User talk:Nick-D/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nick-D. 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 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

The mucking around on this article seems incessant, I think it might need some intervention.

Also have a good new year! JarrahTree 04:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days. I don't know much about this person, so please re-instate the material which was being removed if it was accurate. Happy new year to you as well, and I hope you're well clear of the current bushfires. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it is not so much as being in the disaster area of the eastern seaboard (where I do have relatives whom I have no idea whether they still have their houses or not) - in the west, its a bit more like the 42 and 44 scares - the nullarbor (then the rail, now the road) is the weak link, although coastal shipping in the 40s was still prevalent, literally non existent now, so the single road is what one might say in military strategic terms a brilliant separation of the west from the rest of you folks... in just one point... - the alternatives are literally zilch... if I was a canberra based military strategist, I would have suggested that the upgrade of the tanami road is the wrong one - the one to work on is making 2 wheel drive passage easy on the Great_Central_Road - as a very round about way of dealing with the eyre highway/nullarbor closures https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-03/nullarbor-road-closures-to-last-five-days-causing-food-shortages/11837324 - but dont let me start... JarrahTree 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current crisis has illustrated how fragile communications links in much of Australia are. I spent some time yesterday planning routes home from Sydney as it looked like the Hume Highway was going to close, and none of the alternatives were very good. Thankfully the Hume Highway wasn't closed for long. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

Hey Nick-D,
I saw your picture of Alinga Street, Canberra. But, you call that smokey? 😋
I think Qby outdid Cbr in the smokey department, just sayin'. (I didn't think to get any pictures myself, despite breathing smoke here for the last 6-8weeks! 😕 )
Do you have any similar pics of Queanbeyan?
Regards, 220 of ^Borg 06:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I didn't take any photos of when things got spectacularly smokey. For obvious reasons, I didn't want to go out in it to photograph landmarks! The air quality index was higher than 5000 where I live at one stage; not sure how that compares to Queanbeyan. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wise man, I probably spent too much time out in it. I'll have to try to find some appropriate pics. (See this from the local paper)
Suffice to say the hills across the bridge were sometimes barely visible from Crawford Street. Much nicer after the recent rain.
Qbys CBD is pretty much in a 'bowl' with higher land all around so the smoke tended to just sit there, IMHO.
It was also much worse here than what I experienced/saw in Sydney over Christmas to New Years Day, and just after. 220 of ^Borg 05:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was horrified when I drove home from Sydney after new year's. The conditions in Canberra were appalling. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

About 1.5 hours out of Sydney? That's about when the train I was on ran into heavy smoke out on some plains. Wednesday 22 Jan. had a large grass-fire within about 800 metres of my 'Borg-cave' 😨, though I missed most of the 'excitement'.
And more fire in the same area today. 220 of ^Borg 07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it started in the Southern Highlands, and got incredibly bad from Lake George. I hope that your house is OK. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Borg-House (or Cube)?, I wish! More a (small) 'Borg-cave'. Thank you for your concern, just a little ash came in one window.
The fire on Thursday(23rd) was possibly a little closer than than Wednesday(22nd) I think but we had some rain that night to, hopefully, help out the firies.
On Thursday some shops in Qby closed early, transport disruptions by road closures (I may not have been able to go home at that time if I wanted to), and there were some short power interruptions too.
Must talk to my Body Corporate about cleaning up the excess leaves, bark etc that have accumulated on the property. 😠 --220 of ^Borg 06:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick

I've been concerned about the activities of an editor for a little while now. Vanberkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He has been editing as an WP:SPA for some time now, focused on the battles of the Falklands War. I've noticed there is definite partisan nature to his editing; for example on the invasion article he attempted to boost the number of defenders on the British side by including the unarmed Stanley Police Force. He also tends to exaggerate British casualties eg on Battle of Mount Tumbledown he added 2 x Harrier damaged beyond repair, when AFAIK none were involved. His sourcing was, shall we say, inventive. Apparently a Harrier was damaged bombing Sapper Hill, which was where the guns bombarding the new British position and prior to the battle a Harrier was also damaged attacking Sapper Hill. He's also included vehicles damaged in minefields after the battle.

Can I ask that you take a look please, if only as a sanity check that my concerns are valid. WCM_email 00:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi WCM, They all sound like content matters I'm not expert enough on the Falklands War to comment on without checking sources. Has this been discussed on the relevant talk pages? I note that the edit to the Mount Tumbledown article cites two sources [1]. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, another example of what I'm concerned about. The citation doesn't back the claim, it does report a loss of an aircraft but was unrelated to the battle. So effectively he is falsifying the citation. I have tried to engage on his talk page but without success. WCM_email 20:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I'd suggest starting a talk page discussion here explaining what the issues with sources are. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

gina rinehart article second last editor might need the gentle touch of an admin me thinks... JarrahTree 09:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just blocked that editor. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

sigh another - [2] - at least I would, not sure what you might do... JarrahTree 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also blocked, but this seems to be a garden-variety vandal. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

indeed not the industrial strength, or veracity, more sneaky and inapropriate... JarrahTree 09:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I wonder if you can help. This RfC was flogged to death, and although debate on other matters is still ongoing, there was consensus reached at that point in time, which was implemented. Are you able to close it, as a non-involved admin, please, or does it have to go through some other process? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: I'm not an expert on RfC closures, but I agree that there was a consensus. If it's now been enacted, any editor should be able to close that RfC. I'd do this myself, but it's been a bit of a dramatic day here in Canberra, so would rather leave it to someone else in case I mess up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Nick-D. Sorry, I didn't know you were in Canberra - hope that tomorrow is more boring! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

It is come to my attention that a user with the IP address 134.56.120.232. has been making repeated acts of vandalism on the Delta Force article. His edits are non-sensical, unsourced, and lack proper grammar and punctuation. Since you are an administrator whom I noticed has edited the article before, I wanted to bring this to your attention. Please accept my apologies if you are not the person to contact about this.

I too have edited the Delta Force article under both my username and the IP address 2604:6000:1200:a088:3dbc:deba:3466:2653

Hi, They haven't done this for over two days now, so there are no grounds for intervention at present. I'll continue to keep an eye on this, but please note that I'll be travelling for the next week with no access to Wikipedia: I'd suggest reporting this at WP:AIV if it re-occurs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nick. Sorry to trouble you but, for historical reasons, I have mentioned you at this discussion. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I have been working on an article about the Herbert Vivian. He was a fascinating man, who moved in high circles in the years leading up to the First World War. He was a good friend of both Randolph and Winston Churchill, moved in Oscar Wilde's circle - and was directly responsible for the split between Wilde and Whistler - and was the private secretary of Wildfed Scawen Blunt. He was a passionate Jacobite and was instrumental in the Neo-Jacobite Revival of the 1890s. After the war, this monarchism turned to outright fascism, especially an admiration for Mussolini. He published several books, including works on Serbia which are still quoted, founded at least two newspapers, and was a prolific journalist. He is now largely forgotten, but his story weaves together many threads of late Victorian and inter-war British history.

The article passed GA a while ago, and I would like to submit it for FA consideration. This is my first attempt at an FA, and I would dearly love some feedback and mentoring. Given your interest in history, I was hoping you would consider acting as my mentor? Many thanks for the consideration, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to provide comments on that article, and will aim to do so over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I look forward to reading them. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Howdy Nick,

I see that you are on the approved list for Taylor and Francis. I am wondering, do you still have access? If so, would you be willing do a small favor? Google tells me that this article verifies that John Frederick Boyce Combe was made GOC of the 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (my next, on and off, pet project). Would you be willing to take a peak and, if you can access it, update the 46th Div article with the info?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that, from memory, the Taylor and Francis resources never actually came through - I received a notification that they were waiting for a certain number of applicants, but never got a notification that access was granted. I might (but probably wont) have access to this through a library database though, and will check over the weekend. Regards. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I assumed it had, since the date was so long ago. Thank you, however, for seeing of you can take a peek at it when you have the time :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked, and I'm afraid that I don't have access to this resource. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @EnigmaMcmxc:, I can't check the citation, but I can send you the article itself if you wikimail me. All the best with the project! ——SN54129 09:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Nick, I have sent you a wikimail.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: It was Serial Number 54129, not me, who offered the article here - I'm afraid that I don't have access to it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So Sorry about that (not sure how I missed that!). Thank you for your efforts Nick, and I shall now attempt to contact the correct person!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you think this article would be a candidate for GA or A-class? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Yes I think that it would easily meet the GA or A-class criteria. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about this battle though, so my ability to help is limited. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

There's a number of reasons why the claims about this supposed "Warrowen Massacre" are highly dubious, I'd go as far as to call them an obvious fabrication. Some claims are clearly made up and it is most likely a colonial era fiction. The article relating to the matter is up for deletion, for good reason, please wait for the conclusion of that discussion before re-adding this highly dubious claim to the List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. The Kurnai people are owed the basic decency of proof/evidence before their ancestors are accused of massacring innocent men, women and children and flaying their bodies. It's not a small deal to make such claims and the sources for such a claim need to be rock solid. article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Warrowen_massacre Bacondrum (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. You should note the sources which state that what the ANU Press work happened did not given that we don't dismiss scholarly sources because a Wikipedia editor doesn't like them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

One brief quote from an archaic source in an ANU press work does not qualify as verification. The scant coverage of this massacre is evidence of a fiction. Bacondrum (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Great topic to discuss on the talk page, not here. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

While I suspect that the above is entirely factual, I don't think that admins can block accounts because another editor states that they belong to them. If you'd like the account to be blocked log into it and request a block per WP:SELFBLOCK (I'd suggest that you note in doing so that it's a declared alternate account to avoid issues around the problematic use of alternate accounts). Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll consider that. Dunno if I’d want to ask someone I’m not familiar with, for obvious reasons. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945), introducing: "The early hours of 10 March 1945 were among the worst in human history. United States Army Air Forces B-29 Superfortress bombers attacked one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, using weapons and tactics carefully designed to destroy cities. The result was the death of at least 88,000 people and the destruction a quarter of Tokyo. This was the single most devastating air raid of World War II, including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and marked the start of a campaign which left most of Japan's cities in ruins by the end of the war only a few months later."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Operation Inmate, covering "a two day long series of air attacks and naval bombardments conducted by the British Pacific Fleet against isolated Japanese-held islands in June 1945. Somewhat oddly to modern eyes, the main purpose of the operation was to provide the Allied airmen and sailors with combat experience before they conducted more demanding operations against Japan itself. The Allied force achieved this goal, and incurred relatively light casualties by standards at the time, though the Japanese later reported that the attacks had caused only minor damage. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the tactics used during naval operations in the final months of World War II and the circumstances endured by cut-off Japanese garrisons in the Pacific."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, would you please have a look at Kate Adie and associated history and talk pages? I haven't had time to delve into his/her particular claim about Adie not being there, but the IP editor appears to be contradicting what is well-sourced in the Tiananmen Square article, the opinion piece they're citing doesn't support the content they want to add, plus it's a BLP. Or should I report it somewhere else for any available admin to look at? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I only noticed you'd been away after you removed the template upon return. I have now raised an RfC on that article, and will let that take its course. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Hey Nick, just reminding you to come back to Featured article candidates/Roar (film)/archive1 to make your judgements on the state of the article now and to see if I addressed your issues adequately.

Best regards, -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nick @Nick-D:, Would it be possible to have a peek at the most recent attempt at User:Bigeez/sandbox? I believe we are on track for finalising some earlier issues brought up with Paul (@Paul Siebert:). Your input would be most welcome, along with Paul's, before I post it on talk:World War II. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and many thanks for your prior support; message me here or on my User talk:Bigeez or both. I would much rather proceed with editors' guidance prior to posting. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look into it soon. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Nick-D:, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC) here. I am recovering from some health issues. Shall I post the C/R proposal on the talk:World War II page? Or rather, would you suggest constructive edits or correct it as you see fit on my sandbox at User:Bigeez/sandbox, prior to me doing so? All the best, cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Eli, due to the COVID-19, I am very busy, and I am not sure I will be able to do anything in close future. Please, feel free to do whatever you want, and, probably, later, when I'll have more time, I'll join your work. I wish you guys to be safe.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Paul Siebert: I am still not myself even though I and I self-quarantined while the virus test came back negative. I'm convinced that I had it and was a false-negative test. Stay safe and God bless! Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bigeez: Sorry for not following up here - things have been crazy here as well. This material is looking good. As a few comments:

• The 'Collaboration' section would be better as two or three paras. Quite a few sentences list lots of examples, and are logical options for trimming.
• This section also only covers collaboration with the Germans. Collaboration with the Japanese was also significant, and of a different character.
• The resistance section should note the importance of Communist movements across Europe - for instance, the French resistance only really got going after Operation Barbarossa led the French Communist Party to align itself against the Germans and go on the attack.
• "In the Balkans, both Churchill and Roosevelt aimed to keep Greece and Yugoslavia free from Stalin's attempt at control.[100] Churchill's gamble paid off, because both never entered the Soviet bloc" - this seems simplistic. Greece stayed in the Allied bloc due to the "percentages" agreement between Churchill and Stalin.

I'd suggest posting the material on the talk page for further editing and discussion. Thanks a lot for your efforts here. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D: Sorry for having been out of the loop , reeling from recent health issues and family. Thank you. And great points, especially not realising Japanese collaboration was left out somehow. Will ork on it. It's just being out of sorts that has had a major effect. God bless. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I note your deletion of NPOV material on the Victorian Appeals Court pages. Please place your reasoning on the comments page of wikipedia. As you threaten elsewhere: If you start edit warring, you will be blocked. Observoz (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You were violating WP:BLP, and editorialising by claiming that the judgement was "controversial" and emphasising just how wrong those judges were. You are plainly editing with an agenda here. Please note that I was intervening here as an admin. Your more recent edits to the judges' articles are better. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting the judgement wasn't controversial? You accuse me of "agenda"?? May I say that my "agenda" is to update a series of articles on the most controversial wrongful conviction in Australia since Lindy Chamberlain. This is kind of essential work for wikipedia. Observoz (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are editing BLP and other articles with an obvious agenda, as noted in your post above. Don't. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the input concerning references to the GeGaLo Index Nick-D. I am not very familiar with talk pages, so i am posting my response both here and on my talk own talk page. I thought Energy Strategy Reviews would be a good source. To me it looks like a serious peer-reviewed journal, published by Elsevier, a major scientific publisher. I have referenced it several places because I think the change in status of countries due to the ongoing attempt at a transition to renewable energy is something that is missing from many Wikipedia articles. Some countries are going up and some are going down, and that is a big global shift. I also see that many Wikipedia articles lack references, so I thought good to add a references. And now that I have read the article and have the information, I thought it would be an efficient way to make a contribution to many different articles. I should also admit that I am very concerned about climate change, and I don't see that as a subjective political agenda. And I have some extra time due to coronavirus quarantine, nice to spend on Wikipedia. I am very sorry if that is all wrong and will stop doing it now.JonFredriksen (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

Hi Nick, I was just checking the source while you were reverting -- your memory is good by my reading... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. It's a very interesting-looking book (I only read the bit on Friesoythe). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I read a fair bit of it, to get context for the bits in the article, and it is fascinating. His thesis - here - while a bit of a variation on the theme, is also good. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

I am beginning to explore the FAC nominating processes for the first time, and see you have listed yourself as an FAC mentor with a specialty in military history. I have an article that I am interested in putting up for review, but would like to get a little bit of feedback first (pre-mentorship, perhaps?). If you are interested in giving the article a brief look-over, and letting me know whether you think it has a shot at FAC, and maybe which criteria it is lacking in, I would appreciate it. The article is Sampson Mathews, a soldier and politician from the American Revolution-era. Not sure what else to say, and let me know if I'm going through the right channel for this!

Thanks, Newtack101 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not at all familiar with this person, but I'd be very pleased to look in on this article. I'll post some comments on its talk page later today or over the next few days. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Yeah, anything that would help me move in the right direction would be appreciated. Newtack101 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Newtack101: I've just posted an informal review on the article's talk page, which I hope is helpful. I've watchlisted the article and would be happy to discuss it further: the article is in good shape, and with a bit of polishing should be ready for FAC. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for checking out the article, taking the time to provide feedback, and offering to discuss it further. Yes, the issues you pointed out are very helpful, and it's also helpful to know that overall the article is in good shape. When I've addressed the issues you've found, I will seek the Military History Wikiproject A-Review. Cheers. Newtack101 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Nick, you've helped me out in the past with access to journal articles. I don't suppose you have access to this? Any help would be great! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I do have access to that article (via a Wikipedia Library subscription to T&F Online. I don't have your email address though - could you please ping me an email? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! I might ask you for another T&F article later! hjmwiki at gmail dot com. :) Thanks Nick! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Back home now. There are two others I'm after if you have access [3] and [4]. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't access the third one, but have sent you the other two. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! Those are really helpful. I'll ask elsewhere for the last one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Welles credentials are top rated for biographical commentary on a top leader in 1940s. He was I think FDR's #1 "famous" campaigner in 1944, and took a very prominent role in foreign policy (esp Latin America) --he is most famous for his biographical/fictional study of a contemporary political personage (Hearst). Furthermore his commentary is crisp and to the point re Marshall. (I did NOT make the original addition) (and please debaters beloing in the talk pages not the edit summaries) Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is Welles a notable authority on George Marshall? his looks like a totally random addition by someone, especially given the reference is some YouTube video (not a reliable source), and I have no idea why you're edit warring it back into the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Welles was a profound observer of American life and politics with a lot of attention to foreign policy. As a biographer he did the best film bio ever done. What more expertise do you want for a 3 sentence commentary? Rjensen (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Forrest might require some protection, the interventions are fairly regular now JarrahTree 08:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, done. The article needs a lot of work though - it reads like a PR puff piece for Forrest. The criticisms of his business practices and approach to philanthropy (for instance, his approach to assisting Indigenous Australians or the donation he made to a group accused of climate change denial as part of his response to the bushfires this year) are missing. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that - appreciated - JarrahTree 08:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A while ago, you left comments at Talk:James P. Hagerstrom#Informal review at my request for FAC mentorship (User talk:Nick-D/Archive 18#Mentoring for FAC). Sorry for the long delay, but I've addressed your comments and would appreciate if you took another look to assess its FAC readiness. Thanks, ~huesatlum/ 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick

I was being bothered on Facebook and Twitter by an Argentine nationalist (now blocked). An account registered a year ago and dormant has suddenly burst into life, the name of the account is virtually identical to the account I've blocked. It's quacking rather loudly. Last time I had a problem with someone stalking me I was threatened with a block for outing, which kind of leaves me in somewhat of a quandary about dealing with this.

Any advice?

WCM_email 07:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi WCM, I hope you're doing well. Something like this needs to be handled off Wiki to avoid outing. Given that this involves what sound like sensitive matters, I'd suggest contacting the Arbitration Committee via the arrangements set out at WP:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee, though they might refer the matter on. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, were you going to nom Operation Inmate for TFA? June is open now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea - I thought that all my 1945 FAs had had a TFA run, but missed that one. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. I am currently working on the Meghan Trainor article, and have been using the comments you left at its prior failed FAC as guidance. I have opened a PR page to discuss further development of the article and would be glad to have your input. Thanks.--NØ 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look in on this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just thought I should leave a little reminder in case this slipped your mind. No worries if you changed your mind or lack the time to help with this, though.--NØ 15:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Sorry for being slow here - I'm tempted to blame COVID, but am not sure how... I've just posted some comments in the PR which I hope are helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

Hi.. I have disagreement with another editor regarding infobox to be used. Could you please take a look this discussion about infobox to be used, maybe you can share opinion on that matter. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! I saw that we've ended up in a bit of an edit war with the logo for Prime Minister of Australia. Let's try and sort this out over here instead of edit warring. I've just added a rationale to the image's file page, and I'm not including it to "make [the article] pretty" as you suggest, but to identify that the PM's main role is to lead the Australian Government in an executive capacity - the PM is the personification, if you would, of the Australian Government, hence making this logo relevant and appropriate for identifying the role of the PM. ItsPugle (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page, the logo is generic and has no specific association with the PM. As Wikipedia's rules on the use of non-free images are conservative, I don't think that a fair use claim can be sustained here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough! I thought that the fact that the PM is the executive leader of a federal government would qualify the reasoning, but I guess your perspective outweighs mine :) ItsPugle (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I hope you are well. I have been doing a bit of work recently around the individual land and naval battles of the New Georgia campaign. Pretty much done with most of the land battles (stopping at B class for most of them at this stage) except the article about the Japanese counterattack. Given your work on the Bougainville counterattack article, I was wondering if you might be keen to work together on this one? In terms of scale, this counterattack was not as large as the Bougainville effort, so the article probably would only ever be long enough for GA, I'd hazard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Yes I'm well and am looking forward to the end of working from home this week. I hope that you're doing well too. I'd be happy to help with that one - for instance, by working up some material on the Japanese naval reinforcement effort and helping with the other topics. It's been a long time since I've read Miller's excellent history and I'd forgotten that the Japanese almost over-ran a US Army divisional command post in this campaign. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I think I am done with this article now. I hate to ask another favour, but given the recent feedback I have received about my writing, would you mind taking a quick look and maybe giving it a copy edit? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do so over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Bermudaresident, who you blocked yesterday, has been doing considerable ongoing ranting on their Talk page which I have just ignored, but felt it might be worth drawing your attention to the new final sentence on that page, which reads to me a threat, although not a particularly effective one I would have thought. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The combination of someone who claims to live outside Australia and has little interest in Australian politics but yet is seeking to cite ANAO reports and drag the matter to a parliamentary committee is head scratching... Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Quite puzzling, and seemingly unaware of the image being presented. (Along with a few other things.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

G'day Nick and Ian Rose, how would you feel about me adding the names of new project members for the month to the "From the editors" section of each Bugle edition? Might be a nice way of welcoming them? Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No prob AFAIC, PM -- we try to showcase editors with their first A-class or Featured articles, or ACMs, so why not new members? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This also sounds like a great idea to me - thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, Thank you for reverting my edit to WWII. I understand what you are saying but my concern is that by only providing the year range (1939 to 1945), the information in the opening sentence is just too vague. It could represent a time span of anything between just over 5 years (end of 1939 to start of 1945) and just under 7 years (start of 1939 to end of 1945), when it was in fact pretty much exactly 6 years. Would it be OK to just include the months, e.g. "September 1939 to September 1945"?
And what about WWI? Were the start/end dates (28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918) more definite in this case? Again, saying "from 1914 to 1918" is vague and could represent a time span of anything between >3 to <5 years.
Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rodney, Thanks for your comments here. Given the issue with whether the war ended in August (when the Japanese stopped fighting) or September 1945 (when the artificially belated surrender ceremony took place), I'd suggest leaving it as it is. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the literature on World War I to have a sensible opinion on its start and end dates. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks Nick, looks like we have to stick with the year range for WWII then. As for WWI, I'll wait and see if anyone else challenges my edit there. I might do a minor copyedit on the WWII lead section today, so feel free to revert any of my changes. I'm used to reverting other people, as a pending changes reviewer, so a little of my own medicine does me good! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, given your work on 56th Independent Mixed Brigade, I wonder if you have anything you would like to add to 21st Independent Mixed Brigade? I created the article today based on only a few sources, so there is still room for expansion in a few areas. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find a suitable image yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if I can add anything (especially from Ness' excellent book), but you've done a very through job already! Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick, I stumbled across a short synopsis in Rottman, figured I'd do something different from the usual. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a great topic to work on - I was surprised at the extent of the literature on this topic when I worked on the 56th IMB article, though you need to piece it together. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I've added some extra details from Ness and the US Army official history, but it's pretty marginal. The US Army official history goes into a bit of extra detail on the 170th Infantry Regiment's movement from Rabaul to New Guinea, but I'm not sure how much is needed in the article as what's there now summarises things well. Checking Ness inspired me to start the Hong Kong Defence Force (Imperial Japanese Army) article, on another unique IMB. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this -- nice work on the new article, too. Hope you are having a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I am not sure if this reaches the threshold of being newsworthy, but today I had my 25th FA promoted, 18 months and four days after my first. This puts me 45th on the all-time Wikipedia-wide FA tally. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! Yes, that's definitely worth including. To do this in 18 months is remarkable - I think that my peak is 5 or 6 FAs in a year. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I note that you have written most of the content for next month's "In the News"; if you also feel this is newsworthy you may wish to include it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely is. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Pinged you a few days ago, but wanted to see if you had any more feedback/criticism for the Space Shuttle FAC. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd noticed that many regular English Wikipedia users and I have all received the same LTA message on Wiki News. I tried to revert one of the edits on a different user talk page and I was warned about that from blanking by a abuse filter. I then tried to explain to Wikinews: admin action alerts but when I clicked submit, the abuse filter took action and blocked me indefinitely on the site. Unfortunately that edit can't be proven from this Abuse filter log. And here's the block status the filter imposed.

By posting to the administrators notice board, hopefully someone can revert these edits made by the LTA without having trouble from the edit filters. I have never made a single edit on Wikinews so that would be my problem as a new user. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, While it looks from email alerts like I've also been receiving those messages over there, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with how edit filters work and have never been active on Wiki News so I can't be of much help here. Any issues affecting Wiki News need to be handled there, as Wikipedia admins have no influence over that site (the admin tools are specific to individual Wikimedia websites). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hello @Nick-D:, it's Eli Bigeez (talk). After some ups and downs, I have re-worded C/R on User:Bigeez/sandbox. Please help me as only you know best. I will not post on the talk page until you give me the nod. Feel free to comment. God bless, cheers, Eli. Bigeez (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bigeez: That still looks too long to me I'm afraid. I'd suggest starting a general discussion on the World War II article's talk page to get a wider range of views though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Nick-D:, Got it. I'm delving into cutting it down. Cheers, Eli. Bigeez (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Nick-D: cut most of the examples, but kept a few where needed. See User:Bigeez/sandbox. BTW, congrats are in order for receiving the Military History Project award. Cheers, Eli. Bigeez (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Operation Catechism, Bombing of Obersalzberg, and Operation Boomerang. Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

hello, im (my ip number is huge, so i cant type it), i see that the last edit you made to Italian Campaign (World War 2), wasnt very constructive, being similar to vandalism, if you see any error, Discuss on the talk page before removing content. 2804:14D:4486:513:99C3:86A7:5E90:883F (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, per WP:BRD, the onus is actually on you to explain why this material should be added. Calling other editors vandals is obnoxious. Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

i didnt say you ARE a vandal, i said the edit you made is similar to what vandals and historical revisionists do, removing content, and i already said to you talk about removing it before go and remove, what i did wasnt vandalism, so, it doesnt need to be reverted in the exact second it was made.2804:14D:4486:513:5D35:9F60:5D43:82B5 (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Rotary engine#Ralph Watson Special Engineer and Special:Contributions/Trevshef. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bill, as they haven't been warned about edit warring I've just done so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I did post a 3RR warning on one of the IPs used to add the same information before the registered user showed up. (Presumably they are the same person.) - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was IP edit warring as well. Anyway, I've watchlisted this person's talk page and will respond if there are further problems. As a side note, as an Australian I'm always impressed by the enthusiasm New Zealanders have for developing aerospace technology - my all time favourite is the guy who tried to build a cruise missile in his garage - Bruce Simpson (blogger)#DIY Cruise Missile. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't edit content on Wikipedia often, so apologies for the novice errors here, if there are any.

I am concerned that a legitimate page (Martyn Iles) has been deleted for reasons that are not valid.

Martyn is worthy of the page, and I am not clear why it was deleted.

I can see there was a blocked/banned user in the mix, but I can't see why that effects the validity and legitimacy of Martyn's page.

Can you please reinstate the page, Nick, and I am happy to correct any issues with it, as I am on Martyn's team.

I note that other pages related to the ACL, Lyle Shelton and others in the "ACL orbit" remain, as they should... so it's just this one that has been deleted.

Many thanks.

Alicam (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That article was created by a banned editor attempting to evade their ban, with almost all its content being added by them so I won't be reinstating the article. You can create another article on this person if you wish, but please ensure that he's received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO first. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see from your user page that you're the Chief Communications Officer at the ACL. You cannot create an article on this person given that he's your boss and your job is to promote him and the organisation - please see WP:COI for why. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm sure someone else can do it. My issue is simply that, empirically and factually, the content of that page was fine. The content is relevant and necessary. How do we get it back up there? Can you not do it, and "own" it, as a starting point? Alicam (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No - please see WP:BANREVERT for why. We delete articles created by banned editors as a deterrence measure, and the editor has had a track record of religious bigotry to boot so none of their edits on religion-related topics can be considered useful. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

After some looking around I have worked with another (independent) user to create a draft, which I gather has been submitted for consideration. I don't understand the process, but that's been done. I have NOT personally even looked at the draft, to maintain proper arms length, but it's based on what has historically been there and stood the test of time, etc. Do I just wait now? Alicam (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You can have no influence over the article whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm new-ish to MILHIST, so I'm unaware of what exactly happens after a source reviews hits some snags on the spot checks. The Newtonia one did not reflect well on the article, and was honestly embarassing for me. What happens next? I've responded to all the points at the ACR, and like I said, I'm willing to provide quotations from the print sources in a subpage somewhere for any spot checks from those you would like. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Have you reviewed any references other than those I spot checked? As noted in the ACR, I'm concerned about the number of issues here so I'm worried that there may be others - have you checked for them and addressed them? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've checked all of the references to print sources and corrected a few minor errors, mostly related to using "estimated" for statements that weren't estimates. I need to check Bearss and the other online sources yet, but that might take some time, as I'm busy and Bearss is used frequently. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, please ping me when you've had time to make those checks - I'd be happy to AGF your edits. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Hi @Nick-D: see User:Bigeez/sandbox, a little more boiled down. Should I post on the talk page? Cheers, E Bigeez (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd suggest that you do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D:, 10:4. Cheers, Bigeez (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D: I posted it, but it seemed to have been deleted. Any suggestions would be helpful. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I suspect that the issue is that you didn't explain the context for the post. I'd suggest re-adding it, prefaced by a comment explaining what you're proposing here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D: Mia culpa. Thank you. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D: I believe I've whittled C/R down (see: Talk:World War II) as much as I could without effectively reducing the C/R subsection to fragmented sentences. Any suggestions? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Nick-D: any suggestions for finalising R/C subheading under Occupation in Talk:World War II? Hope all's well, cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A few months ago you blocked User:ClearBreeze for personal attacks and uncollaborative behavior. For your consideration, here are some of their recent edits:

• As you've clearly flagged you're uninterested in rational debate, but only in creating a distraction, I won't waste time and space here responding to you further. However that will enable you to have the last word, as per the need of ungoverned selves. [5]

And the following series of attacks on AfD proposers:

• Such articles are constantly targeted by those holding left-wing chips on shoulders, or obscure royalty-thingy grudges, and they need to be resisted, and recognised as the kind of cancel culture, corrosive to historical information, that they are. [6]
• The embittered individuals persisting in it, and for no other reasons, need to look at their own lives. It needs to be strongly resisted as it's utterly corrosive to Wikipedia. It's book burning. You want to do good? Try editing a Marcos family article, or the wildly-laudatory and distorted articles of other figures that are protected by Wiki gangs. Targeting the articles of harmless aristoeuros is really lame. [7]
• articles on minor royals and aristocrats are being deleted due to a cancel culture stemming from personal politics and/or resentment. [8]

After I warned them, they described my behavior as psychopathic [9].

Thanks for any attention you care to give this. (If this is not of interest to you, my apologies, and I'll go to ANI instead.) --JBL (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick - please refer to "Assistance Sought re [WP:HOUND]" here: [10]. He is conducting a vendetta. ClearBreeze (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess two links to when you described my behavior as "psychopathic" is twice as good as just one! --JBL (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, thank you very much for looking into this. --JBL (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries. It's a shame that this occurred after the editor was given strong warnings by myself and another admin earlier in the year. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Cockpit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The article Operation Cockpit you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Operation Cockpit for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article Operation Cockpit you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Cockpit for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, Famous RAAF Airmen just popped up. I'm tempted to move it to draftspace, but thought I'd let you check it out first. Most of the US Armed Forces branch articles have some sort of list of notable people, and I assume others do also. However, this one has a bad title, and lists many red links and DAB pages. The people without articles usually aren't notable per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bill, most of those red links look viable, and are generally on people we have articles on - the editor has linked to 'Sir X' rather than just 'X'. The bigger issue is that many of the people in the list are notable for reasons other than their RAAF service - e.g. Gough Whitlam is notable for his political career not his unremarkable wartime service and Tommy Raudonikis is known only for his links to football @Ian Rose: what you think the best course of action here is? Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Unrelatededly, I've also blocked the article creator for repeated copyright violations. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

...and another editor has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous RAAF Airmen. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, popped up whilst I was patrolling EF867. I'm really not a fan of lists where categories would be better suited, but I have no strong feelings about the decision either way. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 11:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Yeah, the copyvios are definitely serious. and seem to have been a long-term issue with this user. Thanks for the block. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I know it's been a long time, but I recently put 1989 (Taylor Swift album) under peer review. As you were the editor that pointed out prose concerns in the failed FAC, I hope you could give some input regarding the PR. Best regards, HĐ (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look in on that PR (Wikipedia:Peer review/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/archive2) either this weekend or over the next week. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Transom you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I just split out Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array from the Boeing 737 AEW&C. Since you keep abreast of RAAF aircraft and equipment, I wanted to let you know. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The article could use some high-quality close-ups of the radar pylon if you know of available. I couldn't find any suitable ones on Commons, but I could have missed them. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: That's a good topic for an article, as the radar has an interesting history in its own right. When the AEW&C project ran into serious difficulties, the Australian Government engaged (from memory) MIT to work on fixing the radar when it lost confidence in the manufacturer. Also from memory, the resolution of this dispute was that the radar ended up working better than the specifications required (albeit after a few years operational service with the RAAF) and the Australian Government ended up owning a large chunk of the associated intellectual property and gets a payment every time Northrop Grumman sells one of these radars! - apparently the recent British order will net the Australian Government a useful sum. For a photo, you could just crop the radar from a high resolution shot of a Wedgetail? (some good options include File:A30-002 in 2019.jpg, File:A30-003 Boeing 737-7ES Wedgetail RAAF (6485975083).jpg, File:N361BJ (A30-004) Boeing 737-7ES Wedgetail RAAF (8416954095).jpg, File:Side view of A30-004 in August 2019.jpg File:RAAF E-7A Wedgetail being refueled by a KC-135 during Operation Inherent Resolve (2).jpg. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If we can source the bit about the Australian government, that would make a good addition. As to cropping, I'll ask around for an editor willing to do it. I'm that good at it - I tend to get things off-center! BilCat (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@FOX 52: Can you help? I'm not sure which would be the best angle, and how much of the fuselage to show. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: - I threw up this file, in the info box, I think it will help the reader understand the over all view of the antenna & size with respect to the air frame. - (just a suggestion, please make any changes) - FOX 52 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The article Operation Transom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Transom for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

“ needs to be cited to a reliable source, not a YouTube video, especially given the text included quotes and interpretations”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links

Can’t see anything on that page that states the ref isn’t acceptable as inserted. Reliable source is the historian himself directly quoted. 2001:8004:1241:A5A8:60C1:C9D6:3E26:66AF (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

YouTube videos are generally not reliable sources, and the text added here included lengthy quotes and interpretation of the video which needs to be sourced to a transcript and other articles, etc. High quality sourcing is especially important in articles relating to living people. Please see WP:RS and WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The video link page states YouTube videos must be used with caution, but states they are permitted as sources if reliable. In this case, it is an interview with the source itself, Blainley: you can’t get more reliable than that. Neither does the page state that quotes must be sourced from a transcript. 2001:8004:1241:A5A8:60C1:C9D6:3E26:66AF (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You didn’t reply to my last post, so I presumed you accepted the points made. However you reverted the new edit. This is hardly helpful. To address the points you made in the revert comment: 1 “You are interpreting the video”: In what way am I interpreting the video? It is a direct transcript of Blainey plus a paraphrase of what Bolt says in reply to him in summing up: Bolt states: “So it’s the ‘noble savage’ myth that’s been around since Rousseau, and also a way of demonising European civilisation, or Western civilisation.” Do you want me to quote those words instead of the paraphrase? In either case: it’s splitting hairs; neither constitutes interpretation. 2: “Find a reliable source”. I’ve already stated to you the point that a direct interview with Blainey is reliable. Having first falsely tried to suggest that videos aren’t permitted as sources, it now seems you’re engaging in blocking behaviour by arbitrary judgement. If you believe that’s unfair: there seems to be a divergence between the rules you’re attempting to lay down here and Wikipedia’s. 2001:8004:1241:A5A8:60C1:C9D6:3E26:66AF (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You actually totally ignored my advice above, and re-added negative material about a living person's work based on your interpretation of a video, which plainly violates WP:RS and WP:BLP. You will be blocked from editing if this happens again. If you'd like to discuss the content, please do so at Talk:Dark Emu (book). Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, could you look at USS Franklin (CV-13)? I'm having difficulty with a dynamic-IP user on the article, as seen in the history of the edits for August. I'm totally ignorant on the subject matter itself, but as I understand it, the IPs edits are completely original research. He isn't citing an actual source that states that the B7A2 was the aircraft used in the attack, or even that it was the likely aircraft. What was there originally wasn't cited, so I have added tags to that sentence. We really need to bring in some editors from Milhist that understand the subject, have access to reliable sources, and are able to discuss this and come to a solution. I can add this section to Milhist if you'd rather not take the lead on this, but it's not something I'm really interested into digging deeply at this time. Thanks for whatever you're able to do. BilCat (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel E. Morison's official history states that Franklin was attacked by "a plane" which approached undetected, which suggests to me that the attacker wasn't recorded at the time - presumably as no-one in the US fleet saw it coming and it got away in the chaos caused by the attack (I suspect that aircraft recognition wasn't a high priority on what was probably the Fast Carrier Task Force's worst day in 1945, with Franklin being crippled at great cost, Wasp badly damaged and a major attack on Kure failing - Attack on Kure (March 1945) refers). More recent research might have identified what plane (and unit and pilot) was responsible or identified several possible attackers, but we'd need a good reference. I've just removed this speculation. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP reverted again, adding the B7A2 back with a lengthy edit summary that is total original research/synthesis, and a refusal to discuss. Are you too involved for a semi-protect? If so, I'll try RFPP. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm WP:INVOLVED here as my edit was to remove unsourced material, and have semi protected. It's frustrating dealing with an edit warrior operating from dynamic IP addresses - this is one of the main reasons I support banning IP editing. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about IP editing, especially since it's very difficult to file an SPI against IPs, and they won't reveal matches either. I'm having difficulty dealing with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh for just that reason. Very frustrating. BilCat (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Another dynamic IP is changing cited specs here. Nimbus verified that the specs are correct. BilCat (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked and article protected here as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It came back on the G.91Y article per this diff, and on the same IP address too! It even beat the bot that removes the protection tag. Sigh. BilCat (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As the IP seems stable, I've blocked it. I've seen people like this wait until the moment the protection expires before before recommencing their nonsense - it seems a strange thing to do. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Back again. (Check your talk history too.) Amazing they claim Americans are stupid, etc, but they still can't figure out how to cite reliable sources, and how to distinguish scholarly research from armchair analysis. BilCat (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the article. I'm bemused by the accusation that I'm American. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha. We edit-conflicted on the protection, with the effect that I've extended it by a total of 3 minutes. If the IP is watching this page, I'm not American either. Sorry. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. Yup, I'm bemused too. BilCat (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm an American, but I'm not an admin. I'm also not "totally ignorant" in general, and I do know how to cite.reliable sources. I also know that is all that matters on Wikipedia as far as content goes. I even know how to check the history on German Wikipedia to find out out than an IP added the same info as our IP here (both from Germany) on the same day this month, and -- wait for it -- from the same IP! I wouldn't be surprised if his name was Carlos Shäferstein! (Check the most recent edit summary on the Franklin article if that doesn't make any sense.) BilCat (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The frequency with which armchair experts like to exclaim that Americans are a) all the same, with no divergence in opinions, experiences, etc and b) totally ignorant never ceases to astonish me. It's usually a marker of an utter fool. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not often I hear a non-American Wikipedian express those ideas, so it's quite refreshing. BilCat (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

To make a long story short, I tried to edit the page related to 'hate group' from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_group&oldid=974291539 multiple time to make it more diverse & sources-conforming, but all the time moderators or another 'watchers' undid it to one previous version represented only selected by someone narrative that does not even stay in line with today's point of an authors research center. As a person who doesn't like the use of only one side of a complex problem, I can't stay with it but now try to solve the problem within Wiki, not within media and related public instruments.

More longer: > Welcomes everybody to the discussion below 'Hate group' paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group#Our_#Wikipedia_is_not_one's_Political_Instrument. Summary: today's version looks misleading, American-centrist (nothing mention phenomena of hate outside the USA and Southern Poverty Law Center) and moderators looks American chauvinist and supporting only nazi's or related old white supremacy symbols or flags, whereas even the major domain research center, SPLC as mentioned before, shows that have is more inclusive and diverse (in a negative way of this concepts). Moreover, the previous article authors misleading at FBI official state quotation to hate crimes to prove their own view. Hatred is not American or other today's rich country movements privilege, it has no borders or faces. Only people who do hate have these signs of division. And hate definitely has not only black/brown/multiracial/white/WASP/yellow or whatever you 'Americans' like to use to divisive yourself.

>> My heart is bleeding from English Wikipedia Censorship. I participated in the Wiki community of 3 languages (one from the beginning) for 10 years, but never saw this before. My ancestors, who were imprisoned to labor and concentration camps because of their nationality, ethnicity, and views, also would not approve your totalitarian informational policy of global source for the sake of polarization and mobilization of the population within one country before their local elections.

>> * Before: https://imgur.com/esXx8ja (misleading symbols with no sources, strange position of moderators that hate have the face and that is the only one (needed?) face)

>> * After: https://imgur.com/UrYMQQ0 (paraphrase misleading definition and unreasonable but conscious incorrect FBI citations, flags, and emblems with a source from a major source all other article formulated on)

>> * Letter about Wiki unjustice: https://imgur.com/IyeRmex

I see that you've stopped edit warring and started a discussion at Talk:Hate group, which is the correct way of seeking views on your edits. Administrators do not have any additional sway over the content of articles. I'd note that your edits are US-centric, in that they refocus the article on what the Southern Poverty Law Centre uses as a definition rather than using global definitions, but beyond that have no opinion here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank's for your answer. I see U.S.-chauvinism of term propagated in U.S. is as well danger as bias in ideologies observed in article now. Hate is not privilege of old whites from Europe, as non-european may state it. I also make a Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discrimination#Re-make_'Hate_group'_article_and_check_it_on_bias. English in not my first and even main language and I have not got the desire or time to rewrite biased text but to re-made biased visual, so might you help me there? And related to admins, they have more proven record to be admitted by wikia community and have more experience in your local english-wiki institutes and practises.2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, is it just me, or has their been an increase in vandalism out of Australia this year? I seem to be noticing more vandalism from Australian IPs than in previous years. Btw, today I learned that Australia is the largest country in the world. See this gem from, you guessed it, an Australian IP. Sigh. (I'm not picking on Australia, as the majority of IP vandalism I revert comes from the US! Our government education dollars at work!) BilCat (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest. I'm tempted to say that it might be due to school closures and working from home arrangements, but they've (thankfully and so far) been less severe and long-lasting in Australia than most other countries. I'd be guessing that vandalism is up across the board thanks to COVID. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, any suggestions for completing? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, not sure if I should insert Resistance/Collaboration, as on the WWII talk page, directly to the actual WWII page. I'm pretty novice at the protocol here. Unless, of course, its content/grammar is subpar. Hopefully, its sublime. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I haven't been following the discussion on this. Unless there's consensus to include it, it shouldn't be added to the actual article. Updated drafts should be posted on the talk page for consideration (and hopefully edits from other editors rather than peanut gallery-style comments!) Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thank you. Somehow I believe a consensus was achieved, even by those who had claimed in the past to have negated any allowance for this subtopic. I have found my health now, and back to my job. On the talk page, there seems to be always an argument where none exists, by some. Perhaps, now is the time to ask for a consensus on the R/C subsection in order to defuse and divert attention away from the present diatribe by those inveterate few arguers. Whatever you wish, cheers and God bless, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's more like 15 years(!). Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, the IP vandal is back at Fiat G.91Y. Can you apply protection again? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You'd think that people would have better things to do with their time than try to add nonsense to articles for weeks wouldn't you, especially after they were blocked and lost their ability to edit the article? I've just re-protected for a month. Please let me know if this problem re-occurs and I'll follow up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Gday Nick. The current citation link on the wikipedia page for the area of Australia is http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/compare.htm, which doesn't exist. The archive.org version of that page that's also linked is from 2007 with outdated stats. The link I changed it to (as well as updating the area) is the up-to-date calculation from the same government site of the original link, namely ga.gov.au: https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-location-information/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories Please have another look at the edit I made. Should have added more info in the summary of the edit explaining this? Let me know if I can revert the change. I made a typo by including quote marks (") in the "title=" part which I can also fix. Wikkedit (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your contribution to WikiProject Military history. ❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 07:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, are tables of casualty totals normal for military service branch articles? It's been removed 3 times now from United States Marine Corps, but Special:Contributions/190.103.176.5 keeps adding it back in, even after I warned them for 3RR (since removed). The user ahas added a similar table to History of the United States Marine Corps, where it might be arguably more relevant. A discussion has been opened at Talk:United States Marine Corps#Marine Corps casualties section, but so far the IP has not participated. They seem to be up on the Wiki-jargon, so this isn't a novice user. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, no that's not normal but it does seem a logical inclusion if there's support. What's being edit warred into the USMC needs references. For the Military history of Australia during World War II article I covered casualties as text as the Australian casualties of World War II article was the logical place for a table, and I'd suggest that might be the best option here given the large number of conflicts the USMC has been involved in, not to mention what seem to be non-trivial rates of death due to the risky nature of the training Marine units need to undertake in peacetime. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

Dear Nick, I am currently dealing with a anon IP at KDF who seemingly wishes to downgrade and diminish the extent of corruption inside the forces, despite repeated UN Groups of Experts' reports about the sugar smuggling through Kismayo, for example. Yesterday he carried out about five reverts in the space of 90 minutes or so. I have given up the mop, so cannot warn him with much force, though I did put a note on his talkpage. Would you kindly please review the record of editing yesterday, including the five or so reverts, and add any warning notices you see fit? Best wishes - trust everything goes well over there!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Due and undue weight, lead section,and wikipedia is not advocacy or soap box, also articles are not owned by some editors. Also editor wasnt up to be at talk page about content. I never saw lead section with individal cases or wrongdoings, as I known at wiki is forbiden forms of advocacy or personal judgments. And it is not collection of individual news cases. Maybe editor has some personal dealings or connections with the institution. Noone removed content, content is in the body of article and short note about general corruption problems stayed in the lead as general problem, the lead cant be 90 percent about individual cases, and without even to allegations are denied. Note in the lead section"Kenya's military, like many government institutions in the country, has been tainted by corruption allegations. " is more than enough with link to more cases about corruption. All my edits are made in one good way, to be neutral and with focus on that institution and I expanded it to improve aricle and make it more in a way of the other articles. I checked many institutions from the FBI to many more and nowhere I saw things like in the Kenya defence force lead, to someone collect individual wrongdoing cases allegation by "credible" reports and put it in a lead without due and undue weight and both sides neutrality and things what are on page should be in encyclopedian context as crucial for the institution as a general overview, especially in the lead section. So I am/and I was following about to be NEUTRAL, and to have DUE WEIGHT and not doing any ADVOCACY for any type of causes and to DON'T use wikipedia as a BLOG. I researched more about what Wikipedia is not and I acted in that way. Ah just to mention, all my edits well explained in that edit summary. From the first to the last one. 178.221.249.151 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Started working this out. Did need to put up a quick warning that I'm working ahead of promotion - because I totally am - but, honestly, FPC is predictable enough that it's unlikely that things will change much, other than maybe the Palestine map passing, and it's quick enough to double-check before publication in a couple weeks.

Leland Melvin is the weakest inclusion. If ALL astronauts are MILHIST, then he's included. Otherwise, I'd say he isn't, as he didn't come from the army, and doesn't seem to be at all involved with MILHIST other than the Space Race - if the nineties even counts as the Space Race. Obviously, he's great, but inclusion in the project is a seperate issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 04:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Sorry, I was out of town and missed this. Mr Melvin is out of scope as he hasn't had any links to the military - NASA is a civilian service, albeit one with lots of active duty military personnel on staff, and he seems to have not served in the military or been involved in any military-focused space projects. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick,
I happened to read a bit of your fine article as above (it’s The Bugle Sep 2020 issue), and I dare say I spotted a mistyping: where you talk about “crowded hangErs”, you likely meant “crowded hangArs”, didn’t you?

Sorry for my English (I actually am Italian, you know…) and kudos for your work on WP. --Filippof (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's the first tpyo I've posted on Wikipedia though. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

BilCat (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, see here for the removal of a USAF image you uploaded. It's other "contributions" are just as bad, especially the comment questioning the veracity of a photo of a 2-seat F-16! Sheesh! Facepalm Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

They're also an expert on the USAF's procurement process [11], so I imagine that they're also right about F-16B/Ds not existing... Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup! We get all types! BilCat (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Including this one! BilCat (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, can you provide some of the sources which you say were used to determine the WWII leaders order? I'd like to review them, to see if they even take the holistic approach to this issue and base their assessment on both Europe and the Pacific theaters, or were the sources only covering Europe, and during the Talk Page discussion that partial analysis was then incorrectly applied to address the entire war, both in Europe and Asia. Somehow, I suspect that the sources only talked about Europe. --E-960 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Look through the talk page archives. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are gonna fall back on the argument of past discussions, than you need to show the evidence. As things stand now, there is no source cited in the infobox to justify the current order. Expecting others to find sources for your own statements: [12] "You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim". if you are going to use that argument, then those sources need to be cited in the infobox, and/or you need to show them to back up your position during a disscussion. --E-960 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion to the article talk page, where my interest in engaging with your disruptive conduct is not high anyway. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I responded to your comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French aircraft carrier Béarn a while ago, but you must have been distracted and have never replied. It would be great if you had time this weekend to see if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

oops, sorry. I'll follow up now. Thank you for the reminder. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No sweat, been there and done that myself, plenty of times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

Please self-revert your removal of all the images from Ed Gold. They are not COPYVIO — as you would have found out if you had taken the trouble to cliick through to Commons. All Gold's images are {{CC BY-SA 4.0}}. I should know, since I uploaded them all after going through the full OTRS process. Why didn't you seek my advice before this removal? As you can tell, I'm very angry about this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No OTRS details are listed on the Commons pages for the images, and the copyright tag on each image where you state that you are the copyright owner doesn't seem correct, unless Mr Gold has transferred the images to your ownership. Rather than threaten me, please fix this up as it's essential for the images to be usable. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please full proctect this page. In the last month there are a lot of uncontructive edit. I have reverted all of them until a futher discussion. - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As there's no edit warring and you haven't started a talk page discussion I can see, there are no grounds for applying full protection here at present. I'd very much encourage you to discuss this on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

En marzo pasado se integraron más lugares en Francia en todo el país

Alfredokudai1 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As this is the English language Wikipedia, please post in English here. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you check again the edits of that guy? All of them are unconstructive and fully unsourced. He also ironically thanked all my reverts, then added again those fantasy updates. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

They seem to be self-reverting most if not all of their edits, and I still don't see a talk page discussion. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please can you verify again? He didn't understand anything.- EugεnS¡m¡on 07:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Final warning given. However, as the other entries about updates also aren't referenced, the article needs to be much improved. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I initiated a new FAC for 1989 (Taylor Swift album) after archiving the PR. I assume you may be busy with other businesses, but I'd much appreciate your comments especially since you openly opposed the last nomination. I want to make sure that the prose is immaculate, and you--as a non-music editor--may have an eye for glitches that music editors often miss. Feel free to disregard this if you don't feel like it though, and apologies if this takes your time. Thanks, HĐ (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you reverted my edit to the World_War_II article. sorry, but I do not see elsewhere in the article where "Battle of the Buldge" or "Operation Nordwind" appear. I have edited again to just call out "Battle of the Buldge" by name, which is done for various other battles many times throughout the rest of the article. before reverting my edit again, would you please point out where it was "already linked" and, if not, please state why you think that particular battle (undeniably one of the most pivotal battles during the war) should not be called out by name when the others are? thanks. Jchap1590 (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Please check the Wikitext - both battles were linked already, but as piped links, consistent with how the article is written. Specifically naming the Battle of the Bulge is sensible though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, can you semi-protect USS Franklin (CV-13) for a few weeks? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. For all their blustering about not ever using Wikipedia again, they keep coming back with more claims about the aircraft's identity, always without citing reliable sources. Makes me wonder if anything they've claimed about theirself is true, especially the professor claims. I don't know anything about European higher education standards, but I can't imagine a professor not knowing the importance of citing reliable published sources, and not knowing how to do it. It's all too strange. BilCat (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I note that they're now identifying a specific aircraft down to its ID number. All academics and almost all enthusiastic amateurs would know that that kind of material needs supporting evidence. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The article cites "RAAF Historical Section 1953" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RAAF Historical Section 1953

Typo fixed. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 14 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

Hello Nick-D, hope you are well and safe. First off, I just want to say thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Game of Thrones/archive4. The closing note said that a peer review of the article, especially in relation to the sourcing issues, might be useful before any new FAC. I have started a new peer review page here just in case you would like to add any additional comments or feedback. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll try to look in on the review over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day Nick, I hope you are well. Wondering if you might be keen to add anything to the Battle of Driniumor River article? I have been working on this in (very) slow time, mainly due to a lack of motivation and energy, but I think it might be ready for a second set of eyes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'll look in on the article and see if I can add something, but to be honest this is a battle I don't know a great deal about - I've been meaning to read up on it for ages, but have never got around to it. I've seen some commentary about the battle being a stuff up on both sides (especially for the Japanese, for obvious reasons) which I might be able to add over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Why you did not check my contributions? It's basic thing you should do to notice that it's obviously not sockpuppet. Eurohunter (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I did. They were very similar to the sockmaster's, hence the decision to ask for an SPI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick nice to meet you. I was wondering if I could get some advice on an article I am writing in my sandbox as I would like to get it to Featured Article status if I can, or at least 'Good' article status. It is not finished, but if you have time, please have a look and give me advice on things to look out for and if I am on a good current path - and if not, what I need to improve. I would be very grateful. Ignore all content below December in operational history and the development section and please delete the link to my sandbox when you reply. Kind regards, Imp dean (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2020 (GMT)

Hi, I'd be very pleased to provide comments on that draft - most likely this weekend. It looks very good at first glance and I'm looking forward to reading it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Imp dean: I've left some comments at User talk:Imp dean/sandbox Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, just wanted to say thank you so much for reading what I had so far and for your comments. I will certainly make these necessary changes! Kind regards, Imp dean (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2020 (GMT)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

Hi Nick, can you look at blocking Special:Contributions/95.90.248.75? It's another German IP who can't cite reliable sources about the Aichi B7A and the USS Franklin. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as this is obviously the same person, I've blocked. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! BilCat (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I see you have removed information about Pie Face not being halal on the Pie Face page. Why would you do this? This is a fact and was supported by a source. You can confirm by reading it or picking up a phone and calling Pie Face yourself.

Because the material which had been added was editorialising about this, and I couldn't find a non-paywalled source to confirm that it was true. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have challenged another editor to provide a reference to support his view that the Channel Dash can fairly be described with the words "ran a British blockade" (This appears in the second sentence of the article.) The other editor has not done so, and when I present sources that cover the subject that do not refer to a blockade (when you expect that they might), I get accused of OR (at least, I think that is the other editor's logic). I am thinking you might be an admin with some overall understanding of the subject matter. The other editor has written 81.6% of the article and this is not the first time he has unreasonably challenged any content provided by others. (see [13])

My own clash with this editor is on Talk:Channel Dash - I initiated the discussion under the section Infobox military operation as a subsidiary point. Faced with resistance that seemed illogical, I waited till the next day and edited the article with the hope that seeing the changes in print might make the point. The talk page discussion under Retrograde edit has produced no sources to support the idea that the event can fairly be described as blockade running. I could add lots of logical arguments based on the agreed facts that this is a bad description, but it seems I only need to ask for sources that support the questionable text currently in the article.

I am at a loss as to how to proceed on this matter. The article is of little interest to many editors (have they been driven away by its "owner"?) and I am pretty reluctant to be driving one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures right now. And I would be unsurprised if aspects of my actions can be criticised (all I would say is that I tried to act for the benefit of the article.) Have you any recommendations?

Would quite understand if this matter was of no appeal to you.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest posting a neutrally-worded notification at WT:MILHIST inviting other editors to join the discussion. I'll also check what the sources I have on this say. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I should have been able to work that out for myself but it's amazing how useful it is to get an outside view of the subject. Note on MILHIST is now in place. Would be interested to see more sources (and there are no doubt many) and I guess I need to be prepared that at least some of them will use the "blockade" terminology - so then it will be down to which are more authoritative on the subject and how many use the term.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick, could you semi-protect Aichi B7A? It's the same way issue as with USS Franklin (CV-13). Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! BilCat (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I look forward to this one Nick, you did a good job on Operation Transom. I was reading General Christison's notes and he says that in a meeting with Mountbatten it was said Australia wanted to take over the whole of the NEI as it was in their sphere of influence, I'm not sure about that although Java was flicked from the SWPA to SEAC only in July. Pjholm (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! During 1943-44, the Australian military was very keen on a proposal to launch a major Australian-British offensive into the NEI from Darwin, with General Thomas Blamey in command. This came to nothing, with various historians saying that the whole idea was a bad one and contributed to the Australian military being marginalised by the US from 1944 onwards. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Martyn Iles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dawesi (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

Yes, the references are wrong, IP user simply copied them from, I assume, article "Pyrrhic victory" which also mentions Battle of Vukovar (and he messed up links). Problem is Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster for JNA, the battle does not meet conditions that are mentioned in the beginning of the article:

1. chronic mission failure (the key factor) - not a failure for JNA, they took over the city

2. successful enemy action - there was none, Croats lost the town and large number of troops

3. (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure - JNA did not lose its command or control

however this battle could be seen as disaster if we apply these conditions to Croats: they failed to defend and keep the city, enemy took over city and they lost complete command and control over it. They also had around 50% of their total force killed, rest wounded. After the war much effort was put into propaganda how it was a crucial battle that turned the tide of war, but the truth is international community played key role in truce which followed after the battle. I also have issue that this battle is mentioned in both "List of military disasters" and "Pyrrhic victory" pages. Istinar (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this change has been reverted again, so please start a discussion at Talk:List of military disasters. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations (three are conoms):

Nick-D: FAC nominations
# FACs	Outcome
Year nominated	Archived	Promoted
2006		1
2007		1
2008		1
2009		5
2010		5
2011		3
2012		5
2013		5
2014		1
2015		2
2016		2
2017		3
2018		5
2019		3
2020		3
Grand Total	0	45

Reviews:

Nick-D: FAC reviews
# FACs	Type
Declaration	Image	Source	Content
Support			203
Oppose converted to support			10
Struck oppose			5
Oppose			68
No declaration	3	7	69
Grand Total	3	7	355

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)