Open main menu

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

It is my personal policy to provide no assistance at all to paid editors as I don't want to do their jobs for them. I will likely remove any posts made by such editors here without responding.

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2013)
Talk archive 13 (2014)
Talk archive 14 (2015)
Talk archive 15 (2016)
Talk archive 16 (2017)
Talk archive 17 (2018)

Awards people have given me


Please comment on Talk:Albert CashierEdit

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closedEdit

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
  2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
  4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
  5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Review RequestEdit


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet

Would you mind reviewing this closure. I don't believe this was a candidate for a non-admin closure but in particular he missed the recommendations by AlanScotWalker concerning closure. WCMemail 12:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't, but my closure was based on the consensus that the subject in question is independently notable. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The closure looks fine to me: lots of experienced editors had looked into the matter, and had reached the conclusion that the article should be kept. The kind of comment AlanScotWalker made goes without saying: an AfD closure doesn't preclude a move, though I'd suggest that any such more go through a formal WP:RM procedure given the AfD comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mentor soughtEdit

Hi Nick. I have an article, Razing of Friesoythe, the apple of my eye, which I wish to submit for FAC. The instructions state "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". On the list of possible mentors was your name - an easy decision. So can I persuade you to take two paces forward and help me get this article through the FA process? If so, do you have any thoughts, suggestions or instructions before I formally submit it. Assuming that you think that it is submittable.

I should warn that this is the first Wikipedia article I wrote, the first article I submitted for B class assessment (at the time that seemed a heady ambition for it), my first GA, my first (and still highest viewing) DYK, and the only article I have submitted for peer review or ACR. So objective I ain't. That said, it got a thorough going over at ACR and views seemed positive.

So, what do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be very happy to help. I'll look in on the article over the weekend, and leave some comments about its suitability for FAC. From having reviewed it at the ACR, I agree that it is certainly well on track. Regards Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I've left some comments on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Les bon assessorsEdit

  The Teamwork Barnstar
It is with great pleasure that I award this barnstar jointly and severally to auntieruth, AustralianRupert, Kees08, Nick-D, Peacemaker67 and Zawed. It has been earned partly for helping to nurse Razing of Friesoythe through ACR. I was awed and humbled by the amount of attention, effort, detail and support the six assessors brought to the task. But mostly it has been earned by your doing the same thing for many, many other articles week after week, month after month. Assessors sans peur et sans reproche. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


For blocking the sock. Can you keep an eye on my talk page, in case the harassment continues? A several-hour semi would be appreciated if she returns. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries at all Bill - I'd be happy to do that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like the sock is back on another Northern Virginia IP. - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I've just semi-protected the article for 24 hours. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

FAC mentor?Edit

Hello Nick-D,

I had a Facebook conversation the other day with a retired editor with lots of experience with Featured articles. This editor had helped me with the Good article review of Harry Yount, and the article reached that goal in 2013. This editor expressed the opinion that this could be a Featured article, so I am asking if you would be willing to assist me with that process. Thanks for your consideration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I'd be happy to provide some advice on this article. I'll leave comments on its talk page over the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I've posted an informal review at Talk:Harry Yount. I think that the article is well on the path to FA, but needs some improvements first. As well as adding some references, I'd suggest fleshing out the coverage of how Yount was seen at the time and is regarded now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


See Ahunt's talk page, where an IP hopping troll is causing havoc. This is the IP that Sarek blocked earlier. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another example of why we shouldn't permit people to edit without first registering an account. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Would solve a lot of problems. But I'm sure this one has at least one registered account already, indefinitely blocked of course. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
You'd never catch me editing with a open IP. Don't these trolls realize how much we know about them from a bare IP? It's one reason I'm against open editing in general, as it leaves kids open to predators. Someday some kid will get killed, and the Foundation will get a lot of the blame, and rightly so. But it will be too late then. - BilCat (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It's bizarre that IP editing is still permitted (presumably as part of some kind of Silicon Valley libertarianism which prioritises 'freedom' over common sense and responsibility to the site's users, including those who missuse it). Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The cynic in me figured they found a way to monetize it, though I haven't a clue how. It's just never made any real sense to me otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister of AustraliaEdit

Howdy. Not sure whatcha did, but the result was Gillard, Abbott & Turnbull being knocked out of the living former PMs section. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to have been anything I did - my only recent edit was to revert an IP who was fiddling with the photos for no stated reason. It appears to be fixed now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Found the problem. The IPs fiddling put the images into two rows. With one row (as it now is) the last four are past the screen shot, requiring page movement to the right to see them. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Australian Flag Society articleEdit

I agree to your deletion request for now. It might be that another wikipedian proposes an article on the same subject in the future which I will feel free to contribute or not contribute to. Aussieflagfan (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

  Administrator changes

  AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
  Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

  Interface administrator changes

  AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

  Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.


  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Operation Linebacker IIEdit

Nick, when you get back, could you look at Talk:Operation Linebacker II#Editwar? The issues should be self-explanatory. I'm trying to find a source, but it may take me awhile as I'm not that familiar with quality sources on the subject. If you aren't either, do you know of some other editors who might be? Thanks. (Yeah, I know I didn't handle my initial response well at all.) - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @BilCat: while I don't have any sources at hand, I think that text is largely right, but exaggerates things a bit. Linebacker II seems to have been effective as it was a short sharp shock in which the scope of the US bombing campaign was expanded for a limited period in response to a breakdown in negotiations. My understanding is that it worked as the North Vietnamese were motivated to cut a deal at this time, unlike during the massive US bombing campaign over previous years. The USAF still didn't "fully unleash its power" though, as rule of engagement remained in place and (obviously) nuclear weapons weren't used. The use of naval mines, which the article barely mentions, to close North Vietnamese ports was apparently particularly effective. I'd suggest asking for other editors' input at WT:MILHIST. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

FAC helpEdit

Me and Iazyges are working on promoting multiple of his A-class and GA articles. I would like some help with going through the mess of FAC. Thanks, Clikity (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Which articles are you referring to, and how can I assist? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nick-D His articles displayed on his user page (opus meum). We are trying to promote a large amount of them soon. We would like some advice to help us get the articles through the FAC process. He's tried and failed, but I think we will succeed this time. Go look at his articles and see what looks best. Clikity (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, That's rather a lot of articles to look through. Can you please let me know which ones you are focusing on? Also, what kind of feedback would be helpful here? Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, the two we are doing right now are Iazyges and Marcian. I would like a review for these. --Clikity (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I provided a pre-FAC review of Iazyges a few months ago: what would be helpful at this stage? I'll try to look in on the other article over the next week or so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D. I am about to start a copy edit of Marcian for GOCE, so if you haven't looked at it already, you may wish to hold off for a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Lion-class battleship ACREdit

I responded to your comments a while ago, but I expect that you've been distracted of late. I know that I have been!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry: I completely missed that. I'll check in today. Thanks very much for the prompt. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

1944 versus 1942Edit

2 versions of the message deleted as they could have been misconstrued, about the 44 scare monolith. Have left a general introduction to the issues as I see them at the WA noticeboard. Hope it goes well. I gotta get something more specific to the photo than the 43 anti aircraft emplacement. JarrahTree 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The coverage of the Fremantle-Perth defences in the AWM's photo database is largely focused on 1943, unfortunately. There also aren't many photos of the submarine base. If the WA State Library or Archives has better coverage, it would be great. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC) JarrahTree 14:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

July to September 2018 Milhist article reviewingEdit

  Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 14 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

  Administrator changes

  BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

  Interface administrator changes

  Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

  Oversight changes

  Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.


  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

1942 and 1944Edit

I find it quite excruciating to watch ga/fa discussions where I have worked with the archival material (1942 and 1944), and am aware of the nuances of meanings for journalists and military officials of the time (1940s were a different age) - and the perceptions that this latter time and context have so little appreciation to nuances of then. Arrgghh. I think I should stay away from the discussion. JarrahTree 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, October 2018Edit

Letting you know that a sockpuppet by the name of Ah_Ger_K that you added a sockpuppet block message to in September removed your block message today, which appears to be against WP policy. I've reverted that edit. If I am in error and did not understand the situation correctly, feel free to correct my edit. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, My understanding is that blocked editors can remove block messages if they want. The reason for the block is permanently recorded in their block log. If the editor asks to have this account unblocked, the reviewing admin will also check the talk page history and contact the blocking admin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


needs attention [1] - not exactly the most civil editor that I have seen JarrahTree 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Is this a one-off? I've blocked the account, but did this happen out of the blue? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparent link-spammingEdit

Nick, User:Cowanb has been adding links to a website he apparently has connections with to a bunch of aircraft articles. See here for an example. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Have you discussed this with them? While ADF-serials doesn't meet our criteria for a RS (I think), it's a high quality amateur website which is often the best source on the use of various aircraft by the Australian military. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I haven't discussed this with the user yet, as I wanted to get your opinion first, as being from Australia, you might greater knowledge of the site, which you did. My main issue is that the link isn't being used as a source regarding sevice in the Australian military, but is being added indiscriminately to the EL section of many aircraft articles, including some which may not have served in Australia. User:MilborneOne has begun removing the links as COI spam, and I agree with him that it is. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, that sounds sensible. I like the site, but it needs to be linked with care. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

  • Library Card translation
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

History warsEdit

You reverted an edit that I made to History wars. Anyone seriously studying the history wars will be interested in seeing some primary source documents. Moreover, some historians (e.g. Keith Windschuttle) have claimed that other historians have willfully misrepresented primary sources. The wikilink that my edit provided, to Historical Records of Australia, comprises tens of thousands of pages of primary source documents (a large majority of which are online). Thus, anyone who wants to check the claims of misrepresentation, or who is seriously studying the history wars, will find the wikilink helpful. Hence, I ask you to undo the revert.  FlagrantUsername (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Links included in see also sections should generally have a clear link to the topic of the article. The histories wars article discusses a dispute in Australian historiography, and I don't see how it helps readers to list various collections of primary sources - not least as this implies that there might be something controversial about the collection in this context. Can you work the link into the body of the article to explain the link? (for instance, do some historians argue that (over) reliance on these sources leads to a biased perspective? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
According to MOS:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Moreover, your claim that "there might be something controversial about the collection" makes no sense to me. The wikilink is clearly useful to someone studying the topic. As for editing the body of the text, you are welcome to do so.  FlagrantUsername (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
But how are these topics related? You're coming across as spamming links to this article you created to be frank, and I don't see how it's helpful to readers. Can you please work the link into articles? If you're unable to explain the link in the article, I'd suggest that it's probably not going to be very useful for readers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
You have previously violated WP:BRD. You are now violating WP:GF. Your comment also does not seem to consider the arguments that my comments have raised.
I kindly ask you to read the article History wars and the article Keith Windschuttle (which is cited by History wars), then consider the position of someone studying this topic, and then reconsider my comments above. Afterward, if we still have no agreement, we could go to WP:DR; if we do that, my preference would be for WP:DRR/3FlagrantUsername (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm familiar with the topic of the article (I also wrote much of the article on the Australian Frontier Wars). I genuinely don't see how people who are studying the history wars will understand the purpose of linking to these documents without any context. As noted above, can you please work this into the article? I have no idea how I've violated BRD, of AGF given that I'm discussing this with you following your bold addition of the link, and am actually keen to see this added to the article in a way in which readers can understand and use. Surely you can come up with a referenced sentence which could be added to the History Wars article explaining how this is relevant if there's a reason for a see also link? I'd suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page if you'd like broader input on this matter before escalating to central dispute resolution boards (as recommended at WP:DR, etc). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
You earlier said that I was “coming across as spamming links to this article [I] created”. Despite that, you now claim that you “have no idea how [you’ve] violated” WP:AGF. Your claim is amazing.
You are right that I should have opened this discussion on the article Talk page. My excuse is that I had initially assumed your revert was due to a simple oversight on your part; so it was not worth cluttering up that Talk page. I have now opened a relevant discussion there.
As for Australian Frontier Wars, the article is so biased that it could harm the reputation of Wikipedia, at least for anyone interested in Australia. I have now added an NPOV notice to the article and opened a relevant discussion on the article’s Talk page.
FlagrantUsername (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. I think we're in agreement on the Frontier Wars article - can you please add material to the article on the topic? I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with fairly confrontational tactics - I'm keen to see these articles improved, and throwing accusations of bias and personal attacks around really isn't helping anyone. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


G'day Nick, thanks for your tweak on Rescue and Communication Squadron RAAF. I wonder if you wouldn't also mind taking a look at RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, That article looks great. I've made a few minor wording tweaks. It's a fascinating story - in 2011 I visited the memorial to the Berlin airlift at the Platz der Luftbrücke and was pleased to see a small acknowledgement that Australia had been involved, though I can't remember what it was exactly! (and, from checking my photos, I didn't photograph whatever it was). Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) There's book on it, only 66AUD :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That's available for free online! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, Nick. My wife and I are hoping to visit Germany in the next couple of years (she is German on her mother's side), so I might see what I can find and maybe take some pics. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it was something pretty dull like a mention on a noticeboard explaining the memorial! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.


  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm backEdit

I'm back. I feel better. I've just asked how to approach an article at the tea house. I apologize for anything that was rude/abusive. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Socking by User:Kuru666.Edit

Hi the articles that were edited by Kuru666 are regularly being targeted by what I am sure are socks. I wonder if there is anything that can be done? Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to protect those article - can you please tell me which ones are being affected? Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much here they are, some have already been protected but for relatively short periods and each time the protection comes off they get socked.
  • Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done I've already protected this one Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Only one block evading edit, several days ago Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Already protected Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem to be subject to ongoing editing Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No recent block evasion here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
They have been editing others but the edits do not seem tendentious but I'll keep an eye out for more but as they are IP hopping it's not an easy task. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've only protected one of those articles as there wasn't recent block evasion at the others - please see my comments above. I've watchlisted some of this person's main targets and will respond if this resumes, but please drop me a line (or report it at WP:RFPP) if this returns. As a reminder, edits made as part of block evasion can and should be reverted on sight. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm watching them too and will continue to revert. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC comments addressedEdit

I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Erin/archive1. See if they're satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Source checkEdit

Nick, would the source used in this diff be considered reliable? It reads more like an armchair editorial. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bill, the tone of that article is a bit odd, but it's presented as a news source, and is a reliable source. It's the central website for the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloids and the somewhat more substantial newspaper The Australian, and has decent editorial standards. The source is suitable for the material it's being used to cite, and could also be drawn on more extensively (BTW, it seems only yesterday that various over-excited commentators and thinly-disguised Russian propaganda was presenting the Su-57 as being the greatest warplane of all time, and vastly superior to anything the West could produce...). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Landing at Jacquinot BayEdit

G'day, Nick, I was wondering if you would be keen to take the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article to ACR? From mid-next week, I have a bit of time off from work before the December posting period, so was thinking it might be a good diversion. I have access to some of the sources, but not all (for instance not Charlton, or Bradley), so was hoping that you might have them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I'd be very happy to do that. I still have copies of those books, and am also planning a trip to the National Library of Australia next week in case there's any other works which need to be consulted (the only one which springs to mind is Alan Powell's War by Stealth: Australians and the Allied Intelligence Bureau, 1942–1945 which may have some extra material on pre-landing AIB/guerrilla operations, but as Long summarises this topic there's no reason to wait to check before starting the nomination). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, Nick, the nomination page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landing at Jacquinot Bay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for starting this. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, just letting you know I have to travel interstate tomorrow and will be without reliable internet until around 8 December. If I get a chance to check in on the review while I'm gone, I will, but in the meantime can I ask that you keep an eye on it? Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Best wishes for your trip. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, just letting you know I am back, for at least a week. The trip went OK. I will be tied up with moving house (NT to Victoria) next week, and will be with limited access over the period 17 to 31 Dec, but should hopefully be able to contribute in some manner. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I hope your trip went OK. Your job certainly keeps you mobile! Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is my 8th posting in 14 years, and my sixth move since being married. I/we haven't been posted to WA or Tasmania, unfortunately, though, which I hope to one day achieve. Tasmania is difficult in my role, but WA might happen one day. Anyway, the trip went okay. I was helping my mother who hasn't been well...I've been a terrible son, as work has kept me away for several years, so it was important to go back and spend a week with her. I also got to catch up with some old friends in Brisbane, which was fantastic, but also a little heartbreaking to see how some have not fared so well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, just letting you know I will be offline for a bit. Possibly back on 20 Dec, but it depends on the hotel wifi situation. Worst case, I might not have internet until the New Year, unfortunately. I'd been hoping we might get the review done before I left, but there is still some work to be done. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries - I'll keep an eye on the review, and follow up on comments. I hope your travel goes well. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War IIEdit

Hi, I've selected the above as TFA on 26 December 2018. Any questions, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (was this a way to mark the end of the season of peace and goodwill to all men?). Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Nick-D. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/World War II anniversaryEdit

Hello, do you think this should be archived as the 70th anniversary of the end of the war has long passed? Kges1901 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - I had no memory of it even existing! It seems that it was started in 2011 and unfortunately didn't lead to much coordinated activity. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAFEdit

It's my understanding that the arrival of the Spitfire VIIIs to this wing was long-delayed and long-planned, but there's no mention of what marks of Spitfire the Second World War wing was originally equipped with, which is probably important. Could this be added? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, The article says that the No. 1 Wing was initially equipped with the Spitfire Vc, though perhaps not clearly enough! (please see the second last para in the 'Reestablishment' section). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Help neededEdit

Nick, Can you please see User_talk:Llammakey#Page_moves and advise whether you can mediate as the matter, removing "the" from ship name pages is currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Proposed_amendment? If you cannot can you advise who might be able to assist. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what the issue is here? (which pages have been moved?, what steps have been taken to resolve this?, etc). As there's a centralised talk page discussion of the matter, I'd suggest that it's the best way of resolving it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks will raise it there. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed SeriesEdit

  The Teamwork Barnstar
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  The WikiChevrons
For being the only editor to have published a non World War I-related Op-Ed between June 2014 and November 2018 you are also awarded this WikiChevrons and the thanks of those who were undoubtedly happy to see that some people actually remembered what the Op-Ed section was actually for :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again for your huge contribution to The Bugle Tom. I've enjoyed reading these articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awardsEdit

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

  Administrator changes

  Al Ameer sonRandykittySpartaz
  BosonDaniel J. LeivickEfeEsanchez7587Fred BauderGarzoMartijn HoekstraOrangemike

  Interface administrator changes

 Deryck Chan

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

  Technical news



  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

FA mentorEdit

Hi Nick, I wonder if you would be interested in mentoring me with a possible FA nomination. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just was approved as GA several years ago and it's been stable ever since. I have always been too timid to seek FA reviews, but my personal situation has changed and here I am. Might you be able to have a look and give me some advice? SteveStrummer (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Sure, I'll look in on that article and leave suggestions on the talk page, most likely on the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much! SteveStrummer (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@SteveStrummer: I've posted an informal review on the article's talk page. The article is well on track for FA status, but I think it would benefit from a copy edit and some tweaks to provide somewhat more comprehensive coverage of its subject. I hope that this is helpful, and I'd be happy to discuss the comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Like Moxy said I will wait and see what others have to see before I do anything elseEdit

I am going to wait and see like I was told Jack90s15 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for showing me how to be a good member of Wikipedia I'm still trying to get the hang of it.

Thank you for showing me not how to get banned I'll take it to heart Jack90s15 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Operation Pamphlet scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Operation Pamphlet article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 24, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Jim. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice SoughtEdit

Hi Nick,

Please see Talk:Gibraltar. It seems an editor has decided to return and is raising again disputes from 8 years ago. To be honest it comes across to me as trolling. The main problem I saw with this editor's previous editing history is that eventually we discovered that they did not have access to any of the sources they were quoting. Instead they were relying on sourcing via google snippets and in some cases the source they claimed supported their edit did not. Another problem is their revert warring, they've just rolled back 8 years citing WP:BRD as there was a "consensus" 8 years ago.

I am keeping my replies to a minimum but wondered if you had any advice on responding to this editor. WCMemail 13:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, It looks like they're in a minority of one in the talk page discussion, though only a few editors have discussed the change. You may wish to advertise for wider input, which would probably be more productive than continuing to butt heads. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WCMemail 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


mess JarrahTree 10:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've just replied. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awardsEdit

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


Is continuing to make disruptive edits even after you blocked them. Could you revoke their talk page access? Sakura CarteletTalk 00:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've just removed their ability to edit their talk page. Thanks for letting me know about this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

your assistance please...Edit

If you have time, would you please look at Mathew Golsteyn?

After a tweet from the POTUS, I figured Golsteyn was a topic that merited a standalone article. My intention, as always, is to keep my contributions fair, and free of bias. Of course, the more controversial a topic is, the harder it is satisfy everyone an article is balanced.

If what I wrote contains hidden bias I figured the best thing to do was invite the input of an intelligent and informed person who I know has a different perspective than mine.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for asking for feedback. I don't know much about this incident, but Mr Golsteyn fails WP:ONEEVENT. The incident is notable though (especially given the president's intervention), and I'd suggest restructuring the article accordingly. The article contains multiple serious negative claims about this person not clearly supported by any reference, which is also not acceptable. I agree with the IP editor's decision to reduce this to almost nothing given the referencing issues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks for your input.
  • Interpretations for WP:ONEEVENT vary. My interpretation?
  1. The POTUS tweet would be one event;
    No it isn't. It's obviously a comment on the alleged killing. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. the FOX interview of 2016 - I think that is another event;
    It also obviously isn't given that he was being interviewed about the alleged killing and it lead to another investigation into it. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. his awarding of a Silver Star, for events of 2010-02-20, it is unrelated to the killing of 2010-02-18, so, I think that too is a separate event;
    Multiple discussions at WT:MILHIST have reached the conclusion that being awarded a medal other than the highest available is not grounds for notability. The only reason that Mr Golsteyn's Silver Star has attracted attention is due to the alleged killing. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. the 2011 CIA job interview polygraph, where he first confessed to the killing - it triggered an interagency memo, which the army couldn't ignore, that triggered the first inquiry. That inquiry lasted three years. The Board of inquiry left what would have been a career killing letter of reprimand, in his personnel file. The Board of Inquiry gave him a general discharge. It seems to me that these are multiple events.
    No, it's obviously all related to the alleged killing. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. merely mentioning that Will Swenson was his friend, in an Amazon book review, triggered an extensive investigation in Swenson's background, including interviewing his friends, family, neighbors; and put in question and delayed his receipt of his Medal of Honor. I started to document that, in Swenson's article, until I saw someone else had already added coverage of it. So, I see that too as a separate event.
    The news story is heavily focused on Mr Swenson. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Golsteyn's Silver Star, and several other events I mentioned, fall short of measuring up to our inclusion criteria, all by themselves. A Medal of Honor would have made him notable, all by itself. But almost none of our millions of BLP had their notability established by a single notability factor. Almost all of our millions of BLP have their notability established by adding up the cumulative notability of multiple factors that establish some notability. The Silver Star, or even the Distinguished Service Cross, doesn't confer strong enough notability, all by itself, but even a Bronze Star, confers some notability, enough to be included in the notability calculation, in my opinion.
  • Nick-D, you responded to my request for input, in less than 24 hours. Thanks for that!
  • You are an administrator, so I am going to defer to your advice. I already reverted that IP contributor, before I came here. It was an IP address from a range used by a wikistalker, who harrassed me for months, prior to their earning an indefinite block for something else, and I figured it was that wikistalker returning again. But, out of deference to your opinion, above, I will restore it.
  • However, since I have some questions about your advice, I am going to ask for more feedback, elsewhere. Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks again for your good faith advice. I started a section at WP:BLPN#Mathew Golsteyn. I didn't mention you by name, but I did provide a link to my reply, above. Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Geo Swan: I've replied to your views on ONEEVENT above. I'm genuinely troubled about your lack of understanding of WP:ONEEVENT, desire to focus the article on this person and inclusion of unreferended negative BLP material given all the problems you've had on these topics in the past. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Your talk page, your rules. You are allowed to use non-standard indentation on your own talk page. But your non-standard indentation disrupted the numbering of my numbered points. So, my apologies, I took the liberty of refactoring your non-standard indentation, so I could refer to the points, by number, in my reply. Geo Swan (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Personally, I am a big believer in human freedom. And, as how that relates to the wikipedia's readers, I want them to be free to traverse the wikipedia's content in the way that makes the most sense to them. I think a reader who starts at Donald Trump on social media#Trump's tweet about Mathew Golsteyn, should be able to click on the Mathew Golsteyn link, so they can read about Mathew Golsteyn, or Unlawful Command Influence. Once they arrive at Mathew Golsteyn, they should be reading about Mathew Golsteyn, if they want to read about the Battle of Marjah, they should have a link to that article available -- which is the way I wrote it, prior to the big informationectomy you endorsed.

          However, lots of contributors like to take related topics, and merge multiple related topics into omnibus articles. Our reader's freedom to traverse the wikipedia's content is seriously impaired, following excessive merging. When Donald Trump's tweets on Golsteyn, and the controversy over stripping Golsteyn of his Silver Star, and how Golsteyn's online footprint triggered an investigation in Swenson, and how Duncan Hunter supported Golsteyn, are all shoehorned into the article on the Battle of Marjah, readers don't get to traverse our content as freely. When Golsteyn has his own article, on which links to the other topics he is related to, readers can click on the links they think might be interesting, and, if, after reading a sentence or two, or a paragraph or two, they decide they aren't interested, they can hit the back button, and read something else. But all the Golsteyn content is merged into another article, they can't go to a related article, because they are all mashed together. If they get to other topics within the article that covers multiple topics, by scrolling, or searching, they can't return to where they were, in the other, related, article, with the back button, because everything has been all mashed together.

      1. You referred to the killing, as an "alleged killing". Since he openly acknowledged killing the Afghan, on National TV, I suggest the doubt that would trigger using the modifier "alleged" is unnecessary, and misleading.

        You said Trump's tweet was "obviously a comment on the alleged killing." Someone could just as easily say it was an obvious instance of Unlawful Command Influence. I suggest that the meaning of Trump's tweet is not clear. The BBC reporting on it explicitly said the meaning wasn't clear.

      2. As DGG said, at BLPN, the intent of BLP1E is to protect previously unknown private people who, briefly, make the news. To the extent an event triggers on-going coverage, where RS return to add new material, over the course of months, or years, it is no longer meaningful to think of that as a BLP1E. And, once someone chooses to be interviewed on National TV, they are no longer an unknown private person, and we should stop extending to them the protection we extend to previously unknown private people, who made the news coincidentally.
      3. Hmmm. Is this in MILHIST FAQ? I don't want to seem disrespectful to the MILHIST, but hasn't this issue also come up at AFD, where some AFD closures seemed to favour the interpretation that a lesser award conveys a lesser but still meaningful measure of notability? There are prizes, like the Nobel, and Pullitzer, which, like a Victoria Cross, or Medal of Honor, convey enough notability for an individual to merit a stand-alone article, all by themselves. But BLP articles about literary or scientific types do mention less prestigious awards. While no one suggests those less prestigious awards are as prestigious as the Nobel or Pullitzer, no one questions whether they convey a lesser but still meaningful measure of notability. Can you explain why military awards should be so exceptional?

        WRT to his Silver Star, you ignore a key point. Silver Star's may be relatively common, compared with a Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor, but the Army stripping someone of a medal, that is exceptional. Please don't ignore this point.

      4. Interagency memos like this are rare, exceptional, and thus convey notability.
      5. People reading about Swenson, and the controversy over his Medal of Honor, who want to read about the guy whose online comment triggered the Swenson's controversial inquiry, will want to read about Golsteyn, not the Battle of Marjah.
      • You provided a very brief defense of the anonymous IP's informationectomy. I draw your attention to my reply. I suggested your assertion that the article needed to be stubified, because "of negative statements ... not ending with any references." seemed to be based on a non-standard interpretation of how often references should be used.
      I closed that reply with "...I would still appreciate you being specific as to which aspects you think were poorly referenced. If you are too busy to read any of the article's references, how about picking the first passage that you think was not properly supported, naming it here, and asking for someone to explain how it was supported." Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      You are a long-established editor. You have a long history of problems with WP:BLP, including having dozens of articles deleted due to violations of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:COATRACK. You understand how referencing works. You know that you need to take responsibility for crafting high quality and well referenced articles that are compliant with BLP. Yet you keep getting into the same problems. Your response to this case suggests that you simply do not get it, and posting walls of text arguing that the multiple editors who believe that this is a WP:ONEEVENT violation are wrong is also unhelpful and indicates that you are unwilling to pay attention to the views of others, even when you start discussions seeking this (in this thread and that at WP:BLPN you sought the views of myself and other editors, and have then not only dismissed them but sought to argue with them point by point, which is obviously not in line with Wikipedia's ethos of collaborative editing and makes me wonder why you even sought others' views). I'd strongly suggest that you cease editing articles concerning living people. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation ObviateEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Obviate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy "whatever floats your boat"!Edit

G'day Nick, I'm not usually into this Xmas wishes stuff, but I really wanted to say thanks for all your work on The Bugle this year. It is an critical thread in the tapestry of the project. Thanks very much, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - I really appreciate it. Best wishes for the season to you as well! Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation ObviateEdit

The article Operation Obviate you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Operation Obviate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

  • OAWiki
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

  Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Apollo 11 reviewsEdit

Would you be willing to do me a favour and have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/archive1 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Buzz Aldrin? I'm trying to get the Apollo 11 articles ready for the July 2019 anniversary, and time is short. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look in today or over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military Historian of the YearEdit

  2018 Military Historian of the Year
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much - I really appreciated the nomination, and especially the rationale for it. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I think the work Ian and yourself do in making The Bugle happen while also doing other stuff like creating awesome content, is significantly underappreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if third place is something to congratulate for but that's way beside the point; thank you for consistently being the calm voice of reason. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Alex, and all the best for the new year. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection pageEdit

Hello Nick-D,can you make both page Royal Malaysian Air Force and Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force as a semi-protection page since it was always edit by unknown users with no source and they also change the information as they wish.I've already watch that page constantly and it seem hard to stop this matter.Hope you can make consideration about this.Thank you. Kistara (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, The amount of vandalism on those pages doesn't seem too bad at the moment - there hasn't even been much IP editing recently. Can you please provide diffs illustrating the recent vandalism you're concerned about? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

  Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

  Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.



  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in ReviewEdit

  The WikiChevrons
For your work on South China Sea raid, Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Operation Boomerang, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  The Featured Article Medal
For your work on South China Sea raid, Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
For your work onBoeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you The Australian Barnstar of National Merit. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Nick-D by TomStar81 (Talk) on 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  The World War Barnstar
For your work on South China Sea raid Bougainville counterattack, Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, Operation Boomerang, and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 I hereby award you the World War Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  The Half Barnstar
For your work on Bougainville counterattack you are hereby awarded The left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats!TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Judicial independence in AustraliaEdit

Thanks for taking the time to edit Judicial independence in Australia. Just out of curiosity, is there anything directly about not including quotations in the lead? I am only asking because it is common in legal journals in Australia so I had looked at MOS:LEAD which didn't seem to rule it out. And yes I am familiar with WP:beans. Cheers Find bruce (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, Starting encyclopedia articles with a quote is fairly unusual - they tend to be very "flat". The advice at MOS:QUOTE is to use quotations fairly sparingly, which I think is in line with this. If you could find a way to work it in, the quote might be a good way of concluding the lead, or at any other point in the article. Congratulations on your work on this article - it's really well developed, and it's always great to see quality thematic articles like it - they tend to be a bit of a weak point for Wikipedia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ibuki ACREdit

At long last I've reworked the article in response to your last comments. See if they're satisfactory. Ibuki--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry for my slow reply - I was on holiday (in Japan as it happens). Those changes look good to me. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I realized as much later; I shoulda gotten off my ass to respond earlier, but it's all good now. I saw that correction that you made to the Mikasa article. So the restoration is more superficial than thorough? Did you happen to get a brochure or something to document that part of its history? As I've struck out almost entirely and I don't think that I can send it to ACR or FAC without that bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Mikasa's exterior has been restored to roughly what she looked like (albeit obviously done on the cheap - for instance, the "main guns" have had to be braced with other bits of metal, presumably as the "guns" were made from soft metal), but the interior is totally different: no engines, the layout is large museum rooms rather than proper naval compartments, etc. I'm drafting a review of the ship at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2019/Review essay which might be of interest. All the brochures on the ship in the shop were unfortunately in Japanese. I took a photo of a 1950s-era photo of the ship, which shows her looking basically like a tin shed set in concrete, which illustrated the extent to which she was stripped after World War II. I took lots of photos of the ship's exterior - please let me know if you have any requests. I also found a couple of monuments to World War II-era IJN battleships in a park near the train station, including a gun from the Japanese battleship Mutsu. I'll upload a photo of it, but the monuments are non-PD as Japan doesn't have freedom of panorama for artistic works. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. I'll probably have to ping somebody on the Japanese wikipedia for help documenting the restoration. You might be able to claim fair-use if you can put together an article on the monuments, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


I saw your remarks for the first time today. Duly noted. I'll get around to doing something to address them when I have more time. Dapi89 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

war crimes of the WehrmachtEdit

@Nick-D:Jack90s15 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC) is the trial transcripts ok to put if I only put that for a source,for the war crimes of the Wehrmacht? since it shows why the IMT did not declare it to be, and it shows they acknowledged the war crimes the IMT, and it does confuse the reader with multiple trials

There's no point adding more references to support already-referenced material. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D:Jack90s15 (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)ok I get it now what you mean it is linked the war crimes of the Wehrmacht page, to the Nuremberg trials page and that one shows they did convict members of the high command, as criminals.and again thank you for showing me what I was doing wrong, I will stand guard for war crimes of the Wehrmacht page and stop, any vandalism like that one time I did for the page!

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


I unreservedly apologise for my Undo, Nick. I had come back to my computer, tired, after a long break and was confused between this and another matter. It was complicated also by my computer being controlled by that of a family member, also a Wikipedia contributor, until I spotted it and resumed independent operation. Over all, a real train wreck. The take-home message for me is to ensure I am fully alert before going near Wikipedia. Again, my apologies. I understand how annoying it was.

DAHall (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all - no damage done. Best wishes for your future contributions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Harvey Carter?Edit

[2] I think this may well be another sock of Harvey Carter. Would you mind taking a look? WCMemail 09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I'm not sure to be honest - it's pretty likely. I think that a SPI check is needed here. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


I never claimed this article was actually any good, and it's not surprising that some of these things need better referencing, but it's not going to happen: the presumption of non-notability for current and former political candidates will trump WP:GNG every time unless the article is incredibly well-done, and no one is going to waste their time making an article that strong with an AfD being as aggressively pursued as that one.

The 2004 election was uniquely controversial because its the one time in Senate history where a major party has directed their preferences such as to elect a party from the opposite political extreme over minor parties on their own side of politics, and Risstrom, as the person who missed out as a result of that act, is remembered for it, with the sources to back it up. I'm much busier in real life than I used to be, and it's absolutely not a productive use of my time to spend half a day trawling through them and putting a good article together when people clearly aren't paying any further attention than "unsuccessful candidate" before responding with "KILL IT".

The city council issue is similar: the sources exist as much for Risstrom as they do for his peers, but having sufficient breadth and depth of sources to pass WP:GNG if he were something other a city councillor doesn't matter when you've got enough people with opinions about city councillors.

I sometimes don't mind trying to do that work if I sense that people are genuinely interested in seeing a bad article rewritten to WP:GNG standards, but the idea that some in that AfD seem to have that people are going to spend half a day rewriting an article in this situation in the hope that some of those people might change their minds, given the attitudes displayed, is just never going to happen. It's just part and parcel of Wikipedia that there are some areas that are inevitably going to have crap articles because good work is too likely to be arbitrarily whacked for anyone to bother doing decent work. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As a lefty, I remember being pretty annoyed by the ALP's preferencing in 2004, and agree that it was controversial at least in lefty circles. From memory, the ALP was trying to do something clever to get an extra senator elected by swapping preferences with Family First, which turned out to be a really bad idea when voters didn't vote in the way that was expected, leading to FF ending up with the preferences the ALP thought would end up with them. It's one of the reasons I like the recent reforms to Senate voting. I certainly take your point about notability, etc, here, and apologies if I've bugged you. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentoring for FACEdit

Hi Nick! I've been working on the James P. Hagerstrom article for a while; it passed A-Class a few months ago and I think it's almost ready for FAC. As this would be my first nomination, I would appreciate your thoughts on its readiness and your guidance as to any pointers or things to improve in the article. Thanks, /~huesatlum/ 17:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to do that. I'll leave some comments on the article's talk page over the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@HueSatLum: I've just left an informal review on the article talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough review, particularly those regarding technical details (which has never been my strong suit). I will address them in the coming days. /~huesatlum/ 00:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey Nick, just wanted to make sure you saw my ping at Talk:James P. Hagerstrom#Informal review, but no worries if you're busy and haven't gotten to it yet. I addressed all your comments – any next steps you'd recommend before it's ready to nominate for FAC? Thanks, /~huesatlum/ 03:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I've replied on the talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

death and bushfireEdit

I just did a total misfire at one of our intrepid hard working cat everything eds from across th ditch... And realise my misfire involved an understanding of why some articles are strange... From your knowledge, does a coroner who reviews death due to arson/bushfire have any scope of stating a death was 'murder' ? I am intrigued by the totally unmaintained article that leads me to this query The coroner in my understanding has no capacity to designate a death in that way yet we have a mess of categories suggesting crime, murder and other things... maybe we need to review bushfire season articles that have that designation? JarrahTree 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have much knowledge of legal issues I'm afraid. However, according to this authoritative-looking website, coroners in NSW and Victoria "are prohibited from indicating or suggesting in any way in their findings or recommendations that a named person has committed an offence". However, their findings of the facts which led to a death can lead to separate criminal proceedings. As such, if a bushfire hasn't led to a successful criminal prosecution for murder, it seems inappropriate to categorise them as such. This is especially the case for recent bushfires, as there are obviously BLP implications of saying that people/organisations responsible for them committed murder! Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your thorough response - I have removed the 2005/2006 categories - and appreciate the information as well. JarrahTree 01:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

patience pleaseEdit

I am currently sitting with Graham M- S - and it is quite a misnomer to allocate I Corps - that is the American corps headquartered in Rockhampton - it was not an Australian item. If you are near a phone and want a conversation about this try my number now - and please delete that when you read this thanks... JarrahTree 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC) It would be great if you could call. JarrahTree 06:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Australian army has not used roman numerals for corps or division names. War Diaries, for 1 Aust Corps always refer to the unit as 1 Aust Corps, minutes and instructions from army HQ always referred to 1 Aust Corps - I Corps is not Australian but was in fact an the name of the American Corps based in Rockhampton. Graham McKenzie-Smith, Graham Robert (2018), The unit guide : the Australian Army 1939-1945, Big Sky Publishing, ISBN 978-1-925675-14-6 is happy to discuss further online or offline - the issue is a misnomer against perhaps lazy historians? - thanks - cheers JarrahTree 06:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that a requested move would be needed here given that different sources use different things. For evidence of the official history using roman numerals, please see page 643 of the index of the final volume of the army history The Final Campaigns here. Gavin Long uses roman numerals for both US and Australian Army corps - I don't think he's a lazy historian! Different chapters of the recent Australia 1944-45: Victory in the Pacific use 1st Corps and I Corps (each chapter was written by a different author). Graham's excellent works are also obviously highly relevant, but I don't think that there's a clear cut case for using 1st Corps per WP:COMMONNAME. It would be a good topic to discuss though, with the outcome being applicable to the articles on II and III Corps. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
we are still here if I could entice you to a conversation... if we dont hear from you, no problems JarrahTree 06:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that a formal RM process is the way to go here. I certainly take Graham's point - the WW2-era war diaries on the AWM's website use 1st Corps, for instance. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Civil WarEdit

There's a post from March 23rd that posted about a possible phishing scam-site link that had been in the article. Could you please take a look at it and rev-del or whatever?...if it is a phishing attempt the info shouldn't even be left in the archives... Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've just removed this link, AGF in relation to the report. A search on Wikiblame says that the link was in the article for more than 500 revisions, so revision deletion isn't practical here as doing so would hide huge numbers of good edits. It seems unlikely anyone will follow the link from an old version of the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during 1940Edit

I think this should cover the war until 1943. Perhaps renaming it Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during World War II would be better. Dapi89 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - it's a very interesting part of the air war. I set out to write a 1940-43 article a few years ago, but only got up to 1940. As the OK quality coverage of that year had been sitting in my user space for years, I decided to move it into article space so we at least had a little bit of coverage. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

  Technical news



  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very very muchEdit

I greatly appreciate your help on SOLRAD 1. I will effect changes tomorrow! --Neopeius (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Now it's officialEdit

  The SPFLT Achievement Patch
For your substantial contribution to WP: SPFLT. Neopeius (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(and thanks very much for your review of SOLRAD 1!)

Some adviceEdit

Since you are involved with Military articles, I have a question regarding Battle of St. Quentin (1557). What is the standard for including/listing/mentioning nobles killed in a battle?

I have found a reliable source stating Jean, Count of Soissons and Enghien was killed at St. Quentin in 1557. Although, Jean was not, as far as I know, a commander at this battle. Should Jean be mentioned within the article(not the infobox), or should Jean be mentioned in both the article and infobox, or not at all? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest including this only if they played a noteworthy role in the battle or their death in it is considered notable by historians of the conflict. That said, this era and its historiography is outside my comfort zone: @Gog the Mild: could you please help here? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kansas Bear. So far as I am aware there are no specific guidelines on this, other than the general ones regarding infoboxes. I have developed my own rules of thumb, and will share them below for what they are worth. Feel entirely free to come up with your own rules, or just pick what seems most suitable to you for this particular case.
As you may have noted, historians/chroniclers of the time loved lists of nobles killed or captured in battles. Frequently it is the only thing that they are clear on. Personally I do not feel that it is useful include these in articles; they would overwhelm the article to no (or little) gain to the reader. So I usually ignore them, or in extreme cases write something like the following, from Battle of Auberoche, "The French commander, Louis of Poitiers, died of his wounds. Surviving prisoners included the second-in-command, Bertrand de l'Isle-Jourdain, two counts, seven viscounts, three barons, the seneschals of Clermont and Toulouse, a nephew of the Pope and so many knights that they were not counted." In a 3,000 word article it seemed appropriate. Once started there is no logical stopping point; eg should I list by name the one king, nine princes and 1,200 knights killed at Crecy? What about wounded?
If Jean was not the commander nor second-in-command, and his death had no immediate effect on the battle - eg, caused his side to rout - then I would not mention him. My interpretation of the infobox rules is that including Jean would be "clutter", regardless of whether you decide to include him in the article.
I hope that this helps.
Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Gog, what you said mirrors what I suspected(ie. clutter). My sincerest thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks also from me Gog. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aust Army Choppers.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Aust Army Choppers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting FAC reviewEdit

Hey Nick, I’ve been working on the British National (Overseas) article for a while and I’ve listed it as an FAC. I’ve been able to get three supports so far, and I wanted to reach out to ask if you’d be willing to review (and hopefully support!) it as well. Would appreciate your thoughts on the article. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll look in on that review in the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated, Horserice (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

J. Robert OppenheimerEdit

A editor wanted to add a footnote about Japan's surrender in 1995. (See J. Robert Oppenheimer#Weird footnote) Could you have a look and give an opinion on whether it belongs in the article or not? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Penny WongEdit

Hi Nick, I noticed you reverted my minor edit on Penny Wong. The reason why I rephrased her father's heritage is because it flows better with the description of her mother. The article describes her mother as Australian, not being of Australian origin. Therefore, it just makes more sense to refer to her father as Malaysian Chinese instead being of Malaysian Chinese origin. (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no such nationality of "Malaysian Chinese". Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I never claimed Malaysian Chinese to be a nationality. It would be like saying someone's father is British Indian, British Chinese or Thai Chinese. I have switched it to Malaysian of Chinese origin as a compromise. Saying he is of Malaysian Chinese origin implies that he is of another nationality (neither Malaysian or Chinese). (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Mary Jackson photoEdit


I did wonder if Jackson was a step too far removed, but here's my logic: if the space race counts as MILHIST (which, I believe, we usually say it does), it's basically down to how far out our net goes for space-race-as-Milhist. There were a few borderline cases - I left out Edgar Allan Poe, since, though he was in the army, he seems completely non-notable for anything military-related, in the slightest. Meanwhile, Fawcett is pretty clearly on the MILHIST side of the border for her work in the Boer War reports on POWs. Tarbell's work on the Women's Committee of the Council of National Defense in WWI is probably enough for MILHIST, and she also did a biography of Lincoln, so she probably passes as well, as I read it. Jackson was always the one I had most doubts about.

Use your judgement, of course, I'm just trying to get a feel as to where the border lies so, when I do this in future, you won't have to remove things. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 22:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I see your logic, but I'm not sure if the Space Race is an entirely military history topic (the Cold War involved extensive competition in non-military domains). The aspects of the US space program Jackson was involved in appear to have been civilian-focused. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That was what I thought, but some things MILHIST covers (e.g. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) have surprised me in the past, so I figured someone would correct me if I was mistaken. I'm right that Edgar Allan Poe should be excluded as well, right? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 18:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that photo is out of scope as his military service was fairly short, and not related to his grounds for notability. An image of him in uniform would obviously be in scope though, but is highly unlikely to exist. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Amazing factsEdit

It's amazing what new things one can learn on Wikipedia! See this tidbit. And yes, I reverted it. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I re-read it again, and I think I understand what they were trying to say, but it's so poorly written it's ambiguous, and at first reading seems to say that Tasmania isn't a state. Either way, it doesn't add much. - BilCat (talk)

  Facepalm Thanks for fixing it. There was a weird argument on the Australia talk page a few years ago where someone was trying to put forward that the Australian continent and the geography of Australia the country were somehow entirely different things, and this seems to continue that logic. On a lighter note, I remember though being slightly disappointed to find on my first trip to Tasmania that it was pretty much the same as the rest of Australia (ditto on my first trips to Queensland and Western Australia). Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1st and 2nd Armoured BrigadesEdit

G'day, Nick, given your efforts with the 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia), I wonder if you would be keen to work together on the 1st and 2nd Armoured Brigade articles? If not, have you got any suggestions about things you'd like to see added or adjusted before a possible run at GAN or ACR? I currently don't have access to Hadel anymore, so I wonder if maybe you do? Finally, what are your thoughts about the Orders of website as asource? Should this be replaced potentially before taking it further? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to help with those articles, though they both look very complete! I've added a little bit to the 1st Armoured Brigade article. I think that both articles would benefit from an introductory para describing why the 1st Armoured Division was raised, and its initial organisation. I'd suggest that should be able to be removed given that the OOBs can be cited to excellent works like Hopkins and McKenzie-Smith which are clearly RS. A few years ago I saw an interesting-looking book about the 1st Armoured Brigade Group in WA at the Australian War Memorial bookshop, but I'm afraid that I both didn't buy it and now can't find any reference to it on the National Library of Australia or State Library of WA catalogues! Presumably it's not a RS though... I'm afraid that I don't have a copy of any of Handel's books, but I was planning a trip to the NLA next weekend (as a coincidence, I was planning this mainly to consult McKenzie-Smith to see if it can be used to get the 4th Armoured Brigade article up to FA status - do you have a copy of the set?), and can consult them then if it would be helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, thanks for that addition -- I will look to replace the OOB refs. I don't have the M-S set, unfortunately (couldn't afford it), but I do have a scan of the relevant pages for the 4th Armoured Brigade entry. Happy to email it to you, if you would like. Just let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you could email those pages. I can't afford the set either, and lack the shelf space for it as well! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, Nick -- should be in your email now. Please let me know if you got it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank your for that. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I have nominated both articles for GAN, and listed you as a co-nom if you are happy with this. The review pages, when created, will be here: Talk:1st Armoured Brigade (Australia)/GA1 and Talk:2nd Armoured Brigade (Australia)/GA1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've removed myself from the 2nd Armoured Brigade nomination as my contributions there have been very minor. I'm afraid that I didn't make it to the NLA on the weekend due to other commitments - I'll dry again next weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I've updated the talk page on 2nd Armoured, so that should hopefully stop the bot from re-adding the co-nom statement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, would you be keen to take 1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) to ACR? I think it would probably have the legs for it. (Happy to do the honours with the nom if you concur). Also, I've expanded 2nd Armoured Brigade today -- from your trip to the library, did anything stand out to you that might be added? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Yes I'd be happy to (though noting that my contributions are minor compared to yours). I'm confident that the article is comprehensive - I found the book I was thinking about which I'd previously seen in the AWM bookshop, and it was of no use (it's basically a collection of anecdotes and was self-published). I'm afraid that I was a bit pressed for time and not watching out for material on the 2nd Armoured Brigade, but I don't think the references I consulted added anything on its World War II service (Paul Handel's book on the 2/6th Armoured Regiment was by far the most useful of the works I consulted, but I don't think the regiment ever formed part of the 2nd Armoured Brigade). Handel's book Fifty Years of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps is well worth checking if you have access to a copy for the post-war history of the RAAC, but I didn't find it added a great deal for the 1st Armoured Brigade. I spotted today though that the Yeramba article states that these guns were operated by a unit assigned to the 2nd Armoured Brigade, which isn't in that article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, no worries, the nomination page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Armoured Brigade (Australia). I saw your edit on the Yeramba article earlier, and it made me go back to Horner to check the ref on that article, so I've added that bit of information to the 2nd Armoured Brigade article now, and added an image of the Yeramba, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

My personal apologies on your talk pageEdit

Hi Nick. I never meant to offend you on FP candidate Mr. Ahmed, Former Somalian President. I just stated a fact. Never directed to you. Hope you accept my apologies. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


Hey there,

I recognize that I fall pretty far to one side of the issue, and that I couldn't eliminate my biases from that timeline. That said, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I was trying to give editors a scaffold to build off of. I'd appreciate it if you could restore the timeline, minus whatever parts you felt were non-neutral or unhelpful. Point out what I need to further substantiate. I don't want to re-revert, but deleting the post wholesale is not productive. No complaints if you feel you need to delete large portions in the interest of neutrality, I've been on the other side of the coin plenty of times. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood (naval)Edit

I am not sure if you received my ping and were just busy. But I would like to ask you to please review the TFA blurb I wrote for Operation Goodwood in my sandbox. I would appreciate any feedback you can offer here about accuracy. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've just tweaked that. While I very much appreciate the help, there's no need for you to write TFA blurbs on these articles - having blurbs written outside the TFA nomination process by editors not heavily involved in the article risks causing confusion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok. No problem. Every thing is just practice in writing for me. Whatever works for you. ;) How would you like this to work? Is adding the articles to WP:TFARP enough to ensure they appear on the Main Page? Don't we need to go to the extra next step of nominating them at WP:TFAR? Just trying to learn. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they need to be nominated as TFAR. The TFA coordinators are pretty good at pinging editors for blurbs as part of this process. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
...and on that topic I've started the TFAR: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Operation Goodwood (naval). Thanks for drafting the blurb. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reality CheckEdit

Talk:Falkland Islanders

Over the years I've seen many Argentine nationalists trying to argue that Falkland Islanders are "Argentine citizens". The argument goes that that Argentine nationality law confers citizenship on anyone born in Argentine territory, Argentina claims the Falklands hence 2+2=5 and Falkland Islanders are "Argentine citizens". The basic argument is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN by inferring conclusions from two separate facts.

You will also regularly see opinion pieces from individuals making the same argument. The more sophisticated claim that by citing these opinion pieces they are citing fact. Allied to this are the few occasions when islanders have acquired Argentine papers e.g. [4], which are used as propaganda by the Argentine regime.

What would be required to source this reliably would be a neutral academic source, giving a considered opinion on the matter. However, I've never seen anyone able to produce one, instead they can only cite opinions in newspaper op ed pieces.

I have been trying to point this out to an editor on the talk page and to be honest the discussion is going round in circles with the guy resorting to ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees. He's now placed a call to arms here soliciting support from Argentine nationalists.

Can I just get a reality check here, I would like an independent perspective on what I've said. WCMemail 18:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for the slow reply. Based on the above, I agree that academic or government works are necessary to support this - op-eds aren't suitable. It might actually be correct though - as you might be aware, Australia had a really weird political scandal over 2018 and early 2019 in which a large proportion of Federal MPs were kicked out of parliament when it was found that, unbeknown to them, they were citizens of other countries or entitled to citizenship due to the ways citizenship laws work in other countries. The upshot of this is that it turns out that it's entirely possible for a country to declare citizens of another country to be its citizens, and this can hold up legally! Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Why all of this?Edit

Stop targeting me with all of these reverts all the time, I'm not a useless IP account who's vandalizes articles etc. and dude you're not being helpful, you're just a bully who's there watching to revert all of my edits like 1984 by George Orwell. Please rethink your behavior.   Darth Tomotron   (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, you are edit warring low quality material into articles and violating copyright. Please stop this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Dude I gave my reasons on why the CDB are involved in special operations and are not just considered clearance divers on the talk page so please let me reinstate it.   Darth Tomotron   (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. You are well on the way to being blocked. Please use talk pages to resolve disputes. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

While we're on the subjects of civility and harrassmentEdit

That was nasty. DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and deliberately so. I was in the process of removing it when Rambling Man rightly reverted me as it wasn't at all helpful. I am genuinely worried by multiple editors praising a bureaucrat who showed such apalling judgement and trying to talk them out of resigning though: that way lies awful situations like the admins at Commons who ran interference for Russavia. I should have worded my post in a much more constructive way, and apologise unreservedly for causing offence and not contributing to making the situation better. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

recent blockEdit

You recently blocked User:Patton976 for having a "disruption only account". This block was carried out after a fellow member of a wikiproject made a complaint on that project's talkpage. Neither you nor the complaining editor attempted any communication with the "offending" party, not on the article's talkpage and not on their own. Where were they to have defended their edits? On the MILHIST talkpage? Seems totally inappropriate. Primergrey (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, All of the editor's contributions were to change referenced material to advance a POV without substituting any other references - aside from the POV pushing, this is reference faking which we have to take very seriously. As this was the account's only purpose, I blocked them to prevent the disruption continuing, and set the duration to indefinite as I had zero confidence that the editor would improve their conduct after a set time period. I explained this on their talk page. The editor is entirely welcome to ask to be unblocked. However, the post on their talk page strongly suggests that they are the latest incarnation of a banned editor. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I must say, though, that although a block notice is a communication, it is one that states that all other communications (in this case, none) have proven fruitless. That you could have "zero confidence" that an account less than a month old, which had made only a handful of edits, all reasonable, in that they were not vandalism and were just the type of enthusiastic edits a new account is likely to make, and each with an edit summary more comprehensive than anything many long-time contributors ever leave (myself included), seems like an awfully rushed-to conclusion. And not one, I suspect, that many other admins, not heavily involved in that particular wikiproject, would share. But even if this is all as you say, the fact is that we both know that had the editor that brought this to the MILHIST talkpage had gone, instead, to the appropriate noticeboard, without any attempt to first contact the now-blocked editor, they would have been (rightly) chastised for it. Primergrey (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you. It is not reasonable to falsify references - anyone who has gone through high school knows that this is an instant fail for an essay or similar. When this is being done to advance a POV, it is also not the kind of good faith mistake a newbie makes. An account which only does this can be blocked on sight to stop their disruption. I note that an indefinite duration block is not a ban, and can be lifted very quickly once a reviewing admin is confident that the editor will not continue their conduct. Moreover, the account's behaviour is also highly characteristic of the banned editor's. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks to me, from their edit summaries, that they see the current references in much the same light as you see theirs. I, again, contend that this is very much in line with a new editor's enthusiasm (and, most likely, overreach/overconfidence). Please understand that I have no opinion on the specifics (I know nothing about Italy beyond its resemblance to a certain type of footwear), but the fact that reasonable minds may (and do) differ on the one who made the edits leads me to believe that an indefinite block following no contact with the editor, by anyone, is an action that could very well rid us of someone who, however ignorant of acceptable refs etc., at least uses them and actually leaves edit summaries. In other words, a potentially productive contributor (something that I feel is the second-most valuable commodity here, after confirmed productive contributors. I hope that explains my doggedness). Primergrey (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I also have to disagree with your statement that this person was using references. They were not: they were changing referenced material to reflect their POV, which amounts to the falsification of references. For instance, in this and this edit they deleted referenced material while falsely claiming it was unsupported on the grounds that it was derogatory to Italy. In the case of the material they changed here to something more positive to the Italians, the source states that the British slowly withdrew as the Italian advance was slow, so their edit miss-characterised the source. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You've also tagged this editor as a sockpuppet, yet done nothing to file an SPI, or even to record this claimed sock on that SPI. An SPI which has been quiet for 18 months. That's far from convincing evidence for socking. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi Andy, That's a fair point: I've screwed up the procedure here. I've removed the tag. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Sometimes an editor like this is spottable as a sock very rapidly (Europefan (talk · contribs) would be a good example), but only to those who are already familiar with them. For the sake of other editors, and basic fairness to those blocked, I think we should always be careful to record just which sock we're alleging. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How about just apply WP:ROPE, give them an unblock and see what happens? Plenty are watching. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • As noted above, the editor is entirely welcome to ask to be unblocked. I'm not in the habit of unblocking disruption only accounts to see what happens, as the likely result will be more disruption - especially in light of the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS post on their talk page which indicates that they are here to POV push. Regards Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primergrey and Andy Dingley: I think that the posts at User talk:Patton976 overnight confirm that this is an AnnalesSchool sock, and I have tagged accordingly. At very least the repeated threats to use multiple sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia is spectacularly unhelpful. As 331dot (talk · contribs) had already re-blocked the editor for threatening to sockpuppet, I have not changed the block rationale. Please see also WP:AN#Awareness. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't comment on the socking, but they've made their intentions pretty clear as being outside what's acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Australian HALO/HAHO Jump unitsEdit

The sources say for the PTS and Red Berets etc that they are 'military free-fall qualified' which is another name for HALO/HAHO. PTS teachs all methods of parachuting to ADF personal. The picture of the CCTs at the top of the page shows that they jumping out of the plane without static lines which means they're free falling.   Darth Tomotron   (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please find sources which state what you claim that this source and its photos imply. As I have told you previously, photos are worthless as sources for stuff like this - the photo could depict something unusual rather than confirming that its standard for the unit. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In the High-altitude military parachuting article, it has military free fall as an alternative name and if you read the PTS article:, you will find that name.   Darth Tomotron   (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks but that text only applies to the Red Berets. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Look I'm sorry for all this edit warring and conflict over various articles, I think we need to reconcile. Kind regards   Darth Tomotron   (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to be unkind, but edits like this where you re-added material which was removed as it wasn't cited without adding a citation is not on. It's rude to other editors, and discourteous to readers. The fact that you are continuing to edit war over stuff like this is simply awful. Please stop it. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Nick-D".