User talk:Nigel Ish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Beechcraft King Air

THanks for updating the C90B specs for me. I copied the 200's specs (as you noticed) with the intention of finishing them last night, but ran out of time. I was going try to do them today, so thanks for finishing that for me. To tell the truth, I hate typing in the specs, so I tend to procartinate, and I well might not have got them done tonight either. THanks again. - BillCJ 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairey Fulmar

Why did you change the first flight of the Fulmar from January 1940 to January 1937, which was the date of the first flight of the P4/34 on which the Fulmar was based. I had reputable references for both first flight dates, which are confirmed by "Thetford, Owen. British Naval Aircraft Since 1912. London: Putnam and Co., 1978. ISBN 0-370-30021-1. p.152.". The Fulmar and P4/34 are different aircraft, although one was based on the other, with the Fulmar having folding wings, a non-continuous canopy, carrier equipment (i.e. arrestor and catapult gear) and an eight-gun armament. ...and why was this significant change marked as a minor change? Nigel Ish 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, here is the reference I have: Quote: "The first of two Fulmar prototypes completed its first maiden flight on 13 January 1937." Winchester, Jim (ed.) "Fairey Fulmar." Aircraft of World War II: The Aviation Factfile. Kent, UK: Grange Books plc, 2004. ISBN 1-84013-639-1. In another source, "The urgent need by the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) for a new fighter led to a rapid trials programme, beginning on January 4, 1940, with the maiden flight of N1854, the first production Fulmar..." Fitzsimmons, Bernard, ed. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. New York: Phoebus Publishing Company, 1978. A final quote: "Two prototypes were built: K5099, first flown by Chris Staniland on January 13, 1937, and K7555 flown three months later. This was modified to suit naval requirements." from: Lumsden, Alec. "Number Three: Fairey Fulmar." Aeroplane Monthly, June 1990. p. 354. Since this change did not involve radical changes to the article nor add a substantial amount of information, I marked it as a "minor" change. Again, this is Wikipedia, any editor can change information if valid sources are referenced.Bzuk 16:28 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Quote - Help:Minor_edit - "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.
By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences not to display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor."
This was clearly not a superficial change as it affected the facts presented by the article.
I'm not going to change the article as I see no value in getting into a revert war, and you won't have to worry about me challenging any of your statements again as I am leaving the Wikiproject Aircraft.
Thank you Nigel Ish 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hi Nigel, glad to see you're still on the job! Bzuk 20:29 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hawker P.V.4

Nigel- do you have a photo of this "one-off?" Bzuk 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Found one and posted it; thanks for your info on what the aircraft looked like. I went through some old files until I found an unidentified Hawker Hart variant photograph and, lo-and-behold, it was the P.V.4. Bzuk 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 22 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De Havilland DH.10 , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects from missing articles

Hi Nigel - thanks for the work you're putting into weeding the Missing Articles lists. Just a quick request - when you find an obvious typo (like Sokker for Fokker, or Felixtowe for Felixstowe), please just edit the list rather than create a redirect. Wikipedia will probably never again need a link to Sokker T.V! :) These lists were all hand-typed, so there's bound to be mistakes in them... --Rlandmann 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armstrong Whitworth aircraft

Hi again - I noticed you've just put up the Armstrong Whitworth Atlas. I was wondering whether you were planning to do the other Missing Articles for this manufacturer too? (Scimitar, Awana, FK.10, Wolf). If so, I'll skip over these - your references on them are sure to be better than mine! --Rlandmann 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I won't be adding a direct reference within the specifications template since I don't believe that that level of precision in referencing is necessary to or consistent with an encyclopedia article (one of the lesser reasons that I dislike the existing official template). --Rlandmann 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairey Pintail

I apologized for the tags I put for the articles. This is only my second day of patrolling and I'm new to this. Maybe you should not put the headings first when you put the details, it creates a little misunderstanding. Chinese3126 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nigel - in order to avoid this kind of problem, you can always include the {{inuse}} tag at the top of a new article when you first start it... Cheers --Rlandmann 08:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avro

My trudge through the missing aircraft will be reaching Avro in the next few days - I'd love you to jump in and give me a hand filling in some of the gaps for this manufacturer! --Rlandmann 23:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Meet you in the middle! :) --Rlandmann 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW - if you have access to a library with either the paper or online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Gustavus Green for me? I just came across him today in relation to an early Roe type - sounds a really important figure in the early years and there's almost nothing about him anywhere online...

Some early Blackburns coming up soon, if you're interested? --Rlandmann 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawker Fury

Nigel Ish, thanks for reverting the edit I made. I was not aware of this, I should have done my research before editing the article. My bad. Zaindy87 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol Primary Trainer

Hi Nigel Ish. You are off to such a great start on the article Bristol Primary Trainer that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breguet 941

Hi Nigel Ish. You are off to such a great start on the article Breguet 941 that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And you could use the same process to nominate Nieuport Nightjar if you are interested. Thanks so much for your contributions to new articles! --JayHenry 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Aircraft Swallow

Hi Nigel - thanks for the continuing hard work. I just wondered how you'd feel about expanding this entry into one about the Klemm L25 more generally? It seems to be within the scope of what we'd normally include as licenced production, but I'm happy to be guided by you. As a regular aircraft contributor, I'd also really appreciate your input into this proposed notability guideline for aircraft. --Rlandmann 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For all you do

wikiwings in recognition of your knowledgeable contribution to aviation articles. -Bzuk Look at your user page, someone may have vandalized it. [:¬∆ Bzuk 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Japanese designations

Hi Nigel - I just removed a remark from the Mitsubishi 1MF article about the "Type 10" designation being confusing because it refers to three different aircraft. Actually, "Type 10" isn't the designation - the designation has to be read as a whole: "Type 10 Carrier Fighter".

I guess an analogy would be if the British Air Minstry had been using a similar system, then the Spitfire would have been the "Type 1936 Fighter", the Avro Anson the "Type 1936 Coastal Patrol Aircraft" and the Fairey Swordfish the "Type 1936 Carrier Torpedo Bomber". "Type 1936" is meaningless in itself, even in the case of the famous "Type 0 Carrier Fighter", because there was also a "Type 0 Medium Bomber", "Type 0 Reconnaissance Seaplane", "Type 0 Small Reconnaissance Seaplane", "Type 0 Observation Seaplane", and two completely different "Type 0 Transports" (OK - this last one is genuinely confusing!) --Rlandmann 22:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol Jupiter Fighter

Hi Nigel, Thanks for writing. Yes, you are right, I was struggling with the original specifications template trying to force it to read the engine specifications and resorted to copying from another template. I think what was transferred is the data from the earlier template (I can't even remember where I found it but it was one with all the figures entered; it may have been the de Havilland DH.93 Don which I recently edited). Please feel free to change any information as the incorrect information was "part-and-parcel" of the transposing of data back and forth from template to template. Thanks for being so observant, I'm sure that I read the specs over but obviously missed the errors you spotted. That's why we pay you the big bucks! [:¬∆ FWIW Bzuk 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 01:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 20 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Latécoère 611, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--IvoShandor 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RM8

I am starting to have enough of your accusations, and not only yours.

I have gave to you datas stated as DIRECTLY EXTRAPOLATED by the above listed magazine articles, and i mean articles WRITTEN BY ENGENEERS, not rookies (differently by wiki average). Right? If you have not arguments to denied what i say it's a problem of you, not mine. I know the stuff i talk about, and perhaps the same is not possible to say about you. Learn something about aircraft design and then speak. OR not allow ignorants to tell to who knows its buisnesses how is the right and the bad manner to operate. --Stefanomencarelli 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You have removed 'weasel words': 'removed weasel words - not particularly high ? Its higher than the aircraft it replaced in Swedish Air Force service!) (undo)'

No, sorry. Not necessarly. There is no evidence that Viggen had ever been a long leg fighter, no evidence that its endurance is rated more than enough, no evidence that it was better than Draken and Gripen. So if you have info about you must talk. Differently the ferry range of S 35F is 3250 km, JAS 39 is 3000, Viggen is rated 2000-3000 km. Other aircrafts: Mirage F.1 3,300 km , F-104G/S around 3.000-3.300 km, Mirage 5 almost 4,000. Viggen is not as ferry range an outstanding machine, and it's definitively worse than all these aircrafts as supersonic endurance. An F-104S with 5,500l. fuel can start from Tourin to Rome in 20 minuts, and land with still 1300 l. after 400 km mach 2 race. Try to do it with a Viggen.--Stefanomencarelli 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-104 Starfighter in Italian service

Nigel, We have just started a talk session under Talk:F-104 Starfighter#F-104S in sub-article; your input is requested. Thank you for copying the refs. Bzuk and Red initiated this project. Your assistance is most desireable. LanceBarber 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 9 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Naval Aircraft Factory PN, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist Tag & Assess 2007

Hi Nigel: Thanks very much for the work you've done so far tagging articles. As these are now geared to awards, and the work you've done so far counts towards them, I've taken the liberty of consolidating two ranges you started into one and tagging it with your name. I also added you to the Participants list. See Tag & Assess 2007 for more info. If you don't want to continue, just let me know ... --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-dreadnought

Thanks for adding that ref to pre-dreadnought. I don't suppose your copy of Conway's says anything about the roles and fates of Schleswig-Holstein or Schleisen? The Land 14:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! The Land 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Naval Aircraft Factory TF

Whoops. Thanks for pointing out my error in mentioning the Bureau of Aeronautics as the organization which had ostensibly approved a production contract in 1919.

I suppose that I had based my initial impressions on the fact that the correspondence in question had been technically filed by the National Archives as listed under “miscellaneous records of the Bureau of Aeronautics”. However, upon further review of additional correspondence, it does in fact appear that prior to 1921, the organization in question had in fact been officially referred to as the “Division of Aeronautics”, technically a subdivision of the Bureau of Engineering .

My bad. Thanks for pointing that out. --Dl43 (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
Awarded for your "above and beyond" editing efforts in getting F-4 Phantom operators editorially back on track during November 2007 Ahunt 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ro. 57 Article

I reverted the edit you made before seeing that the original editor has been banned. I came across the article randomly and wanted to help clean it up, so I added what references I had and took the most noxious stuff out. I don't read Italian and don't have access to the book that was used. I was hoping that the editor would stop warring long enough to see it was reasonable to ask at least for a ref note in Italian that addressed specific citation requests, probably not going to happen now. Anyway, if you have a reference that says the prototype did or did not fly please post it or maybe just add that to the sentence, I don't know if wiping it out totally is right, especially if the Italian reference includes the fact. Thanks. Awotter (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to design per your suggestion, since tracking down the original is not a high priority, at least for me. Thanks! Awotter (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BR.20

Sorry about getting in the way of your good work on the BR.20 - just trying to help! MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copy and paste

The edit history of your copy and paste to F-4 Phantom II was not merged with the copy and paste. This sandbox still has the edit history. Do you want to use the sandbox again for a different article? Snowman (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit history in the sandbox needs to be linked to the F-4 Phantom II for copy right reasons. As you want to keep the page, one way to join up the two edit histories would be if the sandbox is moved (use the tab at the top of the page) to somewhere else, and then merged into the F-4 Phantom II page. I am not sure if there is a precedent of where to move the page to, but I guess that it should go to a normal wikipage (not a subdirectory) like "F-4 phantom II (sandbox4)" and this is linked with the history into the F-4 Phantom II page. Lets wait a day or two and perhaps someone will turn up who knows how it is has been done previously. I have asked "User talk:John" an administrator, but I would be happy to do the fix, when I am sure what to do. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It is more complicated than I first thought, because 2 pages have been made from your sandbox_4. I have left a message about it at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. It will be interesting to how it is fixed. Do your other sandboxes need looking at too? Snowman (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and Happy New Year

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navboxes

Thanks for jumping on board to help out with this! To help keep everything uniform, I wonder if you could please use {{•}} instead of a hyphen to separate entries, and pipe links to their basic designation (ie, A6M rather than Mitsubishi A6M. Cheers - it's much appreciated on this big job :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Breguet 730, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Br730

There appears to be an error in the Development section - date of first flight in 1940?? Mjroots (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do 17

Hi. I still have some issues about the reliability of the sources. Do you know of anyone who may have a book source for this? Dapi89 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can deal or backup the Croatian claim. I also can support the Turkish and Romanian cliam. I'll change the revert back.Dapi89 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-4 "madness"

Nigel, I like your characterization of the F-4 review; I couldn't actually bring myself to comment any more on the revisions to the article and I have resigned myself to the F-4 being relegated to a former FA status. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC) ,

[edit] DH.34

Please check your source for the prototype DH.34 attaining '8,000 hours' in its first nine months operations. 33.0 hours per day!!. Even the latest long-range jets do well to attain 4,000 hours per annum. Ringwayobserver (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French invasion of Russia

I've had to roll back and your edits got caught up in the editing. Please accept my appology and please feel free to redo your edit. --Tirronan (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metric system

Hi there. Please keep both metric and non-metric in specifications (your edit to Sukhoi Su-35) - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the climb rate in ft/min is the imperial equivalent of the climb rate in m/s - there is no need to quote m/min as well - or like the editor I reverted, just remove the ft/min.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would it be a problem to display both? You have got a spec. per second and another per minute. Most people don't know imperial units, it doesn't help to see ft/min to them.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Units - the units for climb rate quoted here here are m/s at ft/min (or for American and pre-Metric British) ft/min and m/s. Please note that this is the english language Wikipedia so more people may be familiar with Imperial units than you might think (particularly in the United states (and certainly, a large proportion of English language sources are written in Imperial units).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2008 (UT)
The English language Wikipedia is universal and is open to all, thus should be understandable by all ; "As of 2006, 95% of the world's population live in metricated countries" (see Metric system). I still don't understand why it is a problem to you if someone post a metric data next to an already present Imperial data. BTW I couldn't find the climb rate reference in the page you linked - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I've included a source section in the French Invasion of Russia article per your request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NP --Tirronan (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French Invasion of Russia

Thanks Nigel - I'll monitor the situation --Rlandmann (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Designation templates

I think not; yes, the Albatros D.III was used by both countries, but the "D.III" designation in this case was issued by the German Idflieg, not the KuKLFT. The template doesn't attempt (and shouldn't attempt) to be an inventory of every aircraft either nation used, but a navigation tool among a specific sequence of designations. As you probably know, sometimes the same code was used by Germany and A-H to refer to completely different aircraft, and other times one country would skip a designation to avoid confusion with a widely-used designation from the other... Let's not try to make these templates do too much! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging for an aerotable

The problem is that the template is not suitable for gliders. Things like min sink, best glide angle and competition class do not figure. JMcC (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese

About your request, OhanaUnited has signed up as a Logistics dept Chinese linguist. You could ask him :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vickers Vimy

I have used the reference you provided to me to cite that section. I made some numbering correction because in the old revision, it says "further 10", which is ambiguous, so I changed it to the total number. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles)
Two Stripes (400 articles)
Three Stripes (600 articles)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles)
Chevrons (2000 articles)
Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles)
Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles)
Third place overall
Second place overall
First place overall

[edit] Avro_Commodore#Operational_history

Do you know the year in which this aircraft was sold to the Maharaja of Vizianagram ? I am trying to link it to the right Maharaja. Tintin 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tintin 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

Hi Nigel,

I cannot find anything spurious about the link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avhien.html, it opens a page on Greg Goebel's VectorsiteDirk P Broer (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] P-61 Reference

Did you realize that when you changed the survivor link from an external link to and internal reference you added 80K to the size of the article - you also when from making it easy to jump to a reference to one of having to jump to the bottom of the article then a second click to find this external reference - very uneconomical and not very practical way of citing a reference.Davegnz (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nigel

Per wiki standards - when to use and external link:

1) Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
2) Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
3) Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.

I generally avoid external links except when it takes me directly to the home page of the aircraft in question - this link does take me directly to NASM's page on this particular P-61 - that makes this external link appropiate. Agree that this page does need more references.Davegnz (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawing from the Project

Sorry to see you go - you have done some great work, - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have been following the stuff on that page. I got caught up in the debate over thumbnails, although in general I just read it and stay out of it. Lately I just tend to be doing my own thing, writing Schweizer glider type articles from scratch and ignoring the dogfighting. You are welcome to have a look at them if you like and see if you can improve them.
In or out of the project I do hope that you will continue to work on aircraft articles. You have made a very positive contribution to many articles! - Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also sorry to see you go, and hope you'll be back someday. I think that everyone's enthusiasm waxes and wanes - I feel mildly burned out myself at the moment! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nigel, ditto on all the above comments. Hope to see your contributions to a/c again (soon). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] F-4 policing

Thanks for catching the unhelpful edits and spam links today. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JF-17

You are correct defencetalk is not reliable source. But Aviation Week & Space Technology by itself does not mention anything about the weight of JF-17. Not even about the specifications of JF. I have checked out 2 click here sites which may not be reliable as per wikipedia terms but faily reliable in general. May be we should check out more sites for reliable info. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ref Jane's

I've fixed the errors. Thanks for catching them, Nigel. ericg ✈ 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hare - Thanks

Thanks for tidying up after me - I only had one reference (Jackson's British Civil Aircraft) and the British Aircraft Directory site for help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ki-48

I have removed the content which User:Terrenceflynn declared as copyright at the bottom of the page! I have left him a warning about adding copyright material on his talk page. I have added Kawasaki Ki-48 to my watchlist and I will keep an eye on it. Most of the material was personal recollection which does not really fit in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Image deletion

Sorry!!! I didn't notice the "-common" part of Image:A6M3 Model32-common.jpg. I will try to be more diligent in the future, thanks for pointing it out and correcting my error. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supermarine S.6B

Hi Nigel, thanks for the note. As for the article, I was not about to engage in an edit war over the template issue; it just struck me as curious as to why change correctly written out citations and references to another style (MLA to APA), regardless of the use of templates. There has been an ongoing discussion recently about the use of templates that may be of interest. Citing Sources. FWiW, the reaction to the edit is also puzzling? Bzuk (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC).