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

Contents

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)

GallandEdit

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

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  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.

  Miscellaneous

  • 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)

ApologyEdit

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

[1] 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.

  Arbitration

  • 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 wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org 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.

  Miscellaneous


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

RisstromEdit

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%9306_Australian_bushfire_season 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

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • 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)

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.

  Arbitration

  • 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.

  Miscellaneous


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. 173.176.133.219 (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).173.176.133.219 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Mary Jackson photoEdit

[2]

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

  Ivanvector

  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.

  Miscellaneous


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 Battle.com 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 ordersofbattle.com 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)

TimelineEdit

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. [3], 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.

  Miscellaneous


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: https://www.army.gov.au/our-people/units/special-operations-command/parachute-training-school, 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)

I am SorryEdit

Hi @Nick-D: I just want to say sorry for the way I was in the beginning I realize now it was disruptive and annoying that I did not listening to the note that was on the World War II page.And also the other Interactions we had in the past thank you for being real with me and telling me I was not really doing good with editing. I hope we can work together in the future with different WW2 projects!Jack90s15 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all, and all the best for your future editing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
And all the best with what you do!!Jack90s15 (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Operation ParavaneEdit

Nick, I see this was nominated (not by you) at WP:TFAP for September 15. Give me a shout if you want a blurb for this one. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The Military history A-Class medal with swords
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Landing at Jacquinot Bay, Operation Obviate, and 1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation CatechismEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Catechism 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation CatechismEdit

The article Operation Catechism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Operation Catechism for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood (naval) scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that Operation Goodwood (naval) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 22 August 2019. Please check that 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/August 22, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, "one of the British Royal Navy's largest operations of World War II, and one of its most embarrassing failures. A force centred around five aircraft carriers was dispatched in late August 1944 to repeatedly attack the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. However, due to a combination of bad weather and the inadequate performance of the RN's main strike bomber all they achieved was to put a large dent in the roof of one of the battleship's turrets and strike her with another shoddily made bomb which failed to explode. Following the operation, the task of attacking Tirpitz was transferred to the Royal Air Force, which soon put her permanently out of action."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark LardasEdit

Hi Nick! I was wondering whether an author who has published a bunch of books with Osprey Publishing would typically qualify as notable.[4] It amuses me that we are citing this guy on dozens of articles on a wide variety of subjects and I was thinking of writing a stub. More here. I see from your reviews that Osprey is pretty hit and miss. Haukur (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that being a prolific author for Osprey would generate enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. Some Osprey authors are notable for other reasons (academic positions, etc) though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I did see a handful of book reviews and a couple of newspaper profiles so there might be a case to make. But the case does seem rather marginal so maybe I'll refrain. Haukur (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation CatechismEdit

The article Operation Catechism you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Operation Catechism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

FAC mentoringEdit

Hello, Nick. I would like to nominate War cabinet crisis, May 1940 at FA and, as it would be my first FAC, I'm taking the good advice on offer that I should seek a mentor. I see that you are interested in military history and politics. This article is essentially about a major political issue but with the strong military background of the Dunkirk evacuation. I have initially posted the article at WP:PR, again as advised by the FA process.

I'm still fairly new as a member of WP but I had used the site for many years and I decided to join after I retired from work end of last year. I've worked on several articles and two have been promoted to GA while three more are in the GA waiting list. One of those is Norway Debate which is not far removed from War cabinet crisis, May 1940 and I would eventually like to take that one to FA as well.

I'll leave that with you, Nick, and I hope you will be interested. Thank you for your time. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be very happy to help. I'll try to read the article and provided comments over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick. Any questions, please let me know. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: I've just posted some rather high level comments on the article's talk page, which I hope are helpful. My main suggestion is that the article would benefit from being condensed, with the references being changed to place much stronger weight on secondary sources. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nick. Thank you for the comprehensive feedback which will be useful when I can work on the article again. Unfortunately, I must abandon the site for the foreseeable due to illness at home. Will be in touch when I can return. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all, and I hope that things soon improve. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

recent workEdit

Hi Nick D, Whenever you’re freed up, have a look over on User talk page User talk:bigeez for guidance/input. Many thanks, Cheers, Eli 96.10.123.131 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 96.10.123.131 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Nick, It’s Eli.

Whenever you’re freed up, have a look over on User talk page User talk:bigeez for guidance/input. Many thanks, Cheers, Eli 96.10.123.131 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 96.10.123.131 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 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) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:Coll/ResEdit

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page.
Message added 04:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Nick, might have a look/see over on Coll/Res on my talk page, read-on following down through both Coll and Res, hope all's well, Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Nick, I wished for you and Paul to see what's necessary for the World War II site. If you wished it to be included in Collaboration with the Axis Powers then so be it. I wished for you to see it first ... no need to set anyone's teeth on edge along with any ritual humiliation. I believe it's important. However, edit it in any way you see apropos; or instruct me, and I'll do it and resubmit it here. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Operation Paravane selected as TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 15, 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/September 15, 2019. Thanks!—Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Karl DoenitzEdit

Thank you for the recent edits removing apologia. I decided to have a look at the article and, right off the bat, I was struck by this section in the infobox:

 | predecessor        = Adolf Hitler (as Führer)
  | successor          = 
 *Theodor Heuss (1949; as President of West Germany)
 *Wilhelm Pieck (1949; as President of East Germany)
 *Richard von Weizsäcker (1990; as President of United Germany)

Wait, what? These individuals must be turning in their graves that they had "succeeded" Doenitz in their posts. And not just one, but three of them! --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - I'd want to see some references establishing that. I note that the website of the President of Germany states that Theodor Heuss was the first holder of this position [5]. The Doenitz article needs a lot more work. Modern historians tend to take a pretty dim view of him. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Unprotection of Coverage of Google Street ViewEdit

Hi Nick! I was answering semoiprotected edit requests today when I noticed quite a backlog at Coverage of Google Street View. You indef semiprotected that page back in 2016 due to persistent vandalism. However, it seems to be a page where IPs are frequently interested in contributing constructively as well. Would you consider removing the protection to see how it goes? I will watch the page and request reprotection if it becomes a problem. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd rather not unprotect this article - the volume of IP vandalism was pretty huge, and multiple time-limited periods of protection were unsuccessful. Based on this, it seems highly likely that it would be a vandal magnet again. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand, would you consider changing the protection to PC1 then? If you look at the talk page, you'll see it is already effectively operating as if it were PC1, just very inefficiently via semiprotected edit requests. I'd also note that pending changes tend to be far less backlogged than semiprotected edit requests. A2soup (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, That's a good idea, and I've just changed to PC1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!! A2soup (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog BanzaiEdit

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

HateEdit

Can you please stop with your edits. Let me do what ever I want. Thanks Cesartaco2005 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built around consensus-based editing. Please stop edit warring, and discuss your proposed changes. You will be blocked if you edit war further. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hope to see you again at a meetup one day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries at all. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Operation Paravane, which "covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of the Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber units (including the famous "Dambusters" squadron) armed with huge Tallboy bombs and some ineffectual mines. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the Tallboy bomb was enough to damage Tirpitz beyond repair. In addition to covering the raid (which over very quickly), the article also describes the dramatic flights conducted by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, "the service history of the main type of fighter aircraft the Royal Australian Air Force has operated since the mid 1980s. During this period the RAAF's F/A-18s have been deployed around the globe, and took part in the Iraq War in 2003. However, they're starting to wear out, and the Air Force is hoping to replace them by the end of this decade."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2019 (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, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

RevertEdit

Hello- I wanted to let you know that I have reverted ([6]) an edit from Aug 2018 ([7]). Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  Facepalm I totally messed that up! Thanks for fixing this stupidity. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

World War 2Edit

The answer to the question "why do we need refs in the lead", which is a fair one, is that sometimes editors will, in certain articles, argue with the contents of the lead so persistently that it is quicker to just put a ref in the lead despite the fact that strictly if the material is in the body and sourced the lead it doesn't need a separate one. Britmax (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I've been active with that high profile article for ages, and can't remember anyone ever asking for references for material in the lead and not being satisfied by refs in the body of the article. I suspect that the refs are part of the accumulation of well-meaning but unnecessary stuff which builds up in articles over time. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
With my long experience here I have to agree that this, also, on occasions, happens. Britmax (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Update?Edit

Hello @Nick-D: This is from The Wiener Library, the world’s oldest archive on the Holocaust and the Nazi era.

I thought it world be helpful updating to a new source that has more Information about the Holocaust for the opening. One of the other sources used is from the Florida Center for Instructional Technology if this Source is not ok to change it to. I will drop it I thought this world be helpful updating to a new source that has more Information about the Holocaust for the openingJack90s15 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please drop this - there's not need to substitute sources for one another. I thought that you'd stopped doing stuff like this when I commended in the ANI thread. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I did not mean for that to come as what I did to before. Do you know of any World War II pages that need more Citations or ones that don't have any?Jack90s15 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Those in Category:C-Class World War II articles and the cats for start and stub-class articles linked there will probably all need more/better citations. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thanks! I will look at what needs work and see what I can doJack90s15 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

InversionEdit

My cranium, my rectum. (Tim 'n me's cool.) Context--Brogo13 (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  BradvChetsfordIzno
  FloquenbeamLectonar
  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes

  CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the AtlanicEdit

Hello -

There were more participants in the Battle of the Atlantic, each nation I've provided I sourced properly;

  • The Royal Hellenic Navy, which was supplemented by the British, did undertake convoy operations.
  • The Belgian Naval Force, despite only consisting of the Flower-class corvettes, HMS Godetia (K226) & HMS Buttercup (K193) did undertake convoy operations.
  • The Royal South African Navy was given additional ships in 1942 and assisted in convoy operations.
  • The Royal Australian Navy had a significant presence in the Atlantic during the war.
  • The Royal New Zealand Navy participated in the Battle of the River Plate and it is very well known.
  • The Vichy French Navy did participate in the Battle of the Atlantic, the two major engagements being the Battle of Dakar & the Naval Battle of Casablanca. Additionally, Vichy France had some patrols in the Caribbean Sea near French territories.

Second Cold War: Sino-Australian tensionEdit

Greetings User:Nick-D, your recent deletion of vast sections contradict with WP:DEL and WP:RS. All information is verifiable, your claims of bias are not aligned with WP:AGF. If you have suggestions or links you would like to add in regard to Gladys Liu then please do so, I actively encourage constructive discussion. Your other grievance over the "Chinese Police cars" being fake is indeed correct but still relevant to the article, the CCP is known for using such intimidation tactics on the foreign diaspora. Thankyou.--Caltraser55 (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop blatantly violating WP:BLP, or I will block you. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Second Cold War. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Do you care to explain these comments? Or are you just a bully?--Caltraser55 (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
You are adding blatantly biased material concerning a living person to an article, and edit warring to try to keep it in. This is a violation of WP:BLP. You will be blocked if this continues. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Your edit summary to Gladys Liu speaks of a tendency to distort the underlying facts in service of your POV editing. Your wholesale suppression of the material in Second Cold War on the same subject is excessive where the matter can be dealt with positively by adding the balance you say is lacking (with sources). Your dealings with editors are plainly overly harsh and I suggest you cool it for a while before continuing to just simply throw your weight around. A dash of even-handedness and patience would go a long way here. sirlanz 08:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not how we handle articles which fall under the scope of WP:BLP. Material in such articles needs to be carefully written and sourced, and the correct response to problematic material is often to remove it outright until it can be fixed. Please take the time to review that policy, and note how seriously it is taken. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 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, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Operation CatechismEdit

Nice work on Operation Catechism! I first read of it years ago in Paul Brickhill's book, and one thing I never understood was the failure of the Luftwaffe at Bardufoss to protect the Tirpitz (Brickhill didn't understand it either!) There's a partial answer now, anyway, and probably the best we'll ever get under the circumstances. The willingness of the RAF to send two elite bombing squadrons into harm's way like that is another matter. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it is a bit odd that the RAF decided to risk their best units in this way. Presumably they were confident that they'd take the Germans by surprise and/or the fighter unit was a shambles, but unfortunately sources don't discuss this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 29, 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/October 29, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page.. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks for this, but would it be possible to run Operation Obviate instead? 29 October will be the 75th anniversary of this attack. Please note that this forms part of a trilogy of 75th anniversaries for air raids on the German battleship Tirptiz which I've developed to or near FA, with Operation Paravane having run as TFA on 15 September and the anniversary of Operation Catechism (currently at FAC) on 12 November. Please let me know if you'd prefer more diversity in the TFAs though - the anniversary of Operation Catechism is more important than that of Operation Obviate. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll run Obviate as a straight swap. Pinging Ealdgyth who will be scheduling November, and Dank for the blurb Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
All in place now, at some stage Dank will add the pre-written blurb, which you may wish to take a look at Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Jim and Dank Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Operation Catechism is in my notes for 12 Nov Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Operation Obviate, "the second-last of a long running series of Allied air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II, and took place on 29 October 1944. The battleship had been crippled by an attack several weeks prior, but was targeted again as the Allies had not been able to confirm the extent of the damage and remained concerned that she posed a threat. A force of 39 heavy bombers armed with huge, and very expensive, bombs flew from Scotland to attack Tirpitz in northern Norway, deliberately violating Sweden's neutrality en-route. The operation ended in failure as the battleship was covered by cloud just before the bombers arrived, and while most dropped their bombs no hits were achieved. The aircrews' success in scoring several near misses despite the conditions demonstrated the skills which sent Tirpitz to her end in an almost identical attack two weeks later."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way markEdit

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Re:C/R updateEdit

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Nick, I hope when you are free, review User:Paul Siebert/sandbox's sandbox for updated WWII page with C/R.

It is with your guidance that we would be most helpful to completing the task, since besides you and Paul Siebert (talk) there are few and far between who possess the moral compass and are instrumental and measure up to editing my work. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

CongratulationsEdit

Not only did you not respond to my sincere apology on my talk page, I see you were not content with only removing the Gladys Liu section and instead deleted an entire page worth of material relating to a rather serious topic. Well done Nick-D on doing the work of the CCP and silencing all other members from posting factual assessment of the situation.--Caltraser55 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't violate WP:BLP again. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
There was no violation on my part, perhaps instead you should have explained why the topic was problematic rather than act like a troll and start banning anyone who has a different opinion. I already admitted you were correct to remove the Gladys Liu section but then you went ahead and deleted the entire Sino-Australian tensions page. You're not the only editor who is on here User:Nick-D, learn to work with others rather than stifle their speech, even though I'm sure you're fond of those tactics and the tactics of some unnamed communist nations.--Caltraser55 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Another editor removed that section, not me. They explained their rationale on the article's talk page. You will be blocked if you continue to attack other editors. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, YOU deleted that section. Why don't you apologise for the way you treated me?--Caltraser55 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't. My only contributions regarding that article have been made as an admin to remove BLP violations. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Fine, whatever--Caltraser55 (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Borneo campaign (1945)Edit

G'day, Nick, I hope you are well. Given your work on the Labuan and Tarakan articles, I was wondering if you would be keen to try to work together on the Borneo campaign (1945) article? I've done a little work on it today -- largely structural -- but it still needs a lot of work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be very happy to work with you on that article. If you like, I could take the lead with the sections on Tarakan, Labuan and the campaign on the northern shores of Brunei Bay (I've been intending to write an article on the fighting around Beaufort for some time). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick, that would be perfect. I've added some bare bones to that section, and a redlink for the Beaufort action, but will stop there for now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I am working on expanding the Battle of Balikpapan (1945) article at the moment. Just wondering if you have access to Gordon Rottman's World War II Pacific Island Guide: A Geo-military Study? I can only view some of it in snippet view on Google Books, unfortunately. I am wondering if he identifies which Japanese infantry battalions were defending Balikpapan just prior to the Allied landing? I think it might be on p. 263 or 264. If you do have the book, would you mind looking this up for me? Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't own a copy of that book, but can check the NLA's copy on the weekend (though its record on their catalogue is broken - I've sent a query asking for this to be fixed). It's likely that Rottman will have provided that detail. I'll also check Powell's 'War by Stealth' for details on all things Borneo while I'm there - from memory, he goes into considerable detail. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, Nick, that would be fantastic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Rottman names the brigade which had elements at the city, but unfortunately doesn't identify what they were. He gives a much lower figure for the number of Japanese troops in and around Balikpapan than is in the article at present BTW - 3,100 troops at Balikpapan along with 1,100 Japanese and Formosan labourers, and a further 1,500 troops at Samarinda 60 miles to the north (p. 264). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick, I've tried to work these ranges into the article now; not sure if I've done it very elegantly, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Luzon editEdit

Hi, may I ask why did you erase the edit I did in the Battle of Luzon if Antonio Cárdenas was the actual leader of the Mexican Expeditionary Air Force which was actually independent of any office in the US Air Force? At your service, Stturm (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC). P.D. Sorry for all the edits, I´m new to all of this. P.D. 2 How was he a junior rank if he was a Colonel? And if that is really a junior rank, why is there a lieutenant colonel in the list then? Besides, the FAEM were under total mexican command even if they were integrated to a USAF Fighter Group.

That's a pretty junior rank. For him to be included, we'd need reliable sources which state that he was one of the main Allied leaders in this battle. If there's a lieutenant colonel in the list, I'd support removing them as well. Please also see the discussion at Talk:Philippines campaign (1944–1945)#Addition of the Mexican commander to infoboxes (if you are the same person as Cesartaco2005, please also stop edit warring and stick to a single account). Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for answering! I really appreciate it. I assure you, I´m not Cesartaco2005. Just another user who thinks that Antonio Cárdenas´ achievements should be brought more into the light. My reliable source is already mentioned in the talk of the Battle of Luzon article. Stturm (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) - revert to typoEdit

I am really non-plussed at your revert.

My version:

... and visibility was good for the bomber crews, 10 miles (16 km).

Your version:

... and visibility was good for the bomber crews.10 miles (16 km).

Are you really believing the current version is 'better' for having the "10 miles" jammed up against a period, and followed by its own period? Are you seeing something different, due to the use of the "{{convert|10|mi|km}}."?

Re-write the sentence to make it better if you want, to include the 10 miles visibility figure as you wish. But as it is now it's trash, which is why I was fixing it. Shenme (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, What's with the aggressive attitude? Yes, I goofed here. I've tweaked the sentence to clarify things (not sure when the original typo crept in). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
You say 'aggressive'. How about absolute befuddled astonishment at an unexplainable misreading? That's why I asked if you had seen something else entirely due to the template usage. The 'how' you could get "that's the end of a sentence" out of the before and after completely escaped my comprehension. I really do try to focus when making changes. You did use "Show preview", right? (Also, please note that 'aggressive' usually does not coincide with the patience I've demonstrated, waiting for you to notice and address the problem) Shenme (talk) 03:35, 11 October 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 7 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

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

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

ReplyEdit

I noticed your comment here. Well, this is not whole story. Suvorov wrote several additional books to refute books by his opponents, and his views do look convincing to me (I am not an expert in WWII history of course). Main question here is what exactly views by Suvorov his opponents were trying to refute. Main idea of the book is that Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the "Icebreaker") against the West. You (or someone else) puts it differently in the last paragraph here: the book Icebreaker in which he claimed that Stalin had seen the outbreak of war in Western Europe as an opportunity to spread communist revolutions throughout the continent, and that the Soviet military was being deployed for an imminent attack at the time of the German invasion. That statement includes two parts. First part (spreading the communist system) is actually obvious, and that is what Stalin actually did - as a matter of fact. Second part is that "Soviet military was being deployed", meaning it was only in the process of deployment, but has not been full deployed yet - according to Suvorov. This is a matter of debate and can be decided only based on analysis of factual information. Suvorov provides a lot of factual data that support such hypothesis in his several books. So, if anyone really wants to dig into this, he should read these several books by Suvorov and books by his opponents. One thing is certain: nothing Suvorov wrote was "pro-Hitler". Yes, he critcized Stalin by telling he was also responsible for the WWII, but this is common place (because of the secret protocols to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) and something different. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As noted in the para in the Operation Barbarossa article, reliable sources state that pretty much all historians reject Suvorov's thesis. I'm going to be noting this discussion on the AE discussion, as it's pertinent. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Book reviewEdit

Hi there. I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a book review that I have placed at the bottom of The Bugle talk page for the next issue. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks a lot for that review. Sorry for not acknowledging it earlier - I've been flat out with real life commitments, and I forgot to do so. It's a great review, and my only suggestion/question is to ask whether you wanted to also give the book a rating out of five stars, as is common for the review section. There's no need at all to do this though if you'd prefer to not have a star rating. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Not a problem for the delay - I feared it had fallen through the net. It'll probably be a 4 star and I should be able to get round to adding that. If I forget, then drop me a message or you are welcome to add it yourself, thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/November 2, 2019Edit

This is to let you know that McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service will shortly be scheduled by Ealdgyth as today's featured article for 2 Nov. For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be a blurb review on the talk page of the article's FAC nomination page. Further edits and thoughts, on the article or the blurb, are welcome. Thanks! (She'll be back editing in a few days ... we wanted to give everyone a heads-up.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for this note Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 November 2019. Please check that 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/November 2, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Over 70,000 views as TFA. Impressive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Operation Obviate racked up over 64,000 earlier in the week as well which I was rather pleased with. I suspect there will strong interest in Operation Catechism when it runs on 12 November as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: 84,000 page views for Operation Catechism! [8]. Interestingly, it also racked up 25,000 when Operation Obviate ran on 29 October. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Bloody hell. Impressive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Not much compared to the 280,000 (!!!) Guy Fawkes recently got though! Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Still comprehensively thrashes the 72,000 I've ever got on a TFA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Operation Catechism scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that Operation Catechism has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 12 November 2019. Please check that 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/November 12, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You have a request to trim it: WT:Today's featured article/November 12, 2019. I'm going to try to respond to Kevin's posts on Tuesday ... I can do the blurb then if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dan, will do. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverting to redlinksEdit

Why did you have to revert my edit? I was just doing my job of removing redlinks because it does not show the actual link to the page. Anyway, Cheers! CentralTime301

Red links are perfectly OK, and in fact recommended for subjects which would justify an article, such as villages. They encourage editors to create new articles. In the case of the link here, an article on that village would help us to improve our very under-developed coverage of settlements in modern Papua New Guinea. Please see WP:REDLINK. Regards. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Bengal famineEdit

Hi Nick, to clear the air, and know you are finding it frustrating, but really appreciate your insight, hard work and engagement here. The article is much improved again from how it was two weeks ago, largely thanks to you. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Expert opinionEdit

Please forgive the intrusion; I am sorry to bother you & won't bother you further after a quick request. I hope you will revisit your thoughts regarding the article in light of a recently posted expert opinion. Sorry again for the intrusion. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Three recent Tirpitz articles at TFAEdit

That's really quite an achievement, and all 3 were good reads. I'm glad you were able to get all three to run on their respective dates. Thank you for the work on those. A deeply impressive effort. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I really appreciate it. I think that the story of these operations is a really interesting one, and have enjoyed working on them. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Featured topic? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
almost there already. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
...Yes, I have been thinking about that. There's also Bombing raids on the German battleship Tirpitz during 1940-1942 (or possibly split into sub-articles), Operation Sportpalast and Operation Title, and I'm not sure if I have sufficient enthusiasm for them. For some reason, the air attacks on the battleship in northern Norway are what interests me most. Ironically, a museum display in Auckland, New Zealand got me interested in the topic (a surprisingly high proportion of the British aircraft carrier pilots were Kiwis). Thank you also. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Operation Catechism, "the last in the long-running series of air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. Crippled by damage from earlier attacks, the battleship had been downgraded to a floating battery and stationed in a vulnerable anchorage. She survived the Operation Obviate attack on 29 October 1944 due to luck, but little chance of survival when the pair of elite heavy bomber squadrons which had been tormenting her struck again on 12 November. Two hits from massive bombs and several near misses left Tirpitz a wreck and killed most of her crew."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Battle of North BorneoEdit

G'day, Nick, I have to go away for a few days for work to help out with the bush fire relief effort, flying out late tonight. Wondering if you might take a quick look at the Battle of North Borneo article and adding some review comment on the talk page for me to work on when I get back? Or, if you are feeling keen, please make whatever changes you feel are necessary to the article. I would be keen to try to get this to GAN eventually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be very happy to look in on that article. I hope all goes well with your deployment. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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