User talk:Nick-D/Archive 11
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Fortress of Mimoyecques FA nomination
Thank you for your help with the featured article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques. I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a related article, Fortress of Mimoyecques, for consideration as a featured article. If you have any comments on the nomination, please leave them on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fortress of Mimoyecques/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know - I'll provide some comments on the nomination later this week. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please revert your recent edit on Samson
Nick,
The section where you removed my edit is absolutely awful in its current form as it proposes an insane conspiratorial idea that Israel will destroy the world. But some people have been arguing to keep it. If it remains it needs to be clear that this is not Israeli foreign policy but rather the opinions of some experts and the rantings of some lunatics.
Zuchinni one (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to restore that unreferenced material in which you attacked the reputations of various people. Please see WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did not attack anyone, nor would I. But that entire section is trash as it stands and it needs to be clear who is saying these things. I am happy to find another wording that you find less offensive, but I can't stand seeing people promote conspiracy trash on wikipedia as if it was the official foreign policy of a nation. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please find reliable sources which argue the opposite then and use them to add material to the article - please see WP:NPOV and WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- See the talk page ... the first portion of my edit was a restatement of previously referenced material in the article which I did forget to re-reference ... the second portion was simply a statement to clarify that the rest of the section did not reflect Israel's offical foreign policy. Neither is POV or orginal research ... but I do admit that I forgot to put in the references. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let's not run two discussions in parallel. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Look Nick, your an admin, a huge contributor to military history here, and in general I respect you and think that you are trying to make wikipedia great. I think that I am going to refrain from participating in the debate about this article for a little while. I made some mistakes and did not handle things as best I could. This is mostly because I feel so frustrated about something that appears to me to be obvious.
- This article starts out talking about nuclear deterrence in a very reasonable way ... and it discusses what is basically a MAD scenario of deterrence quite well. And then turns into something that implies Israel has a secret agenda to destroy any who oppose it or possibly even the world by creating a nuclear winter. Those ideas come from fine sources ... and people speculate about stuff like this all the time. Its RS enough to be in wikipedia, but it should NOT be presented as if it were real foreign policy rather than guesswork, imagination, and wild conjecture.
- You're a good admin ... make this page right. I'm recusing myself from it. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Admins have no extra say on the content of articles. As noted above, if you're aware of reliable sources which provide different accounts of Israel's nuclear strategy, please use them as references. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- No but you do have a say in making sure that articles follow Wikipedia guidelines and present information in an NPOV manner. As far as references that present a different view ... the rest of the article is full of them. They don't mention that Israel does not want to destroy the world, because they are not written as a response to that ... rather they just talk about actual policy. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
ARA Belgrano
Hi Nick, I've left a message at Talk:ARA_General_Belgrano#Ombudsman_statement explaining the re-addition of the ombudsman statement you removed from the Legal Controversy section to the Aftermath section. Please stop by when you have the time and tell me what you think. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Landing at Nassau Bay
Hello Nick—
And Happy New Year. I see that you are the original author of the Landing at Nassau Bay. One of the recommended readings is Morison's Battle of the Atlantic Volume. Is that your intent? Seems like the wrong ocean. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I think you've gotten me confused with Newm30 (talk · contribs) - I've never edited that article. I have read that volume of Morison's history, however, and it's definitely not the right one - the correct volume is Breaking the Bismarks Barrier. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nick. Thank you. I apologize for my confusion. You did create its talk page, but that's just not the same thing. I clicked on the history of the wrong tab. ☹ I should've been clued in when there were no more edits ☺ I'll make the edit. JMOprof (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
![]() |
Best wishes for the New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! |
- Thanks Sandy, and happy new year to you as well :) Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year from Aotearoa!!
Talk:Belgian Army#Requested move - would you kindly consider providing some input at this RM? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for No. 78 Squadron RAAF
![]() | On 6 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 78 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 78 Squadron RAAF took part in the last major air battle between the Royal Australian Air Force and Japanese air units during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 78 Squadron RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Demba Ba
Hello Nick, can you take a look at this situation. It's been going on quite sometime & nobody has made an intervention. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, now I can get some sleep. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Australian National University Classics Museum
![]() | On 7 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian National University Classics Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a bronze head once owned by the Roman emperor Augustus was stolen from the Australian National University Classics Museum in 2004? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian National University Classics Museum. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Lending Club
You might like to comment at Talk:Lending Club/Archives/2013#History. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Jan Metro
Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Australian Army in World War II
Gday Nick. The review for this article is here Talk:Australian Army in World War II/GA1. This really has been a collobrative effort between a number of editors, including yourself. Indeed if I recall correctly I believe you actually started the article originally. So if you're interested your involvement in the review would be most welcome. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I've enjoyed working on this article, and will help out with the GA review. Hopefully we can also take the article to at least A class status. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- G'day, Nick, do you have any objections to the article being nominated for A-class this weekend? Sorry to rush you, but I'm heading away for six-seven weeks in February, so I'd like to try to get this one through ACR before then. In some ways this has become the defacto Milhist COTM for January... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, not at all. I'll have a go at the POW section today to give it more of an Army focus, but other than that it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I will look to nom tomorrow, then. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, not at all. I'll have a go at the POW section today to give it more of an Army focus, but other than that it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- G'day, Nick, do you have any objections to the article being nominated for A-class this weekend? Sorry to rush you, but I'm heading away for six-seven weeks in February, so I'd like to try to get this one through ACR before then. In some ways this has become the defacto Milhist COTM for January... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Rapier (missile) and Malaysian Army
It was in Malaysian service, but with the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
File problem on Commons
Hello Nick,
I recently created a new version of this file: [1]. But since it had been transferred to Commons I didn't have the permission to overwrite it so asked AustralianRupert to do it for me. He has had a go but the changes don't seem to display and neither he nor I can get it to work. I was just wondering if you had any Common's expertise and if you could work out the problem? Essentially the changes were to add B Coy, 6 RAR (minus). Either the 00:03, 12 January 2013, 00:14, 12 January 2013 and 00:17, 12 January 2013 now look right, just not the current version. I suspect this might be a cache problem but have tried purging and it did nothing. Maybe it might come good of its own accord? Any assistance or advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The truely weird thing is it displays fine in the thumbnail on my User page, but not in the article. And not when you click on the thumbnail... I'm stumped... Anotherclown (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just had a go at reverting to the 00:17, 12 January 2013 version, but that didn't work for me either. I'd suggest seeking help from the admins/experts at Commons - I presume that it's some kind of cache or coordination issue. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will do - I appreciate you trying. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed now, apparently its an issue that will fix itself in time but you can "trick" it into displaying by changing the image to a non-standard size. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will do - I appreciate you trying. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just had a go at reverting to the 00:17, 12 January 2013 version, but that didn't work for me either. I'd suggest seeking help from the admins/experts at Commons - I presume that it's some kind of cache or coordination issue. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 tour of She Has a Name
Hi Nick,
Thank you for your comments on the 2012 tour of She Has a Name FAC. If you would be willing to weigh in on Sandy's recommendation to rename the article, your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
Neelix (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Jamrud(finale)
I have responded to Devanampriya's demand that I and Takabeg answer questions concerning the battle. I have no interest in his interpretation of the battle nor will I be adding other results to the template even though they are clearly backed by university sources. I do not see any edit warring starting since Denampriya has what he wants in the result section of the template. Not until Devanampriya can be held accountable for his original research and suppressing/mitigating of other university sources, will the article be edited with sources other than those permitted by him. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may wish to pursue dispute resolution using the procedure outlined at WP:DR then. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have filed here. Hopefully I did it right. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct-Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks a lot! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Jamrud
Hi, i contacted you regarding the change made by IP to Battle of Jamrud while there is no consensus yet and matter is under dispute resolution. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note - I've just blocked that account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Theman244 is a POV-pusher and a sockmaster who removed scholarly sources from the article and you Nick-D wrongfully blocked an IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.124.43 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, I blocked an edit warrior. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Theman244 is a POV-pusher and a sockmaster who removed scholarly sources from the article and you Nick-D wrongfully blocked an IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.124.43 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II
Hi Nick,
I saw that you reverted Tempaccount040812 name change of this article back in December due to lack of consensus etc. Due to Staberinde's recent comments on the talkpage, I have started looking at various ways to improve the article. One of them is, I think the name needs to be changed. My proposal, which has so far not been responded to on the talkpage, is to rename it either Mediterranean Theatre of War or the Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre (which would include the dropping of Madagascar and the east Africa fighting from the article, per Staberinde's comments, my own agreement, and how the official histories describe the fighting. Thus 'Africa' would become somewhat redundant). The names come from the American and the British official histories, respectfully, of the theatre. I have not been able to find out what, if, the Germans and Italians named the theatre. The German official history is termed "The Mediterranean, South-East Europe, and North Africa 1939-1942" and I have not been able to find if there is an Italian history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba p again
Sorry but he seems bent on disruption and has started a thread on WP:ANI, I would be grateful if you could comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me"
Believe it or not, others feel that way too.—Chowbok ☠ 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the speedy addition of a cite. My concern is with the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown", which seems to be included more for the purposes of obscuring meaning than anything else. We should be as precise as possible, and if there is indeed a good link describing the prerogative powers of the monarch as "reserve powers of the Crown", then I'll have no objection to you equating the two. Thing is, I can't find anything that's an really good source. This description, from the Parliamentary Library looks to be a solid source for the Governor-General's reserve powers, but it is quite distinct from the prerogative powers of the monarch. Further discussion on the article talk page, please. I really just wanted to let you know that I wasn't having a go at you personally by asking for a further cite. The one you provided is excellent, it just doesn't support the precise wording in the article. --Pete (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I added a citation to that effect while you were typing that message ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
CA 52
I've answered your comments, when you get a chance. --Rschen7754 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
For your work on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service -- Ushau97 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service
Gday again Nick. I think there may be a copy/paste error in the MILHIST assessment on the talk page. Or did I miss it at ACR? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops! I copied and pasted the tags from the F/A-18 in Australian service article and missed deleting that field. At least I didn't declare it a FA as I've done in the past through similar dumbness. Thanks for letting me know (especially so politely!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- No worries at all - I was sure that was the reason. Another very interesting article too BTW, I'm enjoying this series. Anotherclown (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you - I'm really enjoying writing these articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- No worries at all - I was sure that was the reason. Another very interesting article too BTW, I'm enjoying this series. Anotherclown (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Abbott
I've replied on my talk page. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Holocaust train France Section
Hello Nick-D and a Happy New Year. I have now finished the more complete version of the "France" section within Holocaust train#Modern day legacy that I had promised late last year and posted this at Talk:Holocaust_train#Inaccuracies_in_Modern_day_legacy:_France. I hope you are available to provide your input. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note Jerry - I'll give that material a look. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!
![]() |
Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR) |
Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Military camouflage
Hi Nick-D, thanks for your prod, I wasn't ignoring you but missed the un-transcluded comments. Have fixed that and responded to everything (and the other reviewers). Hope it's looking better now... Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the note. I'm about to knock off for the evening, and will check your responses tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone is placing blocks on my talk page with your name on it
[2] Strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- See below, and feel free to add a trout. I must have 'blocked' dozens if not hundreds of editors! Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Half-trout
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
(Well, half of one... kinda grosser, if you think about it.)
You're sharing this trout with Parishan (talk · contribs), for inadvertently "blocking" everyone accused of edit-warring withiin the last 9 hours [3] [4]. No worries, and clearly this is about as honest a mistake as there is, but, to paraphrase National Treasure, someone's gotta go to jail get trouted. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I sure deserve that! I wonder why I did it? (I wasn't even editing while drunk or crazy!). Thanks for the note. I'll now throw myself at the mercy of WP:ANI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Like
Hyphenating ship classes
Hi Nick-D, I noticed you reverted Anzac-class frigate. I have also noted a number of changes to hyphenate all classes of warships in RAN service e.g Paluma-class survey motor launch, Leeuwin-class survey vessel, etc. Not sure if we need to raise this higher. Editors are doing this apparently to meet WP:NC-SHIPS. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I've just left a note on the talk page of the editor who moved the articles to that effect. It's not in line with WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy and trumps what looks like a rather wrong-headed guideline. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Proper English requires a hyphen for compound adjectives and the WP:Ships naming convention reflects that. COMMONNAME isn't applicable as I've seen the hyphen used and not for ship class names in published books and the navies themselves. There have been several lengthy discussions on WT:SHIPS over the issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not applied to Australian warships in any Australian source I'm aware of (most obviously, the Royal Australian Navy's website). It's also not used in the American-published The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World. It does appear to be used in Jane's Fighting Ships though based on the online edition. Maybe its used by other countries, but these are effectively made-up titles when applied to Australian warships, and it doesn't seem appropriate to me to apply them. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The hyphen seems to be less used in more recent books, but I'd be curious to see how the WW2-era classes are referred to in books on the RAN published throughout the Anglosphere. Don't know if I'd buy off on an exception solely for Australian classes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure, but the hyphen looks unfamiliar to me. The RAN doesn't use the hyphen in its articles on historic warships (see [5] and [6] as a couple of examples selected at random). Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The RAN is using proper grammar as the hyphen only comes into play when the noun is modified by a compound adjective, i.e. Bathurst-class minesweeper or 15-inch shell. If the word class is the noun in that phrase, then no hyphen is needed, i.e. "The Bathurst class were built..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it'd be nice to have a common naming convention across all of Wikipedia's ships... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why, to be honest, unless there's a common naming convention across the English speaking world. Checking my references on the RAN indicate that the use of hyphens in class names is fairly rare. WP:ENGVAR seems to apply here, at a minimum. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Because we're a global encyclopedia, and we like to have relatively consistent naming conventions. ;-) I don't see the big hassle here either, but if it's grammatically correct, I don't see a clear need to not do it. But that's just me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I rather like diversity in articles myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Because we're a global encyclopedia, and we like to have relatively consistent naming conventions. ;-) I don't see the big hassle here either, but if it's grammatically correct, I don't see a clear need to not do it. But that's just me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why, to be honest, unless there's a common naming convention across the English speaking world. Checking my references on the RAN indicate that the use of hyphens in class names is fairly rare. WP:ENGVAR seems to apply here, at a minimum. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it'd be nice to have a common naming convention across all of Wikipedia's ships... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The RAN is using proper grammar as the hyphen only comes into play when the noun is modified by a compound adjective, i.e. Bathurst-class minesweeper or 15-inch shell. If the word class is the noun in that phrase, then no hyphen is needed, i.e. "The Bathurst class were built..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure, but the hyphen looks unfamiliar to me. The RAN doesn't use the hyphen in its articles on historic warships (see [5] and [6] as a couple of examples selected at random). Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The hyphen seems to be less used in more recent books, but I'd be curious to see how the WW2-era classes are referred to in books on the RAN published throughout the Anglosphere. Don't know if I'd buy off on an exception solely for Australian classes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not applied to Australian warships in any Australian source I'm aware of (most obviously, the Royal Australian Navy's website). It's also not used in the American-published The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World. It does appear to be used in Jane's Fighting Ships though based on the online edition. Maybe its used by other countries, but these are effectively made-up titles when applied to Australian warships, and it doesn't seem appropriate to me to apply them. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Proper English requires a hyphen for compound adjectives and the WP:Ships naming convention reflects that. COMMONNAME isn't applicable as I've seen the hyphen used and not for ship class names in published books and the navies themselves. There have been several lengthy discussions on WT:SHIPS over the issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I hate the odd-looking and both commonname/commonsense violatinghyphen additions as much as you do, but, much as happened with the en (or was it em?) dash being forced through on dates in aircraft-by-decade categories, there reached a point where it wasn't worth arguing anymore about. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this would be a good time to update Wikipedia:NC-SHIPS#Naming_articles_about_ship_classes, which I was following regarding my moves. Plus other members are also moving templates plus other articles and also correcting text. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did I open a can of worms? The world is a diverse place and sometimes an encyclopeadia cannot cater for every diversity. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that I've started a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 36#Hyphenating Royal Australian Navy classes Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey Nick-D - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
KFC
Ok, I've responded to your KFC comments. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KFC/archive1 Farrtj (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Gallipoli Campaign improvements
Hi!
I was wondering if you would be interested in helping me improve the Gallipoli Campaign article towards being a good article nominee?
I outlined a list of things i feel are preventing its nomination as a good article.
If not i understand.
Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Retrolord, and welcome to Wikipedia. World War I isn't my strong point, and I don't have many references on the Gallipoli campaign so my capacity to help out isn't huge. If you'd like some help to work on developing this article to good article status, you could post a message at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (you may also want to sign up as a member of the project :) ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Just so you're aware, an FPC thread you were in got linked from there, and is being somewhat discussed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Jamrud
They are still editwarring. And accusations of sockpuppetry are being made on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any edit warring, and there clearly is some sockpuppetry going on (I'm pretty sure that the latest round of edit warring before I protected the article included an editor who'd logged out in an attempt to not be identified and sanctioned for this; I don't have a clue who this was though). Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
References
Hi! I was wondering if you would be able to tell me the procedure in Wikiproject Military History on citing online sources in articles. Is it acceptable for me to use online references inplace of books?
Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Online works are perfectly fine, as long as they meet the criteria for reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) for guidance. If your unsure if a source meets the criteria I'd be happy to provide comments, or you can ask for advice at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Request assesment
Well, i didn't know whom or where to ask, and because of this, i though i should come back to you for an assessment of INS Jyoti (A58). Thanks! --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, If you're looking for a good article assessment, that needs to run through the formal GA process (eg, WP:GAN). From a quick look at the article, it seems in good shape, though information on her 2002 and 2012 activities is missing and the material on her activities in some of the other years is pretty thin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will try to improve those. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Joint Task Force Impenetrable Jargon
You may or may not be pleased to know it probably was copy-and-pasted (can I used hyphens, since this isn't an Aussie warship ;), but not from the internet, a NATO official document seems more likely. When they put up the command website they may use exactly the same wording. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's something to look forward to then! ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hint
Take a look at this and then check out the history of this. Cheers! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- What a coincidence! Blocked and deleted. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm puzzled
You have "been around" for a while, and thus I have sought your opinion on more than one occassion. Hence, I'm rather puzzled by two of your recent edits and/or the accompanying edit comments.
- remove unnessessary honorifics from the infobox
- a) "unnessessary" sounds like your POV. I was under the impression that WP:I just don't like it was a totally inadequate reason for removing good faith edits. Please explain.
- b) "unnecessary". The whole of wikipedia is "unnecessary". Do you intend to remove the whole of wikipedia? I expect not. Therefore, what is your explanation for deciding that this small piece, rather than anything else, is "unnecessary"?
- an article already exists on that topic - Yes, it does. Why is that a reason for removing a link to it? Logic suggests that if it didn't exist, you couldn't link to it. And vice versa, the fact that the article does exist may, along with other factors, be reasons to link to it. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why the fact that "an article already exists on that topic" is a reason to delete a link to it. Do you think you could explain that to me please?
Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why the confrontational approach to uncontroversial changes? Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think I must be missing something, because that is exactly the reason that I am trying to politely ask you to explain yourself - i.e. it appears to me that you are taking / have taken a confrontational / aggressive / dismissive tone, and you have made zero attempts to explain your reasons. Again, it is your POV surfacing when you say they are "uncontroversial changes". You are making zero attempt to understand why I'm asking, or even what I'm asking - you are just making a confrontational / aggressive / dismissive reply containing no information. Also, I'm seeing no evidence of you "assuming good faith", either.
- I repeat: I'm rather puzzled by your approach; it doesn't seem to be consistent with what I have come to expect from you.
- Hence, again, do you think you could explain this to me please? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- By-the-way: I have no desire to sour what I consider to be our good working relationship. It's just that - I'm puzzled. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're really coming across as over the top here - I do respond to questions which don't include suggestions that I'm trying to trash Wikipedia! To answer your questions: I removed those honorifics from the infobox per what I understand the usual convention; the honorifics aren't normally included in the names for these people in when they're discussed books and articles (eg, David Hurley is normally called 'General David Hurley' in newspapers and the like, and Stephen Smith only gets 'The Hon.' in official-type documents) and don't appear in the body of the article, and so aren't needed in this infobox. I removed the links to the new article as the old article it duplicates more or less exactly was already linked (in the infobox in the ADF article and in the other article whether the editor replaced the link to the old article), and has much more content than the new article. I've suggested to the editor who created the new article that they merge the two. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining your rationale by answering a number of questions I didn't ask. I had absolutely no doubt you had a rationale, and that it would be reasonable. That wasn't my point. Nor my intent.
- Sorry, but you're really coming across as over the top here - Really? Are you sure you are reading what I wrote, rather than responding to what you think I wrote? Similarly, I'm totally puzzled as to how you can conclude from "Do you intend to remove the whole of wikipedia? I expect not." that I'm suggesting you are "trying to trash Wikipedia". Again, it seems like you are responding to what you think I wrote, rather than what I actually did write.
- To cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s, please note that I am 'not (and was not) complaining about what you did. What I did was tell you I'm puzzled by the reasons you have stated for doing what you have done.
- Now that you have stated and explained the reasons for doing what you did, I'm even more puzzled by your edit summary explanations - the edit summary explanations seem to bear little or no correlation with the actual reasons you state for making the edits.
- So, if I am correct in concluding that the reasons you stated in the edit summary were NOT the actual reasons for your edits, then I am no longer puzzled. I hope that clarifies my intent, and my puzzle. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Registration?
|
I noticed this userbox on your user page, and never having noticed it before, I thought about it. I find that despite wikipedia's expressed intent, I agree with the sentiment. Do you know if there is any "user-group" or "discussion page" on this topic? If not, can you suggest how I might go about identifying one? (I don't think I'm up to trying to establish one yet!) Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Unfortunately, I don't think there is. Ceasing IP editing is regularly proposed, but the Wikimedia Foundation (and many editors) is strongly opposed to making such a change. The edit filters help a lot though. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) There was a signifcant movement once to require Sign In To Edit; I stumbled across the page, but have never been able to find it again (gentlemen, start your conspiracy theories!); it involved a petition, heavily backed by editors who actually work in the trenches, that was sent up to WMFs ivory tower - where it got utterly lolno'd. Unfortunatly the only way SITE is ever going to be required is if we have another nasty kerfuffle like the one that ended the ability of IPs to start new articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Does that mean that we need to start a nasty kerfuffle? ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Any time this is pushed, tell me. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Does that mean that we need to start a nasty kerfuffle? ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) There was a signifcant movement once to require Sign In To Edit; I stumbled across the page, but have never been able to find it again (gentlemen, start your conspiracy theories!); it involved a petition, heavily backed by editors who actually work in the trenches, that was sent up to WMFs ivory tower - where it got utterly lolno'd. Unfortunatly the only way SITE is ever going to be required is if we have another nasty kerfuffle like the one that ended the ability of IPs to start new articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'm starting to get annoyed enough about IP vandals that I'm considering actually doing something about it. My problem is: What?
The list of 'Pages that link to "Template:User anti-anon"' contains well over 500 entries, so there's a decent sized initial "target audience". (Or at least I hope there is!)
Any advice on how to proceed? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:VPP is probably the appropriate forum to propose this, though its a Perennial proposal. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:PERENNIAL: This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past. It should be noted that merely listing something on this page does not mean it will never happen, but that it has been discussed before and never met consensus. Consensus can change, and some proposals which remained on this page for a long time have finally been proposed in a way which reached consensus, but you should address rebuttals raised in the past if you make a proposal along these lines. If you feel you would still like to do one of these proposals, then raise it at the Wikipedia:Village pump.
- Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing
- Hmmmmm. Thanks for that. It sounds like I'd be embarking on a crusade to flog dead horses. Or am I being too pesimistic? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of DistrictBuilder article
Hello sir! Good day! Just gonna ask a question, why was the article deleted? --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sir, just message me back in my talk page. Thanks! :D --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, just read the reason sir (its found in the deletion log). I understand it now.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, - see the 'Hint' thread above. The article was created by a blocked editor, and was a continuation of the spamming which lead to the block. There's no need to call me sir by the way! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Updated "Holocaust train" Draft
Hello, Nick-D. Thanks for commenting on my suggested update for the Holocaust train article. I thought your feedback was good, so I have revised it to add more about the U.S. controversy and replied to explain Marrus's writings on the Toulouse case. Please let me know what you think, when you are able. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re- Battle of Jamrud
Hi, Nick
Three IP's tried to revert the edits on Battle of Jamrud. I am sure these reverts are done by same person. You said page will be protected for one month, but it's actually not. There is still discussion going on. These three IPs are 182.177.74.223 (which was blocked by you for one week and no activity thereafter), 182.177.124.43, and 182.177.79.242 and last two of them are from very nearby location. Can you please look into this matter. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note - I'm not sure why the protection didn't stick - I must have stuffed up when I applied it. It's protected now. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit assistance
Hi, I have added the costs to Operation Astute, but I am having some problems with the formatting. Would you be able to have a look and see if you can see what is wrong with it? The Australian Red Man (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, you were missing the |} needed to finish off the table - I've just added this. Great work with adding this information (and mastering the not-very-good coding for the tables), and welcome to Wikipedia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Cheers for the help with the editing. The Australian Red Man (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) |
- No worries - thank you for creating this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Oz Military Categories
Good heavens you're quick off the mark! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I apologise for not getting the restoration done in time for the original nomination, but it's done now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note Adam. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
3RR at AK-103
Hi Nick, I just noticed a 3RR violation by two different editors at AK-103. Both editors performed 4 reverts. In the meantime, I should point out that the two sources being added by Special:Contributions/Theoccupiedkashmir are invalid and look like they're plagiarized from Wikipedia, so it was probably correct for the other editor to remove them. ROG5728 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC) "(talk page stalker)Actually only TOK is over 3RR; the other editor is at three reverts, but not beyond (yet). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- At the risk of stepping on The Bushranger's toes, I've just blocked both those editors for 24 hours as 1) G PViB (talk · contribs) was edit warring without any attempt to discuss the matter and 2) Theoccupiedkashmir (talk · contribs) was edit warring without any serious effort to discuss the matter and continued edit warring by re-adding the material with a tag stating that it needs a citation. I have no objection at all at either editor being unblocked early if they provide a commitment to knock this off or demonstrate that they've since read WP:EDITWAR. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Request for clarification about a block
Hello, Nick-D. Three days ago, you blocked RussHawk for BLP violations. He made an unblock request, denying having made BLP violations. I declined the request, because it was abundantly clear that you were right, and he had made BLP violations. However, it seemed to me that he did not understand what the issues with his editing were, so I took the trouble to explain to him why he was guilty of BLP violations, and also what some other problems with his editing are. He responded to this by making another unblock request, accompanied by a long and detailed post, in which he explained his thinking. It seemed to me that he now showed a clear understanding of what had been wrong with his editing, and that he was not likely to do the same again, so I unblocked him. (I did consider consulting you first, but it seemed to me that what I was doing was not actually over-riding your decision, but making an independent decision in a different situation, as the circumstances had changed, and the reason for the block no longer applied. Nevertheless, if I had known about your note above beginning "As a note to my fellow administrators..." I probably would have consulted you, as you evidently have a stronger desire to be consulted than many admins. If you think I was wrong not to consult you, then I hope you can accept my apologies.)
Anyway, some of the things that RussHawk wrote, both before and after the unblock, led me to look further into the history, and I found two facts which seemed surprising, and I would like to hear you view about them. Firstly, I was surprised to see that you had blocked the user without his having received any warning or explanation as to what was wrong with his edits. Normally, blocking without warning is reserved for the most extreme cases, way beyond what seems to be the case here, and I wonder why you chose to do so this time. Secondly, the problematic editing was on the article Andrew Laming, which you have edited many times, and one of RussHawk's edits was even a revert of a revert you made. This seems to me to make you involved, and it seems at best questionable for you to block an editor in such a case, where you were in dispute with him, albeit on a small scale. Please note that I am not questioning your reverting, as the content you removed was clearly a BLP violation, and you were right to remove it: I am questioning only your blocking of an editor under such circumstances, rather than seeking an independent administrator.
I hope you can clarify for me why you took the action you took, and also whether you still think you were right to do so, and if so why. I am particularly struck by the fact that once he had received an explanation of what the problems were, he understood, and accepted that what he had done was unacceptable, which suggests that he might well have mended his ways if he had just been given a friendly explanation, rather than being bitten with a completely unexpected block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi James, I concur with the unblock, and as this was pretty straightforward there's no real need to have consulted me. I'm not seeing the controversial aspect of blocking someone whose only editing since October 2011 had been to add material to the article of a living public figure calling them a racist though, and don't think that you're correct about the 'involved' aspect. I had posted a longer response to you, but I've just removed it as it was written while tired and cranky from a rather busy-but-dumb day at work; it's obviously available in this page's history, but I'd ask that you ignore it as it's long winded and cranky. I'll post something a bit longer than this, and hopefully rather civil, tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a shorter, and hopefully more civil and coherent, version of what I wrote yesterday: 1) I'm not 'involved' as virtually all my contributions to that article have been with my admin hat on (it was an unwatched BLP which had been turned into spam for this guy which I cleaned up and then watched; I always vote for the other side of Australian politics, so there are no political motivations here - quite the opposite in fact) 2) the edit of mine which RussHawk reverted was removing a flagrant BLP violation (eg, the 'racist' material) so I'm not sure why you find me responding to this to be at all problematic 3) the block was imposed as RussHawk was essentially a BLP-violation only account given the pattern of his or her editing: it's pretty obvious that you can't go around calling people 'racist' anywhere, and doing so was his or her only purpose for returning to Wikipedia after more than a year away 4) given that RussHawk was quoting WP:BLP to justify calling this guy 'racist' in his or her initial unblock requests shortly after being blocked, I don't at all agree that a warning would have been productive and think that this actually supports my decision to go straight to a block - which per the usual arrangements can be lifted once the editor commits to stop their behaviour 5) all of the above is entirely in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks very much for that clarification. I do accept most of what you say, but I don't agree with all of it. I fully agree that the editing was a "flagrant BLP violation", and that reverting was right, and I attempted to make it clear that I was not questioning that, and that my query was only about the block. I have not checked every one of your edits to the article, but I am willing to accept that they were done in an administrative capacity. I still think, though, that there was no good reason for not giving a warning first: the worst that could have resulted was that there would have been one more unacceptable edit to revert before blocking, and the best was that the user would have got the message. Even if you thought the former was vastly more likely than the latter, no significant harm could have resulted by giving him a chance. You say "I don't at all agree that a warning would have been productive", but the point is that neither you nor I knows whether it would or not. In the absence of positive evidence, we are obliged to assume good faith, which is what you are patently not doing: you are asserting that you believe that a warning would not have worked, for which you have no evidence other than your assumption. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a shorter, and hopefully more civil and coherent, version of what I wrote yesterday: 1) I'm not 'involved' as virtually all my contributions to that article have been with my admin hat on (it was an unwatched BLP which had been turned into spam for this guy which I cleaned up and then watched; I always vote for the other side of Australian politics, so there are no political motivations here - quite the opposite in fact) 2) the edit of mine which RussHawk reverted was removing a flagrant BLP violation (eg, the 'racist' material) so I'm not sure why you find me responding to this to be at all problematic 3) the block was imposed as RussHawk was essentially a BLP-violation only account given the pattern of his or her editing: it's pretty obvious that you can't go around calling people 'racist' anywhere, and doing so was his or her only purpose for returning to Wikipedia after more than a year away 4) given that RussHawk was quoting WP:BLP to justify calling this guy 'racist' in his or her initial unblock requests shortly after being blocked, I don't at all agree that a warning would have been productive and think that this actually supports my decision to go straight to a block - which per the usual arrangements can be lifted once the editor commits to stop their behaviour 5) all of the above is entirely in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in my experience politically motivated BLP-violation only accounts do not respond to warnings of any sort, and this editor's initial response to the block is a pretty typical result of such warnings - eg, they're ignored or it is argued that policy somehow supports the abuse they're trying to include in the article. I'm not going to assume good faith about someone who thinks its OK to use Wikipedia as a platform to repeatedly call a public figure a racist as they're clearly not acting in good faith. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Book you might be interested in
T.B. Millar, 'Australia's Defence,' Second Edition, Melbourne University Press, 1969. SBN 522 83917 7 (note pre ISBNs). Is here on my desk. Have been meaning to ask you about it. Do you want it? - if so I will try and figure out how to send it over. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I think that I already have a copy of that book - if not, the local libraries have it. Thanks for thinking of me though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
References
Hi Nick-D.... I am working on the references u asked. For Battle of Farhadgerd one reference is -> [7] it is spelled differently in this book but on Wikipedia the city is spelled Farhad-gerd instead of Farhad-jird. Thats common when writing eastern names in English you get various spellings in books. Also [8] is helpful for the battles' references you are looking for.
Battle of Chapakchur -> [9] and [10]
--Awaisius (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Andrew Laming
Had left a comment on the article talk page. Maybe you should have read that first before you accused me of unconstructive editing. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A major problem with the Laming page is the disruptive editing from his supporters (or staff? - one IP address is in the Australian Parliamentary Library). It is essentially censorship. Is this editing not "politically motivated"?RussHawk (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect that it is, but it can't be proven - if you look through the history of the article, it was heavily spammy at one point. Thanks for pointing out the Australian Parliamentary Library IP though this could be a public servant playing with the article during their lunch break for all we know... Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Request clarification/advice on how to name ship-class articles
At Bristol-class interceptor craft, two editors Trappist the monk and Oldag07 made two different edits for displaying the article name. Can you advice which is a more appropriate version, as i am confused which is the correct edit. See diff. Or guide me to the relevant policy page. Thanks a lot! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Basically, it depends on if the class is named after the lead ship of the class or not. For instance, the Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carriers - as the lead ship is USS Kitty Hawk, the class name is italicised. The Tribal-class destroyer, on the other hand, is not italicised, as the lead ship is HMS Afridi - the class is named after the naming scheme used for the class, not the lead vessel. In the case of the Bristol class, as the class is built by Bristol Boats, I presume that this means the class is named for the builder, not whatever the Indian Coast Guard named the first boat, so it shoudn't be italicised. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the fantastic explanation! :) I'l keep this in mind. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Bushranger :) Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
![]() |
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | |
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Oak Leaves for your work on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service, and just to break the pattern, Australian Army during World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Patton ACR
I think I've responded to all of the comments you posted there. Let me know if there's anything else I should fix. —Ed!(talk) 13:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:MOS
Hi Nick, could you take a look at this user's edits? I've warned him twice, but he has continued to apply thumbnail settings and/or large images in infoboxes across dozens of different articles (no communication from him either). Obviously, per the MOS, we don't use the thumbnail setting in infoboxes, and we don't use large images there either. This is what he's done in all of his edits. I also warned two other IPs that apparently belong to this same editor: User talk:121.54.44.159 and User talk:121.54.44.178. ROG5728 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- See also this new user account, which was apparently created by the same person. ROG5728 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You aware of this? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Would you like to comment here at all: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_threats? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've just commented there. ANI seems back to being a train wreck... While you obviously need to take part in the discussion, you're not going to be able to make all those people happy, as you seem to be the bad admin who must be punished for today. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very much appreciated - thanks for your comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- No worries at all. The show seems to have moved on today (some other admin is copping it no doubt). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very much appreciated - thanks for your comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've just commented there. ANI seems back to being a train wreck... While you obviously need to take part in the discussion, you're not going to be able to make all those people happy, as you seem to be the bad admin who must be punished for today. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Australian Flying Corps
![]() | On 24 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian Flying Corps, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Australia had its own Flying Corps during World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Flying Corps. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Carabinieri (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
KFC
I have responded to your comment [11] Farrtj (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Request for your assistance
Hi Nick,
Thanks very much for your earlier help on the FAC review of Fortress of Mimoyecques and my other related FACs. I wonder if I could ask you to look at my most recent FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1? It has a very heavy military history slant to it (not surprising given the history involved) so it might be something that you would be interested in. If you have any comments, they would be most welcome. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure - I'll post a review over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks very much. I'll look forward to seeing your comments. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, just letting you know that I've tackled all of your comments and am awaiting your feedback on any remaining issues. Prioryman (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops, I was waiting for you to address the final point on the current state of the economy, and missed that you'd done so. I've just supported - keep up the great work. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, just letting you know that I've tackled all of your comments and am awaiting your feedback on any remaining issues. Prioryman (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks very much. I'll look forward to seeing your comments. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Request for admin assistance
Hi Nick. Could you please use your magic wand to delete a page from my user space (or tell me how to do it myself). The page is here - Nick Thorne talk 07:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, I've just deleted that page for you. Unfortunately non-admins can't delete their own user pages, so the best way to get rid of them is to directly ask any admin to delete them or use the {{db-u1}} tag. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, thanks for that. Sorry about the delay in replying, been a bit distracted lately. Anyway, once again, thanks. - Nick Thorne talk 08:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
NZ SAS
Congrats Nick - thought I maybe should mention that new orgn source to you, but you found it first !! It's 2013. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm going to start a discussion about whether the article should be moved to 1st New Zealand Special Air Service Regiment. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Another thought. I'd like to move all the carrier strike groups to 'Carrier Strike Group 1', rather than 'Carrier Strike Group One'. This is in-line with the way the rest of the U.S. navy groups are listed on Wikipedia and the Navy does it both ways. The point is I can see in the future horribly convoluted titles such as 'Cruiser-Destroyer Flotilla Thirty-Three' or suchlike, which get really ponderous. But I anticipate an enormous amount of resistance from User:Marcd30319. How do you think I should best attempt it? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- It would probably be best to use the request move process, and advertise the discussion at WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS so that it's not you vs him. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Another thought. I'd like to move all the carrier strike groups to 'Carrier Strike Group 1', rather than 'Carrier Strike Group One'. This is in-line with the way the rest of the U.S. navy groups are listed on Wikipedia and the Navy does it both ways. The point is I can see in the future horribly convoluted titles such as 'Cruiser-Destroyer Flotilla Thirty-Three' or suchlike, which get really ponderous. But I anticipate an enormous amount of resistance from User:Marcd30319. How do you think I should best attempt it? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
can you direct me
Hi Nick, I have a description of engines, boilers, and auxiliary Machinery for the USS Iris document dated 1885. I'm trying to figure out if it would be of some use to someone on here. Can you help direct me to someone that might find it useful. Skully09 (talk)skully09 —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, The best place to 'advertise' this would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships or Talk:USS Iris (1885). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 15:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
March Metro
Issue 48: March 2013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 22:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Good Samaritan
You're one! :) Thank you for helping out a friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanWinchesterDiaries (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- No worries - and welcome to Wikipedia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Jamrud
I tried editing Battle of Jamrud only to find out its protected. When will the article protection be lifted? Caden cool 16:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The protection is set to expire at 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC). Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/70px-Peacedove.svg.png)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I'd like to db-spam this. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleting the "Embassy English" article
I have pointed out the mess we have when Category:Wyandot people seems to be using people to mean something else than Category:People from Michigan. I am hoping people consider more the problem of the issue of multiple people meanings being interspesed before we do anything to make a bigger problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC) File:Manoora Dili (20060528ran8098578 008).jpg listed for deletionA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manoora Dili (20060528ran8098578 008).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Request for your adviceAs you've kindly reviewed History of Gibraltar for FA, I wondered if you had any thoughts or advice on the issue raised at Talk:History of Gibraltar#Personal anecdotes? Please feel free to comment there if you do. Prioryman (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher: Small UpdateArticle: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher. Another user has made a slight update to the article. I was wondering if you could read the second last paragraph in the "Capture" section to see if it flows with the rest of the article. I have also found and placed a reference to that sentence and added the book to the bottom of that page. It would be appreciated if you could look at it and fix anything that needs fixing. Adamdaley (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Canvassing?This edit may violate WP:CANVASS. The project is not directly implicated in the RfA, the message has some bias ("a long-running member of this project"), and the audience could be partisan. If it is inappropriate, please remove it. Glrx (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I for one would prefer more, rather than less, editors that are actually familiar with a candidate voting in their RfA. Alerting individual editors that are friends of the candidate might be vote stacking, but a neutral RfA notification message in a Wikiproject can only lead to a better RfA outcome IMO. --Surturz (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Aus-NZ productivity recommendationsI think, perhaps, open up a new article just for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotoruan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
BusinessmanThank you for protecting aka blocking the editing by non-admin users to Business Man telugu page in the Article namespace sir. You did the right thing. It would be better if you extend the expiry period. Thank you sir. Have a nice day and happy editing. Raghusri (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)G'day Nick, did you have anything else you thought should be addressed on this ACR? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq
AWM imagesHi mate. First off, really like the Old Parliament House shot -- one of the best you've had in that spot... Next, did you discuss something somewhere about the more specialised AWM image licensing they seem to have adopted, e.g. CC BY-NC? I'm finally working on another article, on No. 1 AD, and I see the best relevant photo is AWM copyright and CC BY-NC, which I don't think helps us very much since it can't reused commercially by people ripping it off WP. Possibly I'm just out of practice, but maybe it's better to try a fair use rationale... WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nick-D, Would it be possible to put a temporary IP editor block on Eighth Route Army -- there is an IP editor from the Philippines who insists on adding a "see also" statement linking to the Malaysian Army, which has bullocks-all to do with the article's topic. I reverted the entries three times, no idea why they are being made, and of course, the IP addresses vary a bit each time so their talk page(s) are worthless in this instance. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hope you don't mindI changed the WM-Au member to a single template that can be categorised in the future. Feel free to undo the change. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
AFD - Legal abuseThanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC) No. 485 SqnYou're on the ball. I was thinknig about giving you a heads-up on this; I'd like to change all the 485-490 series. Then have to figure out whether to rename No. 10 Squadron RAAF to No. 2210 Squadron RAF (just joking)!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
BugleHi mate, just letting you know I've finished a draft of Project News and will quickly go over the other sections, then I'd like to despatch ASAP, since Prioryman/s triple-TFA should occur today (from 11AM our time of course). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Book reviewHey noticed you need a book review for the bugle cant wright one this week I am a bit busy. But I was wondering if the book Killing Rommel would be a good book to review for the bugle. Thanks Nhog (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
WW II PRI've requested a PR for World War II, and thought you should know, as you seem to be a regular editor of that article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Norman SelfeHere it is - relisted. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Selfe/archive2. Cheers :-) Wittylama 09:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Eighth Route Army (again)Hi Nick, any chance Eighth Route Army could be protected for a while again? The "Malaysian Army" linker is back. It is quite odd. Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Op. HardboiledHi, you recently left a review at my FAC :) I think I've addressed all of the matters you raised, if you get chance to stop by and take a look see if there is anything else that needs looking at that would be awesome :D Cheers --Errant (chat!) 13:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Naval HistoryHi Nick-D, I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help. Thanx -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Rolf HarrisAccording to WP:FULL, edits can be requested on the talk page. Please can you unlock the talk page as I have an uncontroversial edit I want to propose. He does live in Berkshire [12]. Widefox; talk 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have replied to what you wrote. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Request for the Baadshah (2013 film) article protectionHello sir. I request you to protect the Baadshah (2013 film), because the film is released today and so many nonconstructive and test edits are occurring while i am editing. Please protect the article from unregistered users, non autoconfirmed users for a period of two weeks. Hope you will protect sir. Thank you. Raghusri (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate, just seeing if you were monitoring the review, it's ready for you to check back. BTW, another great shot at the top of the page here, particularly like the dust at the point of landing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
EAst Timor Defence ForceHi Nick, have recently found some Timorese decrees which suggest the structure of the F-FDTL may have changed significantly; a land component and support component, rather than the structure that we portray at present. Would like to check with the US DOD document you got, but it seems to have been removed: would you mind flipping me 'Embassy of the United States, Dili (2010). "U.S. Military Engagement: 2009 in Review". Embassy of the United States, Dili. Retrieved 18 July 2010' Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
April Metro
Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC) TFAHi mate, discussion at WP:TFAR on a suitable article for Anzac Day this year and one of yours has been mentioned -- see under April 27 -- Charles Eaton (RAAF officer). I nom'ed the latter but Hawkeye suggested doing it on Anzac Day (which probably makes more sense) but I could just as easily shift it to a non-specific date. Your thoughts welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watchesHello, I closed this as delete, but User:Diego has pointed out to me that the BLPPRIMARY issues mentioned in your nom to have been resolved, something that I missed, and something that none of the participants voting "per nom" addressed. COATRACK really does not seem applicable since I don't see a NPOV issue with the article; it is about what it claims to be about. Since the most convincing argument--the sourcing--has been resolved, I am tempted to reverse my deletion. I wanted to get your input first, however. Feel free to reply here, although commenting on my talk page might help centralize discussion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) John MoultonIn reference to the deleted article John Moulton (medical practitioner) I'm wondering if you might reconsider your opposition to this article. I have recently read WP:NRU and feel that it conclusively proves Moulton's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. I hope you will agree and assist me in it being reinstated. As the team doctor he was an administrator of a "High Performance Union" for a long period and also at the time of winning the Rugby World Cup so he is clearly deemed notable by current standards. Castlemate (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
ADFHey There, I edited the "Current Expenditure" section of the ADF article with the US concerns about Australian defence spending in 2012. I didn't leave an explanation because I'm relatively new to this and didn't know it was required. The articles cited are from 2012, which is much more recent than many in the overall article and I think still relevant because Australian defence spending has not been raised as a percentage of GDP since. I have taken the word "recent" out though, due to subjectivity. Regarding your second comment, I think that American defence spending cuts since are irrelevant to the discussion. They have not retracted their critisism and neither has Tony Abbott so I consider that they both stand. Incidentally, even after cuts the Americans spend roughly double on defence as a proportion of GDP as Australia does. Cheers. Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Book ReviewNick, I've got a book review for you at the end of [sandbox] on the Japanese Navy's air service. The one on the RN in the Med still needs some work. Feel free to edit as needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: military history of Australia during World War IIThis is a note to let the main editors of military history of Australia during World War II know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK for McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk
Herc in Australian serviceWell the article's up now, and submitted for B-Class assessment first off. Also created a DYK nom here, so feel free to tweak or add an alternative (I'm aiming to review someone else's hook on Sunday)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Whining about propaganda againNick-D, In a recent comment on the MILHIST forum, I alluded to what I perceive to be a relatively common practice; that of the introduction of propaganda into the EN Wikipedia. This diff is an example of what I referred to.
A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much and very well done: I've not even had the time to add a further note at WP:AIV that I've seen only a flash :-) . Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Help with editorI have been involved with this[[13]] only as a passerby attempting to help. I don't normally get involved with these things. I noticed on the users talk page you have been involved with this editor previously and I didn't know where else to go or how t go about this. User:G PViB has continued to editwar with the same issue and displays quite the attitude. If you are not the right person to handle can you please notify another admin to review? This guy just isn't getting it, unfortunately. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Better picture for the Norma Redpath articleThanks it really is a much better picture dnw (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service
"Take it to the talk page"Obviously I'm interested in engaging in a dialog on the talk page if there is consensus that the material (added by a community banned user) satisfies policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. You are, in fact, cordially invited to participate in that discussion. Thus far, however, contrary to your own advice, you and other editors seem to be interested only in edit-warring. Why is that exactly? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Comments left at RfAThank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Comment on Buckshot06 talk page.Thank you for your constructive comments in the ongoing discussion between myself and Buckshot06. However the issue is not one relating directly to an article being written or to specific edits. It is to a specific action that Buckshot06 failed to carry out in February of 2012 in relation to [14]. I am still waiting for him to give any sign that he does understand what the actual issue is.Graham1973 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013
External linkHi Nick-D, could you please give me the reasons as to why the external link was inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunksood (talk • contribs)
QuestionHi Nick-D, I'd like to ask you a question about this comment of yours please. You write: "Moreover, given that bans are only ever applied to people who have well and truly exhausted the community's patience..." So, my question is: what is "the community"? For example user Russavia is a member of the community, is he not? On the other hand you and other 3 users left one of the community's project because of Russavia:Jimbo Wales writes: "Russavia, this statement is so horrific that I am more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken. You should be ashamed. and so on, and so on. So, is this a good thing to "truly exhaust" Russavia's patience or is it a bad thing? Thanks. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Owen GunHi, Nick - Regarding your recent comments on my edits to the Owen Gun article, I would like to make the following inquiry: supposing an editor such as myself does see a weapon credited to one military or another in a firearms museum, is there any way he can use this as a source for an article? I have provided the photograph of the exhibit in question (part of a larger display which included several submachine guns, all supposedly ex-RhSF) but apparently that wasn't enough. The image seems to have been accepted without difficulty by former RhSF veterans I remain in contact with, and the camo scheme - a uniquely Rhodesian SOP type - appears quite authentic. Perhaps I can get a qualified individual to verify the authenticity of both picture and weapon? --Katangais (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
SchwarzkopfMade some changes. Take a look: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr./archive1 —Ed!(talk) 16:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: this article; I've done some looking around for additional sources, but I can't find anything else biography-wise in either the library or books.google. Is there any source you'd suggest? —Ed!(talk) 13:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC) In the rushHi Nick-D, I'm Sabretoothbeast, I'm apologize regarding to the photos copyright issues that you have warned me. But as an Admin, you should not use your power to block an account easily about issues that is not related to your country (even if it not irrelevant to Wikipedia), but i do respect your effort as an Admin to preserve the rules on this site. So, to make sure the longevity of my account i will try not to do the same mistake again. —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Operation TeardropHi Nick, my apologies for not noticing that the bot hadn't told you about this article's main page appearance. I don't know why it didn't and it didn't occur to me to check whether the bot had missed this part of its regular task. And further apologies for the duff image - it looked better than the alternatives but I didn't appreciate the image status problems. Thanks for an interesting article, though - I thought it would be appropriate for VE Day to have something from WW2 and the timing of the Operation fitted nicely. Regards, BencherliteTalk 15:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Input requestHello Nick-D I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams#Proposed change: consistency in article title gendering. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC) HiSince I value your judgment as an administrator, perhaps you could look at this and give us your opinion? [15] It went unnoticed, but it's a serious problem with someone putting Nazi references into articles. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Do note that these are definitely sources from Nazi Germany and are not involved in RSN thread you pointed out
(both are examples of publications from Nazi Germany the user adds to articles) And now we also have claims in line with Nazi propaganda that creating Polish Corridor was a crime [16] and insinuations that people researching Nazi war crimes have "low motives"[17] Also while I understand that you don't speak Polish or German, we have German admin who confirmed that the user was banned on German wiki and operates a sock farm[18]. He speaks English, so if you have any questions it might be worthwhile to ask him. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC) /font>]] Smart move. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC).
SPIHi Nick - I have made some comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidYork71 that might be of interest. Would love to hear back from you - really keen to get back to contributing. tim (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC) World War II casualties of the Soviet UnionAn edit war seems to be brewing over at World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. An anonymous IP in Moscow keeps inserting unsourced rant into the lead paragraph. You may want to consider protecting the page if this persists.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
DavidYorke71 and TimothypgrahamHi Nick. DeltaQuad's given a checkuser result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71 which confirms Timothypgraham = Tim-m-m-m-m (which we already knew, plus Timg231, of course). Howeever, checkuser suggests that it's
Drive proposal for JuneFYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [20]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Australian Military history (WWII)Hello Nick, have you seen this? I just startet translating the article into German (here) and was a little confused about that reference as I couldnt find details about it. Maybe you can help me with this one? Thanks --Bomzibar (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
DYK for The Skywhale
Possible Bugle contributionHi Nick. I just saw your request for contributions over at the milhist talk page. I have knocked together a review of the last book I read at User:Dumelow/Sandbox2. If you feel it is suitable I am happy for it to be included in this months or a future edition. I would be grateful if you could check it over for grammar/style etc. as this is the first such writing I have done (not sure it it is a bit long?). Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
8th Route ArmyHi Nick, Eighth Route Army has been vandalized again with the same Malay nonsense. This diff looks like the last valid version. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Gallipoli CampaignG'day, Nick, I've requested a peer review for Gallipoli Campaign. If you have a free moment, would you mind taking a look? The review page is hear: Wikipedia:Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Bugle/FACHi mate, just tweaked the op-ed, feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Plenty there that struck a chord, especially re. Omaha. I don't know if you want to quote Les Carlyon's "You must see the ground", but I always liked its simple directness. Once I've added awards from April, are you right for this issue to go out? Unrelated, could I trouble you to delete an out-of-process FAC page for me? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my researchHi Nick-D, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Military History talk page that you are one of the coordinators for the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sacred historical placesNick, Regarding your latest article in the history monthly The Bugle. The photo with the words "Historic Area: No games, picnics or sunbathing," reminded me of the time I toured the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. I was speaking to a friend while we were inside the Alamo, and one of the lady volunteers rushed over and whispered to me, "Please speak more quietly, this is a sacred place." I look at her for a second or two, and then replied, "Yes I know, I saw the Jim Bowie and Davey Crockett salt and pepper shakers in the gift shop." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Nexus 7 FACHi, I believe I have addressed all your issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nexus 7/archive1. Could you please have a look? Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshalsHi Nick. I've opened a peer review for List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals with the aim of improving to to A-Class and possibly FL standard, and was hoping that if you had a spare minute you could take a look? Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC) MaskirovkaThanks for the assistance, its people like you with good common sense that keep me here on Wikipedia after seven years. Notice how the users IP address keeps shifting, Russian Maskirovka may be at work here.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Bau sekali...Hi there - thanks for that. Incidently, "bau sekali" means "smells bad". mature hey. I've tried to get the guy to talk about his edits. no luck. see Jepara Regency. --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
NZ ArticlesNick - just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your input on the New Zealand articles you have been looking at over the past couple of days. It is very refreshing and reassuring to have an editor of your experience come through and independently help sort some of these articles out - many of us have been battling for some months to try and improve the quality of them, all too often without success. Clarke43 (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It may become apparent that many of the issues on the articles come back to a single editor. It is frustrating as he has outed himself as having COI in the NZ Justice sector and admits that he has strong bias but then goes on to make major edits in support of that bias (including self-referencing his self published book) - time and time again on a wide range of Justice and crime related articles. A search on the history on various noticeboards, talk pages and mediation pages brings up the same issues with him over and over again, but unfortunately nothing has come of it so far. Clarke43 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
If you need help pulling this together - please don't hesitate to ask. Clarke43 (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Walters FACNick, okay if we move your resolved comments to the FAC talk page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Attack on international brigades on WWII articleGreat spot. I saw the edits come in, but didn't bother to check them. I rolled my eyes when I saw the root of the problem: Rjensen's uncritical use (I lack the evidence to impute anything more serious, though he would hardly be the first to let personal views get the better of him) of Stanley Payne. In the intro to the book Rjensen was relying on, Franco and Hitler, Payne offers praise for... you bet, Gabriel Jackson. Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship. Interesting how people like Antony Beevor can mention and take account of criticism of Jackson (from his The Battle for Spain: "[T]he struggle within the Repulican alliance has provoked major arguments, of which the most famous was Noam Chomsky's critique in American Power and the New Mandarins of Gabriel Jackson's history of the war. Chomsky attacked the book for its assumption of the 'official' standpoint and its reliance on testimony of Republican ministers and army officers, who have felt a need to justify their support of communist power."), yet Payne felt unable to do so. In this regard, he is below Jackson himself (from the lead into Chomsky's criticism in APNM):
Overall, no surprise to see Payne crop up in an attack on the internationals. LudicrousTripe (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Re:Op-edI have a preliminary draft here, but I could use some feedback. I'm working at Western Playland every day this week, so I will be slowly to get back to you but any feedback you can offer on what's there would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Question RE A/GA class ratingsGidday Nick, a quick question RE A/GA class ratings for you (having a number of A-class articles under your belt). An editor, an admin no less, has changed the class ratings for Talk:Alexander Godley from A-class back down to GA (although the Milhist rating still shows as being A-class due to the A-class pass tag). When this particular article passed ACR I bumped up the WP NZ rating to A-class to match the Milhist rating and from a quick review of other Milhist A-class articles, it seems most are also A-class for other projects without having gone through a specific ACR for those projects. If an article passes a Milhist ACR, is it appropriate to upgrade the ratings for other projects or not? Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Response to a discussion you hadPlease see Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Irrelevant_to_compare_to_deaths_caused_by_Japanese_occupations.3F Boundarylayer (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC) C-130 ACR/FACHi mate, FYI, since I've 78 and 84 Wings at ACR and you have C-17, I was going to wait for 78 to pass before nominating C-130 -- but it looks too damn good to leave sitting around so I'll probably do it this w/e anyway! Just expanding 36 Sqn now (great minds, I see you've taken care of 38 already) so I'll see if anything else apropos C-130s comes up there and then I might kick it off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
(od) Hi mate, the ACR could be closing shortly, are you happy for it to be nominated at FAC straight afterwards, and with a similar nom statement? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
(od) Well congrats, we did it, C-130s now FA -- might have to start thinking about another one (there's always Caldwell I guess!)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
War dead desecrationI'm undoing you're removing of the context paragraph I added. There were references included. Nothing I wrote is surprising or new or hardly in need of a reference. Context is pretty important, especially in such a subject. It is like yelling, "Fire!" without mentioning it's outside in a fireplace. Desecration of war dead is a real phenomenon; I have no objection to including reports of it in WP. On the other hand, anybody can use WP for a soapbox. Eventually, however, this dilute its value and hurts those who contribute, including you and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasCreek (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
All the references were to WP pages, appearing as normal WP links, including the definition of gallows humor, which is obviously one end of the spectrum of the motivations. The original writers include a long litany of motivations, mostly as pejorative as possible. Neither they nor I were there during the incidents. Was it due to racism or due to the fact that many of the kids were about to die or had just seen their bosom buddy shot through the head by an enemy far more tenacious than expected? The writers cannot compare the European war (Army, large-unit action) to the Pacific island campaign (mostly Marines, in vicious small-unit assaults). As to your deletion of my remarks, which are truly mild, well-referenced, and obvious to most historians of the war, are you trying to suppress dissent? As I said, I am putting the article in context, which is essential in reporting on stories from the past. Sorry, but I'm undoing you're unjustified deletion. Spend your time deleting some of the rest of the article, which hides behind cherry-picked references. SilasCreek (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Normandy landingsHello Nick, Could I ask you to have another look at the Normandy landings article? Editor Syngmung is getting close to a edit war and is reverting the deletion of rape allegations with strange comments. The base of these allegations is only one recently published book on the Normandy Campaign (not landings) and a review of same. I have to say that this "editor" seems to have an unhealthy obsession with rape, looking at his editing history. Would be glad of your imput/action. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Normandy landingsHello Nick, Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I have added my comments to your complaint. I must say that this "editor" does seem to have an unhealthy interest in rape and is pushing POV. As you will see from the Normandy landings Talk page, I did get another admin involved - it may be an idea to request his views on the latest developments. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC) procedural question on Rape during the liberation of FranceI hope I haven't created a mess by starting a deletion discussion without going through proper procedures. What happens if the result of the discussion is to delete an incubate? Can the deletion be done without a formal nomination at Articles for deletion? Should it be formally nominated now or after the discussion has run it's course or does it need to be formally nominated at all? Thank you for any advice you can give.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
History of GibraltarHi Nick, you'll recall that you contributed to the FA review of History of Gibraltar few months ago. I've nominated it at TFAR for July 13, the tercentenary of Gibraltar becoming a British territory. If you have any thoughts on this you're very welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 13. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) DYK for No. 38 Squadron RAAF
RevertsWell there seems to have been a nasty quasi edit war created on the Australian Greens page ever since you reverted me. ( As a side note, normal users are people too like administrators) I only edit wikipedia on a very part time basis and had completely forgotten about the three revert rule. User Bidgee is also engaged in this edit war. Since Bidgee is using your wanting the pictures in as a reason to repeatedly revert me, could you explain your position and how it is backed by policy? The pictures would seem to go against recentism, undue weight and the precedents set on other Australian political party pages, such as the ALP or the Liberals. Please explain. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
ThanksThanks for dealing with the latest stalker. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank You (Vietnamese: Cảm ơn) Nguyen QuocTrung (talk)18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC+7)
Microconsole DYKI spent a good amount of time sprucing up microconsole per your suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/Microconsole. Could you please take a second look at the DYK nom when you have a chance? czar · · 19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
re edit summaryregarding diff, "the 'Currently' section is certain to be years out of date". Sadly, it isn't out of date, is that bad? :3 Although since the assessment I have gone through and added, changed, tweaked a lot of content (before and after). Thank you, — -dainomite 20:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I've just spun this short stub on the first armed forces chief of staff of the Democratic Republic of the Congo out from the main armed forces (FARDC) article, and a new editor has listed it as CSD G7. Would you please mind taking a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Crime in New Zealand ArticleNick - I had a look over this article after noticing that 'JaggerAgain' had reverted some of your edit. I have re-performed that edit as I agree with you, and also took out more material that seems highly editorialised from that section. After reading the rest of the article I've put NPOV and bias tags on it as it seems to be pushing a particular agenda and needs a good re-write. After viewing the previous contributions that 'JaggerAgain' has made it will be interesting to see what and how they contribute to other NZ Political/Justice/Crime related articles.... Clarke43 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
DYK for No. 41 Squadron RNZAF
Could you please be more careful...You wrote: "I note that Geo Swan, who is the article's creator and primary editor, has a long history of violating WP:BLP1E by creating articles on people held at Guantanamo Bay, and came close to being banned for creating a list of living 'alleged terrorists'." I strongly disagree with this characterization of my activities. I did start articles on Guantanamo captives -- mainly in 2006 -- long before there was a WP:BLP policy. Some of those articles no longer measure up to the more demanding policies and standards current now. But, since they measured up to the standards current at the time I started them I am not now, nor have I ever been a serial violator of BLP or any other policy. I believe practically everyone who has examined my contribution history with a truly open mind recognizes this. Geo Swan (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you check some recent edits?On Lai Đại Hàn. I'm not familiar with the topic, but you seem more likely to be. By tone alone, that article strikes me as another nationalist battleground. There are no English sources in the article, which usually spells trouble for this kind of bilateral disputes, as well as impeding verification by editors more likely to be neutral. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
GA nomination of No. 38 Squadron RAAFThe article which was nominated by you is successfully promoted to GA. Suri 100 (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Mutsu GA reviewDon't forget about this. I think that I've responded to all of the issues that you identified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
June backlog driveHi. I have been adding photos to bio articles - thinking that this was part of the drive. But I notice today that the drive is only looking for Military History articles - am I correct? g Gbawden (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sock?
More sock at PhAF
OMT Op-edWe're creeping up on 16 June, and since I keep long hours at work on the weekend and subsequently crash on Monday to recover I wanted to get the Op-ed in its place before I get saddled with weekend work. I haven't seen a reply in the above section about where the piece should be moved, so I am hoping that a fresh topic heading will help us finish the piece by getting it moved where it needs to be in time for publication. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Operation Pig Bristle
RNZAF SquadronsThanks, its arisen mostly out of work I've been doing on WWII bases in the South Pacific Mztourist (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Too big a stick?Hi Nick. I'm currently looking at the unblock request at User talk:76.166.144.21. It looks to me as though this IP was blocked for a single edit - whilst I don't dispute that it was a BLP violation (and reverting and revdeling it was an appropriate course of action) a week's block for what, as far as I can tell, was a first offence seems a bit heavy-handed to me - I'd have expected a warning, rather than a block, for something like that. We're all fans of the mantra that blocks are supposed to be preventative, but I can't see any evidence that there's anything being prevented here; the IP didn't attempt to replace their comment, and hadn't made any other edits on the subject. Have I perhaps overlooked something? If not, would you be amenable to lifting or reducing the block? Yunshui 雲水 08:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your personal attacks?Would you like to back up your personal attack at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Pricasso with some actual evidence? This isn't the first personal attack I've asked you to back up, but which you have ignored. I would sincerely suggest that you step back, and stop making such attacks against myself, because I am now collating diffs against yourself for future possible use -- i.e. I am not going to be the subject of continual personal attacks without a shred of evidence on this project any longer. Russavia (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violationG'day Nick, while working on the GOCE Milhist blitz, I came across this article: Beeline March to Cambridge. During a search for sources on Google Books, I found that it is a copyright violation of ''A History of Jefferson County, West Virginia (1719-1940), pp. 27-29, by Millard Kessler Bushong. I have tagged it for deletion as it appears to have been created initially as a copyright violation, so I don't think there is any chance of salvaging it. Would you mind taking a look and, if you agree with my tagging, delete the article? If I haven't tagged it correctly, please let me know what I should do about it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Smith A-classSorry for the presumptiveness, I hope you will excuse it. Thank you for the cheerful note on reversion! :) Have a nice Sunday. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Book reviewAs there are currently three book reviews for the upcoming issue of The Bugle I just wanted to tell you to feel free to move my review to the following issue so that there is already one. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. MILHIST scopeHi! After looking at MILHIST scope description, I assumed that a civilian protest march against army demanding an end to a siege would not qualify for MILHIST coverage. I'm having second thoughts because the siege was indeed lifted days after the protest (not necessarily because of the protest, but it looks that way). The article in question is 1991 protest in Split. Could you please let me know what do you think? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Earl of OxfordNick, I just noticed that you are listening in, in fact I'd placed a request for help on my talk page. I'd welcome your advice. I certainly don't want any more blocks or bans. It's not worth it over this point, I'd just leave the article alone. You have just seen my latest edit. I certainly don't think Tom Reedy's behaviour is acceptable. Paul seems rather more reasonable. I think there is a significant minority viewpoint which ought to be acknowledged in the interests of fairness. Tom seems to wish to censor any reference to the fact that their are now University courses in Britain and America which promote questioning of Stratfordian authorship. The reference to the Holocaust is from [[22]] As you see the one thing I am passionate about is 'fairness' - I'm not especially an Oxfordian. Thanks Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Nick, I'm not sure it was you listening in here after all (the mild expletive in the SAQ section) [[23]] but I'd welcome your advice nonetheless. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
List of official languages by GDP per capitaNo clear relation between these variables? I need a sense of which languages to translate my client's website to first. My client would prefer the most "affluent" languages. Bugloaf (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
2OCUHi mate, couple of things... It looks to me from ADF-Serials that one or two of our fatal Hornet accidents were to OCU aircraft -- still a bit dubious about it as a source though, do you happen to have any info on OCU Hornet accidents elsewhere that'd save me scouring RAAF News in the Mitchell?! Also ready to take suggestions re. a DYK hook as nothing's really leaping out at me -- maybe something about the preponderance of North African aces in its WWII leaders and instructors... If you come up with a good 'um, happy to share credit! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
OrBat Graphic RequestI'm not sure if you saw my reply but I am taking requests for OrBats. Just tell me what you're looking for.Dmanrock29 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
|