User talk:Nigel Ish

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

Dear Nigel Ish,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Can you help ID a ship?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 39 Squadron RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canal Zone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Talybont (L18), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlestown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

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)[reply]

Middlesbrough

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

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)[reply]

Airedale article

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) 00:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

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)[reply]

HMS Cattistock

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)[reply]

Xmas

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

Hartmann

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

Please avoid making edits or claims if you have clearly not read the changes.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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)[reply]

RAF Tornado list

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

HMS Russell (F97)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MiG-21 Update

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Su-30 MKI shooting down

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

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)[reply]