User talk:Nick-D

Nick-D is out of town and may not respond to queries.

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

It is my personal policy to not assist paid editors to develop articles as I don't want to do their jobs for them or encourage this form of editing in any way. I also will generally avoid drawn-out discussions with such editors, as while they are being paid to debate me I'm not being paid to debate them.

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2013)
Talk archive 13 (2014)
Talk archive 14 (2015)
Talk archive 15 (2016)
Talk archive 16 (2017)
Talk archive 17 (2018)
Talk archive 18 (2019)
Talk archive 19 (2020)
Talk archive 20 (2021)
Talk archive 21 (2022)

Awards people have given me

Happy New Year!

Nick-D,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January songs

happy new year

Thank you today for Project Waler, inrtroduced: "Project Waler was a failed attempt by the Australian Army to replace its ageing M113 armoured personnel carriers with more capable types. The project began in 1980 and never had clear goals. The Army favoured the largest and most expensive designs that were submitted as part of its focus on conventional warfare while the government preferred smaller and more mobile types suited to stopping raids on northern Australia. This led to cost blow outs and the cancellation of the project in 1985. The M113s were eventually upgraded instead, and continue to soldier on despite being obsolete. A new project to replace them is currently underway, but is also proving highly expensive and at risk of cancellation as a result."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

Hi. I decided to write up a review essay for The Bulge along the lines of the one you made for the last issue. You can find mine here. Catlemur (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That looks great. Do you know if they've revamped the Athens War Museum? When I visited in 2013 it was looking pretty tired and run down, which was a shame as it had a great collection. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any information about revamps between 2013 and now, but last year 5.5 million euros were allocated for a renovation which will include a partial digitization of the collection. Unfortunately Greek military museums are not up to par with Les Invalides or the Imperial War Museum. While looking for information on the renovation I found that they opened a new museum dedicated to Napoleon Zervas in November 2022 so I will try to visit it by the end of the month and update the review essay accordingly.--Catlemur (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. It's fair to say that the poor Greeks had higher priorities for limited government funds in 2013 than war museums. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My schedule is pretty tight this month and you need to book an appointment to visit Zervas' house, so I wrote up a description from info I found online. So the review essay is finished.--Catlemur (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I'll post it over the weekend. Thank you again for this. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: this is now posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2023/Review essay. Please feel free to make any further edits. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Article Military, talk page of that article,

• 1. Requested move 21 January 2023- srapa (talk · contribs)
• 2. Merge Armed forces to Military-

DickyP (talk · contribs)

Both users the same content, the same objections on that page, so I suspect that is the same person with a sock account. Also, the same message as this I sent to the NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) as soon as I noticed Nubia86 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reporting this at WP:SPI as it's something a Checkuser could easily handle. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick-D, I noticed you're listed as a mentor for featured article candidates and displayed a specific interest in military history. Last year I spent a good deal of time improving the article about Nestor Makhno, taking it through peer review and then a good article review. It's been stable for the few months since the last review so I'm wondering about submitting it for FAC. As it's my first time, I wanted to check in with you to see if you could give it a look over. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to look over it this weekend, but I'm preparing for an overseas trip so I might not get up to it for a couple of weeks I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No bother! Feel free to take as much time as you need, the article isn't going anywhere. I hope you have a good trip! -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Hey, I noticed you're back and was wondering if you could take a look? No worries if not, I can go to a different person on the mentor list. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: apologies for my slow reply here. Due to other commitments, I don't think that I'll have time to review this article. I was hoping to do so this weekend, but it didn't happen and I don't think that I can propose to be able to do so in the future. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand. Take care :) -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for helping this article not be deleted. I wrote the bulk of it myself and I included an argument for its existence on the talk page. Her resignation was an important event that was deserving of a concise article, consistent with those for the ending of other premierships recently (i.e July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis for Boris Johnson. So thanks, I really appreciate it Aubernas (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If it's renominated for deletion after being de-linked from the main page, please ping me. It's definitely a viable article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 March 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Hello,

First, excuse me if my sentences are not well written, I hope you will excuse the fact that I'm french.

I saw that you reverted my modification in the article Battle of Saint-Malo about the battalion who crossed the Rance River, the August 5th, 1944. You tell me that it was written that was the 329th Infantry Regiment as it's written in the US Army official history. Martin Blumenson did an error and you can see here in the 3rd Battalion, 330th Infantry Regiment history at the page 9 the brief describing of the events. https://83rdinfdivdocs.org/documents/330th/various/330th_3rdBn_Our_part_in_the_war.pdf

You can read there the Afer Action Report of the 330th Infantry Regiment for August 1944 with the describing of the events of the August 5th, 1944. https://83rdinfdivdocs.org/documents/330th/AAR/AAR_330_AUG1944.pdf

Here the mention of the crossing of Rance River by members of the 3rd Battalion, 330th Infantry Regiment in the record of the 83rd Reconnaissance Troop (page 1 at the paragraph 10) https://83rdinfdivdocs.org/documents/83rdRCNTrp/AAR/AAR_83rd_Rcn_Trp_AUG1944.pdf

If you read the records of the 329th Infantry Regiment you will never see any mention of this event because they were involved in the fight at Chateauneuf d'Ille-et-Vilaine that day (https://83rdinfdivdocs.org/documents/329th/AAR/AAR_329_AUG1944.pdf)

Hoping it give you a new point of view. I saw often the error in several books because they were based on the Martin Blumenson book but the original sources from the 83rd Infantry Division records are very sure about this small event of the war. HistoAmateur35 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia operates off secondary not primary sources so I won't be making that change. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I've tweaked some things, after having a short emailed correspondence with the author, who passed the factual items on to his editor to hopefully get fixed in the paperback edition. Hog Farm _Talk 14:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and Ian Rose: I dumbly added this to the February edition after it was sent out! In my defence, I was still suffering from jet lag, fatigue and culture shock after a quick trip to India for work. I've removed it, and posted in in the March edition. Sorry for any and all confusion caused! Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I did notice that but I thought there was method in the madness (like maybe HF wanted to see it published ASAP) so I'm now wiser... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick-D

I admire your work on military and other articles and don't want to get off on the wrong foot with you. However, I think the word "led" is way out of place in the description of principal Allies in WWII. It imports a notion of leadership or precedence. Taking the war as a whole from Sep 1939 to August 1945 I would argue that the principal allies were UK, France, US, Soviets, China. You can order them alphabetically or in the order in which they took up arms against the Axis powers. What is the basis for the wording which currently exists?

Also, the article states, "It is generally considered that in Europe World War II started on 1 September 1939." Only two sources are given for this and they are woefully inadequate. I have at least a dozen books on my shelf which date the outbreak to 3 September when France and the UK declared war on Germany. Without these declarations there would have been no general European war in 1939. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Let's limit this conversation to the article's talk page to prevent fragmentation and confusion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2022. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

	The Original Barnstar
	Operation Title is an outstanding article. Great job! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very kind Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Rhodesia_vectors_after_1973 I linked to it here so that you can easily find it and state your opinion. I will link to our discussion we had about three months ago. Thank you. Sprucecopse (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Bougainville counterattack, introduced (in 2018): "This article covers what must be one of the worst military blunders of World War II. In March 1944 around 15,000 Japanese troops attempted to attack fortified positions on the island of Bougainville which were held by 62,000 Americans who knew that they were coming. While the Japanese fought bravely, the offensive ended in total failure, with the veteran US Army units stopping the attack in a matter of days."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Title you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I have re-uploaded the files as non-free files to Wikipedia with a smaller resolution. Sprucecopse (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The article Operation Title you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Title for comments about the article, and Talk:Operation Title/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capital Express Route is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Express Route until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dfadden (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nick-D, I would appreciate your comments in regards to verifiability in a discussion on Talk:Steyr AUG. There is a related discussion at WP:ANI Disruptive editing by Guns & Glory. Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

On 8 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operation Title, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an attempted British-Norwegian attack on the German battleship Tirpitz was abandoned after two Chariot manned torpedoes were lost due to bad weather? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Title. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Operation Title), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

Hi Nick, did you want to check my last replies at the PR? Happy to look at tweaking text further but just let me know your thoughts on the latest if you have time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Sorry for the slow reply here. Those changes look good to me. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I apologize if you saw any harassment towards that editor. My intention was simply to leave my message in an ongoing discussion about my edits. The reasoning I was "reinstating these messages" is because they are removed with the excuse of me being a sockpuppet, which I'm not. By the way I won't put them back if it's not allowed. Have a nice day--All weekend on the weeknd (talk) All weekend on the weeknd (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

Hello, Nick-D. Thank you for your work on Estonian Division. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: thank you! Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little thing I wrote up; hope you like it. Might throw it into the Signpost proper if they want it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 17:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Adam, that looks excellent Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punched it up a mite. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 00:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've roughed in all the articles that need covered in the featured content section, I don't think I'm up to writing summaries, though, not with all the things I'm going to need to do regarding my dad's death this week. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 19:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did the Op-ed just gain three additional sections? I need to stop. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 03:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just noting a little clarification as to which version(s) you support is needed here. Sorry, it's mostly my fault. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 02:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick-D,

Hoe all is well. I am thinking about promoting Luo Wenzao (currently GA) to FA status. Luo is the first Chinese Catholic bishop. As this would be my very first FAC, I am looking for an FAC mentor, especially someone who I have never interacted with on Wikipedia. Would you like to be my FAC mentor?

Cheers, --TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be very happy to look over this article over the coming weekend, though with the proviso that it's a topic I know nothing about! It looks interesting and already developed to a high standard though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No worries, "no deadline", as they say. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:(( TheLonelyPather (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've been busy (and exhausted) from my work and some travel. I'd suggest looking for a mentor with better knowledge of this topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know and no problem with that. Many thanks for your attention to this as well!!! TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 4 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

History of the Royal Australian Navy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about this one? Their contributions seem sometimes clumsy but other than this one, they seem at worst poorly sourced or jejune sometimes. For example, their two edits prior to that WWII one consisted of adding a name to a list, then realizing it was already on the list and removing it. I don't see any bad faith edits. Perhaps I am missing something? I didn't look very far back. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. They are stating on their talk page now that their account may have been compromised, so I'm extending the block to indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'd still like to know where the vandalism and bad faith edits are. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to start a nonsense article, then warnings for nonconstructive editing, then various edits reverted and then vandalising a high profile article. A 31 hour block seemed appropriate for this pattern of unhelpful behaviour. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Nick-D! i had a question regarding this article and the associated blurb. is this article specifically about the office in sydney, or more generally about the rhodesian de facto diplomatic mission in australia? the article body seems to suggest that the rhodesian information centre in sydney replaced the rhodesian information service in melbourne in 1967, so if the article is specifically about the office in sydney, i am wondering if it would be more accurate for the blurb and article lead to both state that the office began representing rhodesia in 1967 rather than 1966. (however, i admittedly cannot tell from the article whether the sydney office actually began operating earlier, or if it was actually originally the rhodesian information service's sydney branch, so it seems possible that the office in sydney actually did begin representing rhodesia in 1966.)

considering the various names for the centre listed in the article lead, i had initially thought that maybe the name of the rhodesian information service in melbourne was simply considered an alternative name for the subject of the article. however, i eventually noticed that "Rhodesian Information Service" (as used in melbourne, with an 'n' in "Rhodesian") was different from "Rhodesia Information Service" [bold removed] (as used in the article lead, without an 'n' in "Rhodesia"), so i admittedly am uncertain about whether the article intended to consider the centre in melbourne part of the featured subject. dying (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it was essentially the same thing, so 1966 is the best start date. As Jordan notes, the Rhodesian Information Service in Melbourne was replaced by the Rhodesia Information Centre; there does not appear to have been any break between the RIS closing and the RIC starting. The RIC has slightly different names in different sources, which causes further confusion! I've tweaked the lead of the article to help clarify this for readers, but I'd suggest that it's not needed for the TFA blurb. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i tried following the sources to attempt to make sense out of it, and only ended up being more confused! anyway, your edits looks good. thanks, Nick-D. dying (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "The Rhodesia Information Centre was the unofficial, and illegal, embassy the Rhodesian government maintained in Australia from 1966 to 1980. As the Australian government did not recognise Rhodesia's independence it had almost no contact with Australian officials. Instead, it spread propaganda trying to win Australians over to the white minority regime in Rhodesia and helped businesses evade the trade sanctions against the country. The Rhodesian Information Centre survived multiple attempts by the Australian government to close it, including one which led to a High Court case in 1973 and another which caused a backbench revolt in 1977, and was finally shut down by the Zimbabwean government in 1980. As a result, while this is a slightly obscure topic, the article covers a lively period in Australian foreign relations and provides insights into Australian attitudes towards white minority rule in Africa during this period."! --

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

I have received a request for assistance regarding closer watching of some articles where POV editing may be an issue. Who are the Australian military editors in good standing right now who might be interested in adding a few more things to their watchlists, and getting involved? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: apologies, I seem to have missed this. I'd suggest posting at WT:MILHIST and/or other relevant noticeboards to ask that other editors keep an eye on those articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made an edit on the emu war wikipedia page and you reverted it and left a comment on my talk saying its vandalism, can you please explain how it was vandalism? I believe it was perfectly constructive. ManU9827 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious vandalism, and you will be blocked if you repeat it. This obviously was not a war. Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why does it say Emu War all over the page then? ManU9827 (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the common name of the event - please see WP:COMMONNAME. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 7 reviews between July and September 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I'm a newish editor and was wondering if you'd like to collab on a concentrated effort to work on/clean up the Eritrean Army page. I saw that you made some pretty constructive edits on it, in spite of some warring by a now blocked editor, so asking you for help seemed like a logical choice.

It just reads kind of wrong. I can't place my finger on it, but maybe you can. Squeeyote (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm afraid that as I'm going to be travelling for the next month I won't be able to help here. I'd suggest using the Institute of Strategic Studies The Military Balance for the basic facts on the size, structure and composition of the army, as it's a well regarded source. My understanding is that the broader literature on the army is fairly large, and the article should cover its conscription policies (conscripts are required to serve for an indefinite period) and the consequences this has had on the country. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I appreciate the advice. Safe travels! Squeeyote (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Nick-D! The article you nominated, Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D congratulations on this FA! I've been watching it with interest because of sticky terminology issues in an article I've been working on, trying to clean up, that has been subjected to years of disruptive editing and poor sourcing. At one point, it referred to all the exiled military and volunteers as mercenaries, which I think I've now corrected, but there are still terminology concerns. If you are now over the hump with your last FAC and have any free time, a set of experienced MilHist eyes from our now-expert on how to label these events and individuals at Operation Gideon (2020) would be most welcome! A WP:RM is planned for a week or two: see Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Timeline and Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Initial brainstorming to prep for writing Requested move proposal. Thanks for any help you can give should you have time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I'm travelling for the next month, so I don't think that I'll be able to help with that article. I used the term 'volunteers' in the article on Rhodesia as it's what many of the sources used, and was more neutral than 'mercenaries' (especially given WP:BLP issues as many of the people who fought for Rhodesia, in potential violation of their home country's laws, will still be alive). The article notes how the term 'mercenary' has been used and goes into some detail on who the volunteers were and what motivated them, which might be helpful for the Operation Gideon article. I agree that it's best to avoid simplistic labels for issues like this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick-D; yes, I noted those bits in your article and (think/hope) I employed same at the Gideon article. The two Americans were hired by Silvercorp (security firm), and sources do refer to them as mercenaries, but I removed mention as mercenaries of other exiled Venezuelan military who a) were not foreign, b) were not paid, c) and were not generally described by sources as mercenaries either. And on the BLP issues relative to US laws, I found this article. Your Rhodesian article was most interesting and helpful; I hope you have safe and enjoyable travels, and if you have time to glance at the article when you're back, it could use MilHist eyes. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes Hey man im josh Alex Bakharev CorbieVreccan Cyphoidbomb Davodd Hog Farm JamesR KnightLago Mark Ironie Nosebagbear (deceased) Rschen7754 Tamzin TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes DatGuy Ferret RickinBaltimore TonyBallioni Worm That Turned Oversighter changes RickinBaltimore TonyBallioni Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

A concerning thing here is that despite RFA being a dramatically more civil place than it was a few years ago, and most nominations very easily pass, a lot of editors are now unwilling to nominate to become an admin. It would be good to get back to something resembling the old mindset that being an admin isn't a big deal

however looking at some of the combatative and adverserial queues of questions over time, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to live through the onslaught, whether they be tough or not... JarrahTree 06:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well prepared candidates seem to have a very easy parth to the admin tools these days, as the gang of editors who used to use RfA to bully other editors have gone away, in part because some of the ringleaders have been banned or had other types of sanctions applied. Lots of recent RfAs have received over 200 support votes with no or essentially no critical comments. It would be good to turn the temperature down further though, including through a better process or at least a more mature discussion to reinstate the tools for former admins who lost them due to a misjudgement many years ago (in some cases ArbCom also misjudging things). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

	The honourable opposer's award
	By the authority vested in me by myself I present you with this award in recognition of one or more well argued opposes at FAC. I may or or may not agree with your reasoning and/or your oppose, but I take a Voltarian attitude towards your right to state it. Thank you, such stands help to make Wikipedia stronger. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this Nick-D (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/World War II has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Interstellarity (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Nick-D, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Nick-D! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

You are right in saying most people die from disease. This is why I think we should make all death by disease categories that are not for a specific disease only container categories. I also really think we should just plain delete the cancer deaths tree. I do not think that is defining yo the subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. These categories only seem useful when the cause of death is a notable aspect of the person's life. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

• Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
• Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found all the FAs for this month's Bugle. And the FPs, which grow increasingly less connected to MILHIST left to right (but I think all still count). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Adam. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

A long time ago, you said the Mars Society article is not up to FAC standards yet. I've made several attempts to polish the prose and ensure text-source integrity, but, unfortunately, the article is still pretty short as it is hard to find additional sources on the topic. What do you think about the article now? (link to article) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick,

Could I beg 5 minutes of your time, could you have a look at British Empire and Talk:British Empire.

Waddie96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user tried to sneak the description "superpower" into the lede of British Empire with a misleading edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Empire&diff=1189352775&oldid=1189142714],[1]. I asked them about it, their reply seems a bit off to me. I was wondering if this might be HarveyCarter? WCM_email 14:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The general editing pattern looks different. You might want to start a sockpuppet report to ask that a checkuser look into this if there's a pattern of specific edits though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. @Nick-D: I’ve been editing on WP for a few years, and never been accused of sock puppetry.

My understanding of WP policy thus far is that these type of accusations are usually made via official channels and not on a specific administrator’s talk page. Like on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations per WP:HSOCK.

Please clarify this as I feel targeted. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster I consider this as uncivil. And I kindly request yoi retract your statements both here and the Talk:British Empire pages that insist I ‘sneak’ and made a ‘misleading edit’. By striking it through or by just apologising. Please let’s not be like this to editors who have never even had an interaction before. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally normal for editors to directly ask admins to directly look into the potential re-occurrence of sockmasters they have experience with, as assessments are often made on the basis of editing patterns. I'm one of a bunch of admins who have been involved with chasing HarveyCarter socks - they are one of the most prolific sockmasters in subject areas I edit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster I kindly ask you to apologise, or retract your uncivil statements. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster Your previous incivility towards me, now inability to reflect on your actions, and continued lack of the impact this has on editors such as myself and the feeling of being targeted imo. I’ve noted on your previous contributions this is common place in your edits, and advise you to consider your assumptions and mindset. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what repeatedly making these kinds of attacks is achieving, especially on my talk page - you are claiming that WCM was uncivil to you, yet this behaviour of yours is clearly unhelpful and - to be blunt - aggressive and rude. If you really think that this is a serious user conduct problem (which it is not IMO), take it to WP:ANI. If not, move on. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You miss this because of your bias. Bias is something which an admin should not have. Your behaviour should be exemplary. Your understanding and mediation should be sound. Please take a step back. waddie96 ★ (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Operation Berlin (Atlantic), Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces, and Operation Title. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errantios also assumed ownership of the article just by brushing off my edit as "not an improvement". Are you also implying that an user simply not being pleased by an edit is a reason for undoing said edit? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed referenced material without providing a new reference that supports it. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errantios did not provide any references to support his reasons for undoing the edit, either. DaRealPrinceZuko 04:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existing material is referenced. Please see WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided in the edit is virtually the same, albeit reworded and restyled. Also, sources and references were not included in the edits. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read up on how referencing in Wikipedia works. WP:V and WP:RS are good starting points. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them. I'm just saying the question did not involve sources, but rather a section being simply reworded and restyled. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to let you know, both edits had the same source. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Dear Nick,

I've made some changes to the Falintil-FDTL organisation page. The short-lived force of the mid-1970s focused on company-level units; I have reason to believe that since 2006 the current force has trended back towards that direction. We can correspond, should you wish, regarding how frequently updated the assessments of the IISS can be, and their choice of focus on particular world regions, but see here for this comment. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have sources for this? Not much has been published on the F-FDTL in recent years, so it's hard to track what's going on with the force. The very modest and sensible-looking new Air Component is a sign that the government is setting realistic goals for the force's structure rather than the more ambitious/grandiose previous structures and plans. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to talk by e-mail. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly lend a hand with getting this article to DYK? I'm thinking a hook along the lines of "...that the ship George Roper sank before it even had a chance to finish its first voyage?" I've started it here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 21:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I tend to favour simple DYK hooks - how about something like: ... that the ship George Roper ran aground (pictured) and was wrecked at the end of its first voyage from Liverpool to Australia? Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. I thought it was getting a little too detailed Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 11:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's your preferred procedure for articles in The Bugle? I might like to provide a book review occasionally, but don't want to step on your toes. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No stepping on toes would be involved - Ian Rose and I always really welcome contributions. For book reviews you can either draft them in your user space, or post them directly in the next edition of the Bugle via its newsroom. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I think I've finished the featured content page, unless something passes A-class, FA, or FL in the next couple days (there's nothing MILHIST left in the FP queue that'll pass before 2 February, except the basically 100% guaranteed to pass Pedro II photo.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Previous versions of this page had citations to a Globalsecurity.org page, which was an unambiguous copyright violation from the Kenya Yearbook 2010, whose details I have just inserted. Are you in a position to revdel everything except the last version? Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just done that. Thanks for fixing this article! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Same request now for 7 Kenya Rifles, if you wouldn't mind. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just revdeled those edits. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kenya Army Infantry has the same issues, but I will think a bit further on it, potentially making further edits, before I work out exactly what I ask you to do. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Nick-D! The article you nominated, Operation Title, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Congratulations, and thank you today for Western Australian emergency of March 1944, introduced (in 2018): "This article covers a little-remembered, but significant, incident during World War II. In March 1944 the Australian and US military leadership in the South West Pacific became concerned that a powerful Japanese naval force was headed for the important Western Australian port of Fremantle. In response, reinforcements were rushed to the area, several American and Dutch submarines put to sea and the city's air and coastal defences were placed on alert. The tension increased over several days, and on 10 March air raid sirens were sounded when what appeared to be an enemy aircraft was detected. However, it all soon proved to a false alarm. The only Japanese force at sea was a small group of warships which conducted an unsuccessful raid against Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the strategic situation in early 1944, an example of the limitations of intelligence information, and a reminder that the war was not yet won." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and today forthe other, Operation Title, "a valiant but failed Allied attack on the German battleship Tirpitz during October 1942. The attack plan was like something out of a thriller, and partially formed the basis of a postwar movie. It involved a small Norwegian ship smuggling two British manned torpedoes through heavily defended waters. While the manned torpedo crews were superbly trained and likely to have crippled Tirpitz, the operation failed at the last moment when shoddy workmanship caused both of the