User talk:Nigel Ish

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Don't ping me

Merry X'mas~!

[edit]

"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!

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Breda Ba.201, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guidonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

[edit]
The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping German submarine U-37 (1938) retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 Squadron RAF

[edit]

No. 1 Squadron RAF 1. "Video game forums are absolutely never suitable for use as reference." Because anything associated with a video game must be useless? War Thunder is a well researched database, with first-hand accounts and contributions from historians with credentials. But yes, let’s dismiss all of that outright and pretend its teenagers shouting about loadouts.

2. "Lists of individual aircraft ferried to the Falklands is undue and inappropriate." If you say so. I mean, listing verifiable facts about specific aircraft might seem relevant in a historical context, but clearly I’m missing some secret rule about tdetail. No worrie— ou’re the expert, . BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to digest the contents of Wikipedia:Reliable sources because user generated content like forums is not acceptable for use as a source (and because you didn't actually link to the forum, your edits were unverifiable. You are adding a lot of references which are unverifiable or of dubious provenance - what makes [1] a page from Scribd without any source (which may well be a copyvio - much of what is posted there is) reliable? It doesn't seem to support the extensive text you've worked into the citation. How can "RAF No. 1 Squadron ferry flight log entry" be verified?
In addition, the 1 Squadron RAF article is meant to be an encyclopedia article covering the whole history of the squadron. Adding tiny, badly sourced, details like aircraft serial numbers for reinforcements for the Falklands campaign is inappropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the Falklands War

[edit]

I'm suggesting it doesn't need one as you wouldn't expect one for WW2

The troubles in the North of Ireland cost (according to wikki) " 3,720 people were killed" & 47,541 injured

Do you believe nothing was learned from this Carnage particualry as Surgeon Commander Rick Jolly, the Medical Officer in Charge of the refrigeration plant at Ajax Bay during the War also servied in N.I Adding CN adds no value at all... BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a source WOULD be expected for similar statements for WW2. In this case the paragraph definitely needs citing - there is a statement of fact from Jolley which needs citing, while cites are also needed for the statement that recovery was better than some expected, about who proposed these "subsequent theories", and that the experience in Northern Ireland was particularly relevant to the Falklands, and that it expanded knowledge beyond what was known before (as opposed to experience from WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc). Otherwise all we have is a pile of OR.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England" article that you linked (which isn't what you provided citation details for) does not say that no-one died after reaching an aid station - it says three died. It also does not theorise that experience in Northern Ireland was important in reducing death rates - in fact it stresses the differences between Northern Ireland and the Falklands - have you actually read the references?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three Argentines died. The text states, "No British serviceman who reached a medical aid station subsequently died." I have read the reference; perhaps you may wish to review the wording yourself. I will leave it as is, appreciate your input, and will not make any further edits to that article.
BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BAE Systems Hawk

[edit]

I followed the rules, as described in the source code: Limit one (1) primary user. Top 4 users listed in 'primary user' and 'more users' fields based on numbers in service. Yet, in a hissy fit within two minutes of my edit, you deleted the lot, stating: "don't edit war to favour your own nation" and "removed users from infobox due to nationalistic editing". Are you an impartial, collaborative Wikipedian? MondoAus (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor appears to have a pattern of disruptive editing, showing an overzealous, uncollaborative approach that is consistently rude and dismissive. I will therefore raise a case under Dispute Resolution Requests for administrative intervention.
BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:an3-notice}}
BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. MondoAus (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited USS Satterlee (DD-190), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clyde.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian destroyer Azard

[edit]

I've already gotten most of the rest of the Orfey's to GA and propose to do it to this one as well. I know you don't particularly care, but I thought I'd do the courteous thing and let you know ahead of time. I'd also like to switch out the existing cite format for my own preferred system, but I won't if you'd prefer that I don't. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unwatching the article. I see you are deleting perfectly good references like Fock - presumably this is because as a GA you have to OWN the article and be able to copy all of the sources to the GA reviewer. This requirement for ownership is why I want nothing to do with the GA process and why it is detrimental to article quality, and why I was attacked when I raised this at the GA talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I understand why you're irritated with the GA process, but Fock contradicts all of my Russian-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur the GA process is...problematic. My own experience is that I poured a lot of effort into creating an article (Lake Atna), only to have it essentially pillaged by another editor who got their GA out of it as a badge of honor...when they did very little to it. This isn't a complaint about that editor, but rather the process. GA has turned into a form of currency on this project. It's sickening. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Glasgow (D88)

[edit]

if "commons links are handled automatically by Wikidata" and this article doesn't have one, whats wrong with adding it ? BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

[edit]

In an effort to allow you to think about your reverts I've requested that an administrator review your recent edits and interaction with other editors BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff that the editor above failed to post. [2] Jehochman Talk 13:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]