User talk:Nigel Ish

Don't distort the sepecat jaguar up gradations.... Your frustrations with India is crystal clear mate.

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").

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

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)

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)

/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)