User talk:Nick-D: Difference between revisions

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

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)

Awards people have given me

Please discuss your changes at Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've discussed the relevance of the Churchill quote and its framing (under Support)--Robertmossing (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing them... Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill is not a historian either. This quote by a right wing American (Hornberger) summarises many of the opponents view. But if you can find a better one, I would sure be interested to see it. The quote of Satre can go out - it is not relevant.--Robertmossing (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the article's talk page rather than edit war. It appears to me that you're attempting to push your personal views. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Albert Camus.It appears to me that you're attempting to push your personal views.What do you mean. I added a quote under Opposition,which summarises many of the opponents view.--Robertmossing (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. You asked me to do so above (when I was already doing so), and in response you're edit warring bad material into the article without any discussion. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I've just found RAF Coastal Area, which consists of a two sentences covering 1919-1936, but while the Coastal Command article has paragraphs and paragraphs of text covering pre-1936, when the command was formed (it's 50kB altogether). I'd like to move this material to Coastal Area, as it more appropriately sits there, but though given the work expended that I'd like to run it by someone first. Dapi89, seemingly the major contributor, has retired. Would you please stand in his stead briefly and tell me what you think? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick thanks for your help. Can you get this article via JSTOR for me? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You seem to have locked me out of editing the page regarding Andrew Wilkie which I was consistently reverting to an impartial state following the very biased contributions of Djapa84. I was removing 3 sentances of biased, outdated and irrelevant information.

The following 3 sentances should be removed for the following 3 reasons:

Sentences:

(1) In exchange for Wilkie's support, the Labor government are legislating for mandatory "pre-commitment" technology which would require persons using high-bet machines to pre-commit how much they are willing to bet on a machine before they begin play,[31] as well as introducing $1 maximum bet per spin machines which would not require pre-commitment, which Wilkie argues would be safer.

(2) The Abbott Coalition opposes the plans, with Abbott saying "it is not Liberal Party policy" and it will be "expensive and ineffective".

(3) According to polling, the Labor government's plans are supported by a clear majority of voters across the spectrum.

Reasoning

(1) The labour government did not follow thru on their commitment, see (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-21/wilkie-withdraws-support-over-broken-pokies-deal/3786040) consequently wilkie withdrew his support for the labour government.

(2) Irrelevant

(3) Irrelevant - this is biased text glorifying the labour government and has nothing to do with Wilkie or his policies.

Oh, and by the way, I am not an IP hopping vandal.

Please discuss this on the article's talk page (Talk:Andrew Wilkie), and not here. As you were removing content from the article from different IP addresses without any discussion of this, you were an IP hopping vandal. I'm pleased to see that you're now interested in discussing your suggested changes. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nick I am here as I share the same concern as you showed here. There are a lot of articles and biographies of non notable Guantanamo prisoners started by the user who I feel shares a WP:COI with the subject. The count of the articles are in thousands as can be seen here Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Guantanamo Bay Detainees and the subpages of the creator. The Creator has autoreviewer rights which takes such articles created by him out of wp:NPP process. Many of the articles started by the author have issues of COATTRACK and bogus/non related sources. Having seen a lot of articles and marking many of them with notability tags, I think initiating an AfD for all these non notable articles one by one would be sheer waste of community time. I am not sure what course to be followed. Can you please advice me, how to address this concern and which the best possible way to handle this. thanks--DBigXray 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A possible way that i can think of is There are a lot of lists eg Pakistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the template at bottom that can mention these prisoners in a table form with relevant information. The non notable individual articles "may" be redirected to such lists. --DBigXray 14:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBigXray, From memory, there have been some centralised discussions about Geo Swan's creation of articles on Guantanamo prisoners and related topics. He or she stepped back on the creation of these articles for a while, but appears to be creating them again. I fear that AfDs might be the only option, though a request for comment could also be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On further though, WP:ANI might also be appropriate (though check for old discussions there). I've nominated the David Conn (judge) article for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please look at this discussion, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents User:Dave1185 and the user namespace and, if you agree, please close it? There are already three veteran editors that agree it should be closed. There are sockpuppets, a banned editor tried to weigh in and a variety of other editors attacking the subject on all different grounds and the charges seem silly and a waste of time. Thank you, either way. Mugginsx (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I've left Dave a message asking him to note the comments left by several editors that he should be more civil. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank god that's over and done with, I was wondering which sane SysOp (hint hint!) was still around to do thy bidding on a slow weekend like this one. Anyway, per my new stand against garbage truck-behaving editors, I will just smile, wave, wish them well and move on... really not worth my energy and time to take on their garbage. (PS: I've stopped tagging those annoying IPs and private individuals for some time now, this being brought up on ANI now is quite beyond me, considering how ArbCom has allowed a certain banned individual to continue to wreak havoc here is also beyond me.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick, can you close and collapse the whole section including the original discussion about the userpage? An IP has openly admitted to setting the whole thing up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dave, Given that several experienced editors expressed good faith concerns over your Dave's edit summaries and changes to user pages, I'll leave it as is. You might want to add a note to the bottom of the thread (below the archive bottom tag). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not Dave. :P But I reckon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops! I've amended my post. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. Clearly I'm a master of disguise! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my closure was reverted by an involved editor who didn't even have the courtesy of leaving me an explanation. That's pretty much the reason I don't waste my time by following up posts on ANI. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, nice beach pic. :) OK, just FYI, I've had the same experience with templates: You can't put links in them. Why that would be, I don't know. Some obscure technicality connected with HTML, I imagine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it's an annoying bug given that it's often desirable to add diffs there. The picture seems to have succeeded in its primary goal of calming down grumpy editors who post here (no one has called me a vandal since it was added!). Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

of course you can. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! So template-within-template works well. Square brackets, not so well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit summary; you can also use "|1= on the template. Th issue is the '=' character in the unnamed template parameter. However, using the {{diff}} template makes the diff work on both the mundane server and teh secure server. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you beat me to it -- still on hols, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off work with a bad cold, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, get well soon then... BTW, don't know if you saw it but while writing the 8SFTS article, I found an NAA file that actually makes explicit the connection between a secondline reserve squadron and its subsequent 'frontline' incarnation -- check the "The outbreak of the Pacific War" paragraph, and 71SQN's record book at citation #13 (#14 also makes a connection). I could update the 71SQN article with some of that, unless you want to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; thanks for that Ian. I'm planning some sort of article on the units stationed in Australia for defencive purposes during World War II, and that will be useful in explaining the RAAF reserve squadrons. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - do either of you know anything about a RNZAF or RAAF 230 Squadron? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the RAAF has ever had a unit of that name, and it's not in any of the number ranges the RAAF uses (No. 292 Squadron RAAF is the only 200-series RAAF unit I can think off, though they may be others). I've never heard of a RNZAF unit of that name, though I don't really understand the RNZAF's unit naming policy! Why do you ask? It's likely that Australians and New Zealanders served in No. 230 Squadron RAF during World War II. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they're following the RAAF line. No. 9 Squadron RNZAF has been recreated as No. 209 (Expeditionary Support) Squadron, the former ESS, and No. 30 Squadron RNZAF has been recreated as No. 230 (Mission Support) Squadron RNZAF, the former Operational Support Squadron. There are only those two units renumbered. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes some sense. Presumably the RNZAF is using 200-series numbers for its ground squadrons as the RAAF is using 300-series numbers for this purpose, though I don't really see why they haven't just gone with the original WW2-era numbers if they wanted to go down this path. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you closed yesterday at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dave1185_and_the_user_namespace has been reopened and voted on against Wiki rules.

I ask that you block these people. They know better but respect no ones rules but their own. Thank you Mugginsx (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now see that this has already been discussed and you are aware of it. Please do as you think best. Mugginsx (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort-of tempted to make an issue of it, but I'm unwell and can't be fussed. No harm resulted as 28bytes (talk · contribs) had the same views on the matter as I did (though he or she was a bit sterner), and I imagine that Dave will be more bemused than annoyed about being told off twice by admins on the same day for the same thing. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted, bloated andd I then went to "downloaded". Honestly, it's alright with me because I know that you guys are just doing your job, while those who are jobless makes it their job to make a big hoohaa of a mountain out of a small termite mount. As they say, empty vessels makes the most noise, no prize for guessing why I ignore them to the max even when they want to drag me to ANI. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries Dave Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Wyatt/Wittylama (talk · contribs) has put me in touch with the AWM's webmaster. Apparently the Memorial is currently reviewing its internet publishing policy, and is considering tagging at least some of the images in its database with a CC-By license, which could possibly solve the problems we're having with post-1946 images on Commons. As part of this, she has expressed interest in examples of "how people would like to use our images (or other material) and where they are not able to because of licensing/watermarks or combinations of these things". I'm going to respond with some examples of FA and A class articles which currently include post-1946 articles, as well as a few of the best examples of articles which use pre-1946 images. I'll also suggest that we'd really appreciate it if the AWM could add release the database versions of images created up to 50 years ago under CC-By licences so that editors can use images which are PD in Australia without any problems, and if any other images could be released under these licences that would very well received as we're unable to use those images at present, and the images would be used widely. My current shortlist of articles is:

FAs with post-1946 images:

• Colin Hannah
• Frank Bladin
• George Jones (RAAF officer)
• Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)
• John Treloar (museum administrator)
• Richard Williams (RAAF officer)
• Roy Dowling
• Thomas Blamey
• Valston Hancock

A class articles with post-1946 images:

• Battle of Kapyong
• HMAS Sydney (R17)
• Reg Saunders

Some examples of FAs heavily illustrated with pre-1946 images from the AWM:

• Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
• Attack on Sydney Harbour
• Battle of Sio (includes some images from the war diaries the AWM has been posting over the last few years)
• Bruce Kingsbury
• HMAS Australia (1911)
• Battle of Kaiapit
• Military history of Australia during World War II
• No. 1 Wing RAAF
• Singapore strategy
• Tom Derrick

I'm planning to send a response tomorrow (20 June), and would greatly appreciate any suggestions on the content of the email and the articles to highlight. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could also take a similar situation, say with the (extremely high resolution!) images released by NARA, and show the AWM how we've used those, but you may have enough examples already. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea Ed, but I don't want to shoot for the moon - the small versions on their database would be fine ;) (and adding the CC-by tags here should be much less labour intensive than uploading high definition images). Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, perhaps you could point them to "AWM Copyright" images that I've previously asked them about, which would be great for illustrating the later careers of subjects of some of the articles discussed, e.g. Air Marshals Murdoch, McCauley and Hannah, and 4-stars Scherger and Wilton. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. What response did you get when you asked them about releasing these images? I should note that I've asked Hawkeye to comment on whether this is doubling up with his and Laura's efforts in this area (it came about when I replied to an email Liam sent to the Wikimedia Australia mailing list about current activities in cultural institutions, which included some contacts he's had with the AWM and the fact that they're considering the use of CC-by licenses - in my reply I offered to provide some examples of high quality articles using post-1946 images to inform the AWM's considerations). Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I dug out my old emails -- the last exchange was in September 2009, when I'd requested release under GNU for the Murdoch, McCauley and Scherger/Wilton images I noted above. The reply was "Unfortunately we cannot provide permission under the GNU Free Documentation License. We are actively reviewing our approach and policy on Wikipedia and similar Commons license terms and agreements, but we aren’t in a position now to grant such a license at the moment." Knowing the speed with which government departments "actively review" policies, I haven't questioned them on the subject since... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, I know -- I'm just saying that you can show the good things that happened (like USS Arizona (BB-39)) when NARA released their images to us. If the AWM happens to notice that they are much larger than the ones they are offering... well, we wouldn't complain, right? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest AHS Centaur as a pre-1946 illustrated FA example: of the 11 images in the article, all bar the three 'modern' images are AWM or AWM derived. There is a relatively broad scope of image-types, including identification images (of the ship, the sub, and Nurse Savage), 'moment-in-history' scenes (the towing of Detmers and co), propaganda posters (Work, Save, Fight poster), and 'daily routine' scenes (soldiers working a lathe with another propaganda poster in the background).

As an example of useful but legally unavailable images, the Melbourne-Voyager collision is an article where images related to a major incident in the history of the Australian military are still 'in copyright'. Although we have an image of the aftermath (on Wikipeida as opposed to Commons, and on what could be interpreted as stretching the licensing), closeups of the damage (like this or this), the aftermath (like survivors in boats or bedding down in the carrier's hangar), or even these shots of Voyager actually sinking would greatly benefit the collision article, articles on HMAS Melbourne (R21) and HMAS Voyager (D04), and general RAN and ADF history articles.

Hope these thoughts help. -- saberwyn 13:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for those excellent suggestions - I'll include them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent the email, and will let you all know what the response is. Thanks again for your suggestions. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I've received a reply from the AWM. In their response, the officer asks that I clarify the reason that post-1945 images from the AWM's database can't currently be hosted on Wiki Commons, and briefly discusses the legal situation (while noting that this is their personal interpretation of the issues, and not an official position). I'm going to respond by suggesting that the best option would be to mark the post-1945 images which the AWM no longer claims copyright on as being released under the CC-BY-2.5 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/) which is now being used by many Australian Government agencies. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Nick. I think you're right, and, besides, even if I thought you were wrong there's nothing in the tone of your comment to get annoyed at. I always welcome your opinion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries :) The equivalent of this map in the US Army history seems to have a lot of the detail I suggested (see map 17 here, or the direct link here). Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the wording i added is a direct quote, i have changed around the wording of the information. You cannot expect me to change every single word. Some sentences like the last short one cannot not be change as it is a list. It would be pointless to reword it. These are facts, so they should be included. I understand what is wrong with copying the sentence entirely, but i changed the sentences so they would not be exact copies. I don't see what is wrong with the version i changed it too. I did not copy any of the sentences apart from the last as that sentence is a list. I want to re add the info you reverted as it is good sourced info. I don't see how the last version could possibly violate copyright rules on wiki. Stumink

The wording was only slightly different from what was in the sources - the standards regarding plagiarism which are expected in schools and universities are also expected here. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to change every word. Honestly i think if you checked all the sources i have change every sentence. What would you have me change The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, power facilities and crop burning. to. I actually did change this sentence from the original. The original words were The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, and power facilities, as well as deliberate crop burning. Mandela sent to South African newspapers a letter warning that a new campaign would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention. were the original words whilst i put In June 1961, Mandela sent a letter to South African newspapers warning the government that a campaign of sabotage would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention. These are different. This information is fact. It is hard to change info like this to your standards of what different means. The rest was different from the original. I don' t think it is usually this hard to put well sourced info on wiki. Usually You find well sourced info and you change it, as to not violate copy right. I have taken well sourced info from three different websites and i have not directly copied the info. You are basically asking me to change every word. How would i change this The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, power facilities. I have changed a lot of the info to my own wording. The words which remain are impossible or pointless to change. Do want me to change words like sabotage, bombings, crop burnings, constitutional convention, government targets, guerrilla warfare. I doubt what i wrote constitutes plagiarism in schools and universities standards. I sourced facts and i changed the wording where possible or necessary. Stumink —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you don't literally need to change every single word, you can't just tweak the structure of sentences as you've been doing. Just paraphrase things into your own words. If you can't figure out a way to do this, you shouldn't be writing here. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did paraphrase things into my own words enough. I was adding small sentences of information and I changed the words and layout where i could in the previous version. There is no way that my last earlier version would or even should break copy right rules. No way. Any how, thanks for you reply but i had changed the paragraph again before your reply. My current accepted paragraph is worse than the previous version. I detect a tad of selectivity in your choice in the second deletion but doesn't matter anymore, problem been solved. Stumink

Nick, when you talk to the AWM, could you raise the possibility of releasing images whose copyright has expired under a CC-By licence? The issue here is that of the Commonwealth images that have expired since 1969, but are still copyrighted in the United States. I have some correspondence with AG, and they say that responsibility has been devolved to the agencies but The starting point for licencing decisions is that, wherever possible, government material should be released under an open licence such as the Creative Commons BY licence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I raised that in my email (by giving examples of the kinds of images which are being deleted and articles on post-WW2 conflicts which are clearly under-illustrated). As you've probably noticed, most APS agencies seem pretty unmotivated to move to Creative Commons BY licences. I think that the ABS is the only major creator and owner of content to have adopted this license so far. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with your comment there (you know the one) ... the problem is that neither that nor anything else can happen unless we can get an RFC to pass, and that's not going to happen unless/until there's some successful outreach over several months, to build support for any RFC. That's why I'm suggesting a board ... but so far, there's no enthusiasm for that, so my best guess is RFA2012 is as dead as RFA2011, RFA2010, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort-of tempted to go rouge and really break out the block hammer at times, but I don't think it would end well! (especially as I try to not generate work for the good folks at ArbCom). In all seriousness, I think that there's a growing case for there to be some sort of Wiki-government appointed to handle situations like this: - we've got an obvious problem, several obvious solutions, but no ability to attempt to implement them. Whatever they'd do would upset a few vocal people, but most editors would either not notice, not care or approve strongly. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Torpedo Bay Navy Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that items on display at the Royal New Zealand Navy's Torpedo Bay Navy Museum include the Māori warrior's skirt which the captain of the battlecruiser HMS New Zealand wore for good luck in battle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Torpedo Bay Navy 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.

Casliber (talkcontribs) 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if the bit about "ask your teacher" a while back made me look like an a**hole, and stomped on your foot a bit. Sometimes I don't know what to do with myself. – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. To be honest, I can't really remember this, so I can't have been very offended :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Thanks for adding material to Imperial Gift that I started - you've "validated" my effort. Launching a new article which subsequently doesn't get any significant additions from other contributors is a disheartening experience, so I'm really glad to see someone is interested in my newest creation here on WP. I have a few books that I can use to expand the section on South Africa, but for the rest I'm dependent on what Google can deliver. Do you have dead tree sources for expanding one or more of the other countries? If you know any other editors who might be inteested please invite them to join the effort too. Roger (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and great work with this article. I actually started working on an article on this topic at User:Nick-D/random drafts last September, but didn't get very far. There are several Australian sources I can draw on to add extra material. I'd suggest that you also ping Ian Rose (talk · contribs) to see what he has available on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, tks Nick, as ever I'm stalking your page and in fact did see the article had been created when links began appearing in a couple of "my" bios (I recgnise the S.E.5 image from one of them, George Mackinolty). I'm sure we could develop a decent Australian section, not sure at this stage about the other countries apart from S. Africa though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I slapped wikilinks in all the articles where I found the phrase "Imperial Gift" so as not to sit with a new orphan article, but I'm sure there are more pages that can be linked - such as the aircraft type articles.

I'm intrigued by the story of NZ's initial refusal and their subsequent failure to establish an air force with the planes they did eventually receive. There's not much more than a passing mention in the online sources I've looked at so far. The Indian situation is also interesting - more research needed there too. Roger (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was looking for sources last year, there seemed to be way more available on Australia than any of the other countries for some reason. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick,

I just reached the section about the treatment of allied prisoners and the vivisection. Just a few days ago I read about this in a book and now looked on it again. The problem is, this book numbers die vivisected airmen to eight in four sessions on Mai 17, 23, and 29 as well as June 3. The book is Ienaga: The Pacific War and the source he names are two japanese books from 1957. So I want to ask how far the source of the six names her own sources? --Bomzibar (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bomzibar, The book actually says that "at least six" airmen were subjected to vivisection. Its reference is to a 1995 article in the Baltimore Sun which appears to have been taken from some guy's website judging from the URL given rather than a proper news archive(!), so I reckon that your source is much superior. Could you please update the Air raids on Japan article with this material? By the way, what appears to be a direct translation of this article is currently being nominated for 'Bon article' status on the French Wikipedia. The nomination discussion (available here) has some interesting comments. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the number and a few more facts in the text and the book at the references. I don't know how you handle it in en:Wiki but do you mention the translator at the references if the book was not first published in english? So far, I'm not able to understand more than a few words of the french language (and am sure I never will be, haha) but for my opinion with the high number of voters there are only a few and quite short statements. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that. I don't think that we normally name translators in references, except in cases where the name of the original author isn't specified in the book's publishing details for some reason. My French is very limited (as I found out the hard way whenever I tried to use it in Paris last year!), but Google translate works well ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that was a good hint, Google Translator works better for french than east asian languages where I try it commonly. Well, the template-problem can't happen with the german article because it's not common in de:Wiki to use templates for the references. But the most of the other points can and possibly will be mentioned if I try to promote the article in german. They named it's weaknesses: the view is sometimes very onesided, it should have more japanese or non-english sources and a greater focus on the japanese actions and a comparative section of the bombings with the ones committed against germany would be really great. For the german article I am pretty sure that someone would ask for one or two sentences that compare the bombings with the ones the Condor Legion committed against Guernica. But thats tyical german. I am sure that an A-Class promotion is possible and then the article can candidate for Article of the Day for 6 August 2015 (so that the article of the acutal atomic bombings can be Article of the Day on 9 August of that year. How about trying the same in en:Wiki? It would show that not only the atomic bombings caused sorrow and pain. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I was trying to get this article up to standard in time for it to be on the front page on the 70th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, but didn't quite make it in time. I agree that more material on the Japanese side of the story would be good, but there's surprisingly little on the topic in English - most books which cover the experiences of the Japanese civilians and the aid defence effort have a limited scope or are anecdotal in nature and difficult to use as sources - the same holds true for most aspects of the Pacific War. The combination of the language barrier and the fact that the Japanese Government destroyed almost all of its records at the end of the war, means that English-language historians often don't have much to work with. In light of the comments in the French review I'm going to try to work in some extra material on this topic though. Nick-D (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you maybe look up the casualty numbers for the Twentieth Air Force in Kerr (1991) again? It looks a little strange, that they lost 414 Bombers and had 414 wounded. --Bomzibar (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll check that, though it may take a few days. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've just spotted another error: Kerr's figure is actually 433 wounded. Thanks for raising this! Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it's done! (de:Luftangriffe auf Japan). I will wait for some review Feedback for one or two months now before trying to get it to Lesenswert-Status. Thank you for all your help until now! --Bomzibar (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! Great work with this, and I've really enjoyed working with you on it. I'd be very interested in seeing what feedback it gets. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered one more hint I wanted to tell you days ago: You oftentimes use the word however. As it is not SO scientific you maybe should use other words for that. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a first feedback in the Review (you can see it over here). Some of the arguments are points I mentioned today as the remembrance etc. The reviewer asked for two interesting things:

He heard on a symposium once, the target cities for the atomic bombs were not or not heavy bombed before because the US leaders wanted to see the effects on non-destroyed cities. Do your sources have something about that?

It was asked if there are statistics of the rise or decline of the total arms production from mid 1944 to the end of the war. He asked because it is commonly argued that the bombing campaign against Germany was unsuccessful as the arms production rose up despite the bombings until the allies reached the borders. Statistics could make this comparable. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the questions in order, and to make an observation:

1. That's correct. There's material on this, with sources, at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets. I didn't include it in the Air Raids on Japan article as it seemed to be excessive detail, and one reviewer (in the peer or A-class review, I can't remember which) had commented that the article already had too strong a focus on the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2. Yes, lots! The story is very complicated through, as the Japanese economy was becoming badly affected by the results of the Allied naval blockade at about the same time as the air raids began, and the blockade and bombing then worked in parallel. As a result, it's difficult to determine the relative contributions bombing and blockade made to the collapse of the Japanese war economy from late 1944 onwards. Pages 657-658 and 752-754 of Craven and Cate are a very good summary of this situation. A key sentence, which is on page 753, reads "There was a rough correlation between the B-29 effort expended against the several war industries and the loss of production in each, but the indiscriminate nature of area attacks and the existence within each industry of special problems makes difficult any exact measurement of the net effects of air bombardment". On page 754 they suggest the blockade may have caused greater disruption to industrial production than the bombing on the basis of the evidence available, though the combination was devastating in the cities which were bombed. To cut a long story short, there's consensus that the bombing badly damaged Japan's economy and accelerated its collapse, but it probably would have collapsed anyway if the bombing had not occurred given how effective the blockade was.
3. As an observation, it's difficult to directly compare the effectiveness of the raids on Japan and Germany as these countries had very different economic structures. As an example, much of Japanese war production took place in small factories located in residential areas, while German production tended to be concentrated in large factories located in the outskirts of cities; as a result, the area raids on Japanese cities had a large impact on industrial output, while those on German cities generally caused little disruption to output. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick. I'm having a discussion with Thewolfchild over at his talk page. Since you indeffed him, I was wondering if you'd be able to come over and give some input. Ishdarian 02:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used that strong of language with Sarek before, where I called him a type of hat. I've seen him do things over a long period of time and blocking a person without warning was an extreme step over the line in my view. The person had just received their topic ban, and had not made any contentious edits for several weeks at least, so the ban was implemented not to stop a current problem, but as a preventative measure to stop future problems. In other words, the editor wasn't being bad currently. The editor inadvertently began a discussion on their own Talk page because someone came to the page from the AN/I debate and asked them about the debate and engaged the editor in a discussion about it. He was then summarily blocked.

I apologized to Sarek about that hat comment a bit later, and he accepted. I generally tend to seek positive and mutually helpful solutions, and more than anything else, I do not like people using power in a way that is harmful to the encyclopedia. After my outburst and time to reconsider, I partly took Sarek's advice by asking about how to proceed with a more measured and less emotionally-driven response. I have seen Sarek do a lot of things that are decent and helpful, and while I appreciate those things, I feel that there is a time for sanction.

The reason I even bothered to come and say all this is simply to say, I normally leave Sarek to his own things and as such I don't give his actions two seconds of thought. But that particular action and my recollection of his previous actions made me angry at the poor treatment of an editor. Consensus later agreed that it was done in haste, so while I feel my rancor was wrong, my insticts were right. I hope this explains a bit more, but I consider the question about process and proceeding with any action to be a serious thing and not simply something to be done lightly. At this point, I am still not entirely convinced that it is something I will do, but sometimes we need our friends and neighbors to weigh in on things with us to get a better perspective. So that's what I'm doing. -- Avanu (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"blocking a person without warning" -- what do you call this and this, then? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I think your fellow editors and myself said, those comments were not direct explanations of what conduct was and was not expected, but simply implied that some part of the action was wrong, without enough detail to help the editor understand how they messed up. I do believe that you made it clear that you thought those two statements were clear warnings, but other editors (via consensus) felt it wasn't clear enough. I don't want to take your case up here, I just wanted to explain my perspective to Nick-D. This does not necessarily mean I am in the right and you are in the wrong, Sarek, it is, after all, my opinion. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In deference to Sarek, I won't post on your page again about this topic, its generally considered more appropriate to keep the debate in one place, and I'll do that, unless Sarek explicitly requests otherwise. -- Avanu (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK no worries. I imagine that you don't need me to tell you that it's not a wise idea to start a thread asking about how to sanction an admin for incivility shortly after you've abused them. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day! You currently show Jo Gullett as being a Company Commander with the Green Howards at the landings. In his autobiography, I'm pretty sure he says he landed as a supernumary with 8th Bn Royal Scots, and was appointed as a Coy Cdr when the Cdr was killed shortly after landing. The wounded date sees right though. Unfortunately, I don't have access currently to the autobiog, 'Not as a Duty Only', but it is worth verifying. I'll try to get it at a Library and confirm. cheers. RichardH (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I'll check that. I did briefly consult Gullett's autobiography, but it contained some factual errors about this period (he claimed that the party of Australian Army officers was sent to the UK as part of the effort to make good the British Army's shortage of junior officers, which isn't correct) so I didn't use it as a reference. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a few unreviewed DYKs sitting around, including Template:Did you know nominations/Lesotho women's national football team from June 10, [[T emplate:Did you know nominations/Cambodia women's national football team]] which needs a new tick after surviving AfD, Template:Did you know nominations/Sioma which survived AfD, and Template:Did you know nominations/Janine Murray which has hook interest issues. If you could look at any of these four, it would be fantastic. :) --LauraHale (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laura, I've just commented on all four, though I found problems with three of them unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your thoughts on this article. I am close to running it through an AfD because the only thing that says 'Black Wasps' have anything to do with Cuban special forces is an unsourced page of what appears to be fan photos. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This 1994 story from The Independent and this 1997 story from The Nation very briefly mention 'Black Wasps' special forces being used for internal security/political repression-type tasks. I can't find any other reliable sources through Google, Google Books and Google Scholar though. As such, WP:V for the unit's (?) existence is met, but notability seems questionable. I'm a bit skeptical that units which are were used for paramilitary-type tasks are really "trained to handle any missions assigned to them by the Cuban government" (which is the usual special operations fanboy stuff anyway). Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think I should run it through AfD, or just upmerge with sentences from the Independent and Nation articles in the main armed forces article? Also I've just checked the Military Balance: it lists no Army (or Navy/Air) SOF, and no paramilitary bully-boys beyond 20,000 MoI State Security, 6,500 Border Guards, Youth Labour Army, Civil Defence Force, and an estimated million (?!) Territorial Militia. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest nominating it for AfD - based on the available sources we can't say whether this force still exists, whether it's a military or paramilitary force, whether it's a specialised unit or comprises of personnel detailed from other units, etc, so upmerging seems unsafe. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Wasps. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification - I'll comment there. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you were a recent participant in an edit war at the above-named article I am taking the opportunity to warn you formally that the article is now under a no-reverts rule. This means that from now on anyone making a revert will be blocked instantly without further warning, except in cases of really obvious vandalism. Instead of reverting, you should consider trying for compromise either by drafting a good-faith compromise in the article, or discussing towards one in talk. Edit-warring deters other editors and poisons the atmosphere that we need to edit constructively. Please do not do it. --John (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick-D. I was wondering if you would have a minute to look at what is happening with the GA review for Himmler? Talk:Heinrich Himmler/GA2 The reviewer has found some information on the USHMM website which partly contradicts the sourced material available in the books we are using at sources, and claims that the biography by Longerich is POV. Not sure if you have any knowledge of the subject matter, but I would appreciate any comments or advice you may have. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D,

I acknowledge the outcome of the 2009 Australian government inquiry but given the depth of contention that stretches back over 70 years, do you not think that greater scope should exist for differing interpretations of the evidence that has been brought to light by the new discoveries of 2006 -2008?

Ayecaranya (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide reliable sources which dispute the inquiry's findings, of course. As I understand it, the lessons learned from inspecting the wrecks was sufficent to debunk many of the earlier theories though. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's start with Christmas Island Man. The official forensic report http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/CORR/CORR.012.0233.pdf includes a colour photograph (pg 16) of a top view of the skull that clearly shows a bullet hole, the extensive damage to the lower left portion of the skull is consistent with the exit wound of a high velocity small arms round and yet the obvious (perfectly rounded) hole is not even mentioned in the report or subsequent cross examinations. The skeleton was in a kneeling position suggesting an execution style killing. The shrapnel wound and hole allegedly caused by a "sea bird" are entirely separate from this injury. Ayecaranya (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do any published works from reliable sources discuss this theory? If not, I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it, as we don't include original research in articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and analysis at the Himmler GA review. Regards, Dianna (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm happy to have been of assistance. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you please check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jabir_Hasan_Mohamed_Al_Qahtani, there is a user lambasting me for failing to include the old AFD. I had used Twinkle for the nomination, And it takes care of all earlier nominations. In this case after AFD1 Due to some unknown(unmentioned) reasons Geo Swan moved the page to a different location, so the AFD link was not transcluded in the AFD page. An editor brought it to my notice and i added the infobox for AFD1 At once, Can u please check if there is something more needs to be done. Thanks--DBigXray 11:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. That guy seems to be a jerk. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a prompt action, much appreciated. Regards--DBigXray 11:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would you be willing to revisit Heinrich Himmler and see if your suggestions have been implemented in the way you envisioned?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All my reading of World War II histories indicates these formations were referred to as 'XXth Indian Division', not 'XXth Infantry Division (India)' or 'XXth Indian Infantry Division.' In your reading of World War II histories, what's your perception? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The works I've read which have had a focus on the Indian Army tend to be pretty old, and don't consistently include the 'Indian' part of the name. In Defeat into Victory Slim seems to name the units as the 'Xth Indian Division' during the first sections of the book and 'Xth Division' in the later sections. agree with your move of 2nd NZ Division, but am not sure what the most common naming convention is here. I suspect that it's 'Xth Indian Division' though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for responding to that nonsense which was posted here earlier today. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Some time ago, I removed the split tag from this article. Sometime later, You put it back in circustances that suggested that it was an oversight when reverting some vandalism. So I removed it again. I see that it has now re-appeared in similar circumstances. Can you confirm that you do indeed wish to split the article (or not as the case may be). Op47 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that was Buckshot. However, the article's content is so limited that I agree that it shouldn't be split at present - I've just removed the tag. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the circumstances of the block on Arcandam, and it appears that it was a third-party's User Talk page that the various parties were edit warring over. Arcandam asked for a source on the expertise of a person, and this was reverted by several other editors, including three times by LauraHale. It was characterized in edit summaries as a personal attack, but in looking at the text of his request, I don't see anything that can be legitimately called a personal attack. While I agree that Arcandam was in fact edit warring, the other editors were not in line with Talk page policy in the removal of comments on pages not their own. So, in effect you have a few editors who are edit warring to remove comments that had every right to be there, and the User had not removed the comments.

If this were a User removing his own comments, I would see no problem with the outcome as it stands at the moment, but considering that Arcandam is entitled to ask for sources per WP:V, I don't see a problem with him posting a comment to that effect on a User talk page, and the other editors should have left the comment alone. Simply labeling it a personal attack doesn't mean it is. We have a policy of assuming good faith, and while it is sometimes hard to assume that, the plain text on the page isn't hostile. I would recommend that you either block all of the editors that participated in this little edit war, or unblock Arcandam in deference to fairness. -- Avanu (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]