User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 1

) 23:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For finding tricky military operator references for Cessna 208 Caravan‎. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for PZL SM-4 Łątka

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nigel Ish Thankyou i will have an opinion about current and former users of different aircraft. I had no idea that anyone would take any notice of my work? Have a great day! Lovetravel86 20:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetravel86 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Nigel Ish. You have new messages at Bbb23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--John (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Competence is required#Language difficulty
• Hi Nigel, wana see what Eddaido said on my talk page? Now, as for my primary concern he has yet to answer me after I asked him if English is his first language. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

this response is interesting - it seems that the editor in question was looking for a reaction. Its probably best to let the editor be for a while If the warning works, all well and good, if it doesn't and the editor continues to act the fool then what will happen will happen.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nigel: It looks like you got left out of notification of this even though you were part of the talk page discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on your improvements to the article! - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I hold the view that describing the DC-9 as Out of Production, in Limited Service is the only proper and truthful way to go. The aircraft is not in production anymore (although I wish they would restart it and the DC-10), and it unlike the later DC-10 is only seen in limited use unlike said DC-10. A check out outside sources bore this out to me. So I must insist that the description be restored as stated above. If anyone wishes to disagree, tell me so and I'll consider your statements. But accuracy and truthfulness must be upheld in descriptions of objects and events, I always have believed that. In Re, in case you ask is a Latin phrase, in English it's "In The Matter Of" or "Concerning (The Matter Of)". I tend you use In Re alot in titling my writings. I will be restoring my own edit version pending an opinion from an administrator I contacted for instructions. I ask you not try to override me again until his opinion is received. It's Finlayson I contacted in case you wish to know. 68.236.155.234 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making a comment there! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that Flight International is one of the "Most reliable sources" is based solely on your opinion. How can I verify this? I would have to buy a subscription, they don't carry this magazine at my library WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Should I just hope you made a "good faith edit "? Maybe you misread part of it. I have read similar articles in Aviation Week & Space Technology and unfortunately they (Aviation Magazines) sometimes recycle their "current military operators" lists from the previous year. (So they may not be as up to date). The sources I provided allows the reader to physically see on-line what is being represented in this article. Clearly this Bo105 sports the title of Canadian Coast Guard Fisheries and Oceans Canada on the side on the it's fuselage. Other sources I used like this this is very specific to the operator, registration number. and last year sold. I realize that some sources, can't relay if the fleets are current. I don't mean to impugn on your work, and I'm sure your very good at what you do here. I apologizes for trampling over you work, and will add my references as a secondary source. Regards FOX 52 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• The use of photos as references has been discussed at the Reliable Sources noticeboard and has been rejected. Airliners.net (or at least the photos side of it) involves user submitted information so there is nothing to prove that the photos have not been faked up or that they represent what they are meant to represent. Please keep to
  WP:RSs.Nigel Ish (talk
  ) 22:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No Airliners.net has a staff to review submitted information, and photos where they will apply corrections if needed as per their (aircraft)registration number. I've uploaded a few to that site, so I know from expiernce. Something from "flickr" I would agree. Anyways do you have a link to the discussion on the "Reliable Sources noticeboard" pertaining to Airliners.net, I tried the noticeboard archives and I got nothing FOX 52 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While Airliners.net does have staff, we can't be certain that they'll catch every flaw, or that a very convincing or plausable mistake won't get given some leeway.

WP:Primary) and User-content sources are typically avoided as plausably unverifiable/not approved by a knowledgable editor/source prior to publication (It's quite a different thing to be chasing after content following release to edit claims and falsehoods in retrospective). I don't mean to do the source down, but it isn't what would typically count as suitable, when there's other material available that passes without any hitch. Kyteto (talk

) 00:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of this guideline is that you can not cite the fact that London buses are red by using an image of a very obviously red London bus. Strange perhaps but this is how Wikipedia works, stranger still that this does not seem to appear on the main

WP:RS guideline page which is something I might take up with whoever runs that part of the project, the question has appeared many times on the talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Need more eyes to look at what is a bit of a contentious issue in assigning a name to an aircraft-oriented article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

you reverted an edit I made here, and suggested a page to see, which doesn't exist. Is there another link to possibly view ? Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the right link - Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Aviastar - basically the Aviastar site contains very large scale blatent sopyvio and MUST NOT be linked to or used as a reference. Annoying, but it is something we have to be very careful of when using websites as references or external links.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything as an attack; upon reflection, I could have been a bit less harsh in my comments there. You have my most sincere apologies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of copyvio: is this usage to be considered kosher? No. 204 Squadron RAF It is offered on Amazon and gives as editiors Ronald Cohn and Jesse Russell, but uses Wikipedia text.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As all Wikipedia entries are licensed under a

CC-BY-SA 3.0, the book would not be a copyvio as long as the text was properly attributed and licensed - see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content.Nigel Ish (talk

) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Images_as_a_source seemed to cause you offence. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a related issue. Thank you. See Bureaucrat OhanaUnited - are they right, am I wrong? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to reply on the ANI thread. I am done with the issue and see little point in trying to cross swords with an admin who accuses editors who have conflicting views of finding bad examples to illustrate a point. As it is clear that any attempt to argue that photos on airliners.net may not be a reliable source are unwelcome, and will be considered

pointy then there is no valuein participating in the discussion, as at best it will only result in mockery and at worst, being blocked.Nigel Ish (talk

) 14:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, do you want to rewrite this, then? I'ts a very underdeveloped article with errors, & I've now lost two edits to edit conflicts!TheLongTone (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the in-use template until I submitted the edit. I apologise for any edit conflictsNigel Ish (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it gets easier the more you do it & I do try to remember to keep a copy of major edits in Word, & I appreciate your diving in to correct my error with the link & the addition: I often don't preview because it frequently hangs my browser.TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing the Helis.com site snafu with respect to the

And if you actually bother to look at the references you supply re the UH-1N, one is a blog of uncertain provenance, one is a caption on airliners.net (which there is disagreement about its reliability) and the third is a press release from 2004, saying that the US Navy plans to retire the HH-1N by 2009. Hardly definitive. Flight International says that its World Air Forces directory uses fleet data compiled for its premium industry databases, so its not as if its made up.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't actually a problem that the lists Flight International use are not current - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus is written across the brendth of time, and doesn't need to take a 'current status/events' angle, in fact it is discouraged in some areas as this can lend itself to revisionism. By reflecting the thoughts and details not just from multiple sources, but multiple sources of multiple time periods, the article becomes a far stronger reflection of the topic that if we were to take everything from one moot time point. That the information of a source isn't dated to the year and month we are currently occupying isn't a problem for most encyclopedic purposes. Kyteto (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You completely skipped over the first and most important example straight from the horse's mouth. How do you explain their omission of the S-92 for the Korean Air Force and Royal Thai Air force. This list is as current as they get - 2013. I wish it was as simple as a "one stop-shop list". Unfortunately these magazines don't put in much effort to review every Air Force's status. I have found similar issues with Aviation Week & Space Technology year end World Air Force listings FOX 52 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Youtube clip was unviewable when I tried it. The two S-92 orders appear to be for VVIP aircraft, which the Flight directory doesn't appear to include, and hasn't done for several years, which is also true for small General Aviation types. You cannot use absence from the report as positive proof that an aircraft type has been retired by an operator - that needs specific sourcing - which is why splitting operator sections into Current and Former operators is such a bad idea, as for minor types and operators, such information is often not available in anything that could count as a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok you're kind of going off track here, I'm merely pointing out, that these list sometime can be outdated. If folks on some blog or forum,(ei; helis.com) are talking about an aircraft that "has been retired", well then maybe there's something behind it. So yes the US Navy no longer has any UH-1's in their fleet. KTVN channel2 News Defense-Technology News and the last flight heading to be put on display alabamaaviator.com. Bottom line Flight International is still a good source, but if you see or suspect a discrepancy, just look into it a bit, or tell me about it I'll do the looking. Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello There Nigel, I see that you put some effort into

You got a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Kyteto.27s focus article for February - Transall C-160. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I've seen you around quite a long time now, and noticed your name come up as an admin possibility. While I'm sure you've been asked before, I'm wondering if you've given the possibility of running for adminship any thought. More copyright admins are definitely needed, and I've definitely seen you help out a lot there. Wizardman 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nigel Ish; I'm dropping you this note because you've used

I didnt change the ISBN's I just used the standard ISBN-13 where -10's where used before. both versions of the ISBN refer to the same book. Werieth (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	There are times when I'm lousy with words, so I'll just keep it short/simple. Thanks! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

About this edit, are you saying that all males that were 19 and older were conscripted prior to the Battle of Caporetto? Does that mean that after the battle, Italy decreased the required age for conscription to 18? If so, I think we should reword the article, because as it stands right now, it looks like Italy was just picking on anyone who was the specific age of 18, while ignoring everyone older or younger. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. So could you delete it, please. JKadavoor Jee 08:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

HMAS Snipe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Operation Musketeer

HMS Asheldham (M2604) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Dartmouth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vought F4U Corsair may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''F4U-5NL''': Winterized version (72 units produced,<ref>Angelucci 1985, p. 210.</ref> 29 modified from F4U-5Ns (101 total). Fitted
• * '''WS Folded:''' 17 ft 0.5 in (5.2 m

Thanks,

Hello Mr Ish. Looking through my photo collection, I have found a slide of the prototype RFB Fanliner which I took at the June 1975 Paris Air Show. I have just contributed it to Wiki Commons as 'RFB Fanliner D-EJFL LEB 07.06.75 edited-3.jpg'. To my eyes, this type seems much the same as the Fantrainer. However it predates the Fantrainer by three years. The Fanliner is not listed in the Wiki type index, which is surprising. I see that you have made major contributions to the Fantrainer article, so I wonder if you might use your accumulated knowledge to decide whether to add the Fanliner (so described at Paris in 1975) to the Fantrainer article. I cannot find any references to the Fanliner anywhere and think you would be best placed to add it, if you so judge, to the existing Wiki article. Regards RuthAS (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Fanliner (technically the RFB/Grumman American Fanliner according to the 1976 Jane's) is a distinct type compared to the Fantrainer, being much smaller and lighter, and probably warrants its own article. I'll see if I can find sufficient sources to knock up an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And here it is.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ish. You certainly did find enough material for a very worthwhile article on the Fanliner - I've learnt much from reading it! Your access to the relevant Janes is invaluable. Have added the type to the aircraft index page; also an image of a production RW 3.P75 clearly showing the propellor installation. Regards RuthAS (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

HMS Swordfish (1895) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Engineer

Manzolini Libellula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inline engine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Found FBA-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inline engine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• This was me being forgetful, thanks for finding the stray! :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nigel, I recognise the quality of the changes you made to HMS Firedrake (1912), but the reference you gave for her having 2 shafts said nothing about the number of shafts in a Yarrow Special Acheron-class destroyer. The Clyde Database says 3 shafts, 3 turbines. Accordingly, I've changed it back to three (verifiable, not necessarily true). Do you know something I don't, or did you just mis-read the reference? Yours, Shem (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I referenced the change to the Engineer of 12 July 1912- which says on p.39 - "The vessel is 255ft. long by 25ft. 7in. beam, and is propelled by Parsons turbines driving two shafts, steam being supplied by three Yarrow water-tube boilers fitted with the firm's latest feed-heating devices." Friedman also indicates on p. 123 of British Destroyers that at least the six "normal" specials, together with the three John Brown Acherons, were two shaft ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I missed that piece - I was reading p.35. Sorry. I'll put it right by the end of the day, as well as Oak and Lurcher. Thanks for your patience. Shem (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Shem (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 18:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

Are you really serious! Do you not see on the talk page that a consensus was reached with Bushranger and others that McSly then edit-warred a month afterwards. Go review before replying please! Furthermore my changes are in line with German wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon which was arrived at by the independent consensus of a third opinion - see '3O'. Z07x10 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You personally have reverted at least 4 times today on Typhoon, while User:McSly has also edit warred although they have not broken 3rr yet - breaching 3rr in a content dispute is a no-no, whether or not you think you are right.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay so it's all about timing or having username aliases? Could I request some intermediate page protection until this dispute is resolved.Z07x10 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Be very careful about making

those sort of accusations without any proof as they can bounce back and hit you if they are unfounded. Please use proper channels for dispute resolution.Nigel Ish (talk

) 20:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Valentine (L69), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Devonport Dockyard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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 reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Supermarine Seamew may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the [[Supermarine S.4|S.4]] and [[Supermarine S.5]] racing floatplanes for the [Schneider Trophy]].<ref name="London p92,4"/><ref name="andrews Super p113">Andrews and Morgan 1987, p. 113.</ref>

Thanks,

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• mm|adj=on|sigfig=3}} guns]] were mounted fore and aft on the ship's centreline, while six 4.7 in (120 mm guns were mounted three on each broadside. 8 six pounder guns and 1 three pounder provided

Thanks,

talk

) 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

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 reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Ghurka (1907), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paravane and Dungeness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)