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.

Don't ping me

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").

Maintenance tags

Would you be so kind to tag specific sections or sentences that are dubious in some way? before removing the tag I read the entire article and made sure that I didn’t see anything suspicious. Of course you might know more about the topic than I do and you might find some things that warrant tagging. Jehochman ^Talk

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 6 Squadron RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No. 5 Squadron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aero A.101, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santander.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Praga E-55

On 13 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Praga E-55, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Praga E-55 was abandoned due to the Czech aircraft industry being directed to concentrate on licensed production of Soviet aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Praga E-55. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Praga E-55), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,791 views (616.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RAF Abingdon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abingdon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kokusai Ta-Go

On 29 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kokusai Ta-Go, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Kokusai Ta-Go aircraft was purposely designed for the kamikaze role? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kokusai Ta-Go. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kokusai Ta-Go), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 17,833 views (743.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for CSS-10 (aircraft)

On 26 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CSS-10 (aircraft), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the CSS-10 aircraft was not produced, despite passing its state trials, as the license for the production of its engine was abandoned? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CSS-10 (aircraft). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CSS-10 (aircraft)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 6 Squadron RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barca.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destubathon

I'm participating in the destubathon and created stubs for a bunch of French, Russian, Swedish and Austro-Hungarian ships in anticipation of the contest. If you stumble across stubs that generally have a complete infobox and bibliography, but only a single sentence in the main body, they're probably one of mine. I'd appreciate it if you could leave those alone until I've had chance to fill in the description, which is generally all I'm interested in doing for the contest. You're more than welcome to fill in the career details, etc., after that. And thanks for catching the double entry on Zabiyaka.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate being told where I can and can't edit just so someone can win a competition. I was not aware that taking part in the destubathon gave editors enhanced rights and permissions, or that there was a consensus that allowed participants to WP:OWN the articles. Please direct me to the discussion where this consensus was reached. Perhaps this discussion needs to continue at some more central location with more eyes where such a consensus can be found?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling you anything; I merely asked as a matter of courtesy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saab 90 Scandia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAAB.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barber Snark

Hi, You reverted the removal of tags that I made shortly before. This was done because ALL the previously unsourced material is now covered by Tim Cripps' long and thorough article. If you wish, I can send details. Please confirm that you are content for me to restore the removal of the tags.Arrivisto (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not - cite the information properly.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have added more tags which caused a conflict. Please let me, a bona-fide editor get on with writing the article before you start picking holes. (You may need to restore your latest tags which had to disappear, if you want to do so).Arrivisto (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel! A friendly query:you have made three tags on the Barber Snark page, and I don't quite understand why. Two are "unreliable source" and the third is "verification needed". Both "unreliable sources" are from copyrighted online documents by Philip Treweek, whom I take to be a bona fide General Aviation journalist: and the third tag relates to the praise by Tim Cripps (an esteemed GA journalist). This "praise" is supported by Cripps' statement on the page "one of the nicest planes I've ever flown". Cripps' praise is quoted and the source is also given (Today's Pilot magazine article, September 2006 page 90). By the way, in the article, Cripps continues (after lauding Barber's home-made flexible propeller clutch) saying, "Clever stuff - and there are more innovations, I assure you". He adds, "In conclusion, this is an unusually appealing aircraft". One might argue that your tags are, perhaps, unneeded?! (If only the Snark were approved in the UK and available, I'd buy one today!) Best wishes. Arrivisto (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treweek and 1000 aircraft photos appear to be random pages on the internet - they don't meet the requirements of WP:RS. The Today's Pilot citation does not give enough detail to allow the source to be verified.Effectively the areticle is unreferenced, and if someone were to nominate it for deletion then without someone putting in the effort to find real refernces then the article would be deleted. Don't blame me if you are unable to find proper references.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "Treweek and 1000 aircraft photos appear to be random pages on the internet" supposed to mean?! "Random" was a cult but meaningless word used by kids; it seems to have the same lack of meaning when you use it. Phillip Treweek is a senior tutor at New Zealand's Wailato University, with interests and publications in aviation. (see https://profiles.waikato.ac.nz/phillip.treweek) He has taken it upon himself to research the Snark and publish data online. "Random"? I think not. To continue: "The Today's Pilot citation does not give enough detail to allow the source to be verified." I have given the page number from his in-depth 9-page article. What more do you want? Extracts from the text added to the references? If so, I'm happy to oblige. 13:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You actually need to read WP:RS and find proper published sources that meet it. You seem determined to push poor quality sources and determined to maintain the page as an advert for the aircraft, and would rather attack people who actually are interested in article quality or sourcing quality rather than improve the article. I have therefore unwatched the article so you can do with it what you will. Just don't complain when someone else deletes it. Do not post to my talk page again.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MiG-29 in Yougoslavia

This is the first time I've read that ACIG, the aviation reference site, is not a valid source. And the loss of 4 other MiGs on the ground is confirmed by the attached article with a table showing each aircraft received by Yugoslavia and then Serbia: https://redsamovar.com/2020/03/25/actu-les-mig-29-serbes/ L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The random website you are linking to is even less of a reliable source than ACIG.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]