User talk:Nick-D/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nick-D. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Baden (1915)

Nick, have your comments been satisfactorily taken-care of? They are the only thing holding up the promotion of the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're sufficiently addressed for me to not oppose the article's promotion, particularly given the shortage of sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)

Congrats on the promotion :) EyeSerene^talk 07:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, nice work! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is there a task group focusing on WW2 war crimes among the many task groups in military history and Second World War? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As suggested at WT:MILHIST, this would come within the scope of the World War II taskforce. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Henry

Just had a look at the Ken Henry page and noticed your edit. The whole thing could do with an overhaul - it is like a political battle with bits of scuttlebutt published from mainly one newspaper, and then responded to point by point. It is full of political attacks that have been disproven or fallen over that still stand in dialogue with their factual responses. The result is a page that reads like a petty Q&A framed by someone who doesn't like the bloke (I notice that that similar IPs are doing most of the edits) with a negative point, then a response one after the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaster56 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. It seems that right-learning editors are seeking to bias the article. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WW2 Casualties re Overmans

Please take a look at my new thread at talk WW2 Casualties--Woogie10w (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BlaBlaa

I've seen the earlier discussion about this editors block. I've just been looking at his edits at (and the rest of the talk page, particularly his 'blatant lie' one. I'm wondering if it's time to go deal with him again in some way, either directly or via ANI? Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but am not a suitable admin to follow up on this as my indef block of him was overturned (though all the previous blocks were upheld by several reviewing admins when they were appealed so can be used to demonstrate a pattern of not learning from previous blocks). I'd suggest that you contact Parsecboy (talk · contribs) who is keeping an eye on the situation. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in, BTW I tried ANI for this user recently but as I was new to the whole thing I guess I didn't do it very well and got massacred. Got accused of being rude and uncivil myself (and of being Nick's 'buddy')... It was kind of funny in the end, fairly typical of wiki though I fear. Had to give up as I was way too busy with real life anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor and his friend do seem to be well on the way to a blocks judging from their recent responses to warnings from admins. For obvious reasons I'm keeping well out of it. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be somewhat of a new tactic on his part. Piss off as many admins as possible, making them directly involved in the incident - and therefore unable to issue a block because of COI. It's fairly entertaining reading, I must say. Cam ^(Chat) 04:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see the joy in claiming to be a victim at every opportunity myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

German POW deaths

Please see my remarks at

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Question 1 regarding primary sources

--Woogie10w (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my remarks at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heated discussion and serious charges

--Woogie10w (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifications. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the hint about sources regarding sexual violence by Nazi German forces in WW2. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, rules are rules

I've added a cite. All good. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1918 Year of Victory

Hi Nick. You used this book by Stevens and Goldrick in the article HMS Princess Royal (1911) to support information about how the 1918 flu pandemic affected the ship. Does the book (p. 186) give any detail to the number or percentage of personnnel affected? -- saberwyn 02:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi saberwyn, No, it just says that she had so many personnel sick that she couldn't put to sea. I'm afraid that I don't own the book do can't check the exact wording. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found a local libary that carries a copy, so I'll do some digging. Thanks anyway. -- saberwyn 04:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked a copy in a bookshop today, and it doesn't have a number of percentage for Princess Royal. It has numbers for personnel affected in a couple of other battleships though (I can't remember which ones though). cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-admitted block-evading sock

This looks to be a self-admitted sock of a user that you recently blocked. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just blocked them. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot to tell you. Since you were off-line yesterday, sometime after I left you the above message, I also posted a note at WP:ANI#Block evasion. There has been some discussion there and at least one other user there User:Moonriddengirl, thinks that this guy may deserve another chance. I am not sure what exactly is appropriate procedurally in such cases (perhaps at least restoring talk page access on the master account so that he can make an unblock request from there), but you may want to look up and maybe comment in this AN/I thread. Nsk92 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I've just posted there. regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Spamming

A page that I created about the organization DEGW was recently deleted because it's relevance was not properly cited. What are some good ways to go about proving an organization's relevance? Also, if I make substantial edits to the content, what is the review process for getting the page out of the locked pages list? Thanks for your help. --Colbert2012 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles about firms need to meet the notability criteria for organisations as explained at WP:ORG. In short, the key requirement is the availability of in-depth coverage of the topic from reputable sources which are independent of the organisation. If you'd like to get the page unlocked you can post at WP:AN or contact me. If you'd like I can recover a copy of the deleted material and place it in your user space, but you really shouldn't be working on an article concerning a firm you're a member of - this is a blatant conflict of interest and is unlikely to be in the firm's interest given the very real potential for embarrassment if this is reported in the general or specialised media. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to work with you to figure out how to remove the DEGW page off the list of locked topics. I have reviewed the conflict of interest and notability policies and I realize that I am not the proper person to be editing this page. I will stop any further edits myself, however I don't want my mistakes to ruin the chances for the page to be created and developed by another person interested in the subject. Thanks for your ongoing help.Colbert2012 (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The article was blocked from being recreated by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) as several versions of the article had been created over the past few years, all of which were rapidly deleted as the firm appears to not meet our notability guidelines for organisations (WP:ORG). Given that there's no apparent evidence that the firm is notable and you don't intend to work on the article, I don't see any reason to remove the protection as there's no likelihood of a viable article appearing on it. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They keep cometh

Thanks! They just keep coming and it still doesn't make sense... why are they so obsess with the air over Philippines that they find it a joke to be pulling such pranks given that school kid's summer vacation are generally over. Honestly, do you think it would help if you salt the article so that IPs and newly registered editors cannot edit it straight away. Might save us all the trouble? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the level of vandalism isn't sufficient to justify semi-protection (though it is close). I'm not sure if it's one or several editors who like to pretend that the Philippines operate higher-end military hardware than is actually the case. There's a long term vandal with a history of making up fictional wars as well as hardware for the country. This kind of stuff seems to be a problem across articles relating to the Philippines, and I suspect that the average age of the editors isn't very high. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Close? Really? So do you think I could try pushing it up on WP:RfPP? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you'd like to. I don't think that semi-protection is ultimately justified at the moment, but other admins might. Moreovever, as I've semi-protected the article six times in the last two years, it would be healthy for another admin to review the situation. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BROKEN ENGLISH

Honestly Nick, I've had it up to my neck with this guy here (especially over him using his broken English to constantly meddle with airlines/aviation related articles), care to share your thoughts about the multiple accounts he just mentioned? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I think that this might need to go to ANI so that multiple admins can comment on the situation - dealing with editors from a non-English speaking background who write in bad English can be a difficult topic. If the content of the edits is OK then one suggestion would be for them to post them on article talk pages and ask that other editors fix up the grammar and add the change to the article. On the matter of the potential multiple accounts, I've asked them to identify the other accounts (if the pattern of edits is clearly different they're in the clear, if not or they won't identify the accounts then it suggests that they've been blocked before under different accounts). Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, actually... if you've taken a look at his contribution history, you will noticed that his edits are not entirely helpful in a lot of instances, grammar and syntax problems being the most common culprit. Also, I recalled that he said something about his friend having another account which had been blocked prior to the episode when he was blocked for trolling on the talk pages of a few editor, including mine. For a new editor like him, I also noted that he seem to be very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia when he first started off and now that he said it very clearly that he and his room mates are sharing DSL connection, considering that he had confessed that they are room mates... what are the odds that they are one and the same? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more that if the underlying information in the edits is OK then alternative solutions should probably be tried before any kind of editing restrictions are introduced. I note that they're now saying that their roommate has/had "accounts" which is a bit of a worry. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios again...

Sorry to trouble you again, Nick. → Armyofbotswana (talk · contribs) ←, multiple instances of copyvio uploading of copyrighted image files, didn't even seem to stop after I had warned him for the last time. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've just blocked them as I note they've also had an article speedy deleted for being a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Nick, do you know of a guideline or policy that states how long affter tagging an unreferenced item with a fact tagone ought to wait until removing the item? I'm having a dispute on Talk:Dominican Republic over the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, There aren't any specific deadlines for non-BLP topics - WP:BURDEN states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.". My personal rule of thumb is to remove anything which is harmful to an individual or organisation or which is clearly nonsense immediately and allow about a month for everything else. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll comment on the article talk page. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and trying get the discussion back on track. If you can't tell, I'm really frustrated by SamEV's treatment of me over the last couple of months on that page, acting like he's the only person trying to improve the article! Morenooso's attitude didn't help any either. That article could always use more sets of eyes to protect it from POVer and vandlas, but it's no good if the "owners" run off all the experienced editors! Anyway, I've moved on (mostly!) I do appreciate the help. Email may if you have any "constuctive" pointers. - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries Bill. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding Blablaaa

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Blablaaa and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this Kirill. I'll comment later today or tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC

You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.

— raeky T 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AR10CO

Hi Nick. New user AR10CO (talk) is spamming a number of articles with links to his AR-10 forum. His edit history, seen here, consists entirely of spamming. At the AR-10 article alone, he has added his link five times in the last day. I have pointed him to WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM, and warned him a number of times now. ROG5728 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This user seems to have heeded the level four warning I gave him yesterday. He has not spammed since that time, and I doubt any further action will be necessary. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that Rog. Let me know if the situation changes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

July newsletter editorial

Hi Nick - you mentioned you were writing an editorial for future publication. Is that likely to be ready for this issue or would you prefer to hold off a bit? (NB: newsletter development is now taking place at WT:MHNEWS) Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 11:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much ready for submission (though comments, criticisms and changes to the draft would be very welcome). I'll fiddle with it and submit it later tonight or tomorrow. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. EyeSerene^talk 11:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ASP

I support the ideals of the sex party (have you seen the sex party vs family first Sunrise debate? if you haven't, look on my userpage) but i'm uncomfortable with their South Australian Senate candidate, Mr Virgo who is very young with no life experience... could have found better candidates. Timeshift (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't watched the debate yet, but have been meaning to do so. As a small 'l' liberal on most social issues, I was suprised to see that I agreed with most of the ASP's policies, and their website was interesting in that they clearly don't take themselves too seriously (which is a nice break from most single and limited issue parties). Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

World war II

Hi there could you see what you can do about the World war II Belligerent list as i and many others don't see it as correct to put the USSR and USA above the UK and France cheers.Davido488 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, There isn't anything I can 'do' about the order of belligerents - this needs to be settled via a discussion involving all interested editors on the relevant talk page(s). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay well cheers anyway I'll see what I can do.Davido488 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No. 461 Squadron RAAF

461 sqn is there but as its RAF incarnation. During the war the Australian squadrons retained RAF titles, only reverting to RAAF after hostilities. The only squadron based in the UK to keep RAAF status was N0.10 Sqn RAAF because they were actually in the UK when hostilities commenced (collecting their Short Sunderlands).Petebutt (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's correct - the Australian official history of the war and most other Australian works on the war war in Europe refers to Australia Article XV squadrons as RAAF units during the war. The Australian heavy bomber squadrons are normally identified as 'RAAF' in British histories of the bombing of Europe. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am slowly expanding the War Crimes of the Wehrmacht article-the main Wehrmacht one also needs to be rewritten.Right now in my Sandbox I am getting together info about human experiments, but post-war views and myth of clean Wehrmacht will be expanded as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Without reading what you've written, given that this can be a controversial topic, I'd strongly suggest that you seek comments on the text before adding it to the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Conscription in East Timor

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Buckshot06's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Change of policy - I'll try keeping everything in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

tb, but it's so short - would recommend you add the brief to the further reading at least. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

tb - I've reverted, b/c IISS is incorrect and approximate. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

communicat changes

What is the matter with you? All my well-intenioned and significant changes were first raised on the WW2 discussion page under sections marked "flawed overview". You did not respond or participate in any way. Moxy, in his message to editors on his talk page, said "just go ahead and do it." As a senior editor he probably knows best. I have not described my signifcant changes as "minor". In the change diary which I presume you're referring to, I first described the significant changes, and then said additional multiple minor (grammatical etc) changes had also been made. Your unjustified obstructionism, which impedes progress towards improving the article, is now going to be declared a matter for mediation, and I will also report you for other transgressions. I'm fed up with your unhelpful and puerile attitude, and your constantly unjustified admin obstructionism. Communicat (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My changes were also proposed in summary at the last posting at discussion section WW2 origins of Cold War. You didn't respond to that either, nor did anyone else. And since no objections were lodged, that indicates acceptance of the proposals. Communicat (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since my above posting, I've taken the time and trouble to read all the wiki dispute resolution stuff etc, and see that in the first instance "The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page", so I'm opening a section there, where you're free to present your views if any. It that fails to produce satisfactory results, I'll call for mediation or whatever. In the meantime I'm restoring tag. At least one other disgruntled participant on the relevant talk page seems to share my views, though I've not worded them quite as stongly as he/she does. Communicat (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your changes per the normal practice. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to World War II?

While I'm not at all sure I like or agree with the edits Communicat attempted to make, I think I have a real problem with your blanket reversion of them with the comment "revert significant and POV changes to the article wrongly labeled 'minor' - please discuss the proposed changes first".

First, I do not believe the changes Communicat made were labeled minor. His (I'm assuming gender--I know) first edit was NOT marked minor and was summarized thusly: "Previous para 2 moved to Chronology section (repetitions/duplications); Para 3 reworked and replaces para 2; Para 3 reworked (corrections of fact; etc). Multiple minor edits."

His second edit was marked minor and, best I can tell, was indeed a minor edit (a spelling correction and a link), conforming to the guidelines of WP:MINOR.

In short, he appears to have followed the guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:EDIT; I don't think your treatment of him was fair.

Secondly, it's well and good to post a notice requesting editors discuss changes in advance of making them (personally, I think this is a good idea) but another editor choosing not to do so is not grounds to revert their work (see WP:NOTYOURS).

I think you should carefully examine Communicat's actions and your responses to them. There may be more history of which I'm unaware and, if that's the case, please let me know and I'll likely shut up—I know how much crap administrators have to wade through. If not, though, I think you should reëxamine the situation.

For the record, I don't know Communicat and never heard of him before yesterday. I'm not a sock of anyone else, and I'm certainly not a sixteen year old possessing infinite amounts of free time.

Thank you for looking into this. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi UncleBubba, thanks for your message. Given the prominence of the article, there's a long-standing convention that all substantial changes to it should be discussed first so that there's agreement on the text before it's added - that wasn't done here, and my reversion was in line with both this convention and the common BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Communicat has a history of POV pushing (I'd suggest that you review his contributions and the comments made in response to his posts on various article talk pages) and seems to be trying to use the World War II article to push his views without gaining consensus. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gday

Good to see you around - trust all is well Satu Suro 02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep :) Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oceania - just looms as a south oz ed is populating tassie ghost towns cat - it all goes back to former populated places in oceania ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_populated_places_in_Oceania just love it - someone has put oceania in a category as a continent - ah how i love wp logic) - can you ever remember the australia/nz status in oceania categories in the old days? I was intrigued to see at the main category oceania - no one has put oz or nz - so I put the projects in - it all brings out the asia stuff again which I think is implicitly wrong on wp but hey - I have a real life outside of here and its muchmore pressing these days. Just curious - thought with the way the oceania lack of an overarching co-ordinating project category - the john cleese factor is very possibly high (we're all individuals here) - but intrigued to think that the oz and nz werent assumed - although so many categories go back to oceania as a parent. Any thoughts would be appreciated - cheers Satu Suro 03:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing ever goes away on Wikipedia ;) (the debate over whether to include Australia's standing in soccer/association football is back yet again, for instance). Is there a centralised discussion on this? Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope - like the asia hangup that I have - just a bugbear on my part - I'll let it wait till I have a few clear days - sometime much later this year - to tackle even the idea, let alone anything else ;) Satu Suro 09:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Romanization for words of English origin

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom Derrick

WW2

Request for a reference

Anon IP at it again

Steinbock

HMAS Tobruk

Pending Changes and the watchlist

Personal attacks

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

Talk:Airbus A340

Jock McLaren

Prokhorovka

Arbitration

Adlertag (Eagle Day)

Request for mediation rejected

Edit warrior

Australia

Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jul-Dec 2009

Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

Resolution

In the news copyright problem

East Timor

Removal of Copyvio

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

Sock of LightAj

Banned user - 9/11 POVer

DYK for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945)

WW2 Template

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Hi

Military terminology at Emu War

The Milhist election has started!

Gavan Daws

No book page is given, just the direct quote. Maybe you just haven't looked thoroughly enough.

Regarding the other edit about misleading, I think the reason for my phrasing about misleading should be obvious.

1. It states that 27% Allied POWs died in Japanese custody. The text I added stated that 25% of Allied POWs in Japanese custody died through "friendly fire". That would leave only 2% to die of natural causes and Japanese mistreatment, which is very weird. Now according to you Gawin has been misquoted (I'm not sure how thorough you have been if you only checked the index), meaning that 9% were killed by the Allies in the water, and 18% died by other reasons, some of which are probably "friendly fire" on land, killed by other prisoners, natural causes etc, thus certainly not all attributable to Japanese miss-treatment.

2. Even if you are correct about Gawin being misquoted the figure in the table is still misleading, especially since the table is used for the sake of "a kind of historiographic cancellation of immorality—as if the transgressions of others exonerate one's own crimes". Please do some introspection and ask yourself, why would someone choose to list statistics of Japanese crimes in an article about Allied crimes? And why would others not protest about it as not topic relevant to the title of the article? --Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that page of Google books doesn't display here in Australia (though a search for the words finds them in snippet view), but I've looked through the Daws' book (which is on my 'too read' pile) and haven't been able to find the figure attributed to him, which seems inconsistent with the one I could find anyway. The fact that you could seriously suggest that almost all of the deaths of Allied POWs in Japanese hands was due to the friendly fire indicates that you need to read up on this topic. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words, I have never written nor implied "almost all of the deaths of Allied POWs in Japanese hands was due to the friendly fire", please re-read my section 1 above, especially the bit about very weird. I wish you well with the introspection, I really do hope you do it. Cheers.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If the figure is "very weird", why did you add it to two articles? Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kristina Keneally

WWII & Overy

Talkback

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Emu War infobox

Samuel Eliot Morison‎

David Irving

Voter comments

Your assertion

History textbooks and required reading

Wiki-hounding

Nick, a user with whom I have a running dispute has apparently threatend to wiki-hound me wiki-hound me to "help my victims" I've issued a stren warning on his talkpage. I've also made it clear before that I will disengage from football-related topics to avoid him, yet he seems determined to do the opposite. Any advice or assistance would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, has there been anything other than that post on your talk page? If not, your warning seems an appropriate response for now. Am I right in thinking that this is related to Doc Quintana's edits as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#Doc Quintana and football? - it seems that you're far from being the only editor concerned with his or her edits. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing else along that line of thought (hounding). Yes, it irelated to those discussions. Sorry for not posting a few links, but I had to attend to some things off-wiki, but wanted to get the note in first. And yes, I'm not the only editor concerned here, but he does seem to be taking this one personally. Thanks for the comments, and I'll let you know of any further developments. - BilCat (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries Bill. Let me know if anything comes up, though Wikihounding might be best reported at ANI. Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted, but I just meant I'd keep you in the loop. - BilCat (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now harassment is a problem, per this reapeated edit. I need to try to get some sleep now, so I don't really want to do ANI at the moment. Can you intervene here? Aparrently he doesn't know that users are allowed to rempved comments on their pages, and that reposting them is not a good thisng to do, but he's quoting guidleines to back it up! ANd I;m the wiki-lawyer? Sigh - BilCat (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And he's filed at WQA because I removed his comments. I think either he or I are insane, and the voices in my head are saying it's him :) I so do not want to deal with this right now. - BilCat (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how calling someone "insane" can't be construed as a personal attack. This comment above will also be placed at WQA. Nick D, i've just replied at my talk page. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a joke! All it means it that we both see the issue so differently, one of must be crazy. "The little voices in my head" part implies that it must be me. - BilCat (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Doc Quintana for 24 hours. I've posted the relevant diffs on their user talk page. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didnt't realize until too late how personally he/she was taking this, or I would have been a bit more careful with the inside humor. - BilCat (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi class battleship

Lam Van Phat

Mississippi class battleship

Lam Van Phat

Something for you

Revert issue

DYK for Icelandic Air Policing

Asia project

Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand FAC

Thailand WW2

Talk:Fenwick High School (Oak Park, Illinois)

HEY!

AWM copyrights expired

Hello Nick, the above links are photos I've tracked down on AWM and was thinking that you might have some use for them in your recent edits. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Good news, I've found an 1942 map of Singapore on commons you could use to replace File:Targets of USAAF raids on Singapore 1944-1945.png, which as you know has the modern coastline of Singapore depicted instead of 1942. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Communicat

communicat - incident notice - arbcom

Party to arbitration

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring at Phalanx CIWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great photo

Taliban Casualties

Caldwell & 1TAF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(od) Hi mate, congrats again on Black Friday! Looks like you might be starting to gear up for this... I thought we should probably transfer discussion to the Caldwell talk page to keep the collaboration transparent, as there may be others who want to buy in somewhere. I was going to start by listing sources already in the article and others that I'm planning on using, and then just getting an idea of who has access to what so we don't double up too much -- so pls add to it when I'm done and you have a chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I was just fiddling about yesterday, but I agree that it would be good to start serious planning on the article's talk page Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday

Mrg3105 has popped up again

Selected anniversaries

Thanks for your assistance

Category discussion

Defence of the Reich

Light aircraft carrier

Congratulations!

The Tokyo war crimes trial

WWII Aftermath

AWM images

DYK for Action of 28 January 1945

No. 78 Wing RAAF

Hi mate, thinking of working further on this as I don't think it'll take much to get to B-Class, but I've come across an oddity and another pair of eyes might help. For some reason the images only appear below the Command Structure section in the infobox -- if you take it away, they appear where they're coded in the relevant sections (same thing appears to happen with No. 86 Wing RAAF). I've compared closely to No. 81 Wing RAAF where the layout's the same and the image sits in the right spot, but see no obvious differences/issues. If you get a sec, can you see if you can spot anything weird? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that seemed to be a problem with the two infoboxes causing bunching of images - I've fixed it in this edit. I was having trouble with this in some of the articles I was working on earlier this year until some combination of Hawkeye7, Anotherclown and/or Australian Rupert came along and fixed it. I agree that it's not going to take much to get that article to B class. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A "bunching" parameter, eh? Heh, still don't know why 78 needs it while 81 doesn't but who cares, it works now so what can I say but thanks (a bunch)!

While we're on this, you don't happen to know a source for the reformation of the wing in 2000 do you? I put that in back in 2006 or so but I have a feeling it might have been first-hand knowledge as it was just after I finished contracting at Air Command -- now I do some searching on the web, I can't see any direct refs... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had a poke around online sources, and the best I could come up with is that it's not identified as one of the units at Williamtown in this 1998 Parliamentary report but is identified as part of Air Combat Group upon its formation in 2002 in this RAAF news story. The ANU has a run of Jane's World Air Forces back to the 1990s which should identify when it first reappeared on the RAAF's order of battle which I should be able to check sometime this week. 2000 sounds right as that's when the Hawks started to enter service. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Those things help narrow it down, tks. If you can check on the Jane's, that'd be excellent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you can also check that 81 Wing was active as far back as they go, that'd be great -- I think it must've been but you never know. Don't worry about the transport wings, I have a book on Richmond that goes into all that and am using it to flesh out those articles in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found the old notes about talking to the Aussie wing commander ages and ages ago. Ohakea Air Day, 22 March 1998. SRG commander was the double-hatted base commander. Maint; (cmd 501 Wg), tng, spt. 82 Wing does operations. On deployment, composite wings would be formed - 95, 96, 97 Wings. Do you have any data on 95, 96, 97 Wings? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't think that I have anything on those three wings, though I think that at least one of them may have been activated during the INTERFET deployment in 1999 (though I could easily be wrong). I've also seen some articles that mention in passing that a wing-level headquarters was deployed to the Middle East in 2003 (possibly as part of the Combined Task Force HQ?) but can't remember seeing what, if anything, it was designated... Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Big favour

Nick, would you mind doing me a big favour? We have the ADF reasonably well, you've done the F-FDTL, but we don't have a page yet for Kodam IX/Udayana, the nearest Indonesian Army regional command. Would you consider looking into this and maybe creating a stub? Indo:wiki article is at id:Kodam_IX/Udayana. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on it. I think that I should be able to stick a stub together today. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK done. The recent literature on Kodam IX is confusing - some sources say that a new military district in West Kalimantan received the designation Kodam IX in 2009, but Kodam IX's website still calls itself Kodam IX/Udayana. Id.wiki and some other sources call the command in West Kalimantan Kodam XII/Tanjungpura. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed. That's fantastic. Now we can link it in references to the TNI-AD on the other side of the border opposite the F-FDTL. Fast work - thanks so much. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SAtoSuro may be the man for the IX/XII business; when I did some work with him on divisions/Kodams a while ago he was reasonably well informed. What's the source on the new MD in W Kalimantan being IX? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Page 81 of Power politics and the Indonesian military by Damien Kingsbury (which is online at Google books here) for example. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a good shot ! my source items a re bit loose and in disarray at the moment Satu Suro 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SatuSuro, can you take a look at this document, a recent ICG report, and tell us what you think?: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/B104-timor-leste-oecusse-and-the-indonesian-border.aspx ?? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. My estimate is that West Timor is still under Kodam IX. Why? The ICG report reports a new infantry brigade in West Timor, the 21st. id.wiki reports, giving 2009 sources, that that brigade is unde Kodam IX: id:Brigade_infanteri_21. What do you guys think? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that it kept the same boundaries as the Kodam IX website shows that its 'Udayana' suffix hasn't changed, and the units which move or are redesignated seem to get new suffixes. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Korem 161 website also states that the region is part of Kodam IX and vice-versa (though this could be outdated, I guess). Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys my head is curiously vacant of indonesian things tonight (probably will go and tag indonesian stubs after saying that) please leave me a message on my talk if you get into any deep holes - I can over a week or two get into some deep info possibly not on the web - cheers Satu Suro 12:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

arbitration military history POV-bias

Contributions by User:Takabeg

File:43 sqn (AWM 128022).jpg

World War II opened

Talkback

About the Cold War

I'm currently going through your points regarding the article and came across one of them:

"*Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office" - I believe that this build-up began under Carter as a response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan accelerated the build-up."

Now I've looked into it a little bit and it seems that due carter re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System, in the beginning of the Reagan Administration the military was underfunded and it was under Reagan that the defense spending increased by 40%- including the revival of the B-1 bomber program, which had been cancelled by the Carter administration.

Most of this information is derived from this article, and I got most of the info about Carter's response to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan from here.

I may wrong due and so i'm bring it to your attention. If you still believe that these policies of military build up began with Carter I'll have to dwell more deeply into the subject. Looking forward to your input,--Macarenses (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The source used in the Reagan article (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1957.html ) appears to be unreliable - it isn't written by any named authors and cites no sources. Its claim that there was "practically zero maintenance" of US military equipment, for instance, is plainly nonsense: if this was the case almost all of the Navy would have been unable to put to sea and all the military's aircraft would have been grounded. The article also wrongly claims that the US military is currently deploying laser-armed anti-missile aircraft and satellites (see Boeing YAL-1 for the current status of the airborne laser project). Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you! after looking into it I see from many sources that you are indeed correct. I will add the fact that Carter started the military buildup (with proper citation of course) to the Cold War and probably also to the article on the Reagan administration.thx again,--Macarenses (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries - it's good to see that this article is being improved given the importance of its topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you again but i was wondering about what you mentioned:

"Why are the American fatalities in the Korean and Vietnam wars the only casualty figures quoted? Good estimates of casualties in these wars for many other countries (most notably North and South Vietnam and Korea) are available for these wars, for instance, along with figures for many of the proxy wars."

The paragraph in which does numbers are quoted is about the military expediture of the the two superpowers, Do you think a section of "Casualties of the Cold War" where all proxy wars and operations and their sum total of lose of life will be listed is called for? or maybe just removing the line regarding american losses? . I'm still not sure myself though i'm leaning towards creating a new section. your consul will be appreciated,--Macarenses (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can find sources, a new section for casualties as you suggest sounds great. It seems important for the article to acknowledge that the 'Cold War' involved a number of 'hot wars' which lead to tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. Nick-D (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come across an issue with compiling casualties- should i consider all conflicts in which the powers picked sides and supported them or just the conflicts involving a communist and anti-communist side? That is, should the Iran-Iraq war, the Arab Israeli wars and the like be counted or just wars like Vietnam, Korea and the Sandinista War?--Macarenses (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest only including wars in which your sources say were part of the Cold War. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: can i use a map from "http://www.pbs.org" or can't I? And can i use a map from http://www.america.gov?--Macarenses (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless PBS is not claiming copyright on the map, then no you can't upload it. US Federal Government works are almost always free of copyright so it should be OK. There's some advice on how copyright applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is probably the best place to ask questions about this topic. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

85 Wing

Hi mate, now I look again at the RAAF's Richmond and ALG pages, tks for picking that up. Actually, 85 still appears on the AMTDU page, but I agree we have to be guided primarily by the other two (damned Defence web pages never keep up with the constant reorgs anyway)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I notice you put "Parent" groups in the Component section of the wing infoboxes. This duplicates the "Part of" parameter above so I'd prefer to drop the parent unit to avoid duplication -- thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point; it would be best to leave it out of the subsidiary infobox, so I've removed it. For some reason the ADF is really bad about publishing its order of battle online - the Army and RAAF used to have regularly updated PDFs on their websites, but these have been removed over the last few years. They've even dropped the comprehensive list of units from the most recent Defence Annual Report. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's times like this I really miss the days when I contracted to Defence and helped maintain the restricted network that had everything up to date -- just for my own knowledge of course, since if it ain't freely published it ain't a suitable source for WP anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The annoying thing is that basic OOB information isn't at all secret and is often reported in chunks in the specialised defence press (including the service newspapers) and various government reports and the various Jane's publications print the lot annually. The US, UK, Canadian and even NZ militaries have much more comprehensive information on their websites. Can you tell that this is one of the topics I like to get on my high horse about? ;) Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That and anonymous contributors... ;-) (I share your feelings there...!) I know, with all they get into Jane's, etc, it's astonishing Defence cares so much about such basic things on their official websites -- some skewed idea of deniability I s'pose... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be more laziness than secrecy. I've been trying to find an overview about the role of reserves so I can add a section on this topic to the ADF article, but can't find anything online - the Defence Jobs website (for instance) presents all its information about reserves in the context of individual jobs rather than the big picture. If the ADF wasn't always short of reservists it would be funny. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: email

Block evader

Prod removed

No. 72 Wing

Edit request

Thank you

Question

Please withdraw your accusations of bad faith

New site

Re: Arbitration question

Helpful vs unhelpful

Email

Adlertag (Eagle Day)

Les Jackson

Hi again mate, just so I can try finishing off an article on John's younger brother this w/e (which among other things will mean we have have another notable commander to add to your excellent 75Sqn expansion), would you mind checking the Units Concise History for 75Sqn and 80Sqn and giving me the date ranges (and of course page refs) that Les commanded both? I only have one source for him commanding 80Sqn in any case, and want to make sure that one isn't confused... Unfortunately AWM has no article on 80Sqn and the only digitised NAA record for Les is his early militia service... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, he commanded No. 75 Squadron from 29 May 1942 to 2 January 1943 (p. 46). He's not listed as commanding No. 80 Squadron in that unit's entry... Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tks mate. Just to round things out if you have a few more spare moments, can you tell me who did command 80Sqn during 1943? Also, can I assume that the succession of 75Sqn commanders in 1942-43 was Peter Jeffrey, Old John Jackson, Les Jackson, Woof Arthur and Geoff Atherton? I ask because if that's the case we might have a good DYK hook when I tackle my next bio after Les Jackson, which will be Jeffrey, namely that starting with him, five COs of 75Sqn in a row were aces -- I don't know that many RAAF squadrons (except No. 3 I s'pose) could boast that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, 80 Sqn was formed on 10 September 1943, and it's only commander that year was Sqn Ldr G.A. Cooper. He was replaced by Sqn Ldr Atherton on 21 July 1944, who was followed by Waddy on 15 September and Sqn Ldr D.R. Kelly became the unit's fourth and final commander on 1 June 1945 (p. 77). 75 Sqn's first commanders were Peter Jeffrey (4-19 March 1942), John Jackson (19 March-29 May 1942), Les Jackson (29 May-2 January 1943), J.F. Meehan (2-22 January 1943), Arthur (22 January-12 June) and then Atherton (12 June-23 November 1943). I suspect that Meehan was acting given the short duration of his command (though he was the same rank, Sqn Ldr, as the others). Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that Nick, much appreciated! Ah, so Meehan might spoil that DYK idea as he wasn't an ace.... :-( Actually, the Unit History has it wrong about the Jacksons because John was killed on 28 April 1942. It may be that Les didn't officially take over till 29 May and was only acting CO immediately after John's death, but I think it's more likely there's just been a typo and they meant 29 April for the start of Les' term... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll double check the dates - it might be my typo! The article on 75 Sqn in the RAAF unit history isn't very good and contains a number of mistakes. Nick-D (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay mate -- BTW, that wasn't one I wrote (mine were bases)! Also I think J.H. Meehan is actually W.J. Meehan, as there's no J.H. Meehan among the RAAF entries on the WW2 Nominal Roll, and Odgers mentions W.J. Meehan commanding a few squadrons around this time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

God, you wouldn't believe it, created this one as Leslie Francis Jackson instead of Leslie Douglas Jackson -- obviously I've moved the original to the correct name but could you pls delete the Leslie Francis Jackson redirect, as it serves no real purpose... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've created articles with blatant typos in their titles, so welcome to my world! Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, tks for the reassurance -- BTW though, I think we've lost the talk page for the moved article -- can that be restored? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Done. I deleted the talk page I was redirected to rather than the one I meant to delete. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

David Wilson's book Seek and Strike: 75 Squadron RAAF 1942–2002 (full ref in the No. 75 Squadron RAAF article) gives the following: P Jeffery 2-19 March 42, JF Jackson 19 March-29 May 1942, LD Jackson 29 May - 2 Jan 1943, 'JF' Meehan 2- 22 Jan [correctly identified as 'WJ Meehan' on p. 88, where it also says that he was the temporary commander while they were waiting for Arthur to arrive], WS Arthur 22 Jan - 12 June 43, 'JF' Meehan 12 June-23 Nov 43, JR Kinninmont 23 Nov - 10 June 44 (p. 215). Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OEF-Spain

DYK for No. 61 Wing RAAF

How Not to Run an Air Force!

Re: Article page move protection

Actions of 5/6 May 1945

To you, kind sir

Hello

Future work

Hi mate, noted (and didn't ignore!) your message on MilHist talk. I quite understand... ;-) Funny it should coincide with me about to say that I didn't mind holding off on improving Caldwell's article for a while and would that put you out -- I guess it works out well! Thing is, now that Ackworth's How Not to Run an Air Force is available, I've pretty well got all the sources I need not just for an article on RAAF Command but also a whole series on the air force command system in WWII and after, and I feel like getting on to them next. Reckon I can manage them but naturally welcome your input at any stage. So you know, I'm looking at:

RAAF Command, which could easily be FA-length but I think just a B-Class article for the moment
RAAF area commands, covering 1939-54; don't think I can bothered doing an article on each area but they'd all get a subsection that could conceivably be expanded and broken out in future
RAAF command problems of World War II, which would be the piece de resistance, potentially FA, and then possibly
RAAF command structure of World War II, just as an overview, plus somewhere down the track
RAAF Air Board, covering 1920-76

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Those all look like excellent topics for articles Ian, and I'll probably have some odds and ends to contribute to them. The command structure and command problems articles will be particularly interesting. In regards to the command problems article, I'd be interested in adding some stuff on the debates around why the RAAF never set up any higher-level operational HQs in Britain to bring the Australian squadrons there under Australian command. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That'd be fine, as I'd tend to concentrate on the Pacific issue but the European side would be necessary for a well-rounded article (Ackworth's book has data on that theatre as well, including Henry Wrigley's frank observations of his fellow RAAF air marshals)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. By the way, I leafed through a copy of The Private Air Marshal by Peter Helson in a second hand bookshop today, and it looks like it would be of interest to you. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Second-hand already -- I thought it only just came out! Tks, I haven't read it but I suspect it must be very closely based on Helson's UNSW thesis Ten Years at the Top, which was the main reason I was able to get enough detail into the George Jones article to make it my first A/FA... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Az/Arm problems

121.209.xxx.xxx range

Z Force Special Unit edits

Derrick revisited

Ashworth caveat

Hi mate, I'm in the middle of writing the RAAF area commands article so for completeness I'm trawling just about everywhere on WP that mentions them... I notice on No. 11 Group RAAF you've added that the HQ disbanded in Sep 45 based on p.304 from How Not to Run an Air Force. This is a great list of wartime changeovers of command and is giving me no end of help in my current article but it does contain a bit of a trap, namely that he seems to stop everything at September 1945 because that's when the Japanese surrendered and RAAF HQ took control of everything back from SWPA. Therefore we need to be careful about what we infer from his last dates for each of those commands. For instance, it has Eaton as commander of Southern Area until Sep 45, but his WW2 Nominal Roll entry says he held that command until retiring in Dec 45. Similarly Ashworth has Walters in charge of Northern Command until Sep 45, but his ADB entry says he commanded it until 1946 (presumably when it disbanded). Hannah and Charlesworth also seem to have commanded their respective "@war's end" areas into 1946. So tempting as it is to say 11GP disbanded in Sep 45, I don't think I'd be that precise w/o another source... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, and thanks for that - I've just swapped it back to a vague 'after the war'. I did notice that 11 Group's operational history file in the NAA ran from 16 June 1945 [I think they meant 16 July] to 31 March 1946 which implies that it lasted until sometime in late 1945 or early 1946, but it's not online. 31 March 1946 seems to have been the date a lot of 'paper' RAAF units were officially disbanded so it doesn't necessarily mean much. By the way, let me know if you find anything on RAAF 'reserve' squadrons of World War II - when I was expanding the articles on the 60-series of squadrons which were raised as emergency units from training schools in 1942 and 1943 I found some indications that there were other reserve squadrons which were never detached from their parent schools. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame that Ashworth didn't go that bit further and give an "aftermath" of or a potted history for the commands, as he did for some of the key people. Anyway, I think you can at least say/cite that 11GP lasted in to 1946 -- here's a Trove article that indicated it was still alive and kicking at Xmas 1945, and another in April 1946 mentioning it re. a parade... The picture from the Xmas news story, BTW, is here and could be uploaded for your article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, good 'ole Trove -- while checking on 11GP and other things, I find I also have to revise the 1TAF article. I figured it was disbanded in late 1945 because no commander was listed anywhere for it after Scherger, who went to Japan after war's end, but now I find evidence that Read had it in Jan 1946! So you won't be the only one amending an article (in fact I have to do two, Read's as well as 1TAF's)... Who needs to dream about being a detective or a private eye when we can do this, eh? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I don't think that the Anzac Day story is evidence that 11 Group was still active in April 46 though given that it seems to be about veterans marching in Melbourne. I'm enjoying reading through the RAAF operational history books on the NAA's website - they're full of all sorts of interesting details. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree about the parade not being a definite indicator -- though I noticed it didn't mention RAAF Command, which we know was disbanded in 1945, and all the other big formations it mentioned were definitely still going concerns in early 1946. In any case, it's doubtful they could have disbanded 11GP until '46 if it was still around in Xmas '45... Not perfect for WP though, I admit. Re. NAA records, yes, I had 78WG's open when I noticed you updating that article -- great minds! Just wish more key files were digitized though... ;-( Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Roger Davies ^talk 10:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on Bombing of Yawata (June 1944), Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) and Black Friday (1945), which were promoted to A-Class between May and November 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. Congratulations! Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being the first person to respond the Peer Review request for the Iowa class battleship article I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Now, you see, I will actually have something to do rather than sit in the house and pass the time doing nothing, all the while wishing that someone would reply to the PR or call me up to chat :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BROKEN ENGLISH

Related Articles