User talk:Nick-D

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

Awards people have given me

Nick, we've worked quite a bit in an attempt to satisfy the concerns that you and others posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mississippi class battleship. Do you have the time to come back and verify that we've addressed your concerns? Thanks! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at the ACR Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't see any mention of anything post his pardon YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roger! Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, Nick :)  Roger Davies ^talk 10:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick!! The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any major changes.. I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Icelandic Air Policing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is now up and running http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asia SatuSuro 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification - I've just added myself to the list of participants. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its gonna be a long long climb.... SatuSuro 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated EFF for another FAC, and as you commented (and opposed) last time, I would like you to look her over again. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a reliable source for Thailand's casualties in WW2?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. I just checked the Oxford Companion to World War II and it's entry on Thailand didn't provide any casualty figures. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an editor who keeps adding information about the school for events dated 2010. The problem is the sources listed are from 2009 and 2007. I have attempted to engage on the talk page, but the editor does not appear to understand and has descended into insults.[1] Edward321 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for a user name violation and asked that they provide appropriate sources after changing their user name. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DARE YOU VANDALIZE THE CIVIL WAR IN CHAD 2005-PRESENT ARTICLE!? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!? IT'S A REAL WAR! B-Machine (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no doubt that it is. As I explained on the article's talk page, the materail had to be removed as it was full of copyright violations. I posted on the talk page asking for help cleaning up the article and only chopped it back when there was no response to this for more than two weeks. If you'd like to help the diffs where copyvios were added are at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio#Articles 121 through 140. Please be more careful before you accuse people of vandalism in the future. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/128444
2. http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P02379.004

• Hello Nick, the above links are photos I've tracked down on AWM and was thinking that you might have some use for them in your recent edits. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Good news, I've found an 1942 map of Singapore on commons you could use to replace File:Targets of USAAF raids on Singapore 1944-1945.png, which as you know has the modern coastline of Singapore depicted instead of 1942. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that Dave - the first photo looks particularly useful. I didn't use that map as a) I can't confirm that it's actually PD (the date range means that it might be PD, but the AWM claims copyright over it and the rest of the official histories here and b) the over-layed unit names and boundaries would be confusing at best and totally misleading at worst. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added the first two photos to the article - thanks again Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't mention it, Nick. As for the photos, I've noticed quite a number of WW2 photos from IWM got themselves entwined with AWM and in some cases listed on both sides, how is that possible? As you've said, confusing and misleading both at the same time for poor old us. And another thing, you have a small typo error on File:Queen Mary in Singapore Gaving Dock Aug 1940.jpg. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the AWM and IWM sourced some of their World War-era photos from the same sources. The AWM mainly draws on the work of Australian official war photographers and servicemen and women. That said, I've seen photographs taken by Australian official war photographers in the IWM's collections (including, from memory, in the IWM itself in London) - I guess it reflects the very close integration of Australia and the UK at the time. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As it was between Singapore and Britain/Singapore and Australia/Briain and Australia, isn't it correct to say that all WW2 photos either by AWM & IWM are crown copyrighted? Hence, the confusion and all due to the geopolitical climate then (British Empire). Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have added evidence of his ignoring consensus and the actual sources, incivility, and pushing Winer. Edward321 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that you have now been added as a third party to current arbitration application by Communicat. Communicat (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since I am back in improving List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War, I would like to inform you that I used this link to double-check most of the cases. Would this satisfy the need for more official press releases? Are there any particular cases that you think I should investigate more? Can you please help me to get this article to A-class? Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magioladitis, Are you sure that's a reliable source? - it doesn't provide any sources itself and the website is a Vietnam Veterans' association so it isn't an authority on this topic. More generally, for something to be A class it needs to be comprehensive, so you need to find a reliable source which you can cross-check the totals against. I hope those comments are helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the press release copied from DoD and with the names stated. I checked the names in icasualties.org and they are there too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a DoD press release that would be the best source. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure a US DoD press release is the best source on aviation shoot downs? I'm fairly sure somewhere in the leaking of the Afghan war logs to wikileaks it was reported that the numbers were fudged by the US DoD, and in particular aircraft that were shot down by Stingers and Strela's were listed as 'crashed' on a regular basis. Wouldn't it be a natural assumption to treat the source as suspect and look to any journalists who've collated information from the leaked logs?--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We still need newspaper reports otherwise we are using sources from a party involved in the incident. I think it's in article's benefit that the DoD release is confirmed by an association. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what the press release is? - does it provide a summary of the losses and/or fatalities? I also don't see anything wrong with just using DoD figures - I'm not aware of any reports of them being wrong (and iCasualties seems to rely on official reports of fatalities anyway). Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can of course try to find the original url but I think this one for example is also ok. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should always use the original. Given that the website included the DoD media release number, it's very easy to find the actual media release by Google searching 'Department of Defence media release 1144-05' or similar - here it is. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll work to cover as much as possible with official press releases. A bot right now fixed 2 deal links too. I hope we 'll solve the references problem soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, could you please take a look at Phalanx CIWS? An Australia IP (124.171.19.245) kept up his edit warring despite being told not do so, after we've told him repeatedly that it is not notable for a fiction section to be re-introduce and his only attempt at discussion was a thinly-veiled "screw us" on the talk page before renewing his 3RR. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, I've blocked the IP address and watchlisted the article. I'll semi-protect the article if the block doesn't deter this person. I'd suggest posting an explanation of WP:MILPOP on the article talk page though. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you mate for your quick response, will pop in @ WP:MILPOP later to discuss this, have to go run an errand now. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well, I've spoken to Bill and we agreed that the particular edit is not worth any notability per consensus on WP:MILPOP, so I won't be bringing a dead horse there to flog. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've returned and are still edit warring, so I've blocked the latest IP for 48 hours and semi-protected the article for a week - hopefully that encourages them to discuss things. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again, I suspect that he'll be back again, the dead giveaway is that they both edited on Brown noise and Phalanx CIWS with the exact same edit(s). Actually, this really baffles me but what are the odds that he's operating one day in Adelaide and from Sydney on other day? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly low given that the two cities are several thousand kilometers apart - unless they're a busy business traveler who enjoys edit warring in their downtime or something ;) I suspect that one of the accounts is being routed through a different city. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Business traveller? As if their own business is not enough of a killer towards them that they have to walk down this destructive path of edit warring as a form of cheap thrill? Maybe some spoiled brat following their businessman father? That, I believe is a hypothetical possibility. Anyway, we'll see it how this goes. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the AWM you added to Military history of Australia is fantastic, it adds to the article quite nicely. I have been thinking about what to add here for a while but it didn't even occur to me. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was actually looking for a photo of the AWM with lots of people visiting it (to illustrate how popular it is), but couldn't find a good one to use. I might try creating one myself on a sunny Saturday afternoon! Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey leave the total number up until October 20 2010. You can edit the number count for the months the way you want (preferably keep it like it is now so ppl can get better look on the count) but a total of them killed for the year of 2010 up to October 20th should be implemented in it, then when we add more numbers in the future we can always add to the total killed for that year. Also say something like **** killed in 2010 documents taken from various press releases or something like that... Does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.148.248 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the total figures are supported by a reliable source they shouldn't be in the article. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not a suitable reference. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about saying **** killed via wiki count and **** killed via reliable published accounts making a combined number****? After all the sources wiki has for the numbers are accurate...check them urself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that all the news stories are correct and the Wikipedia article lists every single fatality, neither of which is at all likely to be the case. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I am doing is just adding if you keep deleting that you might as well delete all of 2010 except the 2 sources we have. We need to make an agreement on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring then, and let's discuss this at Talk:List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good see u there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, looks like Black Friday is doing well in ACR -- congrats! Couple of things:

• Having done my travelling this year and subsequently edited a few digital videos and slideshows to my satisfaction, I might start to get off my suntanned arse re. articles sometime before Christmas. Are you still interested in collaborating on getting Caldwell to GA/A/FA? If so, let me know when it might fit in with your schedule. I'm not ready to start right now, but there's plenty of prep work to do before writing in earnest, e.g. agreeing division of work and sources, plus additional images (found quite a few I think'd be worthwhile, will point you to them in due course).
• On a related note, what do think 1TAF needs to make B-Class? It's about the same length as 9OG but that was a smaller and shorter-lived formation. I'm thinking a couple of extra paras might do, including something that clearly states its purpose, per a comment on the talk page -- let me know your thoughts 'cos I might ease back into writing with that... ;-)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, It's good to see you back. How did your travelling go?

• Yes, I'm still interested in working on the Caldwell article. I've got a busy week ahead of me (work + university exam + travel) and am planning to take the Black Friday and Bombing of Singapore articles to FA but should start to have capacity to start with the Caldwell article in a week or so.
• I agree that more detailed coverage of 1TAF's purpose would be useful. Two or three paras on the main operations undertaken by the organisation (including the often very impressive airbase construction work) and an assessment of its performance also seems in order. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travel was spectacular, tks, but I won't go into detail unless you want to feel more jealous... ;-) Where are you heading? I know o/s at some stage but presume that's not yet.

• Heh, no hurry, just let me know when you're ready to start planning. One simple division of labour that came to mind was me concentrating on intro, early life and North Africa (given I've spent a lot of time on bios of his fellow pilots in that theatre), and you the Pacific (which is a bit thin and would benefit from your experience with Nos. 1 and 80 Wings) and later life. I don't think it actually needs a huge amount of additional detail, basically at least one more good para each for lead, early life, Pacific and later life, plus tidying up in North Africa and more images.
• Expanded 1TAF, see what you think -- a lot more could be added but I'm just interested in seeing it to B-Class at this stage...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That division of labour for Caldwell sounds good to me, though I'm a bit reluctant to write about his court martial (which seems to have been a bit tedious...). I think that the 1TAF article should now be B class, though I won't assess it as I've had a bit to do with the article over the years. I'm planning a trip to northern Europe (Germany, France and maybe some of the UK) for September/October next year - though this is still in its very early days! Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only tedious but tendentious...! Well, like I said, I don't think we need that much more detail so perhaps we can keep it to a few lines... Re. 1TAF, yep it should be an uninvolved party formally assessing so I'll be putting it on the requests page. Okay, that European trip was the one I recall you mentioning -- obviously just at the planning stage then... That all sounds great, I worked in Stuttgart for a few months in the mid-90s and travelled a lot in southern Germany and had a ball, my wife and I did Paris, the Loire and Normandy a few years ago and it was one of our fave trips, and you'll never lack for something to do in the UK, so hope it all comes to fruition... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick. I got the sources for Doomsday from my archive, but it's been so long I can't remember how to actually nominate for ACR. Rather embarrassing; apparently I've been on a content-writing break for far longer than I'd realized. I know the link is at MILHIST somewhere, but I'll be darned if I know where. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skinny, the instructions are at WP:MHRA Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! The review is here if you're interested. Any and all comments welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've answered all of them and even asked a question in return. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_19#List_of_infantry_divisions_of_the_Soviet_Union_1917.E2.80.931957_revert. Not sure that we need to do anything about it at the moment though. Probably just FYI for now. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, just what we need. There seems to be resurgence of edit warriors of late... I agree that there's no point in doing anything with that almost two month old IP address, but Mrg can be blocked by any admin on sight. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of your FAs to the various anniversary pages for display on the front page. I was surprised none of them were on there. A large proportion of the incumbent entries are unsourced start class articles, so feel free to just self-serve and bump them off, in my opinion :) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]