User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata interface

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)

User Dutral - similarities with Lgfcd

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mitsubishi A6M Zero‎

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)

Antonov An-10

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?

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

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)

ARA Libertad battleship

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)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hal Amca

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)

Scaled Composites ATTT

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)

French submarine Narval

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)