User talk:Nigel Ish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merry X'mas~![edit]

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

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").

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG 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[edit]

Completely forgot to add cited source to Bibliography, gosh dern it! Well spotted, sir! ~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talkcontribs) 16:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

An-26 numbers in Hungary[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)