Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:18, 15 July 2011

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)

Awards people have given me

Potential issue

Nick, a potential problem that may call for administrator intervention -- it looks like user "The way is was" may have a sockpuppet called "Regnbågen2". At any rate, these two accounts introduced exactly the same material into 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen and 42nd Infantry Division (United States) within about one-half hour of each other.
The material introduced are tendentious assertions that troops of the 17th SS Division were massacred by U.S. troops near Nuremberg in 1945. There are a couple of problems with the assertions; one is that they are simply printed in two books by authors who specialize in publications about the SS (Munoz and Williamson) without any sources or corroboration by other authors; the other is that the material posted into the two Misplaced Pages articles is a direct lift from Munoz's book. Tendentious material or not, this is a copyright violation. I also suspect that deliberate or erroneous readings of the war history may be confusing this purported event with an actual massacre of SS camp guards at Dachau in 1945, but since the sourcing of these allegations is so poor in the Munoz/Williamson books, it is hard to be sure.
I've reverted the edits but I am wary that a revert war could occur as a result.
Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Update -- reverted today by another user whose sole edits are his reversion of my removing the copyrighted and tendentious material yesterday in the two articles mentioned above. I reverted back to the "pre-tendentious version", but expect this may happen again. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've blocked all three accounts. On the basis of their contributions, it appears that they're all The way is was (talk · contribs), who I've tagged as being the sockmaster. Let me know if this guy pops up again. As a friendly tip, when reporting editors to admins, if you use the {{user}} template it makes the admin's life a little bit easier as they can immediately see the contributions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for looking at this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pacific War

For the question about commander in article "Pacific War," I don't know what page I should discuss on. My opinion is Sun Liren is just a major general but in that article he is the major commander and leader. Xue Yue and Peng dehuai which I added are the captain general and joined many battle so I think they are more important than Sun. If the major commander must be in Burma theater, I think the captain general Wei Lihuang is more important. By 210.53.1.98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.53.1.98 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pacific War would be the best place for this. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper

Nick-D, thank you for your good suggestions on Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. I may have a conflict; I recently discovered I met Captain Heide at a Summer Camp in 1979. I have not had any contact with her for over 30 years, but have email contact with her now and this may put me too close to the subject - I do not feel comfortable working on her page now. However, I have no problem searching for links to use for citation. I have place a number of them on her Talk Page. Perhaps you could look them over and work on her page? Thank you. Gamweb (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that I don't have enough background on the US space program to be able to make particularly sensible edits on this article. The people who participate in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spaceflight might be able to help. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Attack on Yokosuka

On 4 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Attack on Yokosuka, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the main target of the 1945 attack on Yokosuka was the battleship Nagato, the flagship of the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941? 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Buckles

Please see here, and thanks for your several helpful comments at the FAN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Women's National Emergency Legion

On 5 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Women's National Emergency Legion, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that members of the Brisbane-based Women's National Emergency Legion served as drivers for United States military units in Australia during World War II? 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unusual editing

A set of unusual edits from a well-respected editor has got me worried. Can you look into: this? Bzuk (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Hi Bzuk, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with Ken's editing pattern so I can't make a call on this. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

NW Pakistan War

It isn't vandalism, watch the news. Ever see the WikiLeaks cables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.146.106 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Flag Society of Australia

Less than 2 weeks ago you deleted Flag Society of Australia as G5, it is now back again created by a new user, as I don't know what the issue was first time around can you look at it again to make sure the same issues don't exist with this version. Mtking (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The article is being repeatedly recreated by a blocked editor (who's also been making legal threats). I've blocked the account and deleted the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Mtking (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rawlinson

Hi mate, I did see your challenge on that squadron edit a few days ago... ;-) While I have plenty on his WWII career, unfortunately I still don't think I there's enough reliable info on his post-war career for even a B-Class article, never mind the GA-level I usually aim at with bios these days. I'm going to try and find an obit in the Mitchell Library and also see if one or two of our British brethren have access to anything. Maybe you can find something in Canberra that would help, since he seems to have returned to Oz after leaving the RAF in '61. What I have at this stage is here -- aside from the sparceness of the data, only the Gazette and Flight are through-and-through reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to the above, there's a book called Fire across the desert: Woomera and the Anglo-Australian Joint Project I saw on GoogleBooks that has a snippet or two and which I can check at the Mitchell, but this seems to refer to a mid-50s posting (still very useful), not his post-RAF experience there in the 60s. There's a digitised file at NAA but this only goes up to his termination from the RAAF after the war -- you should have a quick look though at pp.28-30, as the assessing officer for his performance review is a name you might recognise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ian - I'll see what I can dig up. I'm considering putting the No. 79 Sqn article up for a FAC (though this might need to wait until I've got more spare time), so would like to turn that red link into a blue link. His WW2 career is mentioned in a few different Osprey books - I own the Spitfire Aces in the Pacific one (and very good it is too) and ADFA might have some of the others. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I think I have access to all the relevant Osprey books -- those plus the digitised file and two books on Australian aces gives me all I need for his life up to the end of WWII, it’s just after we could use more. If I get desperate I may order an mp3 of the interview with him that the NLA holds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, I think you should take 79SQN further than GA; considering the number of stops and starts the squadron's had, it's quite a comprehensive article. One thing, how wed are you to the Hawk picture in the infobox? I'm just thinking the symbolism of the phoenix makes the unit crest quite compelling there. If you want to use it and can't locate a clean copy, let me know and I can probably finesse the version on the RAAF Museum page to get a vanilla background. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all attached to it - it could easily be moved to the 'Current status' section (replacing the rather dull photo there). Could you please add the crest? - I agree that it's rather apt. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Two heads are better than one

• Hey Nick, sorry to trouble you again but could you please come over to my discussion page for a bit. Best. --Dave 07:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

QE Carriers

Hi Nick, I noticed your revert at Future of the Royal Navy and just to note that I left a little note on the IP's talkpage. (As it happens it is registered to NATO but hey). There was a small discussion at Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier#Prince of Wales Renamed a week ago. It sounds feasible but we are going to have wait until any official statement before it goes in an article. As you stated it's all speculative at the moment. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that background. The story which was being quoted as a reference was rather contradictory (it started by saying that Prince Charles had been approached and had agreed to this and concluded by saying that this couldn't actually be confirmed...). I agree that it's feasible, but the sourcing to support including it sure isn't there yet. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Enidblyton11

I've revoked his talkpage access at User:Jarrodaus11copy and User:Jarrodaus11 as well, directing him to post any unblock requests at User talk:Enidblyton11.  -- Lear's Fool 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The editing of User talk:Enidblyton11 is entertaining - no-one will suspect that they've sanitised their talk page! (it's not like admins check block rationales, page histories, contribution histories or anything like that...) Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Theres nothing to discuss. Very few surface battles occurred between US and German forces during the war, especially in 1942 and right off the American coast, the Diamond Shoals action was one of them and I felt and still feel is is a notable event. You can delete it if you want but theres a good chance I will just recreate the page as it is one of the more direct engagements in the North American Theater, a topic which I have worked on for a long time. There are many articles on wiki for engagements that were significantly less climactic as the Diamond Shoals action. I am not saying it was a great or major battle but if the Battle of Point Judith has an article, so should this.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The article looks great, as long as the information is somwhere I suppose it is just fine. I would of created an article like that but I wanted to use a military conflict box for the battle info but it still works. Thanks for the help in this project.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Qingprof

Thanks for bringing that discussion into my attention. I have replied at WP:ANI#Why am I accused of Vandalism?. It appears to be a textbook example of WP:BOOMERANG OhanaUnited 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Raising complaints of non-response at a central noticeboard within minutes of posting on the editor's talk page is always a sign of a disruptive editor, especially when they keep banging on about it while loudly proclaiming the excellence of their contributions. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

82 Wing

Hi mate, after a protracted investgation and writing effort (due to the priority of home renovations) I think I'm about done updating this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Your alignment with vanda/indef blocked editor

Hi Nick. The single editor you refer to was a flagrant vandal. He cut out an article in its near entirety, as it was at DYK -- uniquely disruptive editing. He was reverted for vandalism, and has been blocked indefinitely, as well he should. He is certainly not an editor in good standing. If you have views as to the article, I will be happy to discuss them at the article's talk page, but the article is of FA/GA level, IMHO, robustly referenced, and not at all as you characterize it. I'm about to go into a meeting, but will look at your edits later. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The indef block was lifted by another admin (with myself and several other admins agreeing) as it's clear that the (new) editor - while mistaken in their approach - was editing in good faith. I don't think that the article is anywhere near GA status, much less FA. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zoo City

On 21 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zoo City, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lauren Beukes wore a fake sloth draped over her shoulders to the ceremony in which she won the 2011 Arthur C. Clarke Award for her novel Zoo City? 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.

List of programs broadcast by Fox and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids

I've just marked this ANI thread as being resolved, as there seems to be no need for any admin intervention and dispute resolution should be used. I would very strongly encourage you to tone down your comments - comments such as these and these are needlessly uncivil and don't contribute to resolving the disagreement. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't done that, Nick. WP:MERGE states, "In more unclear, controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." You moved the request from WP:AN to WP:AN/I and then marked it as resolved. I was attempting to seek consensus by doing what is advised at WP:MERGE. Moving a request made at the right forum to the wrong one, then marking it as resolved, certainly will not solve the dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, not sure what you found uncivil about either of those comments. We base edits on reliable sources, not JPG-GR's memory. Yes, that is really what he's basing his edits on, as his comments show. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Firsfron, Given that there wasn't either a consensus to merge (one editor proposing the merge, one editor disagreeing with the merge and no evidence of any attempts to seek wider input) or evidence that the results of the discussion were either unclear or controversial (beyond you and JPG-GR trading rude comments), I really don't see any need for admin involvement. This is basically a content dispute, and you need to seek wider input. If you like I can close the discussion on the article talk page as 'no consensus', but I don't think that that's the best option. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You advice on the proposed merger is appreciated, and will most certainly be followed. However, I would again ask that you not move discussions from WP:AN to WP:AN/I and then mark them as resolved. WP:MERGE encourages users to "request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." Misplaced Pages:Consensus states that "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus", and one of our most valued policies is sticking to reliable sources. JPG-GR's memory, which he wants to use in place of reliable sources, cannot override that policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI seemed the appropriate place to handle things as this seemed, to me at least, to be a specific article and editor content issue rather than a generic issue requiring admin input (as there was clearly no consensus on article's talk page and the discussion had grown heated). If you really think that admin intervention is still needed here I have no problem with you removing or striking the 'resolved' tag, though I really do suggest that you take some time out from the discussion and seek other editors' input. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I greatly appreciate your so thoughtfully addressing my questions and, especially, your taking the time to improve the article. Moonriddengirl 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of the project, of course, but I take it as a personal kindness. Thank you so much. :) If you want me to reciprocate, just name your (no sports, no computers) article. :D (I will tell our correspondent how things have gone.) --Moonriddengirl 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all. There's no need to reciprocate, but if you do have some spare time in the next few weeks I'd appreciate it if another editor could read over No. 79 Squadron RAAF and give it a copy edit as I'm considering nominating it for FA status in a month or so. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

On my list. :) --12:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I request you get involved as a third party in this ANI

Arilang1234 having a go at his POV pushing on the boxer rebellion article, claiming the content in the article is from "chinese high school text book", when not a single chinese or communist source was used in the article.

look at the section now- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Lead_section

report I made on his edits- he tries to link the black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war to anti imperialism on the boxer rebellion= User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/Report ANI

marxists, black panthers and vietnam protestors have something to do with anti imperialism in the boxer rebellion according to arilang

since benlisquare mentioned australia also includes anti imperialism in its textbooks, arilang1234 goes on to claim it must be because australia is a "socialist" country

Now he thinks dropping off conspiracy theories about high school text books, australia, marxists, black panthers, and vietnam on the boxer rebellion article and filing an ANI report after he was criticized for doing so is acceptable

Arilang1234 attempting wikilawyering and making threats when he was caught trolling

After his trolling on the Boxer rebellion talk page, Arilang1234 proceeded to file this ANI report complaining about me after I criticized him for his attempt at linking marxists, black panthers, and vietnam war to the Boxer rebels...ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And he titled the ANI thread "racist", and proceeded to provide not one single piece of evidence that I said anything racist at all. One also has to wonder what the "cold war" he inserted into the title has to do with anything other than to grab attention.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that admins are already involved in the ANI report, which has turned into a massive case of TLDR. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

then can you confirm this

besides the fact that Arilang1234's whole complaint it tenuous (such as calling me racist when he couldn't provide evidence of a single racist comment), Arilang1234 lodged two false accusations directly against me, see this User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ.False Accusations. They've crossed the border into outright lying. Arilang1234 deliberately showed past revisions of the talk page rather than the current one, in order to claim/lie that I did not respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. I need other users to confirm that he deliberately lied with malicious intent.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking User Rohan11eleven for Spam. I would normally report through AIV (and have done on quite a few occasions) but just thought this needed to be looked at first. Vrenator (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your kind words of support during and after the review, it is easy to get disheartened. Thankfully after commiing into contact with one or two horrid individuals that frequent the FAC section, I can say that the reviewers on this MilHis A-class review were far more encouraging and civil! I've just came across Air raids on Japan, do you think it is ready for a GAN? It is a big article, but it appears to be in good shape. As you are a major contributor, it seems respectable to ask you on your opinion. Kyteto (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that it was an OK experience - a key difference with FACs is that most A class reviewers also regularly nominate 'their' articles for review. In regards to the Air Raids on Japan article; I think that the content is there, but it needs a copy edit - which I'm (slowly!) doing at the moment. My plan is to get it to at least A class standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you help?

There seems to be an newcomer with IP contribution that indicated very important information in an article you were involved with once, as I am really busy these days perhaps you would be willing to help him? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather busy as well I'm afraid. And why are you assuming it's a him? Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will look at it later then; I assumed its him because posts seem similar.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Animal Justice Party

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted the Animal Justice Party page? Thanks144.136.101.238 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you created it in violation of your block. Thanks for alerting me to your latest block evasion. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mormography

Hi. Just to let you know I've lifted the block on User:Mormography, after reading your comments on the user's Talk page. I do understand your misgivings, so I'll keep an eye on their contributions for a while - let's hope the good faith is well placed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I agree with your reasoning. I'll leave their talk page watchlisted and hopefully the editor will work out OK. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Query

I asked for a sanity check from User:Dave1185 hereon a dispute that seems to have broken out on Falkland Islands History. Warning: Long Tendentious argument with many rabbit holes before arriving at the point. Dave suggested that I bring this up with you. The accusations are that the text is failing NPOV and TBH I just don't see it. Another check on my sanity would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I knew and noted that he is sane but his opponents might not be. --Dave 09:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Given that this is the subject of an arbitration request (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case) it's out of my hands as an admin at present. Moreover, this appears to be reasonably polite (if lengthy) content dispute which is being limited to discussion on the talk page, so I don't see a need for admin action. Taking my admin hat off, I don't know much about the pre-1982 history of the Falkland Islands, so I'm not well placed to comment. I'd suggest opening a RfC and/or posting on relevant Wikiprojects talk pages to ask for uninvolved editors to comment. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention on the Friendly Fire article. One of the problems with that guy was he developed a tactic of mixing legitimate edits with wikifiddling and other disruptive edits. I was getting bogged down in separating wheat from chaff. I have no problem with the edits you made. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries - there are a steady stream of oppressive editors like that on articles about current wars. They're obsessed with including all news reports and key developments concerning whatever the topic is in the article, and edit war when other editors point out mistakes or try to summarise things. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yo Nick~! While you are at it, could you take a look over at Republic of Singapore Air Force? It's the school holidays and the kids are out with their mom over at the in-laws' house, finally some quiet time for me to de-weed the article. Buzz me on my talk page when you're done, alright? Thanks and best. --Dave 16:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC

Apologies but I now have User:Hudicourt on the Civilian Casualties in the Afghan War coming after me. Could you please sanity check my reply. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• WCM, get out of there while you still can, that article is a friggin' tickin' timebomb~! One hell of a minefield for even the most experienced Admin to step into, as far as I can tell. Best. --Dave 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Communicat

This is clearly them being just as congenial and accurate as always. What is the appropriate place to report them? Edward321 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE is the best location. This is a clear violation of both editing sanctions placed on him. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lodged a request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know what to do if the problem recurs. Edward321 (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries - could you please post there to confirm that you think that this IP is Communicat? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Was having problems with my IP over the weekend, or I would have. Will do if there's a repeat of this. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

As you participated in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, and for asking for a review of your closure of this MfD - I hope that I'm as courteous when other editors question my actions as an admin. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting correct edits because one has issues with the indentity of an editor

I'm sorry, but when someone reverted my good edits and justified it by telling me that ANOTHER editor was a sock puppet, I found it hard to swallow........ This guy took his witch hunt too far and I had to make him understand...... Hudicourt (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Long Range Flight RAAF

On 8 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Long Range Flight RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 1 Long Range Flight was formed to compete in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race? 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.

Help Expanding the Fourth Army (United Kingdom Article)

I've found information relating to the first appearance of the fictional Fourth British Army as part of operation Cockade which gives me the first look into the original fictional Order of Battle unfortunately it is clearly incomplete listing only three divisions (3rd British Infantry, 3rd Canadian Infantry, 52nd British Infantry), Howard indicates that at least five divisions formed part of the original Fourth Army OOB, but does not name them. My access to sources is limited and any assistance would be greatly appreciated.Graham1973 (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham, The only source I'd have on this is Howard's Strategic Deception in the Second World War, so if it doesn't provide further details I'm afraid I'm not going to be of much assistance. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah well. Going through my books again I found that one of the two missing divisions was the US 55th Infantry Division. Cockade was a very different operation. Most of the units used were actual units with their status misrepresented.Graham1973 (talk)

Enidblyton11

Just out of interest, are you receiving e-mails from him too?  -- Lear's Fool 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not - should I feel left out? ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hahaha... my anti-virus caught his shite! *phew* --Dave 00:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like I spoke too soon... No it didn't, my primary puter is down. Think I better disable my email feature for the time being. --Dave 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder

• Mate, I need you to provide a sanity check here → Talk:CAC / PAC JF-17 Thunder#Airshow appearances. Thanks. --Dave 00:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one. It looks like things are well under control now. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• No worries but the problem now is... my primary puter is down (the big blue screen of death!), could be due to the malicious file my anti-virus caught earlier on. --Dave 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block evasion

Paulio is back using IPs for block evasion. Would you mind taking a look. I've reverted some changes as unsourced. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And now canvassing Hudicourt Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - as they keep coming back under that IP and no-one else seems to be using it, I've blocked it for a year (the maximum duration for IP blocks). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Juno

Hey, Nick, I think I've addressed/fixed all of your comments on the article Juno Beach. Can you check back in to take a look? Cam 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I replied

See Talk:NATO#Gates comments regarding NATO. Thanks. 67.101.7.143 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob Gould

Hi Nick-D. Thanks for the compliment. I met Bob a few times when visiting his store. He could be a gruff old bugger, but he certainly had an interesting life. Cheers, WWGB (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Racing dreadnoughts

Hey ol' buddy, I replied to your comments at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/South American dreadnought race. Could you check back at your convenience? Thanks! Ed  06:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. You should come visit me in winter sometime – I'll show you what real snow is. ;-) Ed  07:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We only ended up with snow on the nearby mountains and a few flakes in the city. That's just a bit different to what you get ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Defence_Reserves

Good evening - I am the editor of the above mentioned page and am also the webmaster for the www.defencereserves.com. I would like it reinstated, I am the Director of Communication, Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division, Department of Defence, Australia Thank you deannanott

Hello deannanott, As the material was taken from a copyright protected website, it isn't possible to reinstate it. Misplaced Pages operates on the basis of Creative Commons licences, which aren't at all compatible with the copyright status of Australian Department of Defence websites (please see WP:COPYRIGHT and Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for information on these topics). The article could be recreated using original material, but only if this organisation passes the relevant 'notability' criteria - these are explained at WP:ORG but basically boil down to the availability of references on the organisation which are completely independent of it. As you obviously have a relationship with this topic, it would be best if you didn't work on the article, though you could draft it and then list it for review and then creation by another editor using the Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation process. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Blockade of Germany WW2

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read and consider the article of the blockade of Germany in WW2. I have no doubt that in marking it as ‘original research’ you have acted in good faith to maintain Misplaced Pages’s integrity which we all strive for and admire; however I think this broadbrush approach is a little unhelpful. It would be much better if you were to point to specific passages which might be looked at, perhaps reworded or have different sources applied. I take your point that there is potential for bias and propaganda within some of these news reports, however, the blockade is a fairly ‘dry’ subject and I don’t agree that there are many post war secondary books on the subject - any books available only address certain elements and not the blockade in its entirety. Most other Misplaced Pages articles on the Battle of the Atlantic, convoys, U Boat campaign etc did not mention the blockade at all, (at least until I changed them!) merely concentrating on the military aspects of the conflict. I spent several months researching and writing this article, but my intention was merely to provide a starting point which will obviously change and improve greatly over time. It already has. Just because there is propaganda present within these publications, does not automatically render them valueless.

Regarding the War Illustrated, it’s true that there is bias in the editorial comment, but it is not difficult to distinguish opinion from the hard information which may also be gleaned from these sources as they often reprint speeches and official bulletins from ministries and government. They also reproduce comment from the other side which is valid and part of history, and useful in demonstrating a neutral point of view. In some cases, this propaganda has itself passed into the historical context, but above all, these publications were written in the first hand. We should remember that these contemporary writers wrote days or hours after the event, and did at least witness and experience the events they were describing, TIME / LIFE did seek to maintain a firm editorial control and were primarily overseas news review publications, not a mouthpiece of the Ministry of Information. No doubt the 12 published volumes on the war which were produced by Churchill in the late forties would be considered good sources, however they tell it from his own perspective and gloss over his failures. The surviving French politicians in particular bitterly rejected his version of events, and repudiated it in their own journals.

As we know, Misplaced Pages is mainly concerned with the use of sources where it is likely that some editorial control has been exercised. For this reason most internet articles are not considered good sources, unless official, such as government sponsored. Can you please clarify what is the problem with sources from US / UK National Archives? These often record minutes of meetings and debates verbatim and their validity surely cannot be disputed. I am well versed of the norms of academic research etiquette which Misplaced Pages seeks to maintain, however my personal view is that many of the books currently being circulated are merely a re-hash of pre-published content. This is especially the case with recent works, such as the award wining Wartime (Juliet Gardiner 2004) which lists no less than 652 previously published books in its bibliography, and the best selling D-Day by Antony Beavor used a similarly high number, although I cannot be bothered to count them. How can someone writing so long after the time, re-interpreting contemporary material hope to avoid adding their own slant? Just because a book has been published does not make it a reliable source. For example, the Fontana History of England, which runs over several volumes is chronically biased, yet I doubt anyone would dream of disputing the validity if this publication were to be cited in an article

One of the Misplaced Pages core principles is that work does not have to be perfect, and any glaring inaccuracies will doubtless be quickly corrected by others – there has certainly been no shortage of people happy to read and edit this article, and in some cases supply additional sources. I myself am far from completely content with it but believe it is much better than some I have seen, and intend to add to it and change it as I find improved sources. I also hope to add some excellent photographs in my possession, if I can demonstrate that they are sufficiently in the public domain. If you could kindly point to specific areas that you are unhappy with, I would be pleased to take a look at what can be done to make it better. Please don’t say ‘the whole thing!’--Godwhale (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Godwhale, I think that the article is now looking really good - great work creating such a detailed article on this important topic. If you like I'll post a review of the article on its talk page in the next day or two. I'm rather wary about using wartime news reports due to the combination of censorship, only one side of the story generally being reported and (most importantly) the availability of postwar sources which provide a more rounded picture. The British published a two volume (and very detailed) official history of the economic blockade of Germany (basic publishing details here) which I believe is still considered the key work on this topic. Adam Tooze's recent book The Wages of Destruction also discusses the German war economy in detail, including the impact of the British blockade. Christina J. M. Goulter's book A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command’s Anti-shipping Campaign, 1940–1945 is also very useful, as it provides a critical discussion of the RAF's attacks on German coastal shipping which draws on economic data to evaluate the campaign. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for the comment and your kind words, a review would be good. I did anticipate some critisism for the use of some of these sources, and you are correct that they can be biased and give only part of the story, but apart from the Wages of Destruction I was unaware of these other sources you mention - you certainly seem to be an authority on this kind of thing. I will try to track them down and continue to add alternative sources . Thanks again--Godwhale (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you have trouble getting hold of them - I have access to all the books (via libraries) and can look stuff up for you if necessary. I'm not an expert on this topic - I've just read way too much about World War II ;) Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for the review. I think the points you make are fair; there are some areas where it perhaps drifts away from the central subject, and it would probably benefit from being shortened. I think the allied bombing is relevant however, because this was a deliberate change in policy from mere contraband control to a more offensive effort at wearing down German production. I will take a look at when I come back from holiday and try to remove the less relevant parts. Thanks for your help with this.--Godwhale (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Enquiry on deactivated Impact Pro Wrestling Australia page

I am wanting to recreate or take over the Impact Pro Wresting Australia page, however I will need your permission first before taking over or recreating the page.--Smoco01 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I speedy deleted this article as it had no references to independent reliable sources which demonstrated the notability of this organisation/competition. Do you have any detailed references on this topic which can be used to develop an article and demonstrate it is on a notable topic? - please see WP:ORG for the relevant notability requirements. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Autogenerated citations

Delta has inserted these with arbitrary numbers while at the same time deleting plain English grouped citations. While they make no difference to readers in edit mode its impossible to know to whom the arbitrary number refers. These have appeared in Battle of Jerusalem Battle of Rafa and Sinai and Palestine Campaign. I've re edited the two battles - the first taking me 5 hours and the second just under an hour - a skill I would rather not have developed! But they still remain in the campaign article. AustralianRupert suggested I contact you as an administrator in the hope you might have the tools to fix these, dare I say it 'automatically' as its not possible to simply undo, as there are intervening edits. I'd be glad of your advice, help etc. --Rskp (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I presume that you're talking about edits such as these? I'm afraid that the admin toolkit doesn't include anything that helps with fixing problems such as this. As a suggestion, you could copy and paste the article (in edit mode) into a word processing program and then use the find and replace tool to relatively quickly fix things (eg, search for 'autogenerated11' and replace it with 'Cutlack49–51' or similar). I agree that these automated changes seem to be unhelpful. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks. It does seem that, so far, delta is the only editor who has been doing these changes. Are there any ways that delta can be discouraged from this unhelpful practice? I've tried twice asking why the changes but not only was there no reply, delta cut my messages. --Rskp (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi do you have diffs for that? Delta/Betacommand has a history of such behavior and is under some pretty heavy duty editing restrictions: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. What are diffs? --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The URL to the version history of a page showing how it's changed - see WP:DIFF. I looked for exchanges between you and delta in your editing history, but couldn't find them, and the diffs to your posts and his responses would be helpful. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. I posted to his talk page, but I didn't keep a note of when they were posted. I did complain to Dana, I think, soon after my second message was cut. I'll see if I can get close to a date. --Rskp (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Hi, I left the first message on delta's talk on 23 May which was replied to. Since then my messages of 24 May, 27 May and 2 June have been ignored. The messages read -

• Autogenerated citations

On 21 March you spent considerable time going through Battle of Jerusalem and adding 'autogenerated' citations. Can you explain why you did this because from my point of view they make it very difficult to make future edits. --Rskp (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• 19% of the references where duplicates (57 out of 204) merging duplicates makes things cleaner. Feel free to rename them I just merged duplicates. ΔT The only constant 11:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• As I'm working on a re-edit of the article I will change all the autogenerated citations back to plain English. This will involve me in considerable time wasting duplication of effort which is disappointing. But it will be worth it as they will still clearly be duplicates but it will make it easier to re-edit. Please don't insert autogenerated citations in any other articles that are connected to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign as they are all works in progress and the citations need to be in plain English so others can re-edit the pages. I appreciate your cooperation in this regard. --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Autogenerated citations

The 39 autogenerated citations you edited into the Battle of Jerusalem article took over 5 hours to change back into English. Please, if you are tempted to do this to any other page on Misplaced Pages, for the sake of wiki, DO'NT. --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Autogenerated citations Battle of Jerusalem

Can you please tell me why you think its better to replace an identified source with a anonymous number? --Rskp (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC) --Rskp (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been out of town and missed this - I'll follow up on it tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

clarification

Good day, Arequest for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you were involved or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi, can I get some advice please. You may remember I came to you after User:Alex79818 opened a frivolous arbcom case against me. The guy is still following me on Talk:Falkland Islands flinging a lot of mud and bad faith accusations around. What would you suggest I do? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just warned them about their most recent comment. Given the nature of the dispute, it would be best to handle any further issues via WP:ANI, including diffs as appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Paulioetc is back, block evading again

, for evidence refer to the edits in May . Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree - that's obviously him/her and I've blocked the account - I'll leave it to you to revert their edits per WP:DENY. This is getting really tedious! Let me know if/when other socks appear and I'll block them as well. Cheers,

Thank you for both. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Now using a public WiFi network. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have moved on now. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Royal Military College, Duntroon article

Hi Nick, the 23 June 2011 Army News article titled "How RMC works" uses many of the words in our own Royal Military College, Duntroon article which I spent considerable time rewriting over the past couple of years. While I think that it is great that the Army News has deemed the work good enough to use in their own article, I'm a little concerned that someone might tag my own work as a copyvio of the Army News, when in reality it is the other way around. Is there anything I should do to ensure that this doesn't happen? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(TPS) The talk page template Template:Backwardscopy may be of use. -- saberwyn 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that in now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that saberwyn. It's ironic that Defence is very strict about its copyright conditions, yet does something like this. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Q

Hey Nick, thanks for writing the book reviews! Would you like me to run one or both of them? Ed  09:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, please include both of them. I'm going to try to do two or so per month, so it should be a regular part of the Bugle. Do you want add a short introduction to explain the appearance of the reviews? Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I'll include something about them in the "from the editors" section, but you will be able to go a bit more in-depth. Thanks again! Ed  02:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible Ed - I'll add a para (or so) explaining the reviews at the start of the page today, and will let you know when it's ready. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, done Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll try to get to the newsletter tonight or tomorrow Ed  18:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Spam

Spamming arbitrator talk pages is probably a good way to ensure that they won't be very sympathetic to your request, whatever it is. Next time, for best results, post your request and wait your turn like everybody else. Jehochman 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I posted the notification on the arbitrators' talk pages on the advice of one of the arbitrators (received via email) - so I presume (and hope!) that it's OK. Given that it's a proposal that they impose a significant sanction against an editor who is already under arbcom sanctions, the advice I received to send out notifications seems appropriate. If not - oops! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume a little good faith and not rip Nick a new one, eh? Ed  18:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently that Arb has a novel idea. It is not good to flood everybody's watchlists with the same post to every Arb. Maybe this related to the Arb mailing list being compromised, and thus unusable. Hmmm. Maybe they should set up a pulic noticeboard instead. I'm not ripping anybody a new one neither. Just trying to provide a bit of friendly advice. Jehochman 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did wish that there was a public noticeboard for something like this (though this would probably prove unworkable). Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being such an awesome Admin and that the fact that I don't think I can be one without that clam (oops! I mean calm) head of yours. Cheers~! Dave 13:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I don't think that I look much like a clam! Nick-D (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• All I can say is typo... due to the tiny keyboard I have here. How about sending some back my way? --Dave 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can WP:TROUT you, but there isn't an option to WP:CLAM instead - yet ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comminickat

These edits were made after his latest block began. Is accusing Arcom of topic banning him "in absentia" a personal attack against the members of Arbcom? Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - and ArbCom has (by necessity) the hide of an elephant, so I don't think they'd perceive it that way. The issue with that post was the blatantly false claim that the editing restrictions prohibited him from naming the areas he was banned from. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

Some editors complained that the World War II infobox used on the Manhattan Project article was too ugly and unwieldy, so I added Manhattan Project to the World War II template at the bottom of the page. No one seems to have complained. However, now it has no campaign box. I think this is probably okay. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye, that looks good to me. It's amazing that the Manhattan Project wasn't already in the World War II template! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Sorry, I know you don't know me yet, but there is a discussion concerning Arilang1234 and POV pushing at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#User:Arilang1234 and Boxer Rebellion and I mentioned previous complainants against him. I hear you're an admin who has dealt with him and may have some insight on how to handle him. Please weigh in at the dispute resolution noticeboard and help us if you can. It's tough for only one or two of us to manage... Thank you! NickDupree (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do - I'll respond there. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm maintaining a voluntary interaction ban with Arilang1234, and on editing Boxer topics, based on recommendations that we both stay out of editing the Boxer Rebellion article, (which he has not paid attention to), but he gave other users "assurances" of changing his disruptive conduct and POV pushing before, and . Both apologies/assurances were before his recent edits to the Boxer Rebellion article. on all the previous ANI threads, he assured other users that his conduct would change, and he proceeded not to change.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did note various previous assurances given in ANI reports, but given that this has now been escalated further, he or she needs an opportunity to respond to my assessment. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And per the rules on personal attacks, can a sarcastically worded apology with taunts constitute a personal attack? I am referring to him calling people's feelings "delicate" , and suggesting insults were "humor" , these are old so I'm not seeking retribution or penalties for those incidents, but I'm concerned if this type of apology laden with sarcasm/personal taunts happens in the future.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that those fairly old comments are relevant to how things currently stand. Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence watching and handling the disruptive editor, NickD. Moving forward, we have a lot of work to do excising the POV pushing edits and, even more labor intensive, merging or AfDing the slew of POV forks he has left behind (over 10!) Any assistance in this area much appreciated.

Thanks, The Other Nick D, NickDupree (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that I know next to nothing about China and it's history so I can't be of much assistance in that regards. For the Boxer Revolution and any other military-related topics you might want to ask for assistance at WT:MILHIST. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that may be of interest

Just this... (CC: Hawkeye7) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Map of Singapore

• File:Singapore map 1942.jpg / Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945)
• Hi Nick, think I might have located the map you've been looking for. Let me know, yeah? Cheers~! --Dave 06:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, but the problem with that map is all the unit boundries drawn on it - these obviously weren't relevant for 1944 and 1945, and would need to be painstakingly removed to make the map usable, which is well beyond my graphical skills! Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh well... As you can see, I've provided all the necessary annotations in the image file to help you identify the areas of interest. --Dave 07:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

my tip is to head straight to the Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Map workshop as they only do maps, have all the tools for it and the necessary experience to create a map in no time - unlike me, who was never done a map before. noclador (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Source Vagabond Systems

Hi Nick, A friend built this page and you deleted it and as they are new to Misplaced Pages, they asked me to help speak to you about it. You deleted it on the grounds of gratuitous advertising. It is a corporate page and they were fully aware of the sensitivities of pages of this nature. Such being the case they were very careful when making the page. I looked at it before you deleted it and I have to say that it looked pretty good and compared to other corporate pages I have seen.

There are hundreds of thousands of corporate pages on Misplaced Pages. While you may have had an issue with this page, they should have been given the chance to edit it to make it acceptable as opposed to it just being deleted.

Kelly97 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, As written the article was was blatant advertising for this company, and so met criterion for speedy deletion 11. If you'd like I can place a copy of the pre-deletion version of the article on your or your friend's user page so it can be re-worked, but as it stood the article was highly unsuitable for being included in Misplaced Pages proper. Please do let me know if you'd like a copy of the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick, Thanks for writing back. They would like to do whatever it takes to make the page acceptable. What about if you put the page back up and edit to make it ok and/or tell them what they have to do further to make it ok?

Best, Kelly97 (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, I'm not reposting that article in 'article space' for the reasons explained above. I'm happy to post it on a user page so it can be fixed up though. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok can you put it in the creator's user page and also document the parts that were problematic because at this point in time they aren't aware of what the problems were

Kelly97 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia triple crown

Thank you for that Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Whack a mole - Paulioetc is back with a newly registered account

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc For info. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked by Gloryhog99 (talk · contribs) :) Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Strategy/Self-assessment

I agree. I also agree with what you said at What does this project do well?, but I expect everyone will agree with that. Excellent summaries ... concise, hard-hitting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Communikat

It seems to that the proper place to report his personal attacks after his last block is at Arbitation Enforcement, not Requests for Clarification. He's provided several more examples since your last edit at RfC. Edward321 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting that way. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A new Good Article

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making German attacks on Nauru a certified "Good Article"! Your work is appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've got an active GA review underway :) Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

	And again!
	Well now you've done it. You've gone and made No. 79 Squadron RAAF a Feature Article as well! Seriously, your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell 13:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Raw

On 12 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Raw, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Air Commodore Peter Raw had joined the Royal Australian Air Force after being rejected by the Royal Australian Navy? 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.

Thanks to whoever nominated this for DYK (I couldn't see anything interesting enough in it to justify a main page appearance, but I'm glad someone else could!) Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist co-ord?

Hi, Nick, I'd like to encourage you to consider running for co-ord in the next election. I know you are probably quite busy, but if you think you might have the time, I'm sure your contribution would be greatly appreciated. I know it's a bit Jack of me, but I'm probably not going to run this time, so I'm trying to find a replacement. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have actually been considering standing again, though my participation as a coordinator would be a bit patchy at times as I'm also combining full time work and part time study. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi Nick, I see that you wanted to help me out with some aircraft articles, in light of your comment at the MilHist self-assessment page. Well, you do have access to high-quality sources regarding Soviet/Russian aircraft. The site is Ausairpower.net, and the Russian section's at Flanker. Some of the articles are authored by Carlo Kopp, taken from old Australian Aviation magazines and the like. Best of all, we can both relate to the website, provided that you're a Aussie Sp33dyphil 04:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, My barrier to helping develop articles is my near total lack of background knowledge on Soviet and Russian aircraft ;) I'd be happy to provide copy editing or reviews, but don't think that I'd be of much use in developing new material on these topics. I don't think that Carlo Kopp is a reliable source by the way - while he's been published widely, much of it is nonsense (I particularly remember the series of articles he produced for the military magazines a few years about about why potential Indian and Chinese fleets of cruise missile armed Tu-22 Backfire bombers meant that Australia needed to develop an air defence variant of the F-111 - this was nonsense on just about every level possible!). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How is that non-sense? It's totally legitimate (well, to me it is). I think Carlo's a great journalist, and I trust what he says, because it matches with the books I'm reading. Anyway, thanks for offering yourself for copy-editing. ありがとう Sp33dyphil 11:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither country had, or have, Tu-22s and Australia has a very good relationship with India and a reasonably good relationship with China anyway ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fort Pulaski

thanks for the heads up. The offending phrase is withdrawn. I noted on the Fort Pulaski discussion page,

In the article on the Battle of Fort Pulaski, it does not square to address Confederate strategic success, since as argued elsewhere, in the event of Pulaski, the fort was lost. It is only in a larger, longer view that Confederates could advance their cause, so I listed some of those developments specifically, without characerizing them. The phrase objected to is withdrawn, the citation tag removed.

I hope that is procedure. when I went on the military page link, there was nothing I could see on first look.

I've been experimenting, trying to eliminate the big white box at the beginning of aricles. It seems to be a problem with most battle boxes... Battle of Fort Pulaski has something of a new look since you last saw it ... I think this is my best solution to date ...

By the way, it was always said among the Pacific Marines in the 1960s that the once British colonials closest to ourselves were the Australians. Then came the stern lecture not to go crazy on liberty with Aussies and compete at hotel swimming pools, jumping in from ever higher stories, 'cause we both lost good Marines one weekend. You don't think that was just apocryphal, laid on thick for effect, do you? Anyway, thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thetruthnow2012

Re your message: That's fine with me. He does not get the issue and does not appear to be any closer to understanding it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)