User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 4

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.

I am having a few problems with an enthusiastic but at times very dogmatic editorial colleague on the Fokker Scourge article. In fact, things have reached a pass where some second opinions might be useful. The specific question he is hammering at the moment is that we shouldn't ever say "No. 1 Squadron RAF" (in spite of that being the usual way of putting it) but "1 Squadron" (on the grounds that the "No." is redundant). I wouldn't object to an occasional omission of the "No.", if only for elegant variation, but he has been going right through the article wiping every instance and claiming that "Wikipedia is not a source" (which is true enough, but nothing to do with the case). The gentleman concerned has been making dozens of other (mostly very pettifogging) changes to the article - a few have been genuine improvements, and most at least acceptable alternatives but some of have made clear text obscure, even meaningless. I have let everything he has done that is at all acceptable stand, but the really bad ones I've had to change - usually with a new version rather than a provocative revert.

I was wondering, if you have a moment, if you'd like to have a little look at the Fokker Scourge talk page (go straight to the bottom if you like) and tell me, either here, on my talk page, or even on the talk page of the article if you want to actually buy into the discussion, if I'm being totally unreasonable and should just give up. This is (for a WWI aviation article) quite a high traffic one - and I'd like to leave it in reasonable shape. At least readable, and plain in meaning (two things I value far above brevity for its own sake). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:07, 23 July 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 the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 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 two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 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: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Nigel Ish. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

HMS Exe (1903) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paravane

HMS Sappho (1891) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dungeness

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 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 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Several months ago you added this as a source to the Yakovlev Yak-25 article. I am currently attempting to get the article to GA to match other Soviet aircraft articles. Would it be possible for you to email me scans of the article as I don't have access to Air International back issues? Kges1901 (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No - I no longer have access to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Time flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 24 December 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 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Owl (1913), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paravane and St Helens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2018 (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 on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

I've reworked the description and added a lede for this article. I would like to nominate it for GA with you as a co-nominator since you wrote the bulk of the service history, if you're agreeable. Feel free to make any changes that you feel are necessary before I nominate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SMS V47, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drifter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2018 (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 a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi! I guess we have a problem. All the Turkish sources ı refer say this was a Turkish-built submarine. And those sources are also reliable. What you mean may be TCG Atılay (S-347), which went into service later. Please refrain from reverting. Thanks. CeeGee 16:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Conways and Jane's are definitely taking about this submarine, and are specialist reliable sources on naval subjects - the Type 209 submarine was built 1972–1976 in a different German shipyard (i.e. Howaldswerke).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Syren (1900), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newhaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert the change I made re the hydraulic system? "brakes and undercarriage; powered by a 4,000 psi engine-driven gearbox" This is not understandable, an engine driven gearbox powers a hydraulic pump which powers the stated items. There is no such thing as a 4000 psi engine driven gearbox. I'd appreciate it if you could fix what you did.Avi8tor (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

What you said was "powered by an driven gearbox" which doesn't make sense.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Jet engines have a shaft drive to a gearbox full of gears which power generators, alternators, fuel pumps, oil pumps, and hydraulic pumps all of which rotate at different speeds, hence a box full of gears. The hydraulic pump in this case is probably constant speed so the pressure is the same all the time. There is no such thing as a 4000 psi engine driven gearbox. I know this because I flew jet aircraft for 45 years. Some of us also use SI and want the pressure in Pascals. Avi8tor (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What is needed is for someone to look at the source and see what it actually says. Sadly it is a dead link. It may be on the Internet Archive somewhere, but I get a TLS error when I try to access it. Perhaps you may be able to see what it says?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Evening Nigel, There's a query on Talk:Vickers Venom about a phrase that seems to have come from you a long time ago. They refer to the phrase "after a crash in testing", at the end of the last para. As they say, there's no mention of this event in the sources cited. If you did introduce the phrase, could you add a ref please? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your revision here was a little odd. All the other ships of the Royal Navy are in metric (imperial) except this one. Further, as it is now, the length and beam are in imperial and the draught is in metric. Bonewah (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The oleo strut of the F.E.2's undercarriage is of course well known - and well referenced. Just two sources that come to mind are:

• Hare, Paul R. The Royal Aircraft Factory. London: Putnam, 1990. ISBN 0-85177-843-7, pp.208-209.
• Cheesman, E.F., ed. Fighter Aircraft of the 1914–1918 War. Letchworth, UK: Harleyford, 1960. pp. 44-45.

I have nonetheless run into a bit of conflict with someone with interests from "a later war" who disputes this - perhaps on the authority of works documenting more modern "oleo struts". I wonder if you could apply an impartial eye on this one? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: your revert here,I actually thought the IP's addition, "is the best production aircraft", was quite hopeful. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Spelling - Ha! Who needs it!Nigel Ish (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Some of mine have been even worse! - BilCat (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Lol your edit is a bit in accurate ok :) 07Sepp Dietrich (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the information from Beevor's book to the article. But there's a problem with the ISBN and I can't find the edition that you've used on Worldcat. Can you check again and make sure that the bibliographic info is correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well that was the ISBN-13 that was listed on the flyleaf of the book! I've changed it to the ISBN-10, which seems to work.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Not the first mis-printed ISBN I've seen. Thanks for fixing it so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your research on Pentstemon. As you know your way around the RN archives I am wondering if you can locate anything about Pendant/Pennant numbers? There is a comment on my talk page following my change on S-class destroyers (1917). I have accepted the other editors point as I can find nothing to contradict it and I think he is right but the existing page on Pennant numbers is a bit of a mess following an IP editor doing a search and replace on the RN section changing pennant to pendant in 2012. Specifically it needs a date for if and when pendant numbers were introduced and a date for when they started to be referred to as pennant numbers. Can you help? Lyndaship (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am currently working on battle of Westerplatte. Three German ships shelled the Polish fort: the well known BB Schleswig-Holstein and the two smaller vessels. One of them T196 aka SMS G196 you wrote about, and you included the sentence "On 4 September T196 along with the pre-dreadnought battleship Schleswig-Holstein and the old minesweeper Von der Gronen (formerly M107), bombarded Westerplatte". Could you double check that source? Polish Wikipedia article about the battle describes the other ship as a torpedo boat T-963, but frankly I cannot find any source to verify either of those ships (particularly T-963; can't even verify such a ship existed). Trying to confirm M107's presence at Westerplatte pretty much seems to go back to our article, too (and Chronology of the War At Sea 1939–1945. has no online previews, and no copy near me). PS. I wonder your source would include a date, according to the article, those torpedo boats only aided the attack on a single day, Sept 4th? PPS. File:Westerplatte en.PNG current map describes the ships as '2 torpedo boats'. PPPS. M107 was a broken link, but I piped it to German minesweeper M 107. I guess T-963 is an error? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rohwer and Hummelchen definitely says that T196 and the minesweeper took part in the bombardment on 4 September - and only mentions them taking part in bombardments on that date - Schleswig-Holstein certainly took part on other days. I suspect that T-963 is a mangled version of T196. I think there may be some sort of on-line German language version of Chronology of the War At Sea 1939–1945 - which I've seen as a reference either here or on de:wiki - but I'm not sure of its copyright status or whether it accurately reflects the books.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Online German version of Jürgen Rohwer's Chronik des Seekrieges 1939-1945 (updated from the print editions) is available on the webpage of the Württembergische Landesbibliothek; the link is: http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/chronik.htm There does not seem to be any copyright notice.Dfvj (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Agincourt (D86), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appledore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for all your work on ship articles. You might want to note that Middlesbrough is usually spelt thus, without the O, so that it is "brough" rather than "borough". Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Lynx (1894), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Short Sandringham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nigel Ish. I have to say it's been quite impressive how you have improved

HMS Airedale (L07) from a single-sentence stub (in which pretty much all of the other content had to be removed and revdeleted as a copyvio) to what it currently is. I know others have been involved, but you have done the yeoman's work; so, job well done. -- Marchjuly (talk

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Benbow (1885), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackwall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you have English's book on Hunt-class destroyers, and I would like to expand that article, which I created years ago as a stub. Since English isn't easy to get access to on this side of the Atlantic, would it be possible for you to send scans of the entry for Cattistock in English's book? Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. Dapi89 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are making changes and adding tags to the Tornado article without having read the changes. This is completely clear because YOU TAGGED A REFERENCE WITH A TAG REQUESTING A REFERENCE. You clearly did not even read the changes if you did not see that it was already referenced.

Please avoid making changes and edit warring when you clearly have not read the changes.

Your recent editing history at Panavia Tornado shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I read the changes, which is why I reverted them - as discussed in the talk page, they were confused, are sourced to an unknown reference with no bibliographic details, and sourced to a whole chapter of this unknown book so they cannot be verified. The information added appears to be design shop gossip and is undue.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the edits made by citation bot initiated by me, I try to look for bad edits and revert them however some inevitability slip by so an extra pair of eyes for sure helps. I have filled bug reports for a couple of the bad edits so they should not happen anymore in the future. Thanks again,Redalert2fan (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I understand why you removed the list of RAF Tornados as it is very long (and perhaps too much for the main article) but I'm wondering if there is a suitable place for it. There's a comparable list of the RAF Phantoms, albeit shorter, showing that there is relevance to having a list of air frames. So would the Tornado list be appropriate on a separate/new article dedicated to RAF Tornados like the RAF Phantom article or one simply just for the serials (which I believe is warranted)? Or equally does it have no valid place despite a similar list existing on the RAF Phantom page?

Thanks, F4JPhantomII (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I had not noticed that the phantom article has a hidden list of individual aircraft, I have removed it as it not normal practice to list individual aircraft or blocks of serials numbers. Individual aircraft can be listed if they are noteworthy but this is really rare and I cant think of any RAF Tornadoes that would that notable to list, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nigel
Thanks for catching this: I was just working through the list at Blackwood-class frigates; I have no idea if they are accurate or not. In fact I was unsure about HMS Grafton (F51), also, as the Duke of Grafton was primarily a soldier, but the first HMS Grafton dates from 1679, so I presume it's correct. Anyway, thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Manning & Walker, Henry Fitzroy is the namesake for HMS Grafton. Apparently he did command the first Grafton - also the first HMS Cleveland was named after Fitzroy's mother.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am only adding neutral information from known sources about the loss of a MiG-21 Bison on a MiG-21 site. Please stop your disruption by adding unrelated information that has yet to be verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The information I added was from exactly the same source (the BBC) as the information you kept, and you added no information, only deleted it.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Give me a few mins I'm adding more citations. Faraz (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't India refuting Pakistan's claim enough? IAF denied yesterday officially. So We have both sides POV. Faraz (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

As you continue to misrepresent what sources say after it has been pointed out, there is no point in continuing any discussion. I have unwatched the article in question as I find dealing with editors who indentionally distort what sources say a waste of time. Please do not post on my talk page again - I cannot assume good faith about your motives.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Just a reminder to WP:assume good faith. There are a lot of problems with the proposals made by User:Faraz, but it may be incorrect to assert that they are intentionally misrepresenting sources. It could be that they misunderstood the sources. Another Indian jet of a different model was indeed shot down, so they may have confused reporting on that jet for reporting on the allegedly shot down Sukhoi Su-30.

Also, the NDTV source and India Today source explicitly report the Pakistani claim. Your edit summary had the effect of misrepresenting the sources. Never mind, the sources that you removed should indeed have been removed. Sorry for misunderstanding your edit.Leugen9001 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SMS S32 (1914), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping that you might have access to this magazine through Grace's Guide as I'd like to add the trials data for HMS Raleigh (1919) which apparently appeared in the 24 September 1920 issue. I'd like to be able to properly fill out the ref, but am unwilling to pay for the priviledge. I'd appreciate it if you could send me the pdf file of this issue if you can. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I don't - while I have used Engineering as a reference in the past, Grace's Guide wasn't pay to access when I used it.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Shoot, c'est-la vie du papier!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You might find trials info for Raleigh in the Proceedings of the US Navy Institute, some of roughly that age are on the Internet Archive - they did reprint trials data (including from The Engineer, so if you are willing to dig a bit, you may be in luck.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, I also need to clear up the whole coal/mixed/oil-firing boiler in which Friedman and Raven & Roberts contradict each other, and sometimes even themselves!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Mersham (M2709), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appledore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi - You seem to be insistent on reverting my edits to various articles. The section on 45 Squadron in No 41 - 45 Squadron Histories has been reviewed and updated by Wing Commander Jeff Jeffard who has written extensively on RAF matters. See [1]. Surely that is a better source than no source at all? Dormskirk (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I tagged the page as requiring verification as it does not meet the requirement of a

WP:Reliable Source as the website is a private website with no editorial control, and everything on it should be found in actual reliable websites. Clearly you disagree. I will unwatch all the RAF squadron pages on my watchlist as it is clear that you object to my requesting better sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk

) 20:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I took a cursory look at the webpage in question and wonder what is the connection with Jefford, who is an acknowledged authority on RAF squadrons and their histories? Unless he's exercising some sort of editorial control, the site doesn't qualify as RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The website uses the words "Thanks to Wg Cdr C G Jefford, for the latest amendments to this squadron history - 24 July 2004". But I respect your view and have removed all the references that I had inserted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest citing whatever information you wanted to add directly to Jefford's books. You have to be very cautious with adding material from websites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hey, great going! Congratulations! - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings:

I have discovered something that I should have verified before I started making changes. I apologize for neglecting to do before. When I originally viewed the WIKI page on the Focke-Wulf Fw 189, I did so from my Kindle reader (mistake #1); I also performed the changes to the WIKI Fw 189 page based on how it appears via Kindle’s apparently out-of-date WWW Browser (mistake #2).

What I had intended to correct was the hideous way that the Fw 189 WIKI article appears on my Kindle. Now that I have viewed the Fw 189 WIKI article on one computer, running Windows & Internet Explorer, and another computer, an iPad running Safari, both of which show the Fw 189 WIKI article properly formatted, I see the error of my ways! I assumed that all WWW & Wikipedia users saw the Fw 189 WIKI article in the same hideous way it appears on Kindle - with a 75%/25% split between a blank area on the left side of the page and the thumbnail images on the right side of the page, then, after the images, the text is correctly formatted. If I had known that 99.9% (or more) of the world sees the page correctly formatted, I would not have entered the <br> HTML tags. By entering the "break" tags, the Fw 189 WIKI article appears correctly formatted on Kindle. Again, I apologize.

All The Best, Robert Ternes Rtmorphine (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC) rtmorphine

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Griffon (1896), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglesea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, I thought I'd just get in touch with you to alert you to the fact that the two accounts (

Cadar (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I posted on the WP:MILHIST talk page, to get more people looking at the article - making it less likely that these sort of edits sneak through.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:reliable source neutrally reported a declaration of the Turkish Cypriot Foreign Minister Kudret Ozersay, which seems to be authoritative and to have an encyclopedic relevance. They also stated that, in tha case that this is true, it would be the first incident involving Cyprus during the Israeli-Syrian conflict. Before moving accuses, you have probably to read the article's chronology with care and then to try to be more honest and collaborative with other editors. Have a good day.Micheledisaveriosp (talk

) 07:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Micheledisaveriosp: I'm not going to get into an argument with you. If you had read my comment above, you would have noticed that I wrote that "I'm not saying there is a direct connection" between the account you are using now and two obviously sock-puppet accounts. I've checked the history, there are no visible edits from you on the article page in question, but I was messaging Nigel Ish regarding what are obviously highly suspect and non-neutral edits from two obviously fake and connected accounts. His response was to yours on the talk page. Therefore you are involved in the situation, even if some other third person edited your comments. I was not an editor on this page, but Nigel Ish called my attention to a problem with a report on the MilHist page, otherwise I wouldn't even be here.

Cadar (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cadar:, you said

used to make the changes to the S-200 (missile) article regarding the incident in Cyprus seem to have the same political agenda as User:Micheledisaveriosp, and are both clearly fake sock puppet accounts.

Well, I have no political agenda, I have never been in Cyprus, I haven't edited the article, but before doing so I tried to ask on the

Talk:S-200 (missile)#Incidents involving the S-200 - Cyprus, 1 July 2019, having understood it was a questioned issue. That's all. Question closed, in my opinion. Any eventual further claim, no matter.Micheledisaveriosp (talk

) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Alarm (1910), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newhaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

i don't understand why you removed my addition the the civillian operator section. i added a link in there to prove that it was true. you want to see the link again: https://www.platinumfighters.com/phantom2

I removed your addition because it appeared to be a blatant (if poorly written) advert for the aircraft for sale.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You have removed my edit adding a description of the Malibu cabin heating system which is described by a diagram in the Pilots Manual. I put this in the Investigation section because it seemed relevant to the recent finding of CO poisoning. If you prefer it elsewhere, I could put it in the Aircraft Description section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbees44 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's

Original Research to suggest that the CO poisoning is related to the heating system - leave it to the AAIB to give the cause of the accident.Nigel Ish (talk

) 11:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the bot edits! It's greatly appreciated. I've fixed all the issues encountered and they shouldn't happen again, but I have one thing I'm wonderingabout and that is hp and shp. Are they the same thing? They both have the same value but it seems like it's measured at different points? If they're measured at different points why don't we have the same distinction for kW. The template currently struggles a bit with this distinction, which I will fix, but it would be useful knowing what the actual difference is. --Trialpears (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

indicated horsepower are all measurements of power, just measured (or calculated) in different ways - and all have the SI unit of kW - technically 600 shp is shorthand for shaft power of 600 hp - etc - but there isn't an equivalent shorthand for SI units. I don't think there is an easy, automatic, way for templates or bots to deal with it - it really needs human editors with access to the sources.Nigel Ish (talk

) 18:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It was already divided but a complete mess. Now it is readable--Petebutt (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The act of dividing it effectively makes the section unreferenced - virtually none of the "retired" entries have any reliable sourcing about retirement, while almost all of the "still in service" entries cites are several years old - so are not valid for saying that the type is in service in 2019. This needs to be cleaned up.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I saw you reverted my inclusion of the HMS Velox in the Royal Navy mutiny of 1919. If you click in the link you can see where it is cited. If it is cited in the Mutiny article does it have to be cited in the ship article too? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be cited in each article.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russian cruiser Varyag (1899), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)