User talk:Nick-D/Archive 15

3788:

as almost nothing else on the internet allows unregistered participation. My cynical nature suspects an ulterior motive by the Foundation, but what it could be, other than making money off it perhaps, I haven't a clue. Leaving IP addresses open for the world to see doesn't seem like a safe thing to do. Eventually someone is going to be seriously hurt, killed, or otherwise harassed because someone discovered their identity, and then the Government and/or public pressure will force the WMF to take better security precautions. It just doesn't make sense to wait for tragedy to strike first. -

9354:(2RAR) had been selected to develop the Army amphibious infantry capability forming the core of the embarked Amphibious Ready Element (ARE)" - removing 2 Cdo Regt. I never put the above references in which I should have. I still suggest this wording. However, before that I would add that there was consideration of the UK RM and USMC models with several options considered. I am in the process of writing a little on the 2 RAR page on the amphibious development . A later paper in 2011 criticised the decision to base on a single battalion citing burnout and that there should be rotations 6555: 3830:

risk. I have experience with vindictive users on here, and fortunately I was able to avoid off-wiki harassment because I have a dedicated e-mail account for WP, and they tried unsuccessfully to hack my e-mail. I seriously value my privacy and that of my loved ones, and I try not to give any clues to my off-wiki identity. If I worked for Encyclopedia Britannica or some other online reputable publisher, I'd have less of an issue with revealing my real name, as some people advocate that we do on WP. But I would never do that on WP as it is currently structured. -

9356:]. 2 Cdo Regt taking over 3 RAR company capability is totally different they already maintained an online company which was parachute trained. Your not talking about taking a company out of action and placing it on a ship in the sea. Reducing the regiment by a company. Angus Huston gave one of the reasons for removing the Airborne Combat Team (ACT) role from 3 RAR was for the development of the future ADF joint amphibious capability. There may have been mention of this been given to 3 RAR after they moved. Regards, -- 6724: 9244: 8568: 7045: 6030:

Australian Army units, which were never integrated with any other British Empire formations. For instance, you added this category to Australian Army divisions which only saw service in Australia and its territories. More generally, while the Australian Government allowed the Navy and some of the RAAF to be integrated with British units (with RAAF graduates of the Empire Air Training Scheme being effectively RAF personnel), it generally took pains to keep the Army self-contained. Regards,

31: 6220:

The GS specification calls for a coax. The stowage list includes a large quantity of Vickers belts. In tests there was a little concern about gases from the coax collecting in the turret, and that the ammunition rack might need to be adjusted to feed the gun easier. And photos from the outside show armour to protect the coax, and photos of the interior show things like the coolant tank for the coax. The only reasonable conclusion is the source, it this respect at least, is wrong.

9346:

Commando Regiment being an option. It was noted in the papers that there would be a need for special operations which went beyond infantry capability with 2 Cdo Regt specifically mentioned to provide this. This is all in the papers I have linked to. Again with no consideration of 2 Cdo Regt being the embarked core force element. The wording states retrain 4 RAR - there would be no need to retrain they are amphibious - strange in its itself. I changed the wording to "Army

1720: 8513: 2561: 762: 3331:

rather soon, and I've found more English-language books on the subject at Google Books. Pretty much all those books say that five ships were sunk/destroyed in the operation, so I think we need to change the lead a little. It seems Stern doesn't have a lot of company in his conclusions as to the difficulty of assessing how many ships were lost. The Norwegian and German authors agree at five, and at least 3-4 English-language authors do too. Cheers.

857: 6412:, I agree with Finnusertop's comment that the discussion would benefit from more participants, so that could be a good starting point - there are quite a few editors knowledgeable about this topic from when there was a push to develop articles on Gibraltar a few years ago, so you could ping them. It being just you vs them clearly isn't working. I'm afraid I don't know much about this topic so I can't be of much help on the details. Regards, 1503: 6922:

or without 285 in the mix. As I say, my only concern with 285 is whether we can really say the C-130 is "in service" with it given it only gets them on loan (or when they're retired!). I was thinking for instance that ARDU probably has the odd C-130 assigned to it now and then but we wouldn't say it has them in service. OTOH 285's sole reason for being now is to train on the C-130 so it's probably not a fair comparison... Cheers,

5294: 4637: 2200: 9033: 8375: 7811: 6833: 6083: 5116: 4554: 2353: 1647: 1328: 668: 449: 7477: 6956:, which spent much of its existence maintaining the Hercs, and then I came back to thinking we should just keep it to the units that actually operated the Hercs, as opposed to those that trained on them or maintained them, leaving us with 36 and 37 Sqns. My feeling now is we just go with them, the unarguable ones, and if any reviewers put forward 285 we can always discuss and if necessary add it... Cheers, 916: 2169: 3377: 9331:

an amphibious capacity, with the current result never being preordained (for instance, there was very serious consideration of rotating the role between the 3rd Brigade's battalions). There's also the historic precedent where what's now 2 CDO picked up 3 RAR's airborne spearhead role when it converted back to light infantry despite this not being a special forces task per-se. Regards,

2451:- and limited intelligence as well as Bennett returned on the 8th... the melbourne vs bennett understanding of things... I really like the description of kittyhawk abd dakota landing every 10 minutes out at Kalgoorlie - and the fact that the big 4 from singers actually managed to sink something! (the behar)... i bet the radar and weather didnt mix well... 7997: 5683: 2242: 8734:

who've excessively pinged other editors after being asked to not do so. If you haven't asked Asilah1981 to stop including you in their notifications I'd suggest that you do so. If they continue to ping you after this (especially frequently or unnecessarily) it becomes a fairly easy thing for admins to follow up on via ANI, etc. Regards,

6171:

stopped the question of how to dispose of the something like 150 AC3 hulls that had already been cast. So there was only ever going to be 65 AC1s, and the follow on tanks bear about as much similarity to the AC1 as the Comet does to the Cromwell, which in spite of both being Cruiser tanks are not the exact same tank either ;)

335:, you could have been blocked - you were not, because it was being explained to you where you was in error, being new and unfamiliar with the policies. However, if you feel that being asked to follow the community policies means that you cannot participate in the community, then I am sorry to hear that. - 7679:- I don't think that it's at all likely that the article will be deleted outright. WP:TNT seems to have a pretty limited support base, and the concept of deleting articles as their history is a mild annoyance isn't grounded in any policy I'm aware of (I think that this is only considered OK in cases where 8733:

Hello, admins can't see other editors' notifications lists. I think that editors with very high level tools (checkusers, etc) do have this access. It might not be needed here though given that the pings are being made as part of talk page posts: admin action has been taken in the past against editors

7683:

applies). If I'm wrong and the article is deleted and recreated, the content can easily be recovered and moved across by any admin - including myself. Personally, I think that we should be having a discussion about moving the article, and not deleting it so I don't really see the need to mess around

7536:

I dont know if ever told you on or off wiki - how impressed I was by the plans that i viewed in the AWM archive years ago for the process of blowing up of the whole of the fremantle harbour facilities in the event of an invasion in 42 - each building and item of value - and how to rig up the system -

7306:

s the final version before the AFD in 2012, and that's probably what I'd use to start with. I really know nothing about him at all, but I may try to view the film to start with. I'm also very weak on writing biographies. Do you know right off of an editor with experience in biographies, particularly

6902:

Hi Ian, That sounds like a good idea. I'm a bit surprised that we managed to not mention No. 285 Squadron in the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service article! - I'll have a go at correcting this, so it can be rolled into the nomination (my reading of the FT criteria is that a good article in

6621:

Select the convoy route line using the "Edit paths by node" tool (2nd from top on the left hand side tool bar, under the arrow). Select "Object" on the menu across the top of the screen, then "Fill and Stroke" (a menu will then appear on the right of screen). Select the third tab ("Stroke Style") and

6499:

Hi Bill, I struggle to get my head around how range finders (and bomb sights, which I think work on similar principles?) work, so I'm in favour of layman's explanations for these issues! Name-checking the technical terms is a good idea, but we shouldn't expect our readers - or me - to understand what

5906:

were the use of Commonwealth was rejected. Personally, I am appalled. As an editor, I shrug my shoulders. Australian forces worked under and over numerous Commonwealth formations. Imperial and dominion forces were allocated across Commonwealth military formations and were highly integrated. Please do

5787:

Hi Robert, I've just reverted all these changes to articles I happen to have watchlisted. Aside from being odd history (Australian Army formations of World War II were not "British Empire" units, for instance) they were already in the appropriate child category. I think this applies more generally to

5428:

Hi, The wartime flying boat base in Perth is definitely notable in its own right, and would be a great topic for an article. I'm pretty sure that "Crawley" is the more common name for the base in Australia - I certainly can't recall seeing "Pelican Point", but I haven't read much about this topic. We

4403:

I'm moving on from that page, as no one wants to take my legitimate concerns seriously. I'm still VERY upset with Schro's FALSELY accusating me edit warring in his first post, and silly rationalizing of his bad faith attitude expressed in that. Until he apologizes for that, I'll remain convinced this

3444:

Certainly. Although I do think that the German and Norwegian authors are probably the ones who has got the numbers etc. right, due to their natural advantages of having access to sources literally on the ground in Norway at the time of the operation and afterwards, while English-language sources will

3359:

Goody, will get to the translating when I can. Stern is not more recent than at least two of the the English-language sources I've found, his book was published in 2012, and I see at least one book from 2012 and another from 2013 amongst those who say five ships destroyed. The others are also recent,

2688:

Thanks for prompting me: that's about 6 years overdue, and I've just copied and pasted the content into the article. My understanding is that as long as you link to the source user page the copyright issues are fine. I can't remember why I stopped work on this article - probably something to do with

1841:

That sounds like a good idea given that this was all one campaign which only saw a small(ish) amount of fighting. I've been considering doing something similar covering the mini-campaign on the eastern shore of Brunei Bay in Borneo during June-July 1945. I'll look in on those articles, but also had a

1270:

Thanks Nick. Despite having lived in Sweden for half a year a decade ago, I've never been to the Swedish capital before. Looking forward to seeing the place, and I'll make a note of the places you mention (looking forward to seeing how the Swedes communicate their shared history with my country, both

1116:

that I think captures most of the relevant articles -- not entirely happy with the title though as, at its broadest, it could encompass all military aircraft operated by Australia and we're only focussing on specifically Australian models and service histories, so how to put that succinctly (or do we

1041:

WIKIHOUND says 'Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Knowledge policy.' Now the closing admin of the AN/I dispute, me, and User:Nick-D are all concerned about your continuing, repeated violations of WP policy, so the use of the

951:

Hi, I'm pretty sure that the subs ended up in Fremantle as it was the bolt hole for US Asiatic Fleet warships which managed to escape the Philippines and Dutch East Indies at about this time rather than it being a measure for the defence of the Perth region (WW2-era subs being notoriously ineffective

8873:

This disruption had been going on since September. With the latest wave in November, I was debating if I had to open an SPI at all or just follow RBI. But given the amount of edit-warring by the IP socks, I opened the SPI to act as reference and refresh the evidence. Having opened it, I tried to add

6936:

I'd suggest ruling No. 285 Squadron in as its main/major role since 1999 has been to provide what looks like conversion and specialist training for C-130 aircrew, and it permanently operates simulators for the type as well as some airframes. However, as I only wrote about half of one of the articles

6426:

Thanks for that suggestion, I pinged Prioryman and others involved in the GA review. What do you suggest about the editing that this user is doing, I find it troubling all of their editing seems to be about lowering the numbers of religious expulsions from Spain, only presenting the lower estimates

5839:

I was under the impression that technically the issues of military and political history that we (Australia) were not necessarily a specific 'component' of the empire in any legal or political sense. This sort of issue will go on for ever if there isnt a definitive specific reference from something

3330:

I've proof-read the translations you'd added. Want me to translate the last couple of Norwegian titles still untranslated? There are also the German titles, I assume those also need translating, I could do that. As for the article in general, I've found a few German books I'm probably going to order

3285:

Thumbs up for the article passing A-class. Now, I haven't been able to look for more German-language books at the libraries near me, but I'll get to that soonish. Also, I may buy a German book or two, I see some listed online that I would be able to use for other things (Wiki and RL) as well as this

2703:

G'day, no worries. From a copyright perspective, you are right; I was just thinking that a histmerge allows you to re-role your Draft11 into something else if you want. But it's not a drama either way, just my OCD playing up! ;-) Anyway, thanks for copying it across. I will see what I can add to the

1595:

Thanks Nick-D for your gracious response. I still have some gaps in the information I need, but it will take someone with access to Aussie war records to fill them. There is something called the "Operations Record Book of No. 4 SFTS Geraldton" which is cited in the training school article that might

1157:

that looks good to me. I'd suggest including the Australian-only aircraft and adding the more logical red links. The Mirage III and B-24s are straightforward as they have full-length books on them. I'd also suggest adding the Sabre, CAC Canberra, Spitfire and Mustang as they're also heavily-covered.

225:

Please provide references to reliable sources stating that Turkey intends to buy F-35Bs. I had a look last night, and couldn't find any. Please note the Australian versions of this ship also have these features, but Australia has no intention of ever operating F-35Bs. It turned out to be cheaper and

9345:

Hi, Janes was wrong this time around. The Army document wasn't a paper it stated that the ARE was to be infantry. The papers were by the people tasked with coming up the with amphibious capability and they refer to all options considered. These papers are dated mid-2010 - Jane's claimed date of 2nd

9330:

Hi, Given that Jane's is a highly reliable source, the material seems useful. The works you note were all essentially research pieces, and Jane's was presumably reflecting the options under consideration which went beyond this. From memory, the ADF spent quite a while investigating how to establish

7724:

The only material on Rawlinson in the 'Peter jets in with plenty to celebrate' story is "Yesterday afternoon, in Naracoorte, he visited 79 Squadron's founding officer-in-charge Alan Rawlinson, 85, a highly decorated World War II RAAF flyer. Two of the Hawks flew from Edinburgh to circle Naracoorte

7619:

Problem for me I know minutiae about the February to November 1942 and the unbelievable plumbing details of army camps and the wierd troop allocation by the guy who blew in from singapore, not sure whether I can fit the stuff in... the photos of forde reviewing troops in the part of the hills above

7382:

Hi guys, I've had a look at the deletion discussion, and the 2012 article snapshot above, and I also tend to think that, based on his record, Cole wouldn't necessarily sustain a dedicated article. If he was lead pilot in one of the planes, perhaps the argument would be stronger, but to compare with

7189:

I really don't know. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't really understand the dividing line for being notable for a single event. If he had died during the raid without playing a prominent role, that is understandable. But as a survivor of the raid, he continues to get coverage. It's too

6921:

again, I don't think it makes any difference re. eligibility if we include 285 or not: looks like the rule is you just need 50% of the topic articles (minimum of 2) to be FA, and the rest GA, to go for FT. With the parent article and 36 Sqn at FA, and 37 Sqn and 285 Sqn at GA, we can go for FT with

6219:

If you feel it would help I'll try, it's mostly already in the article though. Your memory is probably fine, as I said most sources are wrong or misleading. For example there's a book published in 2011 that states that one of the features of the new design is that AC3 had no machine gun. In reality

3844:

I agree completely: its a mystery to me why we put up with a system in which IP editors' location, internet provider and (if they're editing away from home) place of work or study can be easily identified by anyone at all. Registered editors are encouraged to have the details of any edits they make

3829:

OK, I understand that then. Still, I don't understand why they are so callous towards putting people at risk. WP is used by high school and college students, and they are encouraged to edit on WP using IPs. Eventually, someone is going to be stalked or harassed in real life, and their safety put at

3802:

I personally put it down to the libertarian-style ideology in the open access movement, in which common sense restrictions are somehow seen as being a bad idea. I feel the same way about Knowledge content being able to be sold for profit under the licensing conditions, and avoid working on articles

3787:

Thanks for the blocks. I've run into genuine editors who do feel that way, including a few crusaders who insist on doing their editing by IP only to "prove" the worth of IP users. But as as far as the WMF goes, I doubt it. I've never quite understood the insistence on allowing unregistered editing,

3300:

Thanks also for your huge contributions to this article. I'm afraid that I don't know any German, but adding German sources to the article would be great. As noted in the A-class review, I think that this article should be able to make it to FA class with a little bit more work: mainly fleshing out

2475:

Yes, I haven't got up to adding that. Smith's implication about the cyclone makes a lot of sense - the official histories are a bit unclear why the Allies reacted in the way they did, but the real possibility that a Japanese fleet could use bad weather to approach and then attack Fremantle during a

2079:

Personally, I'd rather someone just fix my sig than bother me about something so minor. TWC has step over the line sometimes on talk pages in the past, but in this case, it's clearly good faith and helpful, perhaps other than eliminating the line space. I've added sigs myself several times, with no

1580:

Hi, Sorry for that - you're right that I should have added a tag or pinged you rather than reverted. Can you please re-add this with a reference? It certainly makes sense - it seems to have been frequent practice for RAAF training flights to have been made over the sea to deter submarines. Regards,

8959:

To you maybe its highly unlikely. But its not impossible.I noticed from reading their content that the text (and sources used) they added was mostly different to mine. Maybe they agreed with the inclusion of Indian sex crimes in Kashmir (which is quite famous) and they wanted to re-add details of

8655:

and (b) added additional sources, making irrelevant whatever concerns there ever might have been. They also deleted a message I left on their talk page as to why he would revert after I had expanded the number of sources (as I've continued to since). I'm still waiting on an explanation for this

8156:

Hi, It's understandable, but it seems a bit out of place in this article. The material on how the system operated in particular isn't really necessary here: it would be better to note that the Germans introduced a new system and what it's results in this campaign were. The technical details would

5999:

I have left a comment at Roberts talk page, and the ones here are as far as I go in this conversation, and I thank Nick for tolerance on using his talk page as a venue for dsicussing a milhist issue. I see no future in the issue, unless someone is able to come up with a very very good WP:RS that

3315:

It's been good fun working on the article, prior to this I had only heard about the operation in passing now and then over the years. Going for FA would be great, I could certainly contribute with more German sources, hopefully finding more on the German perspective, once I've located some books.

2514:

sorry didnt mean to get political on your talk page, i find starving something like that brainless... anyways will try to double check some of the more obvious - graham m s has a very brief mention of the people taking the scare seriously, i suspect the 42 stories had crept down the coast by then

8858:

No worries. I think that that's a bug in the standard template - I've replaced it with the sockpuppet IP template as a less-incorrect option, but it's not really well worded either (WP:DUCK analysis doesn't really "establish" a link). To help with future SPI reports for this person, the clearest

6170:

Yeah, most sources are wrong. When the last AC1 was completed the line switched to AC3 production, there's photographs and films that show AC3 parts being manufactured in large numbers and on the assembly line, and documents related to the order for 200 AC3s, and so on, and after the project was

4228:

say - in short, that the concept of a "panzer ace" is dubious, and traces to Nazi propaganda which wasn't taken very seriously even by the Germans during the war. If you can provide reliably referenced figures for the number of "kills" attributed to the people on the list that would be good, but

1771:

Hi, It looks like the article is off to a good start. I'll see what I can add - I've found a few good photos on the AWM website which might be useful (though the photo of troops unloading stores is clearly a very good pick for the infobox given the uncontested nature of this operation). Regards,

6029:

Hi Robert, My main concern is that the categorisations you added for the Australian articles are unnecessary, as the articles were already in relevant child categories of the British Empire in WW2 category. A secondary concern is that this was inappropriate in most cases as the articles covered

4782:

Hi, I've just changed that to Kharkov as well. In most articles it would be sensible to give the alternate names, but I think that this isn't the case in the World War II article given the large number of locations it refers to which have alternate names, as well as the high level nature of the

8890:

I think that lodging a SPI was the right thing to do - this creates a paper trail which allows other editors to see what's going on and to inform responses to any re-appearances of the same person. It also (hopefully) sends a message to the editor in question, including by making it clear that

8093:

I've found that hatting discussions with a note asking people not to engage with this person generally works. But his posts are generally statements rather than anything linked to improving the article, so I don't get why people are biting by entering into debates with them. I often think that

6273:

Interestingly enough, I came across a user manual today at work that used the term "human portable"... and it was written in the late 1990s! Apart from the professional embarrassment that the equipment was almost as old as me, I was surprised and the words sounded strange to my ear. But then I

2809:

I have one thing that makes me wonder, though. That quote of Robert C. Stern regarding it being difficult to determine which ships were permanently lost make no sense to me at all, seeing as reliable Norwegian books list the final fate of all the ships involved. By this I mean which ships were

2422:

Hi, Thanks basically right - though it did lead to lots of RAAF squadrons being moved to WA. I think that I have a copy of Mcenzie Smith's book. The relevant war diaries from garrison units in WA which are available on the AWM's website also make for interesting reading - this was taken pretty

2852:

All seriously damaged ships have now had their had their final fates described, some other info also added. Next I think will be to tweak the lead and aftermath section to reflect that we actually know how many ships were sunk/damaged beyond repair etc. How to do you suggest going about that?

6588:

I've made those additions now, although the locations (like the rest of the map) are approximations. The coast line is definitely not quite right, likewise the islands that I have shown but it probably works for illustrative purposes. Are they any other amendments req'd and / or suggested

2476:

full moon period goes a long way to explaining why this threat was taken so seriously. Have you seen any sources which cover how civilians saw this event, and how its remembered? It must have been pretty dramatic, even if censorship stopped it from being reported at the time.

6317:

Hi Robert, I think that the norm is to include all the countries significantly involved in battles in the infobox. Articles on convoys typically list all the countries which had ships involved, armed or unarmed (though most merchant vessels were armed in WW2). In the case of

1610:

Thanks for fixing this. The National Archives of Australia holds the operations record books of many RAAF units of World War II (which in some cases have also been digitalised), but I cant see the one for this flying school by searching the records on its website. Regards,

8011:

On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 12 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Knowledge's reviewing processes. Regards,

5818:

in the second world war, there needs somewhere in an article or link to clarify what context Australia was in relation to the British - as a 'dominion' or 'commonwealth' and who specifically administered our military forces - imperial (?) or Australian administration.

6000:

clearly shoots the bullseye relative the Australian 'involvement' or disassocciaton with the 'empire'. These sort of issues take up far too much time and space, and I have left my blob for it, and now move onto other things. Thanks Nick and Robert. As they say

8070:

Trouble is, not everyone finds the fact that it is trolling "obvious". Without an explanation there is very little difference between content removed for trolling and unexplained removal of content. How this is to be done without playing with the borders of the

6970:

That's a good point - a FT on C-130 flying units is the tidiest option (I agree that 486 Sqn would probably be out of scope - and if it was ruled in No. 84 Wing, No. 86 Wing and possibly RAAF Base Richmond would probably need to be ruled in as well). Regards,

8266:

There's a whole bunch of people who do this on articles on the militaries of developing economies. I've permanently semi-protected a few such articles to stop particularly bad cases, and please drop me a line if there are any others you're aware of. Regards,

2437:

ahh yes, what melbourne thought versus the perth based higher brass, yes that explains things - thats where my unpublished work on the un-named army camp all makes sense. melbournes estimation versus on the ground in the west. seems to happen even these days

2017:

Actually, there is: People should not change one another's posts, even for minor matters, unless it's unavoidable. I was clearly online, and could have been given a polite reminder here. There are also bots which correct sig stuff-ups automatically. Regards,

5957:

in its strictest sense, collaboration can be done by countries that were not necessarily attached in certain ways (b) please do not remove the category ? why not - where is the specific document or link that specifies Australia as an component part of an

8941:

I don't think thats the case. Maybe someone just saw my old edits and wanted to e-insert my additions on their own responsibility? In that case they have a right to. Do you have absolute proof that they are a sock?Towns_Hill 11:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

4250:

Hi Bill, I've just blocked them. Judging from their editing, this person may not have strong English-language skills, and hopefully my suggestion that they post potentially useful links on article talk pages in the future is helpful to them and others.

3445:

be naturally slanted towards the view of the pilots, we do have a situation where different authors give different numbers, so I think the lead we have now is fine. I'm looking forwards to seeing what more German books have to say about the operation.

2499:

OK thanks. From what I've seen, there isn't a risk of Trove being shut down, but the problem is that the NLA no longer has sufficient funding to expand the service. Which by itself is a tragedy given what a vital resource it's quickly become. Regards,

4828: 1251:

were the only ones I visited, but both were excellent (the Army museum was very different from what I expected - I thought it would be an old-fashioned place, but it was very modern and provides a very sceptical look at Swedish military history). The

5185:

Hi, My main concern was the rather passive and convoluted language and focus. Rather than say that the unit gained some kind of (almost certainly fleeting) exposure for having trained the Prince, why not just say that he was trained there? Regards,

6603:

No - that works well. I've just had my first go at editing a svg to add the convoy route and uploaded a new version, but the default line in Inkscape is rather thin and I can't figure out how to make it thicker! - do you know how to fix this?

6533:

recent discussion. The term does get used a bit, though nowhere as much as "Contiguous United States" seems to in the US. Tasmanians and the few thousand residents of Australia's offshore territories often grumble about "mainlanders". Cheers,

7129:

If you don't want to be accused of edit warring, don't edit war. I'm not sure that I follow your argument, or why adding a link to the German Knowledge is the best option. But please do start a discussion on the article's talk page. Regards,

5321:

Hi, I'm not sure to be honest. From Googling the term, it looks like there was once a RAAF unit of that name. But whether it evolved into the current Support Group is unclear (the lineage of the RAAF's non-flying units is rather complex...).

7387:, not even all the pilots there have their own article. OTOH, I think someone at the deletion discussion suggested a composite, list-like article consisting of short bios on all the crews, and that might well fly (pun unintended)... Cheers, 5740:

I can't remember ever interacting with you before the recent discussion so I'm not sure where that comes from. If you want to be uncivil to well-meaning editors as you were in the WW2 discussion, you should be prepared to be called on it.

5055: 6274:

realised that in 15-20 years' time when my daughters are potentially serving, I hope that it won't sound strange to their ears. Just a thought. Sorry, it's been a long, weird day at work so maybe I'm getting a bit philosophical! Regards,

4272:

Sure, I agree with you on the procedures here. But being rude to people who started a good faith thread on the admins noticeboard makes you look like a jerk. As I noted on your talk page, I'd suggest that you re-close it in a polite way.

5608:

I think we have to go with what it's published with, and the checker has a parameter for overriding the error message, which suggests it's fine to suppress the error message and leave the published ISBN once it's been verified. Cheers,

4428:

I was able to find a way to override the TOC, so this is no longer an issue for me. As long as I'm extended good faith by the users involved in any future interactions, I see no reason to continue with this issue. Thanks again, Nick. -

6322:, while the escort force was entirely Australian it included several US military transports and it doesn't seem like a good idea to leave the US out of the infobox given that both the ships which were torpedoed were American. Regards, 6951:

Well I was starting to come round to the idea of including 285 -- the unit is pretty well joined at the hip to 37 Sqn and when it flies anything it's Hercs -- but then began wondering if including 285 Sqn means we should also include

4362:

continue to make the same accusation. It really is nothing but rank trolling to continue with this utterly infounded accusation. As for canvassing another editor to come and back you up... Yes, ANI really will be fun after this. –

2212:

No worries. I suspect that the Australian mining boom had a fair bit to do with it as well: the RAN lost a lot of its personnel to the mines at about this time, leading to major problems crewing the fleet (from memory, a couple of

3540:

and a couple of others - who would make vast sweeping edits based on "expert sources" - and who considered other editors to be unaware of technical issues, of which only he was the fount of all knowledge? Well he is back at B-17.

5447:

Thanks for your support - when you fly in at a low height, the point is a very definite marker on the swan river - it mightnt seem much from the shore line on land, but for any flyer short of good local maps the point was the

2052:

Well, you can for people who are clearly online if you want, but only if you want to be a bit of jerk given it's easily avoidable. It's politer to just drop them a line or wait for them or the bot to fix the mistake. Regards,

6801:, thanks: this is the norm for all Knowledge articles. If you're ex RNZAF I imagine that you'd be well placed to know what these sources are so this is will be easy. I don't add stuff I know about without adding references. 952:

in defensive roles). The US was planning to go on the offensive pretty much immediately at this time, and viewed its deployments to Australia as being mainly preparations for attacks against Japan. I'm meaning to expand the

8979:

No worries at all David. I've reviewed the photos on Commons looking for a better option, but nothing really grabs me - the "cleaner" photos tend to be either low resolution, taken from an awkward angle or both. Regards,

2867:

Please add this per your sources. They seem to be broadly in line with the English-language sources I consulted, but with very valuable additional details, so I don't think that there are any significant contradictions.

1907:, which also notes the location to apply for the relevant permission. Given that you've been a rollbacker consistently since 2009 I don't see any barrier to you being approved for the permission if you want it. Regards, 1826:

Actually, now I think about it, perhaps the two should be merged to create an article called Battle of Wide Bay–Open Bay, as I don't think there would be enough information really for a battle article on each. Thoughts?

8660:

and (b) not inform or ping me when tattling on me. BilCat's motives are highly suspect—please examine the edits carefully, as the editor's account of the incident is an extreme distortion (note how BilCat has tried to

467:

On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 4 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts!

2515:(there is almost an industry on the 42 bombings and related issues and things on the north west - when i was in the airforce museum here in perth a few months back, the items about the bombings have grown amazingly.. 2260:

On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 9 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts!

226:

less risky to retain the ski jump than substantially redesign the ship to remove it. A whole bunch of other things are needed to enable F-35 operations (special deck coatings, radars, magazines, etc). Please see the

7943: 7171:, there isn't really much to sustain notability here. The documentary and recent media coverage certainly helps, but is he notable for more than a single event in which he didn't play an unusually prominent role? 1812:, maybe, just to round out the battles of the New Britain campaign series. If you are keen to help on these, too, that would be fantastic. Anyway, hope you have a nice weekend. I'm off to work for a bit. Regards, 1596:

give some clue as to flight movements when the submarine arrived. I would also like to track down the two destroyers the Japanese mentioned and the coast watchers. I'll stick a request on the articles talk page.

1541: 988:

Krzyhorse22 seems to be a habitual edit warrior who assumes that everyone else is acting in bad faith and escalates disputes by making personal attacks. I suspect that they're well on the way to being blocked.

6880: 6523: 2763:

Hi. I have now started adding some info from one of my Norwegian sources. Couldn't really get the harv ref system to work, could you have a look at it? For now, I've just added one bit of info, more to come.

9088: 8859:

evidence was them repeatedly posting about how hard done by they were, which is totally characteristic of this editor. Though the other behavioural evidence demonstrated the connection in isolation. Cheers,

8438: 7747:

Tks for that Nick -- I have a login for NLA too and often use it to check TimesOnline but hadn't come across Factiva there for some reason, so that in itself was helpful. Finished off Op Leader too. Cheers,

4989:

I disagree. What sport? A DYK needs to be clear and immediately comprehensible. And it was also important for the unmodified word "golf" to be in the hook. "he sport" just adds character length and clutter.

1391: 1375: 2734:

That would be great. It looks like quite a few of the ships attacked with Norwegian, and it would be interesting to know what the Norwegian casualties in the attack were - if such a figure exists. Regards,

7858: 6146: 5962:(c) disconnecting readers - further showing you are a new user... please, your comments to date show you are a new user, please understand that things are not resolved by telling other editors what to do 715: 1477:

OK, but "SS men" sounds a bit like something they'd call themselves and is easily avoidable. Please revert me if you disagree though - the results of the searches you've provided is very useful. Regards,

6130: 561:

could you please review this blurb to check that it looks OK? I'm also going to be out of town (and probably out of all forms of electronic contact with the world!) when this runs next week BTW. Thanks

6152:

All the sources I've seen treat the different variants of this tank together. As I understand it, the AC1 was the production variant and the other variants were only ever intended for trials purposes.

2400: 1694: 5541: 5163: 2824:

It might well be that he was unaware of these sources - I was surprised when I saw the claim given that records are usually kept of that kind of thing. Could you please add material on this? Thanks,

1117:

keep the title as is and add an explanatory subtitle?)... Also do we want to restrict to only foreign-manufactured/designed aircraft, which would eliminate the CAC Boomerang and Wackett (oh, and the

4601: 3845:

while accidentally logged out hidden from public view by admins to prevent this from being used against them, but the people who follow the "anyone can edit" invitation don't have this protection.

7629:

every man and their dog and fleas have been playing with it now, it is enough to wonder why one bothers to create articles on wp en - they sometimes get so re-arranged it is a wonder they survive

5300: 1808:, also (the Battle section needs work still), but for some reason I'm having trouble getting motivated at the moment (very tired from work this week). I also plan to maybe write a short stub for 4824: 6864: 6848: 6372:

article, that removal doesn't seem constructive given that the information is referenced - though full bibliographic details are needed as the sources weren't clear at the time of those edits.

2721: 8561: 9072: 9064: 9048: 8422: 8406: 8390: 5949:

upon others, it is a process whereby consensus is arrived by collaboration, clarifying specific information and ending up with an enyclopediac principle over how knowledge is presented. (a)

4099:

Thanks, Nick, I have added some comments there, including a draft of my responses to the standard three questions. If you could let me know your thoughts, I'd greatly appreciately it. Chees,

1359: 1343: 7842: 7826: 699: 683: 1214: 6670:

No worries at all Brian. The mentoring scheme is a good idea (especially in light of the limited scope of Knowledge's A-class review processes at present), and I'm hoping it's a success.

6114: 6098: 2192: 7884: 8414: 6856: 5763: 3769:

It's times like this when I wonder whether the people who support not requiring people to register accounts ever actually write articles, or participate in Knowledge in any way really.

3218: 2384: 2368: 1678: 1662: 4333:

There's a bit of a backlog at SPI at the moment. You could help the reviewing admins a lot by posting diffs that illustrate any behavioural similarities between the accounts. Regards,

319:

is what it is called when a statement in sources - "the ship is capable of carrying F-35Bs" - is taken to mean something the source does not say - "the air group will include F-35Bs".

9056: 8398: 5147: 5131: 4689:

I gave the user a simple welcome message for unsourced additions, not warnings, and get called a spammer, great. Another user gave the user warnings for that. Thanks for the help. -

1351: 6530: 8588: 7834: 4585: 4569: 2810:

salvaged and not, and when the ships salvaged were salvaged. How do you suggest going about the ship loss details, seeing as what Stern writes is contradicted by Norwegian sources?

691: 6872: 6106: 614: 6697: 5701:

On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016.

9080: 8430: 7979: 2376: 1670: 1367: 5873:

Furthermore I do not believe the extra category attached to ttps://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Military_units_and_formations_of_Australia_in_World_War_II is correct in any way

3345:

Yes, it would be great if you made those translations. That's interesting about the assessments, but is Stern more recent? Certainly the more sources on this topic the better.

518: 291:

As I mentioned on my page, you were simply being asked to follow Knowledge policies. Saying "the ship will carry F-35Bs" - which is what the crux of this dispute in fact was -

9324: 7850: 5139: 707: 506: 5263:

RE other people trained - no-one notable as yet. There have been a couple but apart from an odd book from Sgt Bloggs, Prince Harry has been the only notable person. Regards.

1121:

if it came to that)? We could make a judgement call on whether to add redlinks or create redirects for some of the more significant ones we haven't gotten round to yet, e.g.

6161: 6122: 5907:

not remove the category. All you are doing is disconnecting readers from further information about Australia, who are coming at it from the perspective of the Commonwealth.

4577: 7016: 2392: 1686: 8960:

sexual war crimes by Indian troops against Kashmiri Muslim women? I don't think you have any evidence that Sandy is a sock either.Towns_Hill 02:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

5155: 1215: 8945:

That's highly unlikely: new accounts don't go trawling through article histories looking for stuff to revert in. You will be blocked from editing if this occurs again.

8753: 7268:

Are there still page watchers? If so, yes a draft/user space version would be the best option to demonstrate that this is a viable topic to concerned editors. Regards,

5344:

Tks for the ping, Nick. Yes there was definitely an RAAF Support Command but I don't think it evolved into CSG. If my info is correct it was in fact an ancestor of the

5076: 8640: 7365: 7212:

One option (albeit the most labour intensive one) would be to have a stab at recreating the article and seeing what happens! I've done this in the past, with success.

6763: 5286: 4593: 8618: 5223:

That's a fair point - sorry. How does what I've just re-added look? It would be worth looking into whether any other notable FACs were trained at this unit. Regards,

4035:

Thanks for the notification - I'd be very pleased to comment there. I'd also be pleased to nominate or co-nominate you if you choose to go ahead with a RfA. Regards,

7089: 5272: 5210: 4206: 4458:

Done. In what I'm sure is an amazing coincidence, Mr Varvaris' seat is among those listed as likely to change hands based on the recent state of the betting market

8791:

Nick, thanks for your input. As my mentor would you advise that I refrain from responding to the comments? I have my suspicions that all 3 are the same editor.

7987: 7038: 6449:

If there's a clear pattern of vandalism, WP:ANI might be the best option. Otherwise, confronting them over one example of this might get them to stop it. Regards,

6241: 2539: 8021: 5201:

So why did you not change it rather than flat out deleting it? Having written it I would have preferred a proof read and edit rather than deletion. Kind regards.

4913: 6289: 2232: 7328:

is our resident expert on biographies of aviators, albeit mainly Australian ones. I'm not sure if anyone specialises in US World War II bios at the moment. The

6698: 2585: 2527: 116:

Excellent, thanks. The ABC news TV story about the purchase tonight also said that two aircraft were probably being purchased, but I couldn't find it online.

4266: 2270: 519: 8523: 5692: 2571: 2251: 458: 8606: 7663: 7100:

Hello, Please remember that Knowledge is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory or venue for you to promote your firm. Please take the time to read

1836: 1821: 4856: 9149:

Hi, I don't think that I have any sources on this topic. Your best option might be to look for material in the comprehensive books on ships of the war -

7901: 7030: 4238: 1574: 7083: 477: 8249: 7937: 7108:: the short version though is that you should not write about things with which you have a connection, and especially a commercial one, with. Regards, 7094: 7051: 4970: 4956: 4294:

Yes, I'd say so. I just checked and the article is quite different to the version that was deleted, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion. Regards,

4221: 1733: 5822:

Having done work at the AWM in Canberra and archive work in the National Archives on 1942 events as a researcher, I am finding this all a bit surreal.

5258: 5232: 5043: 3176:

I've got internet access, so I can nom it. Your suggestion was about what I had in mind, I'll sleep on it and see if I can perhaps spice it up a bit.

8598: 8589: 5077: 4488: 4352: 4215: 4146: 1200: 970:

good to hear that. I think as far as current thinking amongst the milhist people i know here the 42 scare was a bigger one than the 44 one. cheers

2722: 2034:

You are allowed to append attribution (which can be retrieved from the page history) to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it.

8722: 6685: 5966: 5916: 5645: 4617: 1547: 1397: 8846: 8822: 8808: 8786: 8772: 8743: 6458: 6444: 6421: 6403: 6381: 4342: 4328: 4303: 2123:

Thanks for the rant: please see above, and a polite note here would have worked wonders. I'm not aware that I have a grudge against you? Regards,

2005: 1976: 1954: 1940: 1916: 817:

Hi, Thanks for your snarky post! Given your deep love of citations, I'm surprised you removed this without looking for a reference! May I suggest

9016: 7788: 6301: 6283: 4905: 4891: 4190: 4176: 4162: 4140: 4126: 4108: 4086: 4072: 4058: 4044: 2713: 2698: 1889: 1875: 1851: 1795: 1781: 495: 8352: 7238:

Do you mean recreating it in draft- or userspace? It's clear that the page watchers won't allow a recreation in mainspace because of the AFD. -

7117: 2838:

Strange indeed. It's not like Norway is a closed-off country for researchers or anything. Will get to adding the ship info later today. Cheers.

1069: 1049: 928:

Thank you for co-nominating my RfA, Nick. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools.

841: 8954: 8358: 8343:

Done. It looks like the indefinite semi-protection may have been removed as an unintended consequence of a period of full protection. Regards,

7633: 7541: 6331: 6008: 5877: 5710: 5618: 4476: 2455: 439: 433: 277: 131: 8874:

as much evidence as possible, but I agree that these socks are on the obvious scale and may not need the full paperwork done on them. Cheers.

7953: 7332:

article I (mainly) developed before his recent death might be a somewhat useful model, bearing in mind that all you need is a solid stub. The

7066:

Hi, I deleted that article as it didn't provide any evidence why this firm was notable. It also read like an ad for this business. Please see

4023: 8712: 8695: 8677: 6816: 6757: 6741: 6679: 6648: 6634: 6613: 6598: 6583: 6487: 5665: 5070: 4999: 4984: 4942: 4928: 4537: 4448: 3340: 3051: 2862: 2787: 2773: 2619: 2288: 2154: 2132: 746: 651: 189: 175: 125: 9393: 9205: 9187: 8632: 8329: 8226:

Thanks Bill. If they aren't one and the same person I'll eat my hat, so I've blocked that account. It does deprive us of entertainment like

7707: 7693: 6618:

Good work given its your first go (I've struggled to learn how to use the program for 6-7 yrs!) Re increasing the size of the convoy route:

6356: 1759: 1620: 1605: 1590: 1487: 1422: 1036: 9411: 9228: 8989: 8581: 8212: 8203: 8065: 7910: 7794: 7624: 7614: 7600: 7559: 7531: 7522: 7058: 6347:: there isn't a strong consensus that these types of people can be assumed to not be notable, so AfD is the best path to go down. Regards, 5852: 5775: 5456: 5438: 5408: 4850: 4813: 4470: 4220:

Knowledge doesn't have private means of communication, and discussion of articles is generally done on their talk pages - in this instance

4167:

Thanks, I've transcluded it now. I think I got it right, but if you could take a look, that would be great. Thanks for your help. Regards,

2519: 2509: 2485: 2470: 2442: 2432: 2330: 2226: 1311: 1138: 1107: 998: 974: 965: 9365: 9340: 8497: 7919: 6039: 4792: 3454: 3439: 3425: 3407: 3393: 3369: 3354: 3325: 3310: 3295: 3280: 3266: 3244: 3230: 3213: 3185: 3171: 3143: 3129: 3111: 3097: 3083: 3065: 3009: 2991: 2961: 2935: 2877: 2847: 2833: 2819: 2801: 2758: 2744: 1280: 1265: 882: 9429: 9399: 9290: 9278: 9135: 9119: 9032: 9010: 8374: 7810: 7757: 7742: 7456: 7439: 7410: 7396: 6980: 6965: 6946: 6931: 6912: 6832: 6549: 6221: 6172: 6082: 6066: 5728: 5574: 5390: 5115: 4698: 4553: 4531: 4510: 4390: 4372: 3972: 3930: 3746: 3732: 3682: 3640: 3576: 3550: 3148:

Sure, though I'm going to be out of town with no internet access for several days from tomorrow. The best hook I can think of is ...that

3056:

No worries. Stern refers to the ship as a "small steamer", so I'd guess that it's the German vessel - though 1,370 grt isn't that large.

2352: 2309: 1646: 1568: 1327: 1167: 1094:

Sounds like a good idea to me, Ed -- not all the relevant articles have "in Australian service" in the title, e.g. it's redundant in the

805: 787: 667: 157: 143: 9166: 8142: 8128: 8103: 8088: 8044: 6781:

In that case, you should have no problems providing references to reliable sources. Please do so before readding this material. Thanks,

5750: 5589: 5339: 4743: 4723: 4282: 2631:

It's been a long last few weeks for me, and I'm not talking or writing much sense at the moment ;) My emails at work are equally wacky.

1231: 900: 818: 8302: 8276: 8261: 8239: 8180: 8166: 7577: 7377: 7345: 7320: 7277: 7247: 7221: 7199: 7180: 6543: 6517: 6268: 5801: 5756: 5547: 5533: 5515: 5497: 5479: 5372: 5306: 5099: 4676: 4658: 4438: 4413: 4260: 3986: 3888: 3854: 3839: 3812: 3797: 3778: 3606: 3515: 3501: 2672: 2658: 2640: 2103: 2089: 2062: 2047: 2027: 1305: 953: 826: 592: 571: 390:, changes their order for Dave to include the B variant, the ship should be capable of carrying it with a minimum of retrofit. It does 163: 8916: 8900: 8885: 8868: 8227: 7153: 7139: 4649:

Not today I'm afraid Bill - I've just completed a lighting-fast international trip for work, and am spectacularly zonked as a result.

937: 9313: 8464:

Montgomery and his Legions: A Study of Operational Development, Innovation and Command in 21st Army Group, North-West Europe, 1944–45

8113: 7765: 6714: 6229: 6202: 6180: 5673: 5093: 4150: 2336: 2294: 847: 828:? More generally, I think this falls into the category of something which is so well known it doesn't need a citation - for instance 602: 542: 6500:

they mean. Some of the folks who work on articles on warships are very cluey on the topic though, and I'd suggest leaving a note at

6427:

and generally whitewashing articles. They're not in a topic area that gets much coverage so one POV pusher can do a lot of damage.

2217:

frigates and most of the submarines had to be laid up and the shortages contributed to the collapse of the RAN's amphibious force).

9351: 8662: 8208:

Thank you just going through a few almost 10 year old articles drastically in need of improvement. Your help is always appreciated

6253: 4835: 4117:) to the answer to question 1 to strengthen your messages a bit. If you're ready, I'd be pleased to start the nomination. Regards, 3413: 1630: 870: 353:

Theoretically, sure, like the Australian ships can with some fairly straightforward modifications. But Turkey isn't buying F-35Bs.

9153:

is particularly good, and often available in major libraries (I don't know if it covers the ships operated by this force though).

8652: 1206: 8796: 8760: 6432: 6391: 4316: 4308:

Nick, Checkuser seems to support the idea and identified another account. However, there has been no further action on the SPI,

1964: 1928: 1271:

as a historian and former museum curator). If you ever head to Norway, drop me a line, we have plenty of things to see here too.

752: 636:. If you want to upload images, please also ensure that they are compliant with Knowledge's copyright conditions first. Regards, 8553: 6937:

in question here and haven't edited the No. 285 squadron article for more than ten years, I'm happy to defer to your judgement!

4947:

Actually, my correction was much better, who says "experience in golf"? It's really awkward. Suggest my correction is restored.

1741: 1296:

Hi, I don't think that Kurowski is a reliable source on any topic at all to be honest - he wasn't a serious historian. Regards,

9373: 8657: 8645: 8335: 7492: 6386:

How do you advise I proceed, I have had little joy in trying to talk with the guy, all I get back is a quite hostile response.

227: 8454: 8056:

Yes, that's him. I've just blocked these accounts. I wish that people would stop responding to this idiot's obvious trolling.

2601: 2466:

is all part of it as well, there is no specific article for the Behar, but the fate of the survivors was not exactly nice...

5568: 3254: 1904: 1553: 1126: 823: 645: 402:

to include earlier. Until Turkey 1. announces that they have ordered the F-35B and 2. says that they will be carried aboard

346: 7044: 5312: 3250: 2162: 1732:

Thank you for directing me to the email address for Vandalism, I was completely lost on how to proceed. Have a great day!

1098:

article title because that model was only operated by the RAAF, so a navbox is a good way to bring them together. Cheers,

1058: 7684:

with a draft at the moment (it would be better if the draft was put on hold until after the AfD concludes, IMO). Regards,

5651: 774:

Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. There is another book review for the

9260: 8804: 8768: 6440: 6399: 6060: 5034:, had no prior golfing experience"", perhaps? Avoids two words with "-ing" in a row, and avoids using "golfing" twice. — 4798: 4643: 4324: 1972: 1936: 1237: 7967: 4459: 3492:

It was blocked shortly after reverting my post with the edit summary, "You're trying to report me, right?" Hilarious. -

1055: 7012: 2682: 4149:. The next step is for you to accept the nomination, and then for you and I to transclude it (the instructions are at 8320:

Hi NZgreygoose, I agree that these two accounts do seem to be the same person, and have blocked Histrange. Regards,

7336:

article I've recently posted might also be useful for inspiration - McMullen is also really only marginally notable.

6918: 6311: 6193:

Can you please add sources to that effect to the article? It certainly goes against what I remember reading. Regards

2749:

Certainly. In the books available to me there's the identities of the ships involved and casualty figures, and more.

1222:

Thanks also for your comments. This is a great article, but the timing of the TFA proposal really isn't a good idea.

395: 7728:

The 'Squadron roars home for birthday bash' is about the squadron's anniversary tour, and doesn't mention Rawlinson.

6810: 6790: 5654: 1559:

Hello, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with your history on Knowledge, so I'm not in a position to do so. Regards,

1016:

I'm not an edit warrior, please stop accusing me. I explain my changes in a civil manner and use the talk page, see

362: 239: 218: 9269:

Same to you Ed. I suspect that you're not experiencing the heat wave South East Australia is going through though!

7913: 7657: 6508:

if necessary. I suspect that this topic forms part of the huge OMT work plan, or could be rolled into it. Regards,

4841:

Wow, that's very impressive. I think that there might be some other GLAM projects, but can't remember their names!

4629: 2589: 1765: 906: 620: 512: 4961:

It wasn't and isn't "experience in golf", and in the future please do not change hooks without prior permission.

9141: 8533: 8119:

Hi Kierzek, I'm afraid that I don't own that book - I was also relying on the elements on Google Books. Regards,

7498: 6994: 5470:

Hi Bill, I've just blocked that account and - given Phil's editing habits - semi-protected the article. Regards,

5268: 5254: 5206: 4770: 7303: 6478:

Thanks for the note - I'll comment separately there as the RfC seems to cover a wider range of issues. Regards,

4522:

Hi Ian, Great minds think alike! I just finished the from the editors section, and everything looks good to go.

3631:

Yeah, cheers Nick. BilCat, he can be a pain when he gets into his stride that guy. Arrogant as fuck as I recall.

583:

Thanks a lot. I have no idea how I forgot that the blurb needed to be a single para - sorry for being so dense.

9374: 9150: 8336: 7960: 7675:

Hi, Based on my experiences - including multiple unsuccessful attempts to nominate articles for deletion under

7420: 5903: 4244: 2447:

interesting - the cyclone between 7th and 14th, not sure what your refs say, but graham's inference is that it

1256:

also has good sections on Viking/medieval era warfare. I really liked Stockholm, and hope you enjoy your trip.

8656:

disruptive and uncoöperative behaviour. I'd also like to know how an editor with over 100,000 edits would (a)

8157:

probably work best in an article on this system or similar. Great work with this article by the way! Regards,

3528:

Speaking of old friends, do you remember the guy who turned up at numerous US WWII aircraft types, especially

3088:

I've just checked your count of ships destroyed and damaged, and agree. I've tweaked the infobox accordingly.

8748:

Nick, much as I hate the drama boards, I just can't put up with the abuse any more. I have made a report at

7003: 5553: 5345: 4896:

G'day, Nick, that's great, thanks. I was able to see the list for the 2/43rd on Google snippet view. Cheers,

4862:

Hi, the 2/16th COs are listed on page 325, and those for the 2/43rd on page 328. The COs of the 2/16th were:

3042:(1,370 grt), although no sources which definitely refer to her mention her being at Bodø during the attacks. 110: 7733:

I hope that's helpful. As a friendly reminder, would you be able to look in on the Operation Leader ACR? ;)

9381: 6369: 5630: 2926:). The lead currently says five sunk and seven damaged, making 12 ships, not 11. Am I missing a ship here? 2423:

seriously at the time though it all seems a bit odd today in light of what we know about the war. Regards,

2206: 626: 9001:

Hi Ian, Once the FPs are done, this looks good to go. I'll have a look at the ACR in the next day or two.

8094:

Knowledge would benefit from having a bunch of discussion forums added where people can chat about stuff.

7448:

Thanks. I fear we've entered PC Land. I'll just make a quick exit while nobody's looking. Cheers. --

3301:

the German side of things to the extent feasible and giving the final product a close copy edit. Regards,

1996:

Hi WCM, I've commented there. The short version is that I'd suggest cross-checking against other sources.

9319: 9283: 8799: 8763: 8050: 7907: 7662: 6435: 6394: 6288:

That is good to see - hopefully the term becomes more widely used. Though the term does make me think of

6259:

This seems a well-meaning (and sensible) quibble, and I've posted a response on your talk page. Regards,

5603: 4776: 4319: 4029: 1967: 1931: 1710: 1089: 369: 246: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 7772: 2882:

I'm having some difficulty making the numbers in the lead add up. By my count we've got two ships sunk (

9104: 8503: 8314: 8017: 7949:

Before I consider doing that, can you please answer the following questions (and not just with "yes"):

7874: 6769: 6625:

Hopefully that's clear enough but if not pls let me know what size you are after and I can change etc.

6279: 6247: 5264: 5250: 5202: 4952: 4901: 4172: 4136: 4104: 4082: 4054: 2709: 1885: 1832: 1817: 1791: 1025: 473: 38: 9154: 7568:

article says that the demolition charges were actually put in place for a few weeks! - I had no idea.

3034:

Thanks for checking. Some online sources say the ship attacked during Operation Leader was the German

8605:

for December 4, 2016. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at

7426:

Hi, I agree that the title of that section was poor, but having a section called "jews and stuff" at

6409: 6045: 4882:

I'd be happy to provide other details from the book (do you need the list for the 2/43rd?). Regards,

2689:

the level of detail in the official history - but I'd be happy to work on finishing it off. Regards,

1897: 1521: 1513: 1014: 7485:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective

7469: 4761:

It looks like they've left Knowledge, so I don't think that action is needed at this time. Regards,

8933: 6493: 5912: 5840:

close to a verification of what we were in relation to what remained of the almost completely gone

5656:. Presumably there's a bug somewhere, but it is the ISBN by which this work is registered. Cheers, 5396: 4008: 2728: 2551: 2545: 2533: 2463: 1511:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

982: 427: 340: 271: 3120:

which was "heavily strafed". Will add that a bit later, just have some RL things to take care of.

9401: 9234: 9213: 9142: 8852: 8220: 7161: 6995: 6765: 6687: 6362: 6243: 5543: 5302: 4619: 4478: 2541: 2529: 1543: 1393: 820: 616: 508: 1410: 8793: 8757: 8707: 8672: 8549: 7779:

would deny the emus their birthright as native Australians", etc). Please don't do this again.

7464: 6630: 6594: 6505: 6429: 6388: 6337: 5945:

I do think you are misunderstanding wikipedia completly. It is not about an editor imposing an

5789: 5734: 5706: 5641: 5559:

Let's not discuss this in multiple locations. And threatening to edit war is really unhelpful.

5464: 5378: 4995: 4966: 4938: 4313: 3412:

Several German books should be on their way to me soon via Amazon.de. What do you think of the

2597: 2266: 1961: 1925: 1253: 1054:

I correctly removed this info because that project has long been abandoned but you readded it.

1004: 945: 933: 171: 3737:

I've semi-protected the B-17 article. Almost a year to the day to when I last had to do so...

9298: 9201: 8614: 8013: 7703: 7168: 6953: 6664: 6275: 5422: 5399:

to Support Command as well for the moment (think I might stop there for a while)...! Cheers,

5039: 4948: 4897: 4288: 4168: 4132: 4100: 4078: 4050: 3567:

Blocked. I haven't watchlisted the articles involved, but please let me know if they return.

2705: 1881: 1828: 1813: 1787: 1737: 1601: 1065: 1032: 1017: 832:

Menzies House article called Quadrant "Australia’s Conservative Journal of Record". Regards,

469: 8462: 5352:

article; I might just copy some of that to the new article and remove the redirect. Cheers,

5056:

Clearly you dont want to mention how malcom changed the laws to benefit his election chances

2778:

Got the ref system working now. Will probably take a break for today and continue tomorrow.

2184:

A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates

1923:

Yes thanks, helped a newbie out but found my changes were also held as a pending revision.

9172: 7454: 7302:

The "final version" was deleted on Aug 25, 2016, so I'd say the watchers are still active.

6775: 5766:

which is where the Australian units belong - they weren't "British Empire" units. Regards,

5313: 4490: 3529: 2625: 1990: 1945:

OK, I've just enabled the "pending changes reviewer" permission for your account. Regards,

1207: 1187:

and any relevant wiki projects and see if that generates a consensus one way or the other.

1122: 1113: 1046: 501: 251:

Also note that even if the ship has the kit Nick mentions, the article in question says it

203: 7590:- sheesh! - I think stub needs to start some time soon :) 02:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) 6554: 5249:

Happy days! I have to admit your version reads better. Have good day/night. Kind regards.

8: 9412: 9361: 7966:

Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be

7680: 6896: 6574:

and Fremantle? I can then add the route the ships took from my source for this. Regards,

6472: 5908: 5782: 3450: 3421: 3389: 3365: 3336: 3321: 3291: 3262: 3226: 3209: 3181: 3139: 3125: 3107: 3102:

Good, good. Then updating the aftermath section is all I see still remaining to be done.

3079: 3047: 2987: 2957: 2931: 2858: 2843: 2815: 2783: 2769: 2754: 1288: 1276: 1248: 423: 336: 267: 8813:

Yes, that's a good idea. There's no need to engage with what's basically vague attacks.

7513:

That would be a great topic for an article. Even a stub would be very helpful. Regards,

5844:

by 1940. I fail to believe (unless I am shown a good WP:RS on the issue,) that we were

5814:

Nick, thanks for your response, I still have a problem of the notion of Australia being

4309: 2492:

sorry, ive seen more about 42 than 44, might have to trawl trove while it is still alive

1243:

Hi, I spent a few days in Stockholm last September. In regards to military museums, the

259:

mean "Turkey will buy F-35Bs". Turning the first of those statements into the latter is

9425: 9389: 9336: 9309: 9274: 9224: 9183: 9162: 9131: 9115: 9006: 8985: 8950: 8896: 8864: 8842: 8818: 8782: 8739: 8628: 8541: 8493: 8348: 8325: 8272: 8235: 8199: 8162: 8124: 8099: 8061: 8040: 7975: 7933: 7784: 7753: 7738: 7689: 7610: 7573: 7555: 7518: 7435: 7406: 7392: 7384: 7373: 7341: 7273: 7217: 7176: 7135: 7113: 7079: 7026: 6976: 6961: 6942: 6927: 6908: 6806: 6786: 6753: 6737: 6710: 6691: 6675: 6644: 6609: 6579: 6539: 6513: 6501: 6483: 6454: 6417: 6377: 6352: 6327: 6297: 6264: 6198: 6157: 6056: 6035: 5797: 5771: 5746: 5724: 5661: 5614: 5585: 5564: 5511: 5475: 5434: 5404: 5386: 5368: 5357: 5349: 5335: 5228: 5191: 5089: 5066: 4980: 4924: 4887: 4846: 4788: 4766: 4719: 4694: 4654: 4527: 4506: 4466: 4386: 4368: 4338: 4299: 4278: 4256: 4234: 4186: 4158: 4122: 4068: 4040: 4019: 3982: 3926: 3850: 3808: 3774: 3742: 3728: 3636: 3572: 3546: 3511: 3435: 3403: 3350: 3306: 3276: 3240: 3167: 3155: 3093: 3061: 3005: 2873: 2829: 2797: 2740: 2694: 2668: 2636: 2615: 2581: 2505: 2481: 2428: 2326: 2305: 2284: 2222: 2128: 2099: 2058: 2023: 2001: 1950: 1912: 1871: 1847: 1809: 1801: 1777: 1755: 1616: 1586: 1564: 1483: 1418: 1403: 1301: 1261: 1227: 1196: 1163: 1134: 1103: 994: 961: 896: 837: 801: 783: 742: 641: 588: 567: 538: 491: 358: 286: 235: 214: 185: 153: 139: 121: 105: 8700:

That's rich. You're only making it the more obvious you're doing this for the dramah.

1042:

term 'wikihound' is inappropriate: I'm protecting the encyclopedia by monitoring you.

8995: 8973: 8928: 8701: 8666: 8574: 8567: 8545: 8468: 8188: 8150: 8138: 8084: 8029: 7715: 7427: 6626: 6590: 5702: 5637: 4991: 4962: 4934: 4751: 4736: 4498: 4450: 2944:. Could you check your sources for further info on her? Could it be a misspelling of 2806:

Got the agent business mostly done now, onwards to the ships lost and the casualties.

2593: 2262: 2140: 2011: 1805: 1804:

today (the Battle and Aftermath sections still need expansion). I've made a start on

1010: 929: 878: 387: 167: 7594: 2982:

sailing in occupied Norway in 1943. The tonnage is quite different between the two.

1012: 9197: 8691: 8610: 8537: 8298: 8257: 8176: 8072: 7699: 7507: 7316: 7243: 7195: 5529: 5493: 5035: 5023: 4818: 4672: 4623: 4482: 4434: 4409: 3968: 3884: 3835: 3793: 3716: 3678: 3602: 3497: 3150: 2654: 2416: 2085: 2042: 1597: 1360:

Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific

1177: 1061: 1028: 811: 47: 17: 7546:

That's very interesting - not least as the officer responsible for this planning,

1008: 8961: 8911: 8880: 8727: 8423:

Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I

8209: 8076: 7698:

Okay, makes sense. I will move over some of my edits into the main article then.

7630: 7621: 7597: 7538: 7528: 7149: 6005: 5963: 5874: 5849: 5453: 5179: 5029: 3249:

Apparently the correct number (including mobile phone views) was the even better

2971: 2516: 2467: 2452: 2439: 2315: 1428: 1184: 1183:

Hi, Without knowing what the matter is you could ask other editors to comment at

1081: 1043: 971: 407: 316: 263: 6903:

the mix with three FAs is OK - but please correct me if I'm mistaken). Regards,

6723: 6562:

That looks great - thanks a lot. Could you please mark the following locations:

4049:

G'day, Nick, if your offer stands, I am prepared to take a run at RfA. Regards,

1027:

It refers to someone who makes controversial edits without citing any sources.--

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

9357: 9347: 7547: 7333: 7308: 7123: 6225: 6176: 5429:

haven't had any snow here since Wednesday, so things are looking up :) Cheers,

5019: 3533: 3446: 3417: 3385: 3361: 3332: 3317: 3287: 3258: 3222: 3205: 3177: 3135: 3121: 3103: 3075: 3043: 2983: 2978:

was one of the vessels hit in the attacks. There's both German and a Norwegian

2953: 2927: 2854: 2839: 2811: 2779: 2765: 2750: 2117: 1272: 1188: 598: 374:

Yes, that is exactly the reference I looked at. It does indeed say the carrier

9243: 956:

article, and a "sister article" on 1942 would be really interesting. Regards,

9405: 9287: 9257: 8749: 8602: 8471: 8252:'s ubiquitous sock farm and the fictional Malaysian crap they keep adding. - 7749: 7676: 7449: 7388: 7329: 7325: 7105: 7101: 7071: 7067: 6957: 6923: 5623: 5610: 5400: 5382: 5353: 5325: 4690: 4516: 4364: 3922: 3724: 3632: 3542: 3486: 1866:

Please do - if I'd known how to do it I'd have added you initially. Regards,

1152: 1145: 1130: 1099: 1021: 779: 578: 549: 332: 312: 135: 1191:

is also an option, but seems to focus on violations of the policy. Regards,

873:. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. 9065:

Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War

8562:

Interview invitation from a Knowledge researcher in University of Minnesota

8134: 8080: 7669: 6917:

Tks for that -- I added a line, and of course feel free to tweak. Checking

6798: 5595: 5011: 4805: 4731: 4225: 3537: 3159: 1531: 874: 829: 731: 411: 399: 324: 304: 300: 1719: 9421: 9385: 9332: 9305: 9270: 9220: 9179: 9158: 9127: 9111: 9002: 8981: 8946: 8892: 8860: 8838: 8814: 8778: 8735: 8687: 8624: 8489: 8344: 8321: 8294: 8268: 8253: 8231: 8195: 8172: 8158: 8120: 8095: 8057: 8036: 7971: 7944:

Re: deletion of Sourcery Technologies page. Can I access deleted content?

7929: 7780: 7734: 7685: 7606: 7569: 7551: 7514: 7431: 7430:

is insensitive at best. Britmax has come up with a better title. Cheers,

7402: 7369: 7337: 7312: 7269: 7239: 7213: 7191: 7172: 7131: 7109: 7075: 7022: 6972: 6938: 6904: 6802: 6782: 6749: 6733: 6706: 6671: 6640: 6605: 6575: 6535: 6509: 6479: 6450: 6413: 6373: 6348: 6323: 6319: 6293: 6260: 6194: 6153: 6052: 6031: 5793: 5767: 5742: 5720: 5657: 5581: 5560: 5525: 5507: 5489: 5471: 5430: 5364: 5331: 5224: 5187: 5085: 5062: 5015: 4976: 4920: 4883: 4868:

Alexander Bath MacDonald: 20 February 1941 - 12 August 1941 (PMF officer)

4842: 4784: 4762: 4715: 4668: 4650: 4523: 4502: 4462: 4430: 4405: 4382: 4358:

FFS: you've been given good reason why this isn't ownership, and yet you

4334: 4295: 4274: 4252: 4230: 4182: 4154: 4118: 4064: 4036: 4015: 3978: 3964: 3880: 3846: 3831: 3804: 3789: 3770: 3738: 3674: 3670: 3598: 3568: 3507: 3493: 3431: 3399: 3346: 3302: 3272: 3236: 3163: 3089: 3057: 3001: 2869: 2825: 2793: 2736: 2690: 2664: 2650: 2632: 2611: 2501: 2477: 2424: 2322: 2301: 2280: 2218: 2124: 2095: 2081: 2054: 2037: 2019: 1997: 1946: 1908: 1867: 1843: 1773: 1751: 1612: 1582: 1560: 1479: 1414: 1297: 1289: 1257: 1244: 1223: 1192: 1159: 990: 957: 892: 833: 797: 738: 637: 584: 563: 534: 487: 354: 296: 231: 210: 181: 149: 117: 5788:

your recent categorisations, and I'd ask that you start a discussion at

414:. Now, a line in the article that the ship's design is F-35B compatable 331:

strict about - to try to add back. Under a strict interpretation of the

8906: 8875: 8837:

Yes, ignoring him (pretty much across the board) seem the best option.

7883: 7721:

Hi Ian, I sourced those stories from the Factiva database via the NLA:

7565: 7145: 6571: 6524:

And now for something completely different ... from my previous comment

4708: 761: 633: 180:

After I do all that typing pulling things together! Seriously, thanks.

7311:

does a lot in regards to USN warships, but I don't know about bios. -

3715:

Well they are all on my W/L too so we got eyes on it. Recall he had a

796:

I was pleased to support you, and would do so in the future. Regards,

6563: 6147:

Australian Cruiser tanks are not the exact same thing as the Sentinel

5902:

I understand the frustration. There has been a mess of a dialogue at

2952:

was a German cargo ship operating in Norway at the time in question.

1118: 556: 528: 8512: 5650:

The National Library of Australia gives it as the ISBN for the work

5293: 4636: 2663:

And it wasn't even necessary as the article has just been promoted!

2560: 2199: 9420:

No worries - happy to have been of assistance. And happy new year!

8651:

Note: BilCat reverted me at Yes California after I had already (a)

6344: 5764:

Category:Military units and formations of Australia in World War II

5636:. I am just commenting the difference between listed and valid. -- 5953:

commonwealth formations does not necessarily make us a part of an

4809: 3597:

Thanks. That's Phil M, though I can't recall his full username. -

7144:

Regarding edit warring - there's a hole in your bucket. Regards,

6567: 2181:

Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project

700:

Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam

9384:. Thank you for notifying me of this error on my part. Regards, 8230:

edits, but there's better sources of humour online ;) . Cheers,

418:

appropriate. But including it in the airgroup in the infobox is

8597:

Hi Nick. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the

7476: 2940:

Further, I can't for the life of me figure out the identity of

2723:

Talk:Elian Gonzalez custody battle#Requested move 22 April 2016

1095: 856: 448: 323:

is what it was attempted to explain to you, and that you were

1024:

pusher is not a personal attack, many editors use that term.

915: 8584:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

7061:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2193:

DYK for Defence Force Correctional Establishment (Australia)

2168: 6622:

change the "Width" field to the desired size and hit enter.

3918: 3720: 9256:

Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season!

8891:

multiple people find their conduct unacceptable. Regards,

7527:

Thank you for your encouragemet, it is always appreciated

5452:

sign on the northern side of Melville Water. Thanks again

5381:

too (just a redirect to Support Command for now). Cheers,

4865:

Alfred Richard Baxter-Cox: 26 April 1940 - 28 January 1941

1216:

Knowledge:Today's featured article/requests/Hitler Diaries

891:

I was pleased to do so - good luck for your next attempt.

209:

Please provide sources to support such outlandish claims.

7952:

Do you understand that Knowledge is an encyclopedia, and

6865:

Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare

4975:"experience with the sport" may have been a good option. 4113:

That looks good - I've marked up some minor suggestions (

4014:

Yes, that clarifies things well - thanks a lot. Regards,

1679:

Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum"

1508:

Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail!

7596:- titled as such as it seems a more neutral toned title 6115:

Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites

4753: 2178:

New donations - science, humanities, and video resources

4063:

Excellent! I'll draft a nomination statement tomorrow.

2385:

Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army

9325:

Canberra class - amphibious element based on 4 RAR Cdo

9157:

isn't as good, but might also have material. Regards,

7996: 5682: 4714:

Thanks for the note - I've just blocked that account.

2586:

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II

2241: 1057:

You did the same kind of my reverts in other articles.

9110:

Thanks for the note, I've just blocked that account.

9081:

TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I

9049: