User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nigel Ish. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
|
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
|
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)
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)
N, can you keep an eye on this article; it looks really messed up, especially with some reference sources I can't figure out. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Kabocha here: I am sorry if this is the wrong place to communicate on this matter, but I did not see another way to reply.
To answer the first of your concerns, Mr. NI, Aero Detail 7 is indeed by Shigeru Nohara. It is partly in Japanese and partly in English. Yes, Robert Mikesh's book is the one by Crown that you point to.
I see a concern about citing a US Intelligence document. It is up to you whether you allow it to be displayed, but it is a translation of a Japanese wartime document which reveals that the Japanese Navy was working on a turbocharger in 1943. To my knowledge, it has not been reprinted in any book.
If you like, I will revise my citations according to whatever standard you instruct, but when I read the rules, they say that there is some flexibility in citation style. Obviously, it is not excusable to omit the name of author Nohara. There is one style for footnotes and another for bibliography. Which would you have me correct? Please give me footnote and/or bibliography line numbers.
Finally, yes, I agree, this article is "messed up", but not just as to footnoting and bibliography. Based on my 45 years of studying WWII Japanese aircraft, my ability to read Japanese works on the subject, etc., I feel it is replete with confusing statements, amateurish and vague discussion of technical features, overstatements, aerial combat claims presented as fact, factual errors, and insufficient citation. (Indeed, the flow chart starting the section on variants is from a Japanese publication for which the copyright is probably still in effect, yet there is no citation to it. Wikipedia has resisted my attempts to explain the model number coding system that it displays. I did not put that flow chart there.)
If you would like to open a dialogue with me about revisions, then please let me know the way to have that dialogue and to what extent it will be public. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia mechanisms of communication behind the articles. Kabocha (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)kabochaKabocha (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you reverted my edits on the An-10. I added some useful info and did precise tech data. Please contact me in future if you have problems with my editing of any article - it would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazzyrabbit (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- You were altering information cited to a reliable source without supplying an additional source, thus misleading the reader and misattributing the change while the changes to text were also unsourced and poorly written.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- "while the changes to text were ... poorly written" - what you mean? I'm sure that words "revenue" "design bureau" "Komi" and other were written correct. If you (as English-speaking person) see any bad grammar it seems natural to correct it rather than delete - what you think?
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
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
|
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)
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)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For your fine and incredible amount of work in the article HMS Cockatrice (1912), I present you with this barnstar. Well deserved! —UY Scuti Talk 19:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
Nautilus comment
Just a thought, it might be helpful to mention that all.six of Nautilus' torpedo tubes were mounted forward, axial-firing, , as she mounted no stern tubes due, of course, to her reactor and machinery configuration.
By the way, does anybody know (or care) how many torpedo reloads Nautilus carried?
Thank you for your splendid effortsto preserve the history/memory of our nation's Number One Nuke!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B048:1BF8:63DF:E224:59E5:2D97 (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you've got a source for that information that meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, then feel free to add it to the article. Such requests would probably fit better on the Article talk page follow this link than on my talk page, as more people who have access to sources about Nautilus will be watching that page.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
edit warrior
On my watchlist and I'm about to drop a warning on their talk page. Best if you step back for a few edits rather than risk falling foul of 3RR. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Viggen Variants
Hi Nigel. I wondered, as you have been particularly willing and resourceful on finding cites for this kind of information in the past, would you have any material on the Saab 37 Viggen article? I've been recently trying to properly cite and source the article, adding substancially to it in the past; but the Operators and the Variants sections remain mostly untouched so far - I haven't been able to get a high quality source to work upon for them. If you are so inclined, could you take a look at them please? Kyteto (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Nigel, it's looking far better already! Kyteto (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
F-7NI year 2006 variant Vs MiG-21 year 1960-1970 aircraft!
|
Chinese Military Aviation website is MORE RELIABLE than Wikipedia itself. The rich and detailed information on that website is far superior to any detail you can ever find about Chinese jet fighters on any other single website in this world. As declared by the website, their content is based on good research. http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.ca/p/fighters-i.html . Then why is "licenced copy of MiG-21" the only description that can be given to an F-7 NI that has year 2006 avionics compared to MiG-21 ancient 1960-1970s avionics? Why is that MiG-21 description become a label that must not be changed for ever, is there a bias going on? Also, why is the Nigerian air force F-7 the only one on Wikipedia that is labelled as a licenced built copy of MiG-21? Why are the F-7 jets on Wikipedia pages of Egyptian, Iranian, Namibian, Tanzanian, Bangladeshi air forces not tagged with same label of MiG-21 ? Wikipedia entries should not be biased and misleading or done with mischievous intent. Wikipedia is not a fantastic source of information, but when people like us make entries to improve it's content, our efforts should be appreciated, we do not get paid for the value we add to Wikipedia. Sapong (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks
Completely forgot to add cited source to Bibliography, gosh dern it! Well spotted, sir! ~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
An-26 numbers in Hungary
Please check also Hungarian official sources, not only English one. There are 5 active An-26 airplanes in inventory: #405, #406, #407, #603 and #110. The Hungarian Air Force received between 1975 and 1976 #405, #406, #407, #603. Number 110 was received in March 2004. All planes before them were refurbished by Antonov. In Hungary if a plane gets a factorial refurbishment they are removed from the active list. That's why it is not shown in your source. #406 was recommissioned in June 28. 2015. So put my changes back to An-26 wiki page! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke83 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- To change the values needs a reliable source to replace the source that is already used, and Wikipedia has fairly strict requirements about what counts as a reliable source (a lot of what is on the internet doesn't meet these requirements). What you did was to change the value withot changing the source, which isn't really acceptable as it appears go misrepresnt what the source says.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Nimrod
Hi, I saw your snarky edit summary here. If you want to argue that the Daily Express is a high-quality source for this sort of material, I look forward to reading your argument at Talk:Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. If, like me, you agree that the Express is a worthless tabloid, you can feel free to get on with improving the article by finding and adding better sources, and without grumping about others' good-faith attempts to upgrade the sourcing. I'm curious to know what relevance you feel my admin status is to this discussion, since you mentioned it? --John (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Cites for Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet
Hi Nigel. I've been doing some upgrades to Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, as you've probably noticed from the focus article notice I issued earlier this month on the WP:Aircraft talk page. I wondered, would you have any cites for the Variants or the Operators section? I've been working my hump off trying to get the Development and Operational History sections up to scratch, as well as kicking off a Design section - this article seems to have so much that can be done with it! Any hel pthat can be spared is appreciated, but it's no sweat if you don't have the time/the article doesn't appeal. Kyteto (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Everett. Washington IP
Have you seen the latest nonsense from our IP in Washington? I must say he's getting more imaginative, but I do wish we could pull his plug. Jets on a biplane! 
Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, at least for the I-153, and unusually for this editor, the claims may have at least some basis, as it was used as a testbed for crude ramjets, and this is mentioned in the article. And then there is the Belphegor!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there is some truth, but as usual with whoever this user is, he misses the mark completely. Per DENY, I don't usually warn him. Seems like a young high schooler of Russian descent, to judge by his edit habits. Hopefully he'll grow up soon. - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
|
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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.
Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Vickers Valiant reverted edit
Hello, thanks for reverting my mistake on Vickers Valiant and I will take a better look in the future, for me it just looked that the script did its job and combined the refs. obviously my mistake. However this does seem like a bug and I have asked the creator to take a look at it. Thanks again - Redalert2fan (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
|
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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saab 2000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CASA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
HMS Dartmouth (1911)
You've greatly improved this article. I'd like to expand it further as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge and take it to GA and give you credit as co-nominator since you've gone the bulk of the work already, if you're agreeable. I intend to rework the citations to Corbett and Newbolt as I have the reprints of the 2nd editions to hand and may be able to expand her post-war history if she served in the Mediterranean during this time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I deserve a co-credit as most of my edits were in 2014, but thanks for the offer. There may be more detail on WW1 usage in the first part of the war in the Naval Staff Memorandums. I'll give them a quick once over.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, I don't really have to do anything to most of the article, so I think it would be well-deserved. I'll start work on it in the next day or two. I've only just downloaded the Memorandums so it's going to take me a while to see what they've got that's useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, had a few things come up. But I've finished off HMS Bridgewater (L01) which you did a lot of work on a few months ago and have given you credit in the GAN. Will get to Dartmouth soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, I don't really have to do anything to most of the article, so I think it would be well-deserved. I'll start work on it in the next day or two. I've only just downloaded the Memorandums so it's going to take me a while to see what they've got that's useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)