User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 3

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi! Nearly a year ago, you described the Wikidata interface as "dreadful". I was wondering if this observation was still true, or if you felt it had improved since then. If it's still true, could you please give me some more details? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that your response on User talk:Dutral and interactions with the user; am I the only one who thinks he seems an awful lot like the long-banned Lgfcd? Kyteto (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Their behaviour does seem very similar. Proving a link would be difficult however, owing to the time that has passed.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're correct, unfortunately. Kyteto (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2015 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

N, can you keep an eye on this article; it looks really messed up, especially with some reference sources I can't figure out. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Kabocha here: I am sorry if this is the wrong place to communicate on this matter, but I did not see another way to reply.

To answer the first of your concerns, Mr. NI, Aero Detail 7 is indeed by Shigeru Nohara. It is partly in Japanese and partly in English. Yes, Robert Mikesh's book is the one by Crown that you point to.

I see a concern about citing a US Intelligence document. It is up to you whether you allow it to be displayed, but it is a translation of a Japanese wartime document which reveals that the Japanese Navy was working on a turbocharger in 1943. To my knowledge, it has not been reprinted in any book.

If you like, I will revise my citations according to whatever standard you instruct, but when I read the rules, they say that there is some flexibility in citation style. Obviously, it is not excusable to omit the name of author Nohara. There is one style for footnotes and another for bibliography. Which would you have me correct? Please give me footnote and/or bibliography line numbers.

Finally, yes, I agree, this article is "messed up", but not just as to footnoting and bibliography. Based on my 45 years of studying WWII Japanese aircraft, my ability to read Japanese works on the subject, etc., I feel it is replete with confusing statements, amateurish and vague discussion of technical features, overstatements, aerial combat claims presented as fact, factual errors, and insufficient citation. (Indeed, the flow chart starting the section on variants is from a Japanese publication for which the copyright is probably still in effect, yet there is no citation to it. Wikipedia has resisted my attempts to explain the model number coding system that it displays. I did not put that flow chart there.)

If you would like to open a dialogue with me about revisions, then please let me know the way to have that dialogue and to what extent it will be public. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia mechanisms of communication behind the articles. Kabocha (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)kabochaKabocha (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you reverted my edits on the An-10. I added some useful info and did precise tech data. Please contact me in future if you have problems with my editing of any article - it would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazzyrabbit (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You were altering information cited to a reliable source without supplying an additional source, thus misleading the reader and misattributing the change while the changes to text were also unsourced and poorly written.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"while the changes to text were ... poorly written" - what you mean? I'm sure that words "revenue" "design bureau" "Komi" and other were written correct. If you (as English-speaking person) see any bad grammar it seems natural to correct it rather than delete - what you think?

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your expansion of the article about Libertad with additional sources. So far I couldn't find clear evidence whether the class was named Libertad or Independencia, does "Conway" give a specific class name? I assume the class would be named after the first ship ordered, Libertad. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusingly, they are listed as the Independencia in the 1960–1905 volume, but as the Libertad class in the 1906–1921 volume.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello I am the same person from the reference section who done edits from january to april and I propose a potential demerger between Hal amca and Amca programme as in the start part of development section it crates confusion, I purpose that a potential de merger between the above two parts will help to reduce confusion, as the previous design section should kept as it helps to understand the development of the programme but in different article of Amca programme totally separate from Hal Amca which would indeed help to reduce confusion between the article and help to grow in proper direction for both proposed different article,I have posted same on the Hal Amca talk page. I would like your opinion on the proposed demarge. 1.39.10.180 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please fix a recent edit that was made at Scaled Composites ATTT. You added "wing area sqft=16.67" in March 2014 but the edit questions if it is correct. I'm just fixing convert errors and have no knowledge of the topic. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks (belatedly) for catching that! Grocer's apostrophes, hey? I didn't know they had a name and all. And it seems they are a sign of age, so now I'm really depressed! Anyway, thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your fine and incredible amount of work in the article HMS Cockatrice (1912), I present you with this barnstar. Well deserved! —UY Scuti Talk 19:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought, it might be helpful to mention that all.six of Nautilus' torpedo tubes were mounted forward, axial-firing, , as she mounted no stern tubes due, of course, to her reactor and machinery configuration.

By the way, does anybody know (or care) how many torpedo reloads Nautilus carried?

Thank you for your splendid effortsto preserve the history/memory of our nation's Number One Nuke!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B048:1BF8:63DF:E224:59E5:2D97 (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If you've got a source for that information that meets

Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, then feel free to add it to the article. Such requests would probably fit better on the Article talk page follow this link than on my talk page, as more people who have access to sources about Nautilus will be watching that page.Nigel Ish (talk

) 08:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

On my watchlist and I'm about to drop a warning on their talk page. Best if you step back for a few edits rather than risk falling foul of 3RR. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. I wondered, as you have been particularly willing and resourceful on finding cites for this kind of information in the past, would you have any material on the Saab 37 Viggen article? I've been recently trying to properly cite and source the article, adding substancially to it in the past; but the Operators and the Variants sections remain mostly untouched so far - I haven't been able to get a high quality source to work upon for them. If you are so inclined, could you take a look at them please? Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel, it's looking far better already! Kyteto (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Chinese Military Aviation website is MORE RELIABLE than Wikipedia itself. The rich and detailed information on that website is far superior to any detail you can ever find about Chinese jet fighters on any other single website in this world. As declared by the website, their content is based on good research. http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.ca/p/fighters-i.html . Then why is "licenced copy of MiG-21" the only description that can be given to an F-7 NI that has year 2006 avionics compared to MiG-21 ancient 1960-1970s avionics? Why is that MiG-21 description become a label that must not be changed for ever, is there a bias going on? Also, why is the Nigerian air force F-7 the only one on Wikipedia that is labelled as a licenced built copy of MiG-21? Why are the F-7 jets on Wikipedia pages of Egyptian, Iranian, Namibian, Tanzanian, Bangladeshi air forces not tagged with same label of MiG-21 ? Wikipedia entries should not be biased and misleading or done with mischievous intent. Wikipedia is not a fantastic source of information, but when people like us make entries to improve it's content, our efforts should be appreciated, we do not get paid for the value we add to Wikipedia. Sapong (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Completely forgot to add cited source to Bibliography, gosh dern it! Well spotted, sir! ~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please check also Hungarian official sources, not only English one. There are 5 active An-26 airplanes in inventory: #405, #406, #407, #603 and #110. The Hungarian Air Force received between 1975 and 1976 #405, #406, #407, #603. Number 110 was received in March 2004. All planes before them were refurbished by Antonov. In Hungary if a plane gets a factorial refurbishment they are removed from the active list. That's why it is not shown in your source. #406 was recommissioned in June 28. 2015. So put my changes back to An-26 wiki page! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke83 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

To change the values needs a

reliable source to replace the source that is already used, and Wikipedia has fairly strict requirements about what counts as a reliable source (a lot of what is on the internet doesn't meet these requirements). What you did was to change the value withot changing the source, which isn't really acceptable as it appears go misrepresnt what the source says.Nigel Ish (talk

) 20:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your snarky edit summary here. If you want to argue that the Daily Express is a high-quality source for this sort of material, I look forward to reading your argument at Talk:Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. If, like me, you agree that the Express is a worthless tabloid, you can feel free to get on with improving the article by finding and adding better sources, and without grumping about others' good-faith attempts to upgrade the sourcing. I'm curious to know what relevance you feel my admin status is to this discussion, since you mentioned it? --John (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. I've been doing some upgrades to Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, as you've probably noticed from the focus article notice I issued earlier this month on the WP:Aircraft talk page. I wondered, would you have any cites for the Variants or the Operators section? I've been working my hump off trying to get the Development and Operational History sections up to scratch, as well as kicking off a Design section - this article seems to have so much that can be done with it! Any hel pthat can be spared is appreciated, but it's no sweat if you don't have the time/the article doesn't appeal. Kyteto (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest nonsense from our IP in Washington? I must say he's getting more imaginative, but I do wish we could pull his plug. Jets on a biplane! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, at least for the I-153, and unusually for this editor, the claims may have at least some basis, as it was used as a testbed for crude ramjets, and this is mentioned in the article. And then there is the Belphegor!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is some truth, but as usual with whoever this user is, he misses the mark completely. Per DENY, I don't usually warn him. Seems like a young high schooler of Russian descent, to judge by his edit habits. Hopefully he'll grow up soon. - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2016 (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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Hello, thanks for reverting my mistake on Vickers Valiant and I will take a better look in the future, for me it just looked that the script did its job and combined the refs. obviously my mistake. However this does seem like a bug and I have asked the creator to take a look at it. Thanks again - Redalert2fan (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2016 (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 review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saab 2000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CASA. 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) 09:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You've greatly improved this article. I'd like to expand it further as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge and take it to GA and give you credit as co-nominator since you've gone the bulk of the work already, if you're agreeable. I intend to rework the citations to Corbett and Newbolt as I have the reprints of the 2nd editions to hand and may be able to expand her post-war history if she served in the Mediterranean during this time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I deserve a co-credit as most of my edits were in 2014, but thanks for the offer. There may be more detail on WW1 usage in the first part of the war in the Naval Staff Memorandums. I'll give them a quick once over.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I don't really have to do anything to most of the article, so I think it would be well-deserved. I'll start work on it in the next day or two. I've only just downloaded the Memorandums so it's going to take me a while to see what they've got that's useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, had a few things come up. But I've finished off HMS Bridgewater (L01) which you did a lot of work on a few months ago and have given you credit in the GAN. Will get to Dartmouth soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miles Messenger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inline engine. 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) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nigel Ish. You have new messages at Talk:HMS_Bridgewater_(L01)/GA1.
Message added 00:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Address issues raised. Regards,

When there is only 1 ref? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It places the cite in the correct context -i.e. as a reference to a part of a larger article, and is consistent with what is already done in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

But for the DC-8 article, it isn't consistent since there is more inline refs. I don't understand why it should be superior for the context. I understand the usefulness of harvard ref when a book is cited multiple times for multiple pages (for DC-8: Francillon) for for an article with no specific page, it obfuscate the reference. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS G37, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland. 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) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (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 review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

Do you have access to any specs for the Model 73 Jet Mentor? It seems different enough from the T-34 to warrant a separate article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are a fairly full set of specs in the 56–57 Jane's All The World's Aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you!! Computer keyboard froze during the edit, typed random to see if it would unfreeze, then somehow it "saved". Could not get back in until just now and was worried that others would see the gibberish - so thank you for the quick recovery. Jmg38 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for covering for me at Flight airspeed record! Jmg38 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2016 (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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Nigel, the section of the article I edited reads 'Maximum speed: 370 mph (595 km/h) (322 kn, 595 km/h)' as you can see the km/h figure is listed twice. That's why I deleted the second instance. Does it need to be listed twice? --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 16:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The specification template used in the article is NOT designed to be used with conversion templates, but for the values to be put into the alt fields by hand - I deleted the conversion template, so all should be OK with speed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making the correction to my edit. I do read everything I change, but missed the meaning of this line that lacks any punctuation. Hmains (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nigel Ish. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nigel, I left an question on the talk page. Hope you can help. I'm thin for reliable sources on this point. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2016 (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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Nigel Ish.

talk!

) 12:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

On 16 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Negro (1916), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that following a collision, HMS Negro sank after two depth charges from HMS Hoste tore open its hull? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Negro (1916). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Negro (1916)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

SoWhy 12:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, I see my error - I am sure I found a reference to the Consolidated P2Y being related to the PN - I will check again.80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Found it (luckily):[1] E.R. Johnson, an attorney...!80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

These sort of connections are far too tangential to end up in See also sections - relationships should be close and direct - this sort of link would get removed at FAC for example.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What is FAC?80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured article.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Why does the SMS S20 template have a double || in it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's because the article title SMS S20 does not need a year to disambiguate - the double || is where the year goes where a year is in the title - see Template:SMS.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering if it was that, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder?

Other sites: [2] that claims Aviastar as a source and [3].

Not in Vickers Aircraft (Putnam) [4] unless a later edition?Rstory (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Aviastar is a serial copyvio offender - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Aviastar - we shouldn't be linking to or using them as any sort of source, and we must not be using any drawings unless we know that they are in public domain because the copyright has expired or have been licences in a suitably free manner for use on Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate there is a photo already, however the drawing offers views that are not seen in the photo and there are no photos extant of these views, i.e. Top, left, front elevations. That seems a reasonable FU justification.Rstory (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I also notice that you appear to have uploaded the photo of the aircraft as PD-US-1923 - however, there is no evidence of when it was first published - therefore PD-US-1923 is inappropriate as we don't know for sure whether it was published prior to 1923, and we don't know whether it is copyright expired in the UK because we do not know the author (so we cannot say for certain if it is 70 years since the death of the author) ands we don't know when it was first published (it has to be 70 years since publication if the author is unknown).Nigel Ish (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The logic suggests both require FU justification?Rstory (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair use justification would be difficult for the three view as it would be possible for someone to produce a new 3-view and release it under suitable licence. For the photo, this 1921 page from Flight has a photo which was published prior to 1923 and would be suitable for uploading here on en-wiki even if not on commons (proof would be needed that it was also pd in the UK for that).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Published 1921 on a postcard see original [5] Ebay links disappear eventually, hence 'expired'.Rstory (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How about a lower-res version of the 3-view? Drawings are good for comparing hull forms etc against other designs. Also good for articles where there is limited space. RegardsRstory (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny enough there is another pic of the craft here [6] - quite forward looking it seems.Rstory (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2017 (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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I know is published in december 2016 but the title is World Air Forces 2017, as you can see in this imagine http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/1046977.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 23:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (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 review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

Yes, that was an error on my part. However, I am slightly confused as to operational examples still with Aurigny, as the official website states three. I am assuming there are now two in the service of Aurigny? Regards

talk

) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The article in Aeroplane says that one G-BEVT was still in service at the end of March. G-RLON is the one that has been given to Solent Sky and the third, G-BDTO was retired in December 2016 and may going to the Guernsey Airport fire training unit.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's all three accounted for then. Thanks for the background info Nigel.

talk

) 21:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to

For title case, the words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are:

• Articles (a, an, the)

Since the mentioned exception does not apply to the title in question, would you please be so kind as to do me the courtesy of undoing your reversion? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Doing so would be to falsify the title of the reference. I will not do it. As clearly verifiability is not important to you or to MOS, I will unwatch the article so I am not liable for such disruptive changes.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, per the publisher's official Web page for the current edition and the 2009–10 edition's cover, the title is capitalized Jane's All the World’s Aircraft (emphasis added)—see here and here, respectively.—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want further proof, I can provide the citations from various style guides, or even take photos of the book in question—one of my local college libraries has just about every edition. And, yes, I do care about verifiability. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have unwatched the article so you can do what you want to it - I will not edit it again as you have made it quite clear that I am not welcome there. Please do not edit this talk page again.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2017 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I