User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 6

DreadnoughtProject.org as unreliable source
Hi, Nigel. I am Tony Lovell, chief editor at the website DreadnoughtProject.org.

I saw that a WP editor (AFAIK, not anyone known to me) of HMS Titania who frequently cited DP.org was straying well beyond a suitable scope of that article, which I feel you described well in the page's Talk section. Moreover, he was often citing a page on DP with little to say about the content being footnoted. While we can agree to agree on those points, I am curious what prompted you to label all the links to my site with descriptions in the general form, "dreadnought project isn't a relaible source"?

I have heard some WP editors claim that sites that are themselves Wikis with open registration for editorial privileges are not suitable sources. However, despite my use of the Wiki platform, I employ closed registration and carefully select and enroll editors. 95% of the content on the site is the work of Simon Harley (who has published five articles in Mariner's Mirror), Chris Buckey (a PhD in Naval History under Eric Grove and recently published author), and myself (I've presented interactive work in naval fire control at HMS Excellent and at the Joint Services Command and Staff College).

Our group works from a shared corpus of over 4,200 Royal Navy service records and 28 GB of primary documents. We footnote our pages to a standard that few printed sources match. For instance, one page cited from the above article, Eleventh Submarine Flotilla, has over forty precise primary source footnotes to illustrate the evolving roster of ships in this formation. It is hard to argue that the page offers unreliable information.

Our website's Wiki is over fifteen years old. I have allotted money in my estate planning to create a foundation to ensure the site's longevity will exceed my own.

Because we are a website and not a printed work, it is certainly possible that links to us will fray or no longer be supported in the same way by our text. We take reasonable measures to avoid common web pitfalls, such as being mindful not to rename pages. Any apparent fragility present in our work would of course be matched by any WP references made to uboat.net or unithistories.com (these are excellent sites, I am sure we agree), but I have to point out that you did not mark links to those sites on the same Titania page as being unreliable.

Our site has over 16,000 pages. Not all are of the same standards of length, and a minority are not footnoted to our standards. I doubt the world has to worry about many WP editors linking to these pages; they exist to provide a skeleton for eventual fattening and to contribute to the referential integrity of the site.

Can you tell me how I can address your concerns? You can offer criticism, of course. I could go on and on about things about my site that should be better, but these do not reflect reliability of the information on the site, or the persistence of the site and its structures. DulcetTone (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not edit ship articles anymore as the clique of editors who control them have decided they do not want anyone who does anything slightly differently to them (including referencing a different edition of the same book) to contribute to ship articles, and my opinion on sources is of no value. Ask somewhere else - like WP:MILHISTORY or WP:SHIPS if you want an opinion as to whether your website meets the requirements of WP:RS - of course you will need to declare your COI.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The politics of Wikipedia can give one conniptions -- part of why I mostly content myself to correcting typos and very awkward phrasing. I'd of course mention my relationship to the external site if I seek out these poohbahs. Be well. DulcetTone (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've referred to the Dreadnought Project multiple times in my British capital ship FA-class articles without objection from reviewers there, so it meets the criteria as highly reliable whatever other editors might think. The HMS Titania article is in dire need of a lot of TLC, IMO, but its references to the Dreadnought Project are not part of its problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take this discussion elsewhere - to a project talk page or WP:RSN - these sorts of discussions should not be hidden on user talk pages - and please do not try and involve me. I do not edit ship articles anymore and consider attempts to involve me in them unwelcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 899 Naval Air Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potez 56, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dihedral.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

List of Air Ministry specifications
Hi, in List of Air Ministry specifications is "Buttler (2012b)" meant to be "Butler (2012b)", or is there a Buttler work not listed? How confusing to have both a Butler and Buttler writing on the same subject! DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it's Butler 2012b - now fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks (you missed one, I got it), DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

USCGC Walnut (WLM-252) lack of sources
Hello! I noticed you have rolled back my edit on the USCGC Walnut (WLM-252) page, stating their is a source thus nullifying the need for a "no reference" flare. I would like to put it back as there is a source listed, but it does not exist and no refrences. The source is almost certainly the Walnut 's history page from the US Coast Guard website before the website was redone and not re uploaded. I wanted to clarify this. Would this situation still warrant a flare? Thanks! GGOTCC (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No you shouldn't tag the article for no sources, because the broken external link is trivally easy to find using the Wayback Machine.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the help! GGOTCC (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

your undo of my add
ok it's a broke page but the info is correct, so you that know wiki correct the broke page not undo the the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.172.168 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be leaving it for others to fix the damage you cause to articles, and leaving a source in an edit summary is useless to the reader of the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help improvements. Thanks you. Ledsm (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of the subject so cannot help. Why are you asking random editors who haven't edited the article, or similar articles to fix this article?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ledsm is a sock: Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thought they might be after I looked on the article talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Supermarine S4
Thanks for tidying up after me: I now edit from a public library and on that occasion realised I was out of time. I've three sources on this aircraft; Supermarine aircraft since 1912, British Racing Aircraft & Derek James's Schneider Trophy Aircraft. I imagine the bit about spruce planking which you put a cite needed tag on comes from the latter. I'll hoik my sources up to the library & fix this.TheLongTone (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ...done, & a bit more added. I see that Lamblin radiator redlinks (as you can see); it's a term that really needs explanation, & I imagine that it might be considered notable enough for an article, but I've no idea where I would source it. Altho I see that the Flight archive now seems to be back...good news!TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly th Flight archives arn't back properly - its just that old issues (up to about 1935), together with a random selection of later issues have been archived on the internet archive - its not searchable however, so even less functionalty than the original archive.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Tag
I have recently worked on National Aerospace Laboratories about your tag placed. Please again read it and if it is neutral than remove it otherwise tell what more can be done. I ame Shears (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is still a lot of promotional language in the article using wording like "...with a high level of competence and the expertise of its scientists is globally acknowledged" and "Barely nine months later, in March 1960, it made its humble beginning ...". And there is a lot of stuff in there that is unsourced or just plain wrong.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Newcastle (C76), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation Harpoon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

EOS plane
Found 3rd plane in Michigan 2600:1702:23F0:C880:ED8E:EF4F:4FF0:DA5C (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand (1911)
I'm concerned at the revert you did on this article.

You claimed that a massive amount of uncited text was added.

The majority of the text that I added had 18 citations referring to the book by Matthew Wright, who is a respected historian.

How many do I have to include to meet with your approval?

If there are statements in the article that you have confirmed from other more sources are incorrect, then why not flag them to me so I could have clarified or revised them? The thesis I was referring to was by Gail Romano. if this is problem then just ask me to amend the effected text and this reference. Massey University, which accepted the thesis is a respected institution. If necessary I can go back and directly quote the documents what she cited in her thesis.
 * Masters theses are generally not reliable sources unless under very special circumstances, as you should know if had read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Your additions also introduced large amounts of uncited text - in a featured article everything needs to be properly sourced. They are also poorly written and did not conform to the manual of style. I suggest any further discussion of the article is carried out on the article talk page where it can involve the regular editors of the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

My previous edits
I'd like to apologise for my edits on the Kfir page which, after looking into it were incorrect. Thanks for your effort to make this a better community and sorry for the bother. I agree7435 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Learn to listen
You completely ignored what I've told you at both discussions at the Tfd and now you have made up claims that I'm following you. When you can't properly address the concerns and I've told you the facts, it doesn't give you the right to make false accusations against another editor. You've been on Wikipedia for over a decade and should at least have known all of this by now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You continue to follow me around. Do not post here again as I will consider it harrassment. I will not participate in the discussions on the templates and I have unwatched the articles and templates in question so you have no need to continue to stalk me.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you continue these false accusations of harassment and stalking, you will be reported at ANI. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not post on my talk page again - this is harrassment.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Note
I'm sorry to hear that you feel like leaving Wikipedia. I've taken several long breaks, some of which I thought would be permanent, so I know that a long wikibreak can be useful, and even refreshing. You do very good work here, and I'd hate to see you go for good. However, you have to to what's best for you, and if that you leave permanently, I totally understand. I hope for the best for you, whatever you decide. BilCat (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be a large number of editors who want me gone - obviously the editor above who is threatening me with ANI for telling them not to post on my talkpage, but all the editors who stand back and let bullying happen, like the one who said I was overreacting, as I am apparently prone to do. If people wanted to me to stay then they would not carry out those actions or make those statements. But that is not the case as Wikipedia is run on a culture of bullying and win at all costs.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I for one certainly don't want you gone. I notice you endlessly jumping in to straighten an article out often when someone has mucked it up. Yeah wikidrama gets to us all and I'm guilty of taking a back seat sometimes leaving it to others with greater experience and knowledge to counter those who are mistaken. I won't promise to be more forthright but I certainly respect you and others who do Lyndaship (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I totally understand the sentiments, Nigel. I've been there many times, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Other than what's here on your talk page, I haven't seen it directly, but I'm watching your talk page, and if they come back again, I'll take action in some way. I'd already determined to do that before you responded to my comments. (I'm not an admin, so of course I can't block, but there are things I can do.) Others are watching too, and we'll step in when we need too. If you need a break, don't be hesitant to take it, but you're are valued here. BilCat (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Douro-class destroyer
Hey Nigel, in looking into the Portuguese destroyer articles affected by all this recent dustup, I noticed that the dates given at ARC Antioquia (1932) conflict by a wide margin with the class article (which you wrote some time ago). I don't have Whitley, so could you confirm the class article is correct before I go moving articles and fixing links? Conway's gives the 9 June 1932 launch date for Douro/Antioquia, but dates the sale to 1934, not 1933. One wonders if the 1932 date is the keel laying, not the launching. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See the note at the top of the page. When I am threatened with reporting to ANI for asking for someone not to post on my talkpage, when editors state that not rolling over and accepting bullying is "overreaction" and when admins state publicly that such behaviour is of no concern, how can I conclude anything other than that the editors in question have no respect for me.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Otto Bröhan
Any idea why the Blackman ref isn't formatting correctly? I tried changing harvnb to sfn to match the Paterson ref, but it didn't work. Mjroots (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Triglav
My apologies, Nigel; I was cleaning up some of the cites for the rest of the ships and missed two that you'd used for Triglav.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

sourcing problem
can you explain that? i was told shipbuildinghistory.com is not a good source.

if i look through your history, will i find navsource.org links in it? also a self-published source.

this makes no logical sense to me. it is 100% certain that this guy who published the data has looked at multiple primary sources or read emails of people who have looked at those sources and sent a correction.

why is this a problem? if somebody wants to dispute an entry with a better source they are invited to do so. it is a wiki.

i feel like i am being toyed with, because this makes no sense at all. 158.181.82.96 (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I just noticed the work you were doing on Rosemary and wanted to say nice job! Cheers - w o lf  14:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello again
Just thought you should be aware of this. Cheers - w o lf  16:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

aichi B7
Hi Nigel, this was just an add information, did I make something wrong ?;) Hanafunda (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Short descriptions are meant to be very, very concise descriptions for mobile articles - your changes were not concise, were too long and had poor grammar.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

YOur "unsourced change" revert
Beforre reverting allegedly "unsourced" changes, please check whether an addition is in fact an expansion based on the source already footnoted. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's odd, because it wasn't the revert I meant to make - I meant to revert to change to the gun type in the specifications (made after your edit). not quite sure how I messed up, but apologies.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I took time to correct some specifications for the MD530F helicopter and you reverted it, why? My information was from the MD website, surely their information is more accurate than a children's book on aircraft. 49.183.22.19 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ACK, cheers, Loew Galitz (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Gripen speed edit revert
Hi Nigel. I note that you've reverted my edit on the JAS-39 Gripen article regarding the speed/mach figures. I maintain that the figures originally quoted are wrong, but I'm open to discussion about the best way to express them accurately. I've put a post on the Gripen article Talk page about this issue: would appreciate your input. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1113532877
It's not required to sign or not sign every single article if the section is cleared in a single go like that. I think what I did is perfectly fine; I'm not going to revert, just informing for the future. Sennecaster ( Chat ) 23:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * People sign the entries to take responsibility for their decisions - by deleting the signatures you are hiding what you have done from the community. That is not right.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Raytheon Sentinel
Hi Nigel, You recently reverted part of my edit regarding the disposal of this RAF asset. Your main gripe was that demobbed.org is not WP:RS. You might like to know that I have searched for demobbed.org in the article space ... and it is featured as a reference in just about every article about RAF airframes since the start of the Jet Age. Seems like a lot of Wikipedians trust it Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it probably should be removed from those articles as well because it appears to be a self published website by someone who is not a subject matter expert.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You might have to delay that retirement a little bit, then ...
 * Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only 24 articles actually Lyndaship (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hoi, thanks for reviewing the article on the BV 138. I did not notice the www.feldgrau.com military fansite being unreliable. I don't see it mentioned on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Could you guide me how to better evaluate/check reliability of such military fansites ? Klutserke (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned if you use the search function - . For reliability - see Reliable sources - is it published by a reputable publisher, or in a periodical with a reputation for fact checking - if its self published, is the author a published subject matter exoert.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I found out I need to search with the search button, not the ctrl-F for the page only, so that the archived pages are searched as well. I'm learning the ropes.
 * One more question about the BV 138 article. I'm fluent in Dutch, French, English and German ( that comes along with being Belgian in Brussels I guess ) so I'm checking the BV138 pages in these languages as well. In the German page I found some info that made me add a line in hte English paragraph, about the reason why the aircraft was not used for searescue operations. Now indeed the source of the english page does not mention this info so it is correct to remove that line. My question is : can I add this info if i refer to the page in the other language, or should i mention the source of the page in the other language, or should I not do such thing at all ? Klutserke (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that includes Wikipedias in other languages - the information on the German wiki is uncited, so it is impossible to see where the information was sourced from and whether it is from a reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump
Hi,

Sorry about my rude words, now redacted. However my patience is exhausted with.

Examples of his repeated abuse, doubting my good faith, accusations of wacky conspiracies and deliberately misleading and lying include:.

He has been warned but continues to be defiant.

Are you able to do anything about this? Otherwise, I could ask or take it to ANI. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My attempts to get the other editor to stop the attacks have been rejected.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here. You might ask User:CambridgeBayWeather to have a look at this. He is an admin and unlike some other admins, will assess and take reasonable action on an issue like this. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks to both of you. I'll try them. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
I've started an AN/I discussion about AndyTheGrump's behavior. Feel free to join the discussion. - ZLEA  T \ C 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Qatari involvement in Dessert Storm 91
Hello Nigel Ish. After initially reverting you with a synopsis on the summary, I immediately realised it was best to rewrite the whole paragraph - or more precisely to reduce it, for reasons stated in the next summaries. Since Qatar was on the rank and file to the Pentagon regime (the "yes-men" who would never declared nor pushed for war otherwise), there is very little information out there as to what they actually did, and I doubt it is even relevant. Though to clarify, there is no doubt in any source "reliable" or "unreliable" that Iraq suffered destruction of infrastructure and civilian deaths. So without having to browse too heavily, we know it is already specified on parts of the Gulf War article that collectively, the allies transcended plain attacks on military positions. So I hope you agree with me that it is best just to say Qatar took part in the war, while we all know it was mostly an air campaign. Well, the article title will give more details there at least. I mean if we are that desperate to know exactly what Qatar's contribution was then I am guessing we will have to dig deep, and probably learn Arabic in the meantime. So, are you all right with the way it stands? --Coldtrack (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is actually quite a bit about which airforce did what in the 91 Gulf war - many of the Arab participants limited their operations to defensive operations, or operations over Kuwait - possibly for political reasons, in that they didn't want to be seen to be actively bombing Iraq, a fellow Arab nation, or because their equipment was unsuitable - for Qatar, its Mirage F1s had the problem that the type was also used by Iraq, so there was potential for confusion between Qatari aircraft and Iraqi aircraft. What we need is sources that actually say what the Qatari aircraft were doing.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem well versed as I didn't quite know the dynamics. I do agree that we need information on precisely who did what. Are you all right with the way the article stands at the minute? --Coldtrack (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment removed
I think you accidently removed my comment here. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Infinity Knight (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nigel Ish!


Happy New Year! Nigel Ish, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Peer review/Supermarine S.4/archive1
Hi there, Supermarine S.4 is currently undergoing a peer review, as I am hoping to be able to get it promoted to FA. As you have edited the article in the past, could you take a look at the article again, and comment on how it could be improved? Amitchell125 (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The Sea Porpoise
Nigel Ish

If my words had to be deleted because of being unsourced, then shouldn't the Woodie Guthrie entry also be fixed for the very same reason? This was how I learned of the incident that you don't want published. I have been waiting to see you fix THAT. Or do you only object to MY edits?

His last ship, Sea Porpoise, took troops from the United States to England and France for the D-Day invasion. Guthrie was aboard when the ship was torpedoed off Utah Beach by the German submarine U-390 on July 5, 1944, injuring 12 of the crew. Guthrie was unhurt and the ship stayed afloat; it returned to England, where it was repaired at Newcastle. In July 1944, it returned to the United States.

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no excuse for adding unsourced content to articles, and you can have no expectation that unsourced content should be retained - please note that Woodie Guthrie's presence aboard the Sea Porpoise is not backed up by the quoted source in the Woody Guthrie article - https://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3285.html says nothing about Woodie Guthrie (or about U-390) - neither does the U-boat.net pages about U-390. I have therefore tagged the statement as failed verification. Please make an effort to check sources rather than blindly copy other Wikipedia articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait
Glad to see you expanding this article, but since Achates wasn't involved in the rescue effort for some reason, is it really necessary to include all that in the article? Do any of your sources explain why she wasn't involved? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the Bismarck part of the Achates article, I am trying to make the article follw some sort of sourcing. Actually none of the sources I can find say which destroyers were involved in the search (other than Electra) - do you have any sources that say which destroyers were involved? Kostam mentions that two of the six destroyers had put into Hvalfjord to refuel, but doesn't say which two, and Kennedy also talks about four destroyers with Hood & Price of Wales. The existing text was completely unsourced (and in some cases doesn't seem to match what is in the sources I have) so is of little use.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I note that several other of the articles for the six destroyers in question have similar unsourced text about the Battle of the Denmark Strait - it looks that there are more articles that need rewriting.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * English says that Achates was assigned to the 4th Escort Group from November 40 to 25 July 41, but that can't be right. He also says that Anthony and Echo were detached to refuel. OTOH Winklareth's The Battle of the Denmark Strait says that it was Anthony and Antelope detached to refuel. I'm inclined to lean on Winklareth on the subject. Let me know if you'd like me to add the appropriate refs and text to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought to check entries for other destroyers in English - although the section can probably be trimmed a bit more - it may still be worth explaining that the destroyers wern't present during the battle and why, and what destroyers went where, so feel free to revise the text if you feel it is helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Cessna 210 page
The 210n production started in 1979 I work on two 1979 210n’s the 210m production ended in 1978 Cessna 402c (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again - on Wikipedia, changes are based on what Reliable sources say - and discuss this on the ARTICLE talk page where others will see the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So the reliable sources are not right Cessna 402c (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually the 1995 edition of Simpson does give production years of 79 to 85 for the N and 77 to 78 to the M. The info does seem to have been present before the citations were added so it may just have been sloppy citing.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Cessna 210 page
The cockpit picture is 210R because a 210R has two alternators so on the left side of the panel at the bottom has two alternator switches Cessna 402c (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a WP:Reliable Source that demonstrates that this particular aircraft is a 210R - personal analysis based on photos and your own personal knowledge is WP:Original Research which is frowned upon.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also a 210N according to the Brazilian aircraft register.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can’t believe that it an 210r but the Brazilian aircraft register says it a 210n or someone filled in the paper work badly and said it was an 210n Cessna 402c (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Brazilian registry also says it was manufactured in 1984 - which would also make it an N.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As does the serial number - 21064836 - Rs start at 21064898.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The it must be a very early r and a very late n Cessna 402c (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Planet Satellite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variable-pitch propeller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

BLenheim in Indonesia
So happy to see that there was a source for this. I am very interested in the captured planes used by the fledgling Indonesian air force, do you have any more information regarding this? There are lots of issues number 2 of this magazine, could you tell me the date as well? Thank you!  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  20:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was Air Enthusiast, not Air International so an error on my part - (just to confuse things further Air International was originally called Air Enthusiast!)Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! I assume it is this one? I shall buy it immediately, can't wait! Thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * AE Quarterly Volume two just arrived in the mail, so happy to have learned about this article. Thanks again,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Aodhdubh
Hey, just noticed your posts on their talk page. Given their history, both recent and further back, I'm wondering if perhaps it would be more effective to post something at MilHist (if not ANI). jmho Cheers - w o lf  00:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have placed notifications to the discussion I started on HMS Exeter's talk page at WP:MilHist and WP:Ships, and the discussion seems to have got a reasonable level of response, as did the previous question I raised there, just not from Aodhdubh. I'll leave it for someone else to raise the issue at ANI if they feel it is necessary.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reverts. I expect that an admin will start blocking him shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would probably endorse admin action. Have spent considerable time cleaning up after his edits. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding whether the Free City of Danzig is a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Invasion of Poland". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Lowestoft (F103), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westland Whirlwind.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

What are these airplanes?
Hello @Nigel Ish, you said that the airplanes in are not A1N. However the source says they are A1N carrier fighters. So what type of aircraft are these? -Artanisen (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They clearly aren't A1Ns (at least the ones in the foreground) as can be seen by comparing the photograph in the infobox to the photo with Akagi - the ones in the photo you added are much longer, have a liquid cooled engine rather than a radial and appear to be a two -seater.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly a Mitsubishi B1M of some sort - which at least has the 3-bay wing of the mystery aircraft, although the tail looks different than the B1Ms I've seen photos of - note that the photo in question appears to be very heavily retouched.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it looks similar to a Mitsubishi B1M torpedo bomber. Artanisen (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)