User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

German minesweeper M85

I've noticed you just created German minesweeper M18 (1939). I wonder if you would be interested in writing about M-85, which is currently a red link in Battle of Hel, an article I am thinking of GANing soon? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article impossible. The requirement to only use academic only sources means that an article could not be sourced (and it may be difficult to find enough content on the ships history to justify an article anyway - an article may end up just being a description of the class, built details and a statement that the ship was sunk).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will interpret it this literally. I suggest using the usual sources, I very much doubt anyone will complain about a minesweeper article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Article now gone live as SMS M85 (using the original Imperial German Navy name). Hopefully people will apply some common sense when interpreting the very vague requirement laid down by Arbcom (i.e. what articles are affected? what exactly does "academically focused books by reputable publishers" mean?) but as we can see from recent Arbcom cases, common sense doesn't seem to be very common here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I mention you in the context of the above discusison, which I even quoted partially, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland] (second one, there is an earlier one on that page). You may want to comment because given the recent incident at AE I agree with you it is indeed scary if not outright impossible to edit this topic area. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I've said my piece at the page - and will probably get blocked for my troubles. I certainly won't be touching any articles with any involvement at all with Poland during or near the Second World War.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

/33 block

Hi Nigel,

• Block log of the range in question and it was lengthened by consensus (done by JBW).
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a Howdy

Saw your name, glad you are still around and wanted to say hi and how you are doing well.Tirronan (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Junkers Ju 488

Thank you for spotting my blooper in the Junkers Ju 488 article. Green fooled me by shuffling the order of the entries so they no longer fit the usual numbering. Meanwhile I am struggling with the very different accounts given by him and Dan Sharp, so I have started a discussion on the talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Fake" aircraft

About this edit on SIAI-Marchetti SF.260. This aircraft is actually a former Burkina Faso air force SF.260, now operated by a French association. They have bought 6 SF.260s from Burkina Faso (source, in French).--Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue was that the photo itself was fake - a photoshopped alteration of a photo to make an alledged in-flight image. Such fakes are unsuitable for an encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

HMS Aubrietia

Hello Nigel Ish,

Happy New Year! You removed my amendment to Lt Gerald Ducat Fowler's entry to include his decorations. The notes already included the name and decorations of HMS Aubrietia's previous captain, put there by someone else. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the notes to include information on the ships commanders during its active service during World War 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanusOne (talk • contribs) 09:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not what the infobox is there for - the ship's previous commanding officer shouldn't have been in the infobox. Where appropriate information about the ship's crew should be integrated with the main text of the article, if it is properly sourced and is significant to the ship. See Wikipedia:SHIPSNOTCREWS.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Where are you from?

I think Canada Bengal Informer (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: Images

Okay, fair. I thought you meant something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladimirPutinMyYeezy'sOn (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice work on MV Oliver Cromwell

and sorry for being so snappy. I'll try not to do that - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Second guessing images and motives for reading the article

So you believe no one wants an image in an article no matter how trivial, a nostalgic crew member perhaps, maybe the viewer wanted something to put on a xmas card. Any image is better than none, feel free to go to the trouble of finding an image to replace it with why don't you. You don't own this project. Broichmore (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a massive picture of TB 114's crest to the infobox of the article for the class is just adding a an image for the sake of adding an image. It doesn't aid the reader in knowing anything about the class or the ships in it and is a distraction. Every random image on Commons does not have to go into an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree too big. You could have reduced the size of the image, no problem. Generally speaking the protocol is to replace with it better, not just delete. Who is going to write to the IWM to advise they put the items into a skip. It wasn't a random item, it is specific to the topic. We're writing an encyclopedia here, which is a literal museum in fact. It would be a distraction if we were talking about NASA I agree, but I don't need to look at the NASA article to know that it has their corporate symbol there. A ship plaque is its corporate symbol. Broichmore (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have unwatched the article, so you can spam as many unrelated images as you want. Congratulations.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry I'm not as stupid or as asinine as you think. I usually put this kind of stuff up 'on the basis that something is better than nothing', I will replace it with something more illustrative or at the least interesting as soon as it pops up, and it will. Broichmore (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't post to my talk page again. Especially to add insulting "Thanks" when it is obvious you meant nothing of the sort.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Lulu

Why would we give money to someone who uploaded someone else's work to a for-profit vanity press? That makes exactly zero sense. Guy (help!) 21:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It makes even less sense to delete reliable sources, just because the pd sources have been, perfectly legally, copied and sold. I suppose you would rather that the reliable source was removed and no-one had access to the information?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Mackay (D70), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Baltic and Atlantic Fleet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Vega Model 2 Starliner

Would you please refrain from editing the Vega Model 2 Starliner article while I am working on it. It has been up for barely 30 minutes. –Noha307 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As you clearly WP:OWN the article and refuse to allow anyone else to edit it I have unwatched the article - note that SASDM has a very bad habit of uploading copyvio photos onto Flickr, so Wikipedia probably shouldn't be using the so-called reference you added - but on your head be any copyvio issues.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for giving the impression of WP:OWN. I was just frustrated that I had just created an article and had barely any time to work on it before someone hopped in to the middle of what I was clearly working on. I realize in hindsight that I should have created the article in my sandbox first and then posted it when it was ready. As far as refusing to let anyone else edit the article, I am more than willing to let anyone do so when I am finished working on it. However, the "In Use" template seems to me to exist for a reason. I was actually advised to use it by someone else on the WP:Aviation project a while ago and I had sort of forgotten about it until now. I see no COPYVIO problems with the source I was using for the specifications: I wasn't copy/pasting blocks of text from the source and I am not posting pictures of the pages in the article. If SDASM committed copyvio by posting it on Flickr, I, to the best of my knowledge, do not commit copyvio by citing it. It seems to me to have no more problems in that regard than the source you were using. I admit that it might have problems being a primary source, but that's a different matter. –Noha307 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See this deletion discussion on Commons for how SDASM play fast and loose with copyright for images that they upload to their Flickr account, and see Wikipedia:COPYVIOEL for linking to copyvio.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I've modified the references to the Robert Reedy Collection so that they no longer include the hyperlink. This should make them copacetic, since they could be cited entirely legally this way if someone were to visit the SDASM and access their collection directly. I've also removed the in use tag, so feel free to re-add your reference to the specifications table if you feel it works better. –Noha307 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, the brochure would be in the public domain as it was published before 1977 and does not have a copyright notice. I might add the links back later. –Noha307 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Douglas A-20 Havoc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Segundo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Manning's book on British DDs

While supplementing the bibliographies for the early British TBD articles, I've noticed that you often have a cite or two to Manning's 1961 book. What's your opinion of it? Is it really worthwhile when so much stuff that's been published since then?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't give very much detail, (Lyon in The First Destroyers calls it "little more than a listing with photographs and a few comments" (although he does say that is "written by someone with much greater knowledge and understanding" than March - which he is quite rude about) but has little snippets of useful information that can be difficult to find elsewhere, and there are some quite useful general bits in the front of the book on things like destroyer flotillas and naming.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like it worth picking up then for the few pieces of the puzzle that other writers don't have. I just got my own copy of Lyons, and missed have missed that bit of criticism of March, who I like, but had annoying gaps in his coverage. Maybe going through Lyons in more detail than I have thus far will prove illuminating. I did stumble across an old comment by Rif Winfield complaining of errors in Cocker's book on British DDs, so you might want to use that with caution as well. I have his frigate book, but haven't really looked through it pending more interest in those ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

To be fair - other authors are less scathing about March - and even Lyon hints that it is less bad when the subject gets onto more modern ships. Well the version of Cocker that I have got (the History Press version) is complete and utter rubbish. One of the most disappointing purchases I've made. To be avoided.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Yes I agree we need to change the way we do things, and consistency is one of them. It should not matter how productive an editor is if the make PA's, lie or portray every disagreement as persecution. No user should be able to think they can hold ANI "Do as I ask or I will leave" to ransom or to think they ca dare admins "your all a bunch of stinking wankers, so block me or fuck off" to block them. That is where ANI is dysfunctional, editors who think they cannot be blocked. This is why some editors have been "targeted" (to their mind), the frustration other editors feel that they have to put up with insults, Adhominies, belittling and general nastiness. That they have (in effect) self imposed IBANS because of some users who think they can get away with that they like.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

MiG-19 Design and Development

I note that you added the current info on MiG-19 Design and Development. The original, unsourced info, claimed that the SI-02 prototype of the MiG-17 was modified to become the I-340 engine test bed. That info was removed sometime later, as it was unsourced. You recently added material stating that the engine test bed was a modified MiG-17F, with source of Belyakov and Marmain 1994, p. 180. I don't have that reference at hand, but I've got an earlier book by Belyakov and Marmain - MiG 1939-1989, Paris, France: Editions Larivière, 1991. ISBN 2-907051-00-8 which makes a slightly different claim. Belyakov and Marmain, 1991, p.137 states "En fait c'est l'ancien avion expérimental MiG-15bis-45°, qui avait overt la vote à la création du MiG-17, qui reçut les deus AM-5 en remplacement de son VK-1". I.e, they stated that the test bed was one of the prototype MiG-17s, not a MiG-17F. It isn't clear which source is correct. Do you have a copy of Belyakov and Marmain, 1994? If so, would it be possible to recheck the exact text on p. 180 to confirm it couldn't be interpreted in some other way? Thanks - Kevin rv8 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the Wings of Fame article that states the testbed was a converted MiG-17F - Belyakov and Marmain is supporting the date.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm tempted to edit the MiG-19 page so it lines up with the very specific info from Belyakov, R. A. and Marmain, 1991. It has the same date for the authorization of the project. The first flight date is not mentioned, but it can be inferred as it had to precede the later MiG-19 work. Rv8 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian hospital ships

Thanks for the updates. Do you just have access to those two volumes, or any others? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have access to a few more (1971, 79 and 85 Jane's and 86 and 90 Combat Fleets) - can't find even a hint of operation of Hospital ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MW 1935

Template:MW 1935 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Wikiacc (¶) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

1932/1931

OCLC 361818 says 1931, so I went with 1931. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The edition of Taprell Dorling's Endless Story is a 1932 edition - not the 1931 edition - as stated "This cheaper edition first issued July 1932". The original edition was 1931, but I believe content has changed between the editions.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I updated the 1931 to be 1932. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(ed) : Well the book says 1932 - perhaps OCLC 55531197? - which seems to be the 1932 cheaper edition.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Really not fussy about which is "cited" but the short footnotes should be consistent and not broken. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS Melpomene (1915)

Grant 1964 is missing from that article. If you install User:Svick/HarvErrors.js (instructions), you'll be notified of these errors in the future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also note that using |ref=harv is no longer needed for footnotes to work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

here Did you mean Karau 2016 or Karau 2014? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Good spot - now fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's why the script is useful! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Melpomene (1915), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Tank losses in Poland in 1939

I just noticed your reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295#Encyklopedia_II_wojny_światowej. Since you found it, could I trouble you to go the step further and add the number with the reference to the Invasion of Poland article? I don't have the source to check for page number/etc. myself. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

mph/kts

Dear, You seem to have taken my words badly. They were not aimed at you at all, in fact they were not aimed at any contributor. Re-read my words please: I stated that the metric units were pushed by the dictatorial regimes - altitudes in metres, wind speed in m/s and so on. In Russia, it still is like that. But I wanted to point out that the rest of the world will not soon adopt the ISO/metric units, because they were at one point favoured by totalist regimes. I am sorry that you were so upset, but I also regret that my words could be so misread. Kindest regards! Jan olieslagers (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reply is some of the most ridiculous bigoted rubbish that has ever been posted on my talkpage - you continue to argue that people who use metric units support totalitarian states and that the "rest of the World" which presumably means the USA only doesn't use metric units because of that. That is Xenophobic nonsense that has no place on Wikipedia, and as it is clear that there is a core of editors who are happy to turn the Aviation project into a walled garden where this is tolerated and pesky things like what references say can be happily ignored, I am not prepared to accept this.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at my own talk page, where someone with more patience and wisdom has explained that the US might well have absolutely no need for arguments to not change away from imperial - he might well be right. More and more it becomes clear to me that the US is quite happy to go on living in antiquity, even if it means loosing touch with the rest of the world. I will not discuss any further, it seems obvious that reasonable arguments and positive words find no listening ear. So be it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Your rv

Hi Nigel Ish and I hope all is well! I’m curious why you reverted my edit here. As I understand it there’s no copyvio in controlled digital lending and we often link to IA’s books. There at least used to be a bot that went around blue linking books in this way for verifiability. Now I’m no expert on the topic, but I’d appreciate an explanation as to how linking there is a ‘copyvio’. It’s probably just something I’m ignorant on, but I’ve not seen any policy or discussion where it was concluded linking there was bad. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The IA links to copies of copyrighted books, and there is ongoing legal action about this - while the Internet Archive are paying people to edit Wikipedia (running IAbot) which amongst other things adds links to their "lending library". The IA also allows individuals to upload copyrighted items. Clearly many people here don't give a toss about copyright issues as long as they don't think that they personally will get sued but ultimately by promoting these links the community is destroying the fundamental sources that are needed to create and maintain an encylopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the resp, makes sense. (Hopefully you don't think I "don't give a toss about copyright issues as long as [I] don't think that [I] personally will get sued"--that's not true). I'll try and avoid linking to non-pd links. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		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 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

DYK for Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer)

On 17 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Falklands War, Royal Navy officer Andy Auld helped make operational the Sea Harrier, a short take-off and vertical landing jet fighter? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer)), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Reval (1726)

Hi Nigel - Many thanks for the addition of Rodgers book to Naval Blockade of Reval (1726) - which I have had in my bookcase for years and have rarely opened! In addition, I have just discovered that the London Gazette for that time is full of good reports once we realise that the British spelled the town's name Revel ( two letters E ). I am a slow editor so you may get to them before me! Thanks again Viking1808 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hobbs 2017 edition

Is this a second edition or a straight reprint? If the latter, then I don't think that we need it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The book says "This edition first published in Great Britain in 2017 by Seaforth Publishing", which suggests a new edition, although it isn't clear whether anything has actually changed -note that the depth of the dent is from the Damage to HM ships... source.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nigel Ish

Why did you change my edit to Mikoyan MiG 27? I'm stating facts not fiction. If you don't believe me check "World Air Forces 2020" Foxbat14 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Flight International/Flightglobal's World Air Forces directory is published once per year - in December in the print magazine - the online version is just a reproduction of the print directory, with different pagination - the content isn't any different. As such it can superceded by reliable sources that are published later that reflect later events. The retirement as reported in the Deccan Herald happened after Flight International went to press.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nanchang Q-5 Fantan

Are you implying that Bangladesh and Pakistan could still operate the Nanchang Q-5? Foxbat14 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of the entries in the list are unsourced, so we cannot say whether it is still operational or not - we don't need separate sections to give the sourced status of operators.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well there are still Nanchang Q-5 Fantan at Bangladesh and Pakistan Air Bases on Google maps. Like with Azerbaijani MiG 25 Foxbats at Dollyar Air Base Foxbat14 (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Googlemaps is not a WP:RS - it is OR to use it to state that types are operational - the date of photos in Googlemaps differs widely, while it cannot be used to say whether an aircraft is actually in service and operational or merely stored or in use as a decoy, or in use by someone else.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Leeds Castle (P258), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info re: COI and Flamin Groovies

Nigel, I am not paid by the Groovies. I don't even want to be "the social media manager" but they asked me to do it as a favor to them. All I have done is delete the name of Kate Curtis from the list of band personnel as that is completely erroneous. I actually work for a company called ASRC at NASA. So I just help the Groovies because I am a pushover, and am a fan of their music. They couldn't afford my labor rates anyway. In the past I also moved Chris Wilson into the Hiatus status from the active status. I truly and sincerely feel I have not engaged in any COI activities re: the Groovies. I am a newbie to all of this so please forgive me if I somehow messed up, but once again, I don't think I have really broken any ethical rules. PS - I only wrote that I was the social media manager to identify myself as someone who would know who was in the band and who was not. I still cant figure out why or who listed Kate Curtis as an active member and a the chief songwriter. Very very odd.

DJmword (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Cavalier (R73), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woolston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your comments on talk:Kyiv

Your last comment and edit summary were accusing, unfair, and completely inappropriate. I’m asking you to cool down strike your comment. —Michael Z. 14:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No - the comment wasn't unfair at all - you said that you didn't recall moving the articles and then when I pointed that out, you responded with sophistry and accusations of personal bias - I am not prepared to waste my time where I am not welcome, and your behaviour on the talk page and here, demonstrates that I am not welcome in articles about Ukraine. Similarly, you are not welcome here - do not post here again.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll risk posting once more. You mentioned being attacked, and I certainly did not mean to attack you in any way. I apologize for making that impression.

The questions of Russian identity being used to justify minimizing Ukrainian identity is key in this topic, and I already felt accused of infringing on the “Russian part” of Wikipedia, and “historical articles” that some feel should embody Russian vocabulary. I felt it important to address the implied accusation that I dared to move an article about a Russian ruler which was not about a Russian at all (I have avoided moving articles about Russians and “Russians” because of this). But I was defensive and snarky.

I do hope you’ll think twice in the future about comments regarding “Ukrainian or Russian editors,” or “nationalistic rants.” That’s not appropriate, whatever you think of me. But standing up against WP:systemic bias is not “nationalistic,” in fact I think making people aware of outdated attitudes from colonial periods is anti-nationalistic. The thing about systemic bias is that the consensus will always favour it. —Michael Z. 17:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

So are you going to continue to post here until I remove my comment and agree that you did not move articles that you did move? I will consider continued posting here to be harrassment. I have unwatched the Kyiv page and will not contribute to any more discussion because of your behaviour. Again I say - do not post here again.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

HMS Pathfinder (1904):

I saw you reverted my edit because the article is not sufficiently verified. However, the template I removed is not for article verification, but for articles that don't have inline citations that correspond to the refence section, which is not the case in this article. I've added a {{more citations needed}} template to the article to address your concerns.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

HMS Derwent (L83)

"revert chages that removed decription of ship and construction and removed cites - anything in the lead MUST be cited in the text"

Very odd - as you've duplicated everything, made the article longer with no additional information & removed better-sourced, neater text.

Oh & I think it's "changes" & "description" I'm guessing you were cross

Still, off you go :D Steve Bowen (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets see - here - 1) you moved details of construction from the body of the article to the lede and removed the cite. This is removing the citations and putting things in the lede which are not in the body of the article, both of which are damaging. 2) You removed massive chunks of description, which was also cited, from the body of the article, including any mention of background to the ship, order details, and things like dimensions, powerplant etc. You replaced the cited info about armament with uncited text that contradicted the sources, and added some unsourced text. As your idea of better sourced text appears to be no sources at all, it is clear that I as correct to revert. Sourcing is not optional.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

& all of the above is referenced in the Info Box. I can't say I too bothered though as I was just trying to improve articles on The Hunts, as a rule, I wouldn't touch stuff like this as it's all a bit too Model Boat for me.

As a "polite" suggestion why not read some of the comments others have mentioned above about your edits as there's a common theme, perhaps this is an outlet for your "Busy real life"? Oh & I think it's "Let's", "better-sourced" & "I was" I'm guessing you're still cross :D

Steve Bowen (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) <Whistle!> False statement, yellow card! I looked at the diff of your last edit and not a bit of the info in the infobox was cited. Please confine yourself to factual statements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Also US history dabblers ...

... should follow the advice by legendary German Wikipedia Admin Marcus Cyron: "If you don't have any knowledge about a topic, why not simply shup up?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.248.75 (talk)

This isn't German Wikipedia - here on En:Wiki - we are dependent on what reliable, verifiable sources say - changes need to be based on what has been published in these sources and not on Original Research, and the sources need to be specified in sufficient detail to allow them to be verified - i.e. actually state the books and articles used to make the arguments and the relevant page numbers in proper cites, rather than vaguely referring to "Japanese sources" or the like in edit summaries - alternatively you can take your proposed changes with sources to the article talk pages - if you present them properly and allow them to be discussed, rather than just insulting editors who are reverting changes because they don't appear to be backed up by sources then your proposed additions will have a much greater chance of being accepted by the community. If you continue to throw Xenophobic and nationalistic insults about, then you will continue to get reverted.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Japanese Navy Torpedo Bombers

Template:Japanese Navy Torpedo Bombers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --TheImaCow (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just sayin thanks. Miad I Mahbub BD (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source

I know it was discussed elsewhere, but for the escort carrier pages there is a link to the sources used [1], while I'm not saying that everything at this site is reliable, I believe the information I've used is.Pennsy22 (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		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 October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

USS Enterprise

My apologies, but I am having a terrible time with my computer freezing up on me. The correct page for the reference I am trying to add is 279. If you see it is still incomplete please allow me more time to fix it. Thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

: OK, it should be good now Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No it wasn't because the information isn't on the page that you gave - at least not in the 1983, US Naval Institute edition of U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History. I have corrected it again.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have that edition, and it's on page 312. However, page 278-279 (the sentence spreads across both pages) reads: "Preliminary Design carrier personnel were reassigned to the nuclear carrier project (CVA 9/55, which became SBC 160 and then the USS Enterprise)... So it's on both pages. We can leave it at 312, my confusion came because I had copied a ref tag that read (if I recall correctly) p 313, I changed it to 279, and it popped back! I thought the change was some kind of 'automatic' regression caused by the trouble I was having in saving such a large article. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I've added the p312 reference to the SCB 160 reference on the Ship Characteristics Page, so now both pages are referenced. I know it seemed painful, but thank you for bringing it to my attention Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Polikarpov I-16:

NACA is pronounced "en-ay-see-ay", not "nah-cah". As such the correct article to precede it is "an", not "a".Earendur (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS A11, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arran.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Ardent (1796), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Plate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

HMS Montrose photo

Hi there.

The photo postcard I uploaded of HMS Montrose was taken and produced by Abrahams (Abraham & Sons?) of Devonport. That company was based in Devonport, Plymouth in the early to mid 20th century. The item was part of my grandfather's personal belongings, having served on the Montrose during WWII, and was inherited by our family following his death.

I though the photo may have been of some historical interest. Never mind.

Regards Paul PZg666 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No matter what the historical impact the photo would have to be correctly licenced to use it on Wikipedia, and the upload did not indicate any licensing at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that the photo has now been nominated for deletion on Commons for essentially the same reason - to keep it someone will have to successfully argue that either the original copyright holder has released it under a suitably free licence or that copyright has expired.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Supermarine Sea Lion II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Napier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Supermarine Baby

Hi Nigel Ish, I noticed that you undid a couple of edits I made just now. Without the 'ref=none' bit I get messages like 'Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAndrewsMorgan2003.' Using the Harvard system for referencing (which I like) removes the error messages. Are you OK if I go ahead and change the formatting before continuing to add to the article? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't be giving you these "error messages" as there are no harvnb etc calls at the moment.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the great start to the list of ships on the Beira Patrol!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation removal in Cessna Citation I

Howdy! I noticed you put back the USA Today citation that I removed from Cessna Citation I. The reason I removed the citation is that the crash has its own linked article, and the paragraph is simply a summary of basic information from 2021 Percy Priest Lake Cessna 501 Citation I/SP crash, all of which is properly sourced. I'm fully aware of WP:NOTSOURCE, but linked citations are generally not used in list-class summaries linked to other articles, such as the list of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Carguychris (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Lists still need to be sourced - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an adequate reason for having unsourced content.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

lets change to what can be source to reliable source

HMS Warwick (D25)

Your edits have improved things but comments are rude, unwarranted & you seem to enjoy undoing peoples work see comments above. Still & very politely, why do you not consider this page a "reliable source", particularly as it matches better with the crew complement?

http://hmscavalier.org.uk/casualtySearch.php?surname=&forenames=&ship=Warwick&page=1 Steve Bowen (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The question should be why is it considered a reliable source - who is the author - are they a subject matter expert? What is the editorial control on the page? And as the source conflicts on the casualty numbers with proper published sources that have gone through editorial control (i.e. Kemp and English) it is entirely appropriate to use the sources that obviously meet WP:RS. (and it doesn't seem like a good idea to remove reliable sources in favour of unreliable sources. The whole page needs large scale rewriting as it is largely unsourced, with much that appears to be OR, which is common to many articles on similar warships.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No the question is why do you not consider it reliable when you do the other - Really simple honest. As for OR, what isn't at some point Steve Bowen (talk)

Bismark

You need to check yor consensus Nigel, by my counting of the number of opponents to your "Scuttled" narrative, you're outnumbered. The consensus is that the Bismark was sunk. Lets stop pretending that you have a vested interest in historical accuracy. The Infobox is to summarise, in a word, what happened. The ship sunk. End of summary. If you want a section on the merits of sinking and scuttling, that's fine, but don't try and split hairs in the infoblox to take away from the men that were actually there, and lost their lives to sink that nazi ship. Be assured, I've been editing Wiki for over 10 years, and I'll edit this article for the next 10 if I have to so that Pro...'German' fanboys like you NEVER get your way.Finalreminder (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NMS Năluca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valona.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

Sorry, but what difference does it make whether an edit is marked small or large? Before withdrawing an edit, regardless of its size, the withdrawer has a duty to check what has been changed, not to change it just because he feels like it. If the withdrawer withdrew the edit without checking the content of the change, then he has committed vandalism.Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 84 Squadron RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 37 Squadron RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Handley Page Harrow.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just saying that it is likely the further reading entries in the 20210531 CCI will be cleared out automatically in the near future. MER-C 11:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

hi

Hello, I want you to correct the article from the armed army of the air force of Kyrgyzstan, today in Kyrgyzstan there are 32 helicopters, 9 of them are attack. I can send you photos, information and proof, the main thing I want you to correct as I wrote to you now My instagram: GlobalForceMilitaryRu (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has specific rules about what counts as a reliable source - photos usually don't count. You need to provide sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS and present them on the article talk page where they can be reviewed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 37 Squadron RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GRT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Emma Raducanu page

Nigel, I've been discussing the article on the Talk Page, and on other pages, I've seen editors ask that people stop making edits to things that are being discussed. Now you're telling me to let edits go even as text is being considered.

It'd be nice if Wikipedia editors could actually agree on how to apply policy instead of just slapping warnings on people's Talk pages. Posters5 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring is disruptive. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule - you are liable to be blocked if you breached it (and you have made more than three reverts in 24 hours). Just because there is a discussion going on does not allow you to ignore this. If a consensus cannot be found on the article talk page then use Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods (RFCs, DRN). There is never an excuse for edit warring.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

So while something is being discussed, other people can just keep blithely editing text, even to the point where it's unrecognizable from what was being discussed in the first place? (Honest question.) Posters5 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The only way of freezing the article is to get the article protected - to do that you would have to persuade an admin that there is significant disruption that isn't easily stopped by other means. Of course, your behaviour would come under scrutiny as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Good to know, actually, as I've seen another long-time editor go nuts yelling at people for making edits that are "disputed" (he copies and pastes long passages from his sources, which though properly referenced, are way too lengthy to be considered paraphrasing in one's own words). I've streamlined the Raducanu article per your recommendations. Thanks. Posters5 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 881 Naval Air Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diego Suarez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)