User talk:Nick-D: Difference between revisions

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

As a note to my fellow administrators, I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me. I have no delusions of perfection, but it's basic courtesy to discuss things rather than simply over-ride other admins' decisions (it's also required by policy). I'm quite likely to agree with you anyway!

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2014)

Awards people have given me

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Nick-D, as part of AustralianRupert's 2014 New Year Honours List, in recognition of his work as an administrator, reviewer and writer throughout 2013. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It was great working with you last year. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Which is a shame as I previously only issuing a strong warning or short duration block for the renewed edit warring" -- I think you're missing a word in there somewhere. NE Ent 12:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing that a lot at the moment... Thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing those issues to my attention. I've made a few adjustments to the page, and replied on the article talk page; do you think the page is now satisfactory? --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good to me. Depending on what kind of sourcing is available, you might want to describe the Polish Army requirements this concept has been developed to meet in more detail and emphasise the early stage of this vehicle, but neither are big deals. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I became curious about when the British Empire formally became an empire. You won't find this in the British Empire article, but it is all there in an article entitled Statute in Restraint of Appeals. The short answer is 1533. Henry VIII was still on the throne. Well, I thought it was worth sharing. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: I would have guessed that it was some time in the late 1600s/early 1700s when the British started to get serious about having an Empire (as opposed to a bunch of colonies and overseas military bases). Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Very interesting, glad I saw this, thanks Hawkeye —Cliftonian (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Mascot 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) 07:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The holiday period allowed me to catch up on my reading, and I wrote some book reviews. Since you already have a couple of reviews for the January Bugle, I placed the reviews here, and you can use them when you want. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'll add one to the January issue and will run the other in February. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook nine reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Nick - purely out of interest. This episode is also covered in Rob Maylors book SAS Sniper (2010) which details SASR involvement. Haven't read it yet but its on the shelf at home and will do one day when I get the chance. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I remember the government vigorously denying the story when it came out. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		2013 "Military historian of the Year"
		Nick-D: As recognized by your peers, your contributions to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the last year have been significant and abundantly appreciated. By order of the members of the Military history WikiProject, I commend you for placing second in voting for the 2013 Military historian of the year. Keep up the stellar work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Nick. Thanks for all you've done this year, I've really enjoyed working with you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much, and thanks also to the people who kindly voted for me. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This result has of course done nothing to allay fears of total Australian domination of the project but hey, that's life -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Nick. Have your cmts been resolved here? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No, I just left a note for Hawkeye. I wouldn't have major problems with the article being promoted in its current state though. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, would it be possible for you to semi-protect my archives? The archive bot should still be able to work that way. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, I've protected User talk:BilCat/archive17 which seems to be the only one being targeted - is that OK? (I can protect others if you think it appropriate). Please let me know if you'd like your talk page semi-protected for a while as well. @Dave1185: I'd also be happy to semi-protect your talk page if you'd like. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If they strike again, then go ahead and semi my talk page and/or the archives. - BilCat (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Nick, and as usual your help in SPP is greatly appreciated. :) Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Because someone already opened an RfC on it; the similar thread on ANI was closed for that very reason (not by me, mind you). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The ANI thread was a report which ended up with the RFC so it made sense to close it off. The AN thread was a notification of the RFC with no request for any action to be taken so there was no need to close it - especially as other editors may wish to post in the discussions over whether such notifications should be left at AN. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Operation Mascot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Mascot for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

As you were the admin to respond to the edit conflict on Stab-in-the-back myth, may I request that you look at the following pages as I would rather not be the one to breech the three revert rule of three more pages:

• Liverpool Blitz
• British war crimes
• Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (the continued vandalism of which has stopped me from being able to work on the article)

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Given that I've had a long, and entirely positive, history of interactions with yourself and I think that I've worked with Beyond My Ken I'm a not entirely uninvolved admin here so I'd rather restrict myself to acting as a third party and performing uncontroversial admin actions. I'd suggest opening talk page discussions here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advise, although could you confirm where "here" is? ;) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In disputes involving either of yourselves. If you think that firmer admin action is called for than what I can deliver, please request this at ANI or one of the other noticeboards. However, I'd suggest that some talk page discussions might be a better option at this point. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The issue in the Liverpool Blitz article appears to be to be the combination of a somewhat ambiguously written source and the complex geography of this region (in which what would be localities in most cities are regarded as separate towns). Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this comment I initiated Talk:302nd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States)#The suicide of James Stacy Adams and inquiries into the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse -- the final sentence of which is the question "Is there really any question that an article that comprehensively covers the battalion should neutrally cover this aspect of the battalion's history?"

If you have a concern that attempts to neutrally cover this aspect of the battalion's history is biased, could you please explain that concern there on the article's talk page?

Similarly, if you have a concern that an article about the battalion should not mention the Fay-Jones Report's inquiries into its role in the Abu Ghraib Torture and prisoner abuse scandal, could you please explain them on the article's talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

I raised an issue regarding the boat arrival graph at Talk:Kevin Rudd and it got me looking for other graphs. What do you think of this and should it be updated? I can see how it's worth representing the GFC employment trend but i'm thinking it could be done in a fuller, time-larger graph with perhaps vertical lines indicating what major events took place when? Timeshift (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a longer time series (for the Rudd/Gillard governments) would be preferable, and can be easily grabbed from the ABS data. I don't really like the idea of attributing shifts in unemployment to specific events: the impact of the GFC is obvious, but no single factor explains subsequent drop in unemployment or the slow but steady growth of unemployment over the last year or so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

I noted your comment that you have read widely on this field. I am working on a rewrite of the article, and I am wondering - if you have the time and interest - if you can help on one specific issue that has me stumped.

All the sources I have consulted agree that the initial reparation figure was established at 132 billion marks divided into a series of three bonds (A, B, and C), with the C bonds basically being written off. The following source notes that the Dawes Plan essentially ignored the whole issue (link) and by the time all the sources get to the Young Plan, they have dropped the subject of the bonds and establish that the plan lowered reps to 112 billion.

I have a feeling that, when I eventually nominate the article for GA and eventually FA, that this will stand out like a sore thumb and be brought up. Thus far, I have not been able to find anything that explains how the A, B, and C Bonds relate to the Young Plan or if they were dropped and replaced by the plan (which, it would seem, in fact make it an increase over the original payment plan rather than a decrease). During your studies, have you come across anything that could shed light on this?

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with the details of the reparations arrangements: what I've read has mainly been around the negotiations at the end of the war and the results of the reparations in the 1920s and 30s. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no probs. :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted two editors busily removing content I wrote in 2007, alleging a copy violation with a paper written in 2008. Eg [1] and [2] am I currently muzzled from pointing this out? It seems that part of that paper may have used material I originally wrote on Wikipedia not the other way round.Wee Curry Monster talk 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The material in question seems to be the second paragraph, which isn't in "your" November 2007 wording. Did you add this at a later stage? I agree that the first paragraph looks OK (@Diannaa: you might want to look in on this conversation). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wee Curry Monster: Sorry for not noticing this conversation earlier; I never received the expected notification. The copyright content that was removed was added in 2012 with this edit. A small amount of this material ("Jewett had earlier crossed the line between privateer and pirate after taking the Portuguese ship Carlota as a prize") was actually present in our article in 2007 like you say, and did not have to be removed. Sorry for the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 February 2014.

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I liked your move like this, - one link goes to "awesomely weird", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the 28th: a blue duck attacks the German Main page, right now, - a homage, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied on my page. Cheers, Cobatfor (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D,

I don't understand this, but it looks like some weird find-replace event happened when you made this edit to World War II, as you can see from the diff. I've fixed it, but thought I should let you know in case you've got some kind of virus or malicious script or whatever.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, Thanks a lot for catching and fixing that. It was the fault of this Google Chrome extension I installed yesterday which is meant to tone down click bait headlines on websites - clearly it's much too enthusiastic! I've just uninstalled it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, lucky that got caught before it did any more damage! Would've been great if it changed "Scientific Reasons" in someone else's talk page comment to "Vaguely Science-y Reasons". Neat idea though. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had high hopes for the extension, but it's clearly not Wikipedia-compliant ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you look over User:Wee Curry Monster/sandbox and comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks generally good to me, and volunteering for a 1RR restriction is a good idea. However, I'd suggest that the statement should cover the editing you intend to do if the ban were lifted: I'd suggest that you start small and in uncontroversial areas. It would also be best to not use the word "appeal" as you're actually asking for the ban to be lifted rather than nullified, and to give some examples of your recent editing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, would you like to look over it again? BTW saw you'd edited the Warrior article, if you want to know anything let me know (I used to command one). Wee Curry Monster talk 10:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the link to the photo you removed was the WRAP2 UOR fit for Op Telic, the latest configuration for Op Herrick is very different. I think the WRAP2 fit has been removed from service. It certainly isn't the latest fit as claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That statement looks good: I've just replaced an instance of "appeal", but please feel free to change it back if you prefer. Re: Warrior, I had a look at that article via your editing history, and in my experience statements referenced to random photos are generally wrong. There seems to be rapid movement in how AFVs are configured at the moment, which is quite interesting. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main driving force has been what is known in the UK as Urgent Operational Requirements. The advantage of a UOR is that is can be rapidly introduced into service with the full qualification process being followed; typically less than a year. Warriors have seen a range of armoured fits based on the original system for mounting Chobham armour developed for Gulf War 1. Its a mixed blessing, the original fit was developed in 3 months and has its flaws but its soldiered on for nearly 15 years in various forms. The WCSP upgrade should fix some of those problems as its intended to have a modular armour fit built in. What a lot of people don't realise about UOR, is because they don't go through the qualification process they often don't get included in what is referred to as the core fit for the vehicle. When they get back the kit is stripped off and thrown away. In addition, because of the rush the kit often has flaws, for example it won't survive the full temperature range that the vehicle is intended to operate in or it uses commercial components that don't stand up well to the rigours of service life. The UOR air conditioning on Warrior for example is notorious for breaking down. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launched it at WP:AN, wondered if as mentor you could make a neutral comment if you think appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I received this surreal edit conflict for my trouble ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, there is now a fairly surreal personal attack in the WP:AN thread against you. You may find this diff of relevance [3] from [4]. You might recognise one of the editors who is following. I take it, from previous experience, it is best to simply ignore this from my perspective? Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I found what I think is a good secondary usage for this image. See what you think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you just reverted the changes I made. I removed the insignia images you had an issue with. Also, there were text changes ranging form grammar corrections, to adding a paragraph on NAZI war crimes in Poland, and a mention of the 1932 German Election. These changes are not radical. So, I ask that you revert to the compromise edit, I just posted.

Please explain why you object to the latest compromise edit? --Factor01 (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done so on the talk page. Given that the WW2 article is among Wikipedia's highest-profile, it's not sensible to make significant changes without agreement on the content through talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that the new image captions are shorter, and more to the point on the previous edit. Also, grammar and wording was changed in some paragraphs to be more clear. Please do not blindly revert back, and take time to review the changes! I think the compromise version is legitimate and includes your earlier recommendations. --Factor01 (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Factor01: Please discuss your changes first! This is a ridiculously high profile article, and can't sensibly be maintained and improved through "hot" editing as you propose. Please make a case for your changes on the talk page so that other editors can consider them, per the norms of working on this article. There's lots of scope to improve the article, but back-and-fro editing isn't sensible in this context. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review now; I removed the 1932 election note. But, I did keep the Poland atrocities paragraph, and kept the new shorter image descriptions, and grammar corrections. Please review not just revert. --Factor01 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you justify the material you want to add as requested on the talk page You haven't even bothered to provide citations! Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just added an explanation on the WW II Talk page. --Factor01 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk page comment. --Factor01 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so where can I submit the material for review once I have the references? --Factor01 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please post it (including the references) on the article's talk page and ask for feedback. There are many examples of previous such discussions in the archives for the talk page which may be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, the new text, images, and reference are posted on the WWII talk page. Please review. --Factor01 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to raise a significant issue regarding the WWII article. Please, I hope you get it… I hope you really get it.

The sad reality is that the much visited WWII article sucks, and you are the main administrator of it. It's not simply my opinion, look at the reader feed back that's only at 57% approval rating, for an article regarding one of the most important events in human history. Lets look at some of the comments:

*96.49.155.27 I 1 year ago | Details | This article doesn't tell the harrasing the Japenese have done to the Chinese! It is largely in the Japanese's favour! So Biased!

*71.31.122.130 | 1 year ago | Details | How, why, where, who started it; make it more clear for people to read easier.

*101.172.255.233 | 6 months ago | Details | it needs more pictures

*98.200.49.217 | 1 year ago | Details | this article needs a real timeline

*71.101.43.139 | 7 months ago | Details | more pictures :)

*67.252.155.76 | 8 months ago | Details | This page needs more about the soldier's who fought in the war.

*81.153.90.55 | 11 months ago | Details | things about women and children during the war

*174.75.126.227 | 1 year ago | Details | Who are the Big Four?

*68.119.136.115 | 1 year ago | Details | talk about how the children of the war were affected

*182.68.158.51 | 1 year ago | Details Role of India in WW2

*86.141.217.60 | 11 months ago | Details | More pictures/diagrams needed for occupation section.

So, when I added photos of various, military insignia, troops and wrote insightful photo captions to help and illustrate the events better; you show up and complain! Yet, clearly the readers feel that things are really lacking in this article. Well, it's on you MATE… wake up. You are the big boss in charge, that's screwing it up. --Factor01 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the old complaints are not very useful. I think Nick-D is doing a fine job here. However, I fear that Factor01 is so new here that he misunderstands the article and the proper role of editors. Please keep in mind that the article was largely written years ago and that since 2009 editors have been doing minor improvements. Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be new, but I have a valid point. All anyone has to do, is compare the WWI article with WWII; to notice that this text is stunted in depth (only crudely listing the order of military engagements), and failing to catch the readers attention by showing the reality and consequences of this conflict. The article is so dry and one dimensional (as one reader comment points out), you lose perspective on who were the aggressors. But, that's just what some people might want; to blur the perspective of what really happened and turn WWII victims and aggressors into an indistinguishable mess.By the way, those "old" reader comments still have not been addressed. --Factor01 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the old complaints are poorly founded. there is no pro-Japanese bias. Women and children, and India, are all very well covered in companion articles. Likewise the issue of who started the war. Pictures do pose a problem because of copyright issues. Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the "big boss in charge of the article", and if you're so clueless about how Wikipedia works or the history of the WW2 article you really should stop trying to take the moral high ground. If you have concrete proposals to improve the article, please start discussions of them on the article's talk page rather than grandstand like you're doing here. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)As noted, nobody owns or "bosses" any page. Secondly, 'Reader Feedback' is...extremely unuseful because, as noted, most of those comments are from those who would prefer to have the article slanted to a particular point of view. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick-D, please review the revised photo submissions on the talk page. They include an image of the Enigma machine for the Advances in technology and warfare (mentioned multiple times in the text), and an image of the civilians during the Battle of Leningrad, to replace the Soviet POWs photo in the Axis attack on the USSR (1941) section; in this case I think the image is a better choose highlighting the plight of the civilians during actual combat, without being too graphic. --Factor01 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki kitten wants to commend you on getting Operation Kita to the front page. Salute!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military History A-Class Medal with Swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Swords for your work on No. 38 Squadron RAAF, Operation Tungsten, and Operation Mascot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gday i am just composing now - sending soon satusuro 08:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I've just added a few bits to the Operation Tungsten article, regarding the Norwegian contribution to the operation. Manxruler (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot - that's really interesting material. I had noticed that none of the sources identified any civilian casualties, and it's good to have confirmation that there were none. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the bombing was quite precise. Good job on the article, looking forward to seeing more in the future. I'll have a look at Mascot etc., and see if there is anything worthwhile I can add from the Norwegian perspective of things. Manxruler (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I should get round to doing an article on the Operation Goodwood attacks in August 1944 sometime soon. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for swapping out that TF Ranger pic - was on my lsit of things to do. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The "new" photo isn't wonderful, but it's the best of the uninspiring bunch available through Commons Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, was wondering when you might be able to head back to the AWM for another look-see at that unpublished monograph on wartime RAAF units. In particular I was after the disbandment date for Care & Maintenance Unit (CMU) Benalla, the former No. 11 EFTS. Units states that it disposed of all its aircraft in October 1948 but doesn't give an actual dissolution date -- I figure that must've been very soon after but nice to confirm if possible... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it probably won't be for a week or two. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

This article was recently (speedily) deleted. I was wondering if I could get the original content of the page. Please note that I am not asking you to undelete it - yet.

Some background. I added this page for my dad (who is now 87) with the claim that DLP was the first Indian pilot. I explained the Wikipedia rules (as I understood them) to him, and he collected the references needed to push it from being a stub. It was originally proposed for deletion because supporters of the official Indian history claimed that there was no evidence that such a person ever existed. I was able to verify that there was evidence of DLP's existence, and that he was given an award for service in the RAF. I dont think DLP is family, although the last name is the same.

I note also that my original Wikipedia userid (niketkp) has gone into some kind of limbo status, and I am not able to log in to it, although a talk page for it still exists.

Niket Patwardhan wikipedia@niket.net

97.182.190.154 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dang! After I put this in, my userid came back alive.

Niketkp (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't have the content of a blatant hoax you recreated after it was initially deleted in 2007 so that you can recreate it again. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review Talk:Falkland Islands#Notes section, Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Things need to be sourced, content has to neutrally describe the conflict without dismissing one side over the other. and Talk:David Jewett#November 6th?

Couple of questions.

1. Am I being over sensitive as it appears to me my edits are being singled out for extra scrutiny and it seems to criticise by speculation?
2. Am I repeating any of the mistakes I made in the past? I'm trying to limit my replies and to ignore obvious baiting.

Just for info, I've started work on Juan Pinedo and was wondering if you were aware of anyone in Milhist familiar with the Argentine civil wars in the 19th Century and the Argentine-Brazil War. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: The Jewett discussion looks fine, but I think that you're being overly defensive (and, as a result, a bit prickly) in the other discussions. I don't think that your posts and edits are being given greater scrutiny, though you should obviously expect some of this for the next little while given that you're coming off a topic ban. I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are an administrator. Can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfy. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre". Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014‎

Hello, As the talk page discussion appears to have descended into an exchange of abusive posts there doesn't seem much prospect for a vote (and no other editors appear to have agreed to your suggestion that this is a good way forward). I'd suggest making use of the dispute resolution process by asking for uninvolved editors to join the discussion through neutrally-worded posts on relevant discussion pages. Regards Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK,I will strike some of my words which does not obey the rule of wiki. I apologize for my rude words.I am very sorry for that. By the way,I still worried about another thing. Kamakatsu claim he is not Banzaiblitz. Now Kamakatsu was proved as another ID (sock puppet) of Banzaiblitz and we know Banzaiblitz has multiple ID. It means someone can register a new ID to act another editor. I think it may be a problem to make discussion more complicated Miracle dream (talk)

If you're concerned that someone is using multiple accounts, please report this at WP:SPI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

Hi, I noticed that you removed "headings" in the AfD where we're participating, and that's ok with me. What I tried to do is put 2 lines to visually divide the discussion from the rest of the text (e.g.: the notes). Do you know if it's possible to draw a "line" in the way I intended? If so an you please explain me how-to? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You can add lines by adding four or more dashes. For instance:

However, this kind of mark-up isn't really very useful in AfDs: simply posting Question (or similar) at the start of your post will have the desired effect. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the tips. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Latest work. I translated the es.wikipedia article into English and expanded the Falklands Section with my own references, I've also had help from an old wiki-buddy User:DagosNavy. I've never translated an article before and am slightly concerned that though well sourced the es.wikipedia article lacks inline citations. I've managed to confirm some of the material but am concerned there are still gaps. Any ideas of where to ask for help on some of the Spanish language sources, in the UK they're not easy to find. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure to be honest - I'm pretty much monolingual. The folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain might be able to help. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Nick - any plans to incorporate User:Nick-D/Drafts3 into Tanks in the Australian Army which has recently been created? Think what you have there looks like it would be an improvement. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's on my to-do list for the weekend :) Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat