To my knowledge, two published books already have quoted this website as a source of information, and Pierre Tillet’s compendium of clandestine infiltrations (and return journeys) cites it in several places. All fine by me, and it is very satisfying to see this site mentioned.
There is a problem, though. In each case the author and publisher has chosen to cite the precise URL of the post or page containing the relevant information; for example, http://beforetempsford.org.uk/3-march-1942 . Unlike a published book or paper records, a website is a dynamic temporary construct, not a permanent record. If I write a further post relating to that date (as has happened, for instance, when I later post non-operational information relating to a date when operations were also carried out). In such a case I am likely to change the URL slightly to avoid any ambiguity.
Can I ask, therefore, that authors and publishers avoid using the exact URL. It’s for the good of your readers, which may include me: few things annoy readers more than to follow a link or type in a URL that returns nothing. Can I suggest that web-writers, authors and publishers cite the post by date and type, along the lines of: “www.beforetempsford.co.uk – posts for 3 March 1942”. Your reader will have to navigate this site, but the upside is that they may learn more than they were looking for. This will not make the reference in your book future-proof, but it will at least be future-resistant.