. International Common Editor (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's much risk of confusion really given that 'China' was the common name for mainland China at the time, as well as now, and that's where the incident in the photo took place. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more important not to afraid to reflect the fact that Hsuchow was indeed in Republic of China in 1938, than trying to choose a name that links to a multi-national civilisation page just because it is the common name for a place that used to belong to one country but now belongs to another. The China link is inferior in that case because China and Mainland China are the common names for People's Republic of China. Republic of China on the other hand is unambiguous, it was their citizen being killed, their armies who fought the Japanese, and it was them who signed the agreement on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, it leaves no room for debate/misreading. ( the term Republic of China only became controversial after the civil war, not here, if that's what concerns you) International Common Editor (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Using your rationale, you may replace all Republic of China links with China on the page International Military Tribunal for the Far East too. It will work, but it won't be as good, because it leaves out the part of history where Republic of China used to represent the whole China, thus render the article less informative. International Common Editor (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese POWs

I made a post re Japanese POWs and cited a book Behind the Curtain of Silence by William Nemo. It is available at these Australian libraries, if you find the need to consult it[39] Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. It looks like a very useful reference. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that that you have difficulty obtaining Dower’s book, recently I have encountered other editors who also a lack of access to sources. This imposes a severe impediment to the development of the project and I do not foresee a solution as long as the current copyright laws remain on the books. I feel frustrated by this situation because I cannot engage in meaningful collaboration with other editors.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Anson

I've tried to fix it according to your suggestions. Buggie111 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan

At your convenience, can you please revisit the A-class review and see if you notice anything else that can improve the article? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the reminder (and sorry for not noticing that you'd responded to my comments), Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Kaga

Hiya Nick, you asked for another copyedit before FAC, I just finished, please let me know if I missed anything. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Willis Tower at WP:VPC

You recently participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower upward pano. You are now welcome to participate in the discussion of both Willis Tower images at WP:VPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Colour Photo for 401 nomination

Hello Nick-D, I just want to let you know that a colour photo has now been added to the featured picture candidate as an alternative. I could use your feedback on this new submission whenever you get a chance. [40] Haljackey (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983 and so I thought I would alert you to a discussion at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is User:JackHannen a possible sock of User:LightAj?

On the article page of Philippine Air Force, this guy → JackHannen (talk · contribs) ← has practically been re-introducing the same copyvio images as LightAj (talk · contribs) had done so previously? If you have no objections, I'm moving ahead with the removal of those images. BTW, do you think it's time for another round of RFCU and SPI? Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Disregard the above message, Tim Song has blocked him per CU request by me. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this guy (and sorry for the slow response - I've been out of town for the last few days) Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore effect. A new version of the article has been created at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Sentinel R

Hello Nick-D. Sentinel R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Canberra FAR

Hi Nick-D. I've finished the repairs on the Canberra FAR. Can you use your local knowledge to see if anything is missing please? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dealt with, I think YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

LCA Thanks

Dear Nick, Thanks for the help with RAN and LCA. Living in Philadelphia, USA, maybe the LCA wasn't the easiest subject for me to tackle the first time out. There is still plenty of stuff that hasn't made the world-wide-web. Regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I'm happy to help Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Homan

If the editor has access to Wikipedia, they can post their own unblock request. You have no ability to explain another user's actions, and you suddenly become responsible for their future actions. If you wanted the block reviewed, ANI/AN would have made more sense...but right now, you posting the unblock makes it look like you support an unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The editor emailed me requesting that the block be lifted and as I didn't want to email them back (as this would reveal my email address) I've posted the text of their email with an unblock request to get a second opinion on the block per their request - I'm assuming that they think they can't edit their talk page (which isn't the case). As I was the blocking admin and posted a paragraph explaining why I think they shouldn't be unblocked along with the editor's unblock request I don't think that there's much risk that I'll be mistaken for wanting the block lifted. That said, the editor isn't blocked from editing their own talk page, and if I've messed up the procedure I'd certainly have no objection to the unblock request being either removed or declined pending the editor posting a request for themselves. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged edit war

Hello, Nick ! User:Blablaaa makes Edit-War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

I have very normal references, but he said "propaganda !" What must I do ? Igor Piryazev —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here the "references" [[41]] Blablaaa (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Without looking at any diffs, I'd suggest that if you're concerned that there's an edit war you report this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. For various reasons I'm not a suitable admin to investigate the issue. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

LightAj

Someone just raised an alarm over at the page of User talk:Moonriddengirl#CCI etiquette, its about a user's edit overlapping with that of User:LightAj but MRG has blocked User:Chewygum 72hrs for the same article-related copyvios. Tim Song has been informed of this as well, hope he can shed some "light" on this matter soon. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by anon IP again

Sorry to trouble you again. Despite being informed by me, BilCat and Deniss to discuss the matter on the talk page of Horten Ho 229, the same anon IP editor 195.113.8.138 (talk · contribs) kept re-inserting the same "maintenance template" back in spite of what we had told him that the sources provided are not really verifiable (as I understand it, some of data/information are still classified and won't be release for public consumption until 2039 earliest). The same anon IP editor also went as far to template us when he could have started to discuss the matter on the discussion page to clarify the matter. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a minor (if surprisingly heated) content dispute to me. I've left a message on 195.113.8.13's talk page asking them to discuss the issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, don't you think that its kind of silly to be doing this over and over and over again... correct me if I'm wrong but may I quote WP:DE or WP:TE on this particular edit? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so, as the discussion is pretty much deadlocked on the talk page due to the unavailability of sources. However, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include the tag - it may be worth posting an appeal for other editors to look into the matter and confirm that its not possible to provide this clarification - a recent source saying that the radar frequencies are still classified would go a long way towards this. I briefly blocked the editor, but then unblocked them as they've stopped the name calling and this still seems to be a content dispute. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

Hi there. I noticed those claims on the Gillard article about her distancing herself from certain Rudd policies - especially the one regarding internet censorship, which was sourced by an article written on the 18th which had absolutely no mention of Gillard, and was written at a time when Gillard wasn't thought to be challenging for the leadership. I was about to edit them, but by the time I'd logged in you'd already deleted them! I thought I'd let you know that I appreciate it. Taylor (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I thought that the statements didn't match up with her press conference, and wasn't surprised to find that they weren't supported by the reference. I do hope that she dumps the internet censorship policy though, so hopefully it turns out to be correct! Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like the current party line is that the censor is a good thing and that it will function, but simply that the Australian ratings system is too strict and needs review. In other words, they will give an R rating for video games, perhaps legalise porn and then ineffectively block everything else, while giving hundreds of private enterprises around the country a list of the most abhorent content the government can find.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Charnwood

Nick, could you prehaps keep an eye on and moderate the discussion on the Operation Charnwood talk page. I have no further time tonoght to respond to Blablaaa.

Simpley he is claiming that once again we, the various editors of the article, have made everything up. When he has asked for the sources i have pointed him to the article, the footnotes, and even quoted them for him; yet he is going in a round about discussion that is leading nowhere.

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Be precise. I asked u after the source which supports the statement in the lead. U could not because no of your historians claimed what u said. U dodged the question after the source multiple times. u brought no source which supports your statement that the inflicted casualties made the tactical victory. Blablaaa (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with u looking into the discussion. I also will not claim that your "decision" is affect by your personal opinion about me and my faith. So feel free and present your opinion. Regardless what u say on charnwood i will not claim u are bias towards enigma. Blablaaa (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. However, in this post on the article's talk page you say the exact opposite, claiming that I'm not neutral towards you ("u search for another editor who had problems with me") and I'm in danger of being influenced by EnigmaMcmxc. I agree that admin intervention is needed here, but in the interests of procedural fairness I'll keep out of this one. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

your assumption is not correct. I said, what i expect enigma to try. I dont say that iam afraid of u being biased. I claim that maybe enigma hopes this. I dont think u will be bias. So again, feel free to say your opinion Blablaaa (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

i've read your comments on enigmas talk page now iam very interested in your answer on my question. U say its my typical behavious of questioning sourced material. Can u please answer straight up where the correlation between the victory and the german casualties is sourced. Iam very interested now Blablaaa (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

tactical victoryBlablaaa (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see page 318 of Carlo D'Este's book Decision in Normandy. More generally, its a reasonable summation of what's in the analysis section - the contents of lead sections don't need to be directly sourced and it is expected that these sections will summarise the contents of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont own the book, give me the quote of D'este claiming this correlation . The lead must be correct and must be the short version of the text. Give me the quote. Please dont dodge the question. please give me the simply quote of D'este claiming this. Whats so difficult ? Blablaaa (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to dispute sources, you need to take the time to actually read them. Questioning reliable sources checked by two different editors without a substantive criticism to make or checking the source yourself is a waste of everyone's time. You have a bad habit of doing this. Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

ok u are dodging. i dont question the source i question that the statement is sourced. ok lets make a deal. i will buy the book or rent it and when i find that u wrongly claimed the statement ( the statement is the german casualties made a allied tactical victory, this simple correlation is question by me) is sourced u will selfblock yourself for a month for bad faith ? Blablaaa (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

i asked for a quote, both of u are not giving the quote. if u and enigma persistent claim the statement is correct and sourced by D'este and is it not, u are obviously violating wiki rules. Blablaaa (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence states that Operation Goodwood was an Allied tactical victory due to the combination of the capture of the northern half of Caen and the heavy German casualties - and not just casualties as you keep claiming. This is also what D'Este states in 1 1/2 pages of analysis - while he labels the capture of the northern half of the town "largely a hollow victory" and "of no immediate tactical benefit to Montgomery", the operation as a whole "unquestionably improved" Montgomery's position (as he is identified as writing in the analysis section) and also states that "the decision to hold Caen to the bitter end was Hitler's, and the price of this strategy came steeply" as the two German divisions involved suffered "dreadful losses". As such, the sentence is a fair summation of what's in both the analysis section and D'Este's book. Beevor also states that the capture of the northern half of Caen alone meant that the operation was "a very partial success". As such, there's no problems with sourcing, particularly given that this is the lead section, which are "usually written at a greater level of generality than the body" and generally don't need to be specifically cited as long as the material is cited in the body of the article - please see WP:LEAD. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

u are wrong . the sentence is not a fair summation of D'este. He simply not claiming this correlation. He claims the position of british improved and so and so on, hes not claiming the statement iam totally correct from the very beginning. That he is saying german divisions suffered "dreadful losses" is complty irrelevant. read what i said the problem is the statement. So now iam finally convinced D'este did not say anthing like the sentence in the lead. Enigma simply did OR and not even correct. Blablaaa (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

that u try to throw in short sentence to create some sort of correlation is prove enough that D'este doensnt say something like this otherwise u could simply quote him but u cant. Blablaaa (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL now iam not even believing that D'este claims the battle was a tactical victory at all. Does he say this ? but this is not the point... Blablaaa (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's "not a fair summation" of something you haven't read? I'm not wasting any further time on this. Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for the comments here and on my talkpage; i should also note that your immediate response above is the basic reason why am fed up of provinding information on demand everytime Blablaaa finds something else he does not like. Per your comment i think the best appraoch shall be to simpley ignore him on the article talkpages and not engage.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

is it not a fair summation of what u quoted of him. please dont try to distract. last chance : please give me the quote or even a full page of D'este where he is clear saying ( without any OR from your side ) that the german losses were a major factor to call this an allied Tactical victory. Because tactical victories in general means u inflicted more casualties and not 50% less. So i honestly doubt that D'est is saying this in military terms very uncommon statement. So now please show clearly that the statement is verifiable or admit that this

iam wondering whats so hard with giving the exact quote which supports that statement without any kind of OR. did u read WP:V ? Blablaaa (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe u want to admit that the statement in the lead is indeed not correct sourced. If not i will search for other people who can judge this case , i think maybe someone with perfect understanding of verifibilty. I guess this becomes unneccessary problematic then. Please considere to step back from your opinion. Then somebody changes the statement and everything is fine. Blablaaa (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting problem

Hi Nick! I wonder if you can help out with a 'Gameboy' style of sockpuppeting problem from LarkinToad2010, which is a sock of WilberforceHope amongst others, See:- Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WilberforceHope. The editor is using a lot of bitty editing to change the character of Philip Larkin related articles, such as Kingston upon Hull (note the Talkpage sockpuppetry concerns and a degree of incivility from him), Philip Larkin Society and University of Hull to promote a local festival about Larkin. Despite reverts from other editors and an attempt by myself to get him to keep all the details in a single event related article Larkin 25 he continues to disrupt the articles and creat more IP sockpuppets as he goes along, at least three today alone! Check the IP editing history from the sock category above and you will get the idea. One of the IP socks, 86.161.220, was blocked for multiple vandalism edits, but he evaded that using other IPs. He has attempted to remove a sock tag from the LarkinToad2010 page and also delete talkpage edits by other editors about his disruptive editing. He has made unsolicited claims of not being involved with the event, but gives an impression he is a university student that is involved with it. Would it be possible to indef block the confirmed socks listed and confine him to using the WilberforceHope login? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard, It seems that the WilberforceHope (talk · contribs) account has been abandoned and as there was no cross over between it and the LarkinToad2010 (talk · contribs) account it isn't correct to characterise the new account as a sock puppet of the older one. I have blocked the WilberforceHope account to prevent any sock puppetry, however. I think that a more detailed investigation is needed at either WP:SPI or WP:ANI, however, as it seems that your concerns are probably justified but I do not have time to look into this. A checkuser run would also probably be worth conducting and may well be enough to settle the matter. Please make sure that you provide diffs to illustrate what's been taking place at the SPI report to make the investigating admin(s) jobs a lot easier - it's very hard to start from scratch on a topic on which you are not at all familiar, as is the case for me here. I hope that's helpful to you, cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for blocking the WilberforceHope account, as for cross over note the information he placed on his own userpage:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LarkinToad2010 Quote "All edits on this IP address by LarkinToad2010 (previously WilberforceHope). That is a final, polite request to stop spamming my user page. There is also no need to remind one about 'conflcit of interest' as none exists for any of my edits." Based on the edit histories, would it aid the WP:SPI if I change the anon IPs tagged as socks of Wilberforce hope to socks of LarkinToad2010, along with this new one 86.163.81.196, which he has created today and used to follow up his LarkinToad2010 messages on these talkpages:- Talk:University of Hull, Talk:Kingston upon Hull and Talk:Larkin 25. It appears as though he is using his own sockpuppet Radiator4612 to revert his LarkinToad2010 edits here:- Revision history of Kingston upon Hull. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I don't think that it should be a problem keeping the same name of the sockpuppet tags - this also helps emphasise that there are multiple accounts going on here. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. All now moved to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010, along with some extra's. Plus I've located some suspects and placed a suspect subcat in there. As I have noted several warning of vandalism on some of the IPs I've tagged the user and talkpages, to warn other editors placing further vandalism warning. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richard - I strongly recommend asking for a checkuser on Radiator4612 (talk · contribs) via WP:SPI. If this is the same person using two accounts there should be no problem confirming this through technical means alone. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at AfD

Could you please let me know what you meant by this comment [42]? Are you having a crack at me because I added SPA tags? If so, I am confused and disappointed as I thought it appropriate to flag single-purpose, new editors for the attention of the closing admin. In my experience such edits often reflect over-involved editors attempting multiple !votes. If I am wrong then I would appreciate your advice on the purpose of such tags. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No - the comment was directed at the IP editor, and definitely not you. I agree completely with the tags and I often tag SPAs myself. I'll tweak my comment to avoid any confusion over who it was directed at. I weakly support keeping the article, but definitely don't agree with any attacks on the nominator (who I've contacted to suggest that they revisit the nomination after Mathieson is out of the news). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Sorry if I came on a bit strong, and for the misunderstanding. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations

I have no 'conflict of interest' on any of my topics. Stop making such allegations and stop over-zealous editing of my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that, and I haven't touched your contributions. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)