User talk:Nick-D

My talk archive

Awards people have given me

Thanks Nick

Yes, no doubt Military of the DRC will improve too. Hey, are you able to recover the contents of that deleted AfD, List of Inactive MAJCOM Wings of the United States Air Force, or some such title? If not you, could you ask somebody who might be able to? I'd like to do a improved version, maybe starting in my userspace. Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Hope you had a good day yesterday. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FA?

Do you mind doing the reassessment on Battle of Moscow and Battle of Smolensk (1943). I don't think either of them are FA, or even GA for that matter.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Richards Harmer "Dix" Jarden

Deleted article. I see that you are involved in military history, and the deletion note says the person isn't significant.

I am new to Wikipedia, and thought that his military service in WW II was relevant to his overall biography - I have some experience with writing articles and it's typical to try to be somewhat thorough in what you are writing about. thI'm not claiming military significance - his significance is in the contract cleaning industry. I would be happy to remove the footnotes to Peleliu if that is the problem.

Your help would be appreciated.

Thanks Intararts (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Papua Campaign

Nick, Can you advise me what your opinion is in relation to U.S. theaters of operations in World War II and within the list the link Papua Campaign. I am not sure if this is US reference to Western New Guinea campaign or Battle of Buna-Gona. Can you help as to where this should link to? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing category name

How does one do that?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, found it...a bit hidden away--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert Help Needed

Hi, apologies for taking some of your time. I found you listed at the Japanese military history task force as someone who may be qualified to help me in a referencing problem for 3 articles on subjects from the WWII period. I have already asked a question on the talk page but have had no response. Sorry if you have already seen this query there, but I am no expert in Japan or its military history so would appreciate some expert guidance. Any help would be much appreciated, even if it is to advise where/who else to ask. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 10:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the quick response. I'll try User:Cla68 before being bold and moving pages as I'm struggling to reconcile these sources. Your point regarding articles about non-english speaking subjects rings true, as all three were created by the same editor who created a lot of articles, but did not convey themselves very well in english. I think a lot may have been "lost in translation". regards ascidian | talk-to-me 11:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OTVA

Hi Nick. Sorry if I didn't make it sufficiently clear, but the staff newsletter, annual reports and organisation's archives that I quoted as sources independent of OTVA are all owned by OTC (the Overseas Telecommunications Commission), not OTVA, which is an association of veterans who worked or had an interest in some aspect of Australia's international telecommunications industry. Hope that helps clarify the situation and that it will enable you to remove the tag you placed on the OTVA entry, which is causing much consternation amongst those who understand the background to OTC and, separately, the OTVA. The only link between the two organisations is their involvement in international telecommunications - which also, of course, applies to many other organisations in Australia today, including Telstra, SingTel-Optus, etc, all of which are completely independent of each other. Cheers Linhmartin (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Scripped and Zhura

Hi Nick, I'm co-founder of Scripped and we have had a really hard time getting a page up about our company. We have been mentioned in several business journals including Alley Insider and Mass High Tech, as well as a nod in Variety magazine, and we are very similar to Zhura, which has a Wikipedia page.

I noticed you took down our last futile attempt, so if you could offer even just a sentence or two about what we did wrong or what else we need to do in order to stay up, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbucks (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A-class review of Armia Krajowa

In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for your reply there. There is some confusion as to 'which version' did you endorse. Did you read my argument (at the bottom of this thread) why do I consider certain additions undue? Not a single general work mentions any of those controversies, they are restricted to minor specialist publications - because they represent only a tiny exception, not the rule. To give another example, a similar argument would be to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article, or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on. Sure, such things happened - but they were so minor it would not be neutral to unduly stress them in the lead. AK committed one massacre (the Dubingai massacre) with ~30 victims, plus there were some other smaller civilian casualties (to be expected during the war) - we have cited plenty of sources for that; to keep the lead which equals it to Ukrainian Insurgent Army, responsible for (among others) tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths during organized ethnic cleansing (Massacres of Poles in Volhynia) or Lithuanian Security Police, a collaboration police force actively persecuting Jews and Poles, it just as good as comparing the mentioned Free French or US Army to those units. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me a diff to that particular version? Unfortunately around the time of your talk comment the article was undergoing a revert war :( I agree with your examples - they are indeed widespread. The ones I mentioned, as is the case with Armia Krajowa, are on the other hand very minor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Note that you've posted your comment at 06:24 April 8, at the time when the version I supported was used. Half an hour later, at 06:58 April 8, User:Miyokan (who has not commented on talk at all, and whom I have notified of our discussion here) restored an older version I find not acceptable with the edit summary: "per talk, third party Nick Dowling agreed that this was warranted". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. In that case, could you remove the NPOV tag from the current version? I feel it would be better for a neutral editor to do so, if I as an involved party would do so, it may lead to bad faith edit warring.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with redirect

Hi Nick,

There is a bit of a mess with a redirect someone created without checking that it doesn't link to another article already. Its here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Koltso&redirect=no however the Operation Ring is related to a 1991 operation, and the Operation Koltso, now inaccessible, is the 1942 operation which ws part of the Battle of Stalingrad see list of operations towards the end. The recent Operation Ring, in accordance with the project convention, really needs to be named Operation Koltso (1991), however in the first instance, do you mind fixing up the redirect because I'm not sure how to do this. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 143.239.70.128

If you are still online Nick, could you do something about this IP?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to delete page in my namespace

Hi Nick, please could you delete, or get deleted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buckshot06/Sandbox_MAJCOM_Wings ? The article it was created to write is now functioning in main-space without any difficulties. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Op En TF

Thanks for signing up for so many. Very much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Air Power Australia

Hey Nick. Not sure what you mean about a third party cite for APA's lack of success. Most of the sources I/anyone is likely to find will not be academic but rather non-notable ad hom. BTW it took me a while to find the cites for the current comments (and learn how to actually add them), let me know if more is required to back up the statements made (I tried to phrase them objectively). Battlensigns (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey again.....Yes the Report raises all the issues individually raised in the various submissions and deals with them one by one under headings. Both Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon are referenced by name (as they were the principle parties raising most of the objestions to the current plans) and then other defence officials and experts were used to either validate or void the arguments/issues raised. Battlensigns (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:2-Cav.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2-Cav.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Unnecessary page

Thanks for your earlier note about speedy deletions. This page, List of South African Divisions in World War II, was probably written when there were not articles for all the divisions listed. There now are, and there's a category which serves the purpose perfectly. Can you or I speedy-delete this under general housekeeping, do I prod it, or how should I proceed? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking of useless stubby subpages, I've just prodded First-echelon and Second-echelon, both of which replicate and distort information at Deep operations and AirLand Battle without providing context. Can you get them speedy-deleted? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Can you take a look at Category:Military facilities of the United States in Spain and get at least one of the useless redirects deleted? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - I've zapped them both under the housekeeping speedy deletion clause. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Class - Infobox Ship Class

Hi - {{Infobox Class}} and {{Infobox Ship Class}} are deprecated and will soon be nominated for deletion. I notice that you are using these templates in your user space and wanted to inform you that they will no longer function once the templates are deleted. They have been replaced by using {{Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. Thanks :) --Brad (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just removed them. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt

Hi, your removal of this article from LGBT group was reverted by User:Zigzig20s. I agree with you that there's no clear evidence she was lesbian. It's purely speculation by one agenda-pushing writer Lillian Faderman, which the majority of recognized historians refute. As such, the article itself seems to have an WP:UNDUE issue in giving this minority view so much weight. Your thoughts on rectifying this? JGHowes ^talk - 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Nick,

I saw your edit where 2 Military Police Unit was changed to 2nd Military Police Unit (Canada). You'll have to pardon me as I'm new to creating/naming/editing pages. I don't have much objection to the inclusion of (Canada). 2 Military Police Unit (2 MPU) however is just that. Military units in Canada do not have the same naming conventions as those in the US. In the US, it's likely the "2nd MPU", whereas in Canada, it is not. 2 MPU is not the second unit, it's simply 2 MPU. For example, this can be evidenced on the page for 2 CMBG Headquarters & Signal Squadron. They are not "2nd CMBG".

Gary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armymp (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Hi, I saw you added a neutrality tag to American mutilation of Japanese war dead. I see nothing in the talk page to justify it. Could you please make an entry on the article talk page explaining the issue(s) that caused you to insert the tag so that we can resolve it and remove the tag? thanks--Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi Nick. There's a page at Royal Laos Army that should be at Royal Lao Army but I cannot move it - it's a former redirect. Would you mind untangling it and redirecting it? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one. Mrg3105 has moved the Soviet 89th Rifle Division to 89th Rifle division (Soviet Union), in line with convention but also, unfortunately, in line with him sometimes lower-casing division (we talked about this a while ago and he said upper-casing 'Division' was a German, rather than an English thing(!)). I cannot move it 89th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) as that's an already existing redirect. Would you mind straightening this out please? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. That was unintended as I forgot to capitalise the original.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's silly how redirects cause these kind of problems. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Scripped Article

Hey Nick, I'd like to give Scripped another shot on Wikipedia. I noticed that Zhura stayed up, and I can tell you with confidence that pretty much everywhere there is a mention of Zhura, there is a mention of us too (to test this, try googling "scripped zhura".)

With over 5000 writers on our site now, we'd like to have a presence here too. So, for what it's worth, this is just a heads up that I'm going to post an article on Scripped again.

Talk:Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957

Would you mind providing a third opinion at this page? Mrg3105 is adding the Soviet WW2 'home guard' divisions to the page, and initially called them 'Nardonoe Opencheniye,' as per the Russian. In accordance with WP:UE, I translated the term to 'People's Militia'. Mrg is not happy with this. Would you mind giving us some guidance, one way or the other? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does opolcheniye need to be changed to militia, but landstrum, cossacks, and others do not? In any case, as you will see for the copious examples on the talk page for divisions, there is no clear translation to "militia" in English usage. This is besides the point that it is a type of troops.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know much about this topic, but David Glantz appears to use 'People's Milita'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He does not. He uses it as an approximation of translation, for example in Leningrad:city under siege p.25 people's militia divisions and in brackets transliteration diviziia narodnogo opolchenii. However the standard in Social Sciences is to use the non-English term and then provide the English translation. That however, is besides the point. There are lots of other sources that say differently going back to 19th century, and also offer translations different to Glantz.

If this doesn't do it, consider the following. Wikipedia aims to be a premier online reference work. However, how many articles will come up in a search for people's militia referring to either Russia or Soviet Union if named People's Militia? On the other hand Leningrad People's Opolcheniye Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is the first page returned, and the Narodnoe Opolcheniye is second, explaining what it is in English terms. No need to wade through the 137,000 people's militia articles to find out which was true for Red Army during the Second World War. That is what I call good referencing.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(od) Mrg3105 has requested an RfC on this issue at Talk:List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957. I'd appreciate your input and maybe we can get this business sorted out. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 00:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Judy Moran

I see the Judy Moran article was deleted? I thought there was a clear consensus to keep? Should this decision be reviewed?--Sting au Buzz Me... 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to have been a wrongful deletion - there was a clear consensus in the AfD that Ms Moran is notable in her own right and sources had been provided. I'll restore the article when I get home this afternoon. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than be restored. -- Longhair\^talk 10:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree: there was a consensus to keep the article and no BLP concerns, so the admin acted incorrectly. Their action wasn't in line with Wikipedia:Deletion policy or Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators as the reason given for the deletion was their own interpretation of the article, and not a clear breach of policy. Wikipedia:Deletion policy states that "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care." and this is what I've done - a DRV isn't neccessary given that the article shouldn't have been deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just read over Bduke's talk page and admit I was surprised myself the article was deleted. I'll sit back and watch how this one pans out if you don't mind. As the nominator I'm somewhat erring on the side of deletion but only if that's what the community wants. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should say that to David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariabk (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I, and it appears everybody in this discussion (although I could of course be wrong), had not considered the article on the family, Moran family. That article has a section that contains only a small amount of material less than Judy Moran. Moran family points to Judy Moran in this section as the main article. In hindsight, I would have closed the AfD by redirecting it to the family article after merging a few words. What do you think about that? It would allow it to be forked off again if good material can be found in the future, but would be more satisfactory when the article and that section in the family article are essentially the same. --Bduke (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added merge tags and started a discussion at Talk:Moran family. It is easy to miss things. I have also restored Talk:Judy Moran which I deleted with the article. --Bduke (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Air force redirect removal

Hi Nick. You were helpful with the redirects before, so I'd like to ask that you remove the Air Army redirect from the Air Force article. The Air Army, to my knowledge, was only used for the Soviet (not Russian) Air Force formations, and so I will need it for the appropriate article. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually also used for Japanese aerial formations, so this needs to be taken into account. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You can make that change yourself - all you need to do is edit Air Army so that it's no longer a redirect (after you click the link and get redirected click the link in the '(Redirected from Air Army)' text to go to the redirect article). I agree that turning it into a disambiguation page would be most appropriate with, perhaps, seperate articles for Air army (USSR) and Air army (Japan). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, tomorrow--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RAF Tempsford

As one of the coordinators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force, could you lend me some arbitration on a WP:NPOV point here? Many thanks! Neddyseagoon - talk 09:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Haditha killings

Hi, Nick: I am rather new to Wikipedia, and need the advice of experienced hands concerning company policy. I am trying to do my bit by assessing articles for the Military History Project, and all has gone smoothly until I came to the article on the Haditha killings. In this incident, several Iraqis were killed by a squad of US Marines; among the victims were women and children, who were unquestionably innocent victims. The Marines may or may not have been following Rules of Engagement; the innocents may or may not have been caught in crossfire, or may or may not have been slaughtered by men who may or may not have been enraged by the loss of a comrade. In other words, the Marines may or may not have been guilty of murder, which may or may not be decided by a trial that may take place this coming October. Given all the murk, it seems impossible to avoid POV, although the author does present both sides, perhaps as fairly as is possible. Out of all this, I have two questions:

1. Is it history? Some people, including me, believe that history and journalism are distinct. I would therefore exclude the article from the task force, not because it is not military, but because it is not history.

2. Does Wikipedia welcome such controversy? I know that excluding them will subject the organization to criticism from those who will think that it is cowardice, but I don't see why we have to compete with the political blogs on either the right or the left. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. It does tell me what I want to know. PKKloeppel (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

19 Squadron

Hi Nick. I don't know, but just had a look on the web and found a few references. It looks to me like this was regarded as purely a NEI transport squadron, rather than a joint unit, which would explain why it does not appear in the standard references on the RAAF. Grant | Talk 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary White (ceramicist and calligrapher)

I'm concerned that you've deleted the article on Mary White (the Welsh one, I don't know of the Australian one).

Firstly:

"I've just speedy-deleted this article and the other above Mary White article as neither of these people appear to be notable from the information contained in the articles"

Should simply not have happened. Non-notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion Wikipedia:CSD#A7

Secondly, the speedy deletion tag was applied when the article was a couple of minutes old, after the author had saved what was only a few lines of first draft notes. This is an issue close to my heart at present, please read either my talk, or recent threads at user talk:Orangemike (Topics LNWR 2-2-2 3020 Cornwall & others and Convoy SC-143) (possibly archived now Orangemike/Archive_4) The problem is that editors making early saves are regularly having them deleted by a zealous application of a policy that was never intended to do this.

Thirdly the article as deleted was expanded considerably from when it was tagged. As a new article, it showed promise. Obviously I can no longer see it, but AFAIR it established notability quite satisfactorily. One citation of the University of Wales bio ought to be enough for that.

Fourthly we're supposed to practice consensus here. If the person is considered non-notable, then AfD it and give people time to respond. Speedy isn't for notabilty, even on BLP.

Would it be possible to restore the article please, or else clarify what the grounds were on which it was speedily deleted. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the restore. I can't promise to do much expansion on this, as I really don't have the time, but the original author still seemed to be busy with it.

As far as notability goes, she ought to qualify easily - I recognised her name myself (through the Atlantic College and South Wales connection) and the Aber bio ought to be adequate paperwork to class as verifiable. Really her notability in the field comes from the crossover between calligraphy and ceramics. As always with artists though, the problem is getting usable images of their work. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks! I wasn't sure how to address the problem; your lead was very useful for me. (And the moral support felt good, too!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Concordia

Hi Nick, I was considering writing an article about the Dutch ship Concordia that went missing in 1708. However, there is already an article about another ship with the same name. Please see here. What is the protocol and what heading should I use?? Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

HMS Winger

Hi Nick. I just did a bit of wikifying on HMS Shearwater (L39), and it say this fictional vessel represents the HMS winger of the Flower class. However, Winger is not listed on the class template. Just so you know why the categories are that way if I have it wrong--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted this one out, she was a Kingfisher class sloop rather than a Flower class. Montsarrat appears simply to have based the fictional ship on the career of one of a different class. I've overhauled the article and fixed the categories. Benea (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography of fly fishing

G'day Nick. At the risk of being accused of "canvassing", I am interested in why you take the position you take on this article's AfD. The article is almost entirely based on simple facts - this book was published within such and such a timeline, focused on this topic, and containing this and that which might be of interest. The only argument, I would have thought, might be with whether a particular book should have been selected rather than another book. And I don't understand why you liken it to a personal blog or website. Anyone, anywhere around the world, would be apt to come up with a similiar list. Where is the personal input in that? I am seriously surprised and don't understand why you take this position - and it seems to me Wikipedia will be diminished by the rejection of articles like this. Please sort me out. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that I explained myself on the AfD: this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to or fly fishing website so the material is totally out of place here. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that I may be too stupid to edit articles in Wikipedia, and perhaps should pull out. Still, I do not understand you. Compare: This is an encyclopaedia, not a naval history website, so the material on HMS Hood is totally out of place here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you're stupid - you are welcome to your opinion. I think that there's a lot of difference between an article on a thing (a battleship, election, CD, notable fisher, whatever) whose notability is established by multiple reliable sources and an article which is basically commentary on books. I'd have voted to delete 'Annotated bibliography of battlecruisers' as well, and have done so on other articles of this type in the past - which are consistently deleted as OR. It's actually an OK article for what it is, it just doesn't belong here. If it's deleted I'd be happy to use my admin powers to move a copy into your user space so that it can be moved onto a more suitable website (wikiHow perhaps?). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Xfd

Have reverted self here in relation to the Darwin Sayonara - due to my obtsue side comments not directly related - and taken good note of the notability issue for books - thanks for your trouble in pointing it out at Xfd and on my talk - will be much more careful with my comments re the matters of N and books. cheers SatuSuro 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fort Hommet 10.5 cm Coastal Defence Gun Casement Bunker

Hello Nick Dowling

In answer to your question as to why this article is notable, if you bothered to read the introduction you will see the words fully restored. As far as I’m aware this is rather unique to the UK. I don’t know of any other fully restored Nazi gun emplacement on UK sites. A lot of time and effort has been put into restoring this unique part of our recent history and it fully deserves its place on Wikipedia. I have removed your tag as it is really not justified. I would also point out to you that the whole point of putting the under construction tag on the page is for it to have a chance to stand on its merits as it progresses. A concept that appears to have gone over your Head!. I do not wish to appear to be rude to you, but it would have been a little more courteous of you to contact me with your concern rather than just tagging the page.  stavros1  ♣ 

At the time I tagged the article it consisted of a single line of text reading "Fort Hommet 10.5 cm Coastal Defence Gun Casement Bunker is a fully restored Gun Casement that was part of Fortress Guernsey constructed by the forces of Nazi Germany between 1940 and 1945" and no references which attested to notability at all. As such, it provided no indication of notability such as it being unique. Please don't get cranky when people tag articles, but assume good faith and take the comment on board. It's also not adisable to start one line articles which make no claim to notability and provide no references as

Its not a case of getting kranky!. I just wish to point out that the page was given a under construction tag at the time of its creation. The tag you placed on the page rather makes the construction tag pointless if going by your explanation of your contribution.  stavros1  ♣ 

Nick Dowling, could you explain the reasoning behind putting the deletion tag on the page that has a construction tag which reads Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days. This would help remove any confusion. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't tag the page for deletion and, according to my reading of the article's edit history, no-one else has. The notability tag is basically a request that editors provide sources to prove the notability of something and plays no role at all in any deletion process. I've had some of the articles I've created on obscure Royal Australian Air Force units tagged for notability and addressed those editors concerns by adding sources and then removing the tag - it's not a big deal. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Oberiko blocked

Oberiko's just been blocked after consensus he's taken months to achieve on World War II has been put in jeopardy with less involved and committed editors undoing his good work, though he breached 3RR in the process. This block removes the main person who's basically singlehandedly carrying the WP:MHSP effort. Would you mind looking into the situation and the WW2 edit history and then commenting on his talk page? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Aviation Regiments of the Russian Air Force

Just created this. Would you mind taking a quick look and leaving any suggestions for improvement on the talk page? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[1]...all here [2] realy--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't read Russian, so I can't understand any part of that page! Nick Dowling (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New Australian military history articles

Thanks Nick. ("You learn something new every day!"). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer

Three minutes to undo an edit, that is fast protection. Is it not useful to mention similar weight British and Korean vessels to get the idea across that not all flat tops are aircraft carriers? Even the Invincible class ships got the Harrier as an afterthought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.188 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from weight alone not being an indicator of ships' ability to operate aircraft, the comparison to similar British and Italian ships was already in the second para of the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

we should renominate it for deletion and propose a transwiki and come up with a detailed rationale for deletion this time.Myheartinchile (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I share your concerns. The editor in question has a long story of creating synthesis-like articles where selected quotes are used in cherry-picked way, obscure resources and information taken out of context are combined to portay Allies in the worst way possible. His stance on Allies was made public by him when he named countries fighting against Nazi Germany "a gang"([thing, there were other more or less temporary changes in the Western frontiers, not just the Bakker Schutz land-grab by the Dutch but also grabbings by the rest of the gang.) Other contributions include claims that WW2 was started by mass murder of Germans by Poles which prompted Hitler to intervene[3], or comparing Polish nation to war criminal Maybe the Poles and Milosevic are in the same class... Frankly as you likely understand I am very concerned with those edits and the overall impression they make. Especially since warning given to him didn't work[4]

Best regards. --Molobo (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As if I needed more evidence that I was still being stalked, here you are Molobo; fresh out of your block and the first thing you do is to go to articles I've edited. I invite anyone in danger of being taken in by the above text to compare mine and Molobos block logs.

• Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stor stark7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Molobo is a very persistent editor of Eastern Europe topics and has a, shall we say, very strong opinion. I sadly first encountered him several years ago when editing German history topics, and our relationship has not improved. In fact, the editor in question set my blood boiling by a very deliberate act. I had read the Hnet review of an autobiography by Martha Kent. There she told the story of how she, as a 5year old ethnic German child, for several years after World War II had to spend time in Polish slave labor camps. ""for us the camp was the normal place where we children experienced our youth" (p. 10). She describes in a very open, child-like fashion, and without even a hint of bitterness, the lice, diseases, living conditions, interactions with other prisoners and guards, and the fact that death was such a common experience in the camp that when her mother was sent away for several months to perform hard labor at a prison, Kent was certain she had died and would never be seen again." Very sad part of history, but what piqued my intrest was this: She moved to the U.S. and eventually suffered a mental breakdown, but.....""Even mentioning Potulitz would cause friends, friends whom I valued and who wanted only the best for me, to react negatively. They assumed that the people who instigated the war and made National Socialism possible--the Germans--did not have the right, due to collective guilt, to speak of their own suffering" (p. 296)." So I became interested in collective guilt. I eventually decided to write an article on the topic, and started drafting a rough structure in my sandbox. What happens next? Molobo stalks me there, and lets one of his friends know about it.[5]. A few days later this article appears: German collective guilt. Guess who the author was, and what the topic was. You guessed it, basically that all Germans are guilty monsters.

Now as you can imagine I was not happy, it put me off the topic, and I haven't really used the sandbox since, for concern of similar attacks. Nevertheless, Molobo finally managed to provoke me properly through some additional stalking, and he got his prise, i.e. my censure. I had seen somewhere that even before the war began there was bloodshed against ethnic Germans in Poland. The casualty figures were apparently a few thousand but were inflated to 50,000. See this text snippet I had no more information than a vague recollection of that, which was why I asked about it here, to which Molobo has already pointed, but rather underhandedly. He managed to provoke me rather severely there, but it had started and continued already the day before in the Denazification article. There I had added info on the PsyOps of the first few months, and on the camps in Poland.[6]. Naturally I was stalked there by Molobo, who went to work. Note for example the title change, and the removal of the Time magazine segment under false pretenses[7]. And then the circus was on [8], and here I went over the top which got me the censure.[9] Although I still wonder who it was that a day later pointed Loeth there. I have my suspicions, but we will have to await Loeths return to Wikipedia.

Next topic brought forth by Molobo; "the gang". It's rather cute that thats amongst the "worst" brought forth by Molobo. I did indeed used the word "gang" [10]. I was discussing a map of the postwar German borders with 52_Pickup, now an admin on a break. I was refering to the landgrab made by the neighbors[11], and I stand by considering those people a gang, just read the quote I was citing. "There was no denying them. It was just like misers with a pot of gold in front of them, they couldn't keep their hands out of it (I'm sorry to put it that way, but it was a rather unedifying spectacle to me)." As to the Milocevik comparison, please use the link Molobo so kindly provided. But please first scroll your way through what is accessible in these 2 google books. [12],[13]

Molobo is apparently concerned about me, as indeed he should be, I'm one of the few with the stamina to stand up to him. I on the other hand am gravely concerned about Molobo, and his actions, and their effect on Wikipedia and on its editors. an example at hand is the wearisome discussion at Talk:Karkonosze. And just look at what he has done after stopping by here....

• Atlantic Charter. Molobo has just edited it. He has no history of editing it, and it seems far from his topic area. Perhaps not surprising, the article is high up on my contributions list, since I edited it 2 days ago and have not had much time to edit lately. And look, It was my contribution that was severely cropped. At least it is a "neutral version" now, at least according to Molobo...
• Strategic bombing during World War II. Another article I added heavily to just 2 days ago and very visible on the first page of my contributions list. What happened here? Take a guess. But I have to admire him, he sets an example for all Wikipedians. Just look how cleverly he hides the deletion of a full sourced paragraph. Although this one is even better, the lost material is not visible when moving text around like this. Can you spot the difference? A hint, it is the paragraphs and citation requests that I had inserted that suddenly are missing. Another minor edit, no-one need check it since it has an m in the watch list, but ooops, what went missing?

And it just goes on, and on, and on, until we all learn from the good examples set...

Best regards indeed--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never run into Molobo very much, but he strikes me as a really nasty editor, for what it's worth. Buckshot06(prof) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06's reply

Commented on the article's talk page. Feel free to disagree with me there or at my talk. What do you believe should happen to the article? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aussie Military Portal receives many hits a month

Check out this link [14]. This should tell you how many people have look at the portal for each month, thats if you haven't seen this web page before. Cheers . Adam (talk) (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Military history of Australia during World War I

Hi Nick. Any idea why this was deleted last year?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the deletion log it was because it was an empty category at the time. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

United States military in Iraq

As far as I can tell, this new article is mostly a duplicate of Iraq War order of battle, USAFCENT, and United States Central Command, and I'm thinking of listing it for deletion. What do you think? Buckshot06(prof) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can go ahead and redirect it. How abrupt should I be? I can just do it, announce on the talk page, or whatever. Buckshot06(prof) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

Mrg is now adding Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars to every major branch article - artillery, cavalry, jagers etc, far too high level categorisation (apart from it's appalling grammar). I've reverted a couple but he's reinstated the cat; what do you advise me to do? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You could just ask me. What is so appalling about Armies of Napoleonic Wars? its a category, not a fully fledged English sentence, so get over it. There is no absolute need for a "the". The troop types were all a part of the period. There are no articles that deal with the artillery and cavalry of the period, so if a reader wants to know something about either, they have to go to the general article until someone writes them.

Personally I'm wondering if its actually worth participating in Wikipedia with people like you around. EVERYTHING I do, you manage to find something wrong with it, and not just in matters of editing, but conceptually. You want to correct grammar, fine. You want to be gnomish about articles I work on, fine. However, you seem not to have the concept of an reference work firmly understood. Its about adding articles and structuring their subject areas. If I can't write articles, at least I am going to string them together (structure) so users can follow from one to another.

What is your problem with Jägers? They were a name used for light infantry in German-speaking states and Russia during the period. I said so. The article said so before I added Russia to it. I can reference the fact if you want me to, just use {{cn}}.

If you have lots of spare time, and looking for something to do, you can take over on new article patrol in tagging an inserting supporting sections to reorganise articles per WP:LAYOUT, and reference them as you go off Google-books rather than letting stubs pile up. I don't know why others don't do it. Doesn't take much. Just insert

==See also==

==References and notes==

{{reflist}}

==Sources==

{{find}}

==Further reading==

==External links==

then go to the find template and find three sources to reference the article and bingo, no stub--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with Jager - and artillery, cavalry, engineers, etc, is that the individual troop types, according to your idea, could have every war they've ever participated in added in the same way you're doing now: you're starting off a slippery slope to ridiculous overcategorisation when you should only be adding these categories to the individual branch-articles-during-wars. Can you imagine the article Infantry with every war that's ever happened added as a category 'Armies of the X War?' It doesn't bear thinking about. Your idea of categorisation is about 90 degrees off from the majority of wikipedia. Buckshot06(prof) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really feel for you Buckshot06, what with the overcategorised Infantry article. I actually did not add that one, but just added Line infantry, which should be Infantry of the Line from which it is redirected (with your love of grammar). Its not my problem that there is no planning and coordination in how articles are created. Ideally each category should have main articles, and major subcategory articles, but they are not there. The reason my idea of categorisation is 90 degrees off from the majority of Wikipedia is because majority of Wikipedia has no idea where its heading...a part of its design. By the way, I has asked for suggestions on what that idea should be, and was offered only ridicule and negativity, but nothing much constructive, purposeful or visionary--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep reverting and/or raise it on the appropriate conflict resolution boards. I agree that Category:Armies of Napoleonic Wars is bad grammar - it should be Category:Armies of the Napoleonic Wars, and a cat of this name should only contain information on national armies of this era (a few good articles on these topics have been created recently). Mrg: it's really important that you note the widespread opposition to your categorisations. These are not helpful and, to be frank, you are probably heading towards some form of block if you don't stop breaching consensus. I'd suggest that you take a few days off from Wikipedia and focus on article creation and improvement when you get back as this works for me when I find myself going down bad paths on articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)