User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be, or not to be[edit]

User talk:BilCat/archive24#Notability

I've just about had it with ...[edit]

user:Thisthat2011. If he's not haranguing endlessly on Talk:India, he is doing it on Talk:Ganges. Content-editors can't proceed with even adding a relevant picture because he endlessly debates their inclusion. He opposes me in pretty much everything in a knee-jerk fashion, and I'm beginning to suspect that he might be a sockpuppet of either user:Zuggernaut or user:Yogesh Khandke both of whom disappeared around the same time he appeared. In any case, whether he is or not, I find it is taking me three times more time to accomplish anything because he is endlessly disputing my edits. I feel he needs some kind of editing restriction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration with the user but at the moment we cant block them for just being a pain. I am confused sometimes by the lack of understanding and badly presented english but in some posts the english is miles better. As I was involved in the India Bharat discussion it may be that we need another admin to look at the situation. Perhaps we should could find somebody who can converse in his/her native language and explain that debating is not to keep repeating your points. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you ask an uninvolved admin to look at the month long discussion (and the almost week long lopsided RfC) initiated by Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs) on the India page? This user is either delusional or an incredible troll. Either way this ad nauseam discussion has to stop. It is wasting an incredible—and I mean absolutely incredible—amount of valuable time. Thanks and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS He has also copied and pasted content from a (Hindu nationalist) web site voi.org to the article Maratha War of Independence. I don't know if he has done the same on other Wikipedia pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the discussion on the India page but that hasnt stopped the repeating of the same request over and over again in the past. I have left yet another warning on his/her talk page although with the number of warnings that have been given we are stretching agf a bit know. I will have a look for any more copyvio stuff later. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's warnings[edit]

I hope that you are also giving the same warning to rgpk for repeating himself here - no consensus earlier, and now here-[| India or Bharat].

My repeat explanations are because of repeating arguments by the said editor/admin - and so should be your response - assuming good faith and fairness. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rgpk was answering the comments from Bpradhan001 and JN466 and as far as I can see is not being disruptive with continually repeating points, it is his first post since the 1 May. Seriously you need to look at making a Request for Comment to get other editors not involved to contribute. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Sladen[edit]

I saw your query about the GRO index. Her name is Elizabeth C. H. Sladen in both the GRO birth index and the marriage index. It's possible they could both be typos, but I doubt it. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake you are right cant read my own notes. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ken keisel[edit]

You may want to look at some of Ken Kiesel's latest contributions - such as this edit to Martin AM Mauler and this to McDonnell F2H Banshee and this to Grumman AF Guardian - they do not appear to be helpful or constructive.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behaviour - no need for multiple citations one at the top of the page or section will do. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a knee jerk reaction to the warning at User_talk:Ken keisel#Yankee Air Museum. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - that's what I thought - especially considering his response on his talkpage. I fear this will all end in tears.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And he continues. I am struggling to assume good faith here, or see his recent edits as anything other than disruption. I also notice that on his talk page he states that if anyone removes his "citations" (I assume he means citation needed tags, he will report them to a Wikipedia administrator - I wonder if he realises who has been making all these posts on his talk page?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is now just plain disruption and vandalism to make a point. I have reverted him at Martin AM Mauler and Grumman AF Guardian and warned him for vandalism at User_talk:Ken_keisel#May_2011. If he reverts again he needs a block right away. - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spree continues. - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ken has now attempted to start a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ARTICLE NAME. If he is going down the dispute resolution process, he may need some help in correctly formatting the request, even if it is the appropriate venue.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His request was ill-conducted and got deleted. He seems to have stopped for the night and several editors seem to have reverted his "citation tagging". Maybe he will be more reasonable tomorrow? - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - others have got involved now, I hope that he can reflect on his actions and then try with help to work out the issues of him adding uncited text. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is drawn to this edit and edit summary. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and this one too. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh and one more. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Martin AM Mauler fact tags were all added to cited paragraphs. Howerver, some of the tags in Grumman AF Guardian and McDonnell FH Phantom are added to places where citations are needed, but Ken is showing no discernment in adding bulk of the tags. Also, he seems to have called Adam's edits to the Guardian article after Adam used "vandalism" in his eidt summary. It probably would have sufficed to call just use WP:POINT. Nevertheless, Ken is definitely going overboard with the tagging to prove a point, and is being disruptive in doing so. Perhaps and "extended break" for Ken would be helpful. ;) - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh! I have left him a warning about disruptive editing, if anybody can help by reasoning with him that would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Those three articles have now all been reverted by three different editors. If he reverts again after your warning I would suggest a block is warrented. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has just posted a long reply on his talk page complaining about the articles he's "written" that now have so much speculation and "errors" in them. While that no doubt is true in many cases, such as articles edited by our Italish-writing "friends", his caracterization of the regular WPAIR editors as the root of the problem is of course false, as we can all attest to. He also seems to resent my editing at the stealth helicoper article, apparently still relying on an outdated BBC report for his "facts". Hopefully someone can reach out to im, but I'm apparently on his blacklist now, so there's not anything I can do now. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilborneOne; I've just opened a discussion about the ongoing disruptive behaviour on AN/I -- I mentioned you there, so thought I should let you know. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stay out of the ANI discussion to avoid "poisoning the well"; if here is something that you feel I do need to respond to, please let me know. Btw, RL, I can't see where you notified Ken of the ANI discussion; I assume you just forgot - blame it on that cold front in Oz! - BilCat (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to sew this issue up, Ken has now been indef blocked for making legal threats. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shame really as he does know stuff and what is really just a communications problem with not understanding what the project requires on referencing. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British royalty[edit]

Thank you very much for your relevant, focussed and prompt replies to my requests for comments. It's much appreciated. Rubywine (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual editing[edit]

A set of unusual edits from a well-respected editor has got me worried. Can you look into: this? Bzuk (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bzuk some of the actions have been touched on above see comments up a few lines.MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red beard @ RAF Tengah[edit]

Would it be better to cite it straight to the Sunday Times rather than use the URL? it doesnt have to be online. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A military accident[edit]

Accepting that military aircraft accidents are generally not notable enough for a stand alone article, what are your thoughts on the crash of a Mosquito at an airshow at Manston in 1948 that killed ten members of the public as well as both crew. Notable enough to sustain an article or not? Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing any more about the incident is certainly appears to be notable, I like to think of these older incidents in relation to what sort of media attention they would get if it happened today with the deaths in the crowd. MilborneOne (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the Kent International Airport article, along with a tailstrike on take-off that meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria due to subsequent consequences rather than the minimal damage sustained by the airframe. I'm not sure there's enough material online to write a decent article on the Mosquito crash. Local newspapers are more likely to have sufficient info to enable that. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tak Sun Secondary School[edit]

Since you seem to be "on" this evening, could I perhaps trouble you to have a look at this article. I tagged it as WP:CSD at 1040Z this morning but no admin has got to it yet. It is about a school in Hong Kong. The article was created by the school webmaster (see User talk:Tssswebmaster) and reuses content from his website. The article has been created and CSDed many times as WP:COI WP:SPAM and this new version of it seems to be identical to the last one that was CSDed. I am sure you can see the record of that. The only difference this time is that the creator quotes Ticket#2011030710001941 in his edit summary. As far as I know that would just be OTORS to declare that the website is freely licenced for use on Wikipedia, but it doesn't give him any blessing to keep repeatedly re-creating promotional spam on a non-notable school he wants to promote, over and over again. Personally I would like it deleted again and then re-creation blocked at its current location and at its previous location of Tak sun secondary school (different capitalization), but perhaps you could look it over and take what action you deem appropriate. I am happy to take it to AfD if that would help. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it as it was identical to the article previously deleted on 13 May as G11. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super, thank you! Is there any way to prevent re-creation? As you can tell this is wasting a lot of admin time! - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air China to BLR[edit]

Just need a clarification. Per this booking (see the first option) on CA website, does PVG come under a destination from BLR as it includes a transit stop at Chengdu but the journey is continued on the same flight and has the same flight number. —Abhishek Talk to me 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if it just a technical stop, if the passengers can not change aircraft or disembark for example the British Airways service to New York from London City stops at Shannon but it is just a refuel and customs clearance, the stop at shannon is ignored. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks. But my question is if PVG qualifies as a CA destination out of BLR.—Abhishek Talk to me 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if the Chengdu stop is a technical stop and the passengers cant get on or off at Chengdu. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chengdu is not a technical stop. Passengers can book flights from BLR to Chengdu. If a passenger has a booking on the same flight (CA426) from BLR to PVG, then he/she has to transit to the domestic terminal from the international terminal at Chengdu to board the same flight. So does PVG qualify as a destination out of BLR? —Abhishek Talk to me 17:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No as far as I understand it the consensus on airport articles was that it had to be a direct flight, it was a while since it was last discussed so it may be worth a question at the relevant airport projects. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TopUK[edit]

Sorry - should've raised it with you when I opened the SPI. It all happened so fast... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem was just looking for a second opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking it out now - it's 0700 in my part of the world. YSSYguy (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of telling you how to suck eggs, theres no need to wait a week for a PROD to expire. You could administratively delete both articles under Wikipedia:CSD G5; several other articles started by Rk socks have been so deleted, even ones dealing with noteworthy crashes. Although my personal opinion is that it isn't notable enough, someone else could (and most likely will) start an article dealing with the PC-12 crash. YSSYguy (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, someone's already done that. Sometimes things happen very quickly around here! YSSYguy (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the other user, this is what I posted on the talk page of the article s/he created.

If the article is is not a hoax, then it is nonsense with no hope of correcting any of the inconsistencies. First, the date in the infobox, the date given in the text, and the date inferred by the Navbox are three different years. Second, none of the three dates match any air crashes even remotely similar to the details here in the database of the Aviation Safety Network; the ASN database does have a KLM Constellation crashing in July 1957, but it wasn't a 1049, it wasn't on the 7th, and it occurred in Indonesia. Third, KLM is an international carrier and would not have been operating a domestic flight between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, and fourth did not even have the 1950s-vintage Super Constellation in its fleet in the 1980s. Fifth, Ogden is 40 miles from Salt Lake City and an aircraft crashing just after take-off would not have got that far. Sixth, the registration given for the aircraft does not match registrations used by any country, let alone Holland or the United States. Seventh, it is extremely unlikely that the NTSB would have the data recorders within 2 hours of the crash, and eighth, cockpit voice recorders didn't exist in 1957. In short, none of the info adds up, and without references it can't be fixed. YSSYguy (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Aircraft in the Signpost[edit]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Aircraft for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So many aircraft, so little time[edit]

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'm afraid I don't feel grown-up enough to attempt a redirect, so for the time being I'll confine myself to simpler matters, like writing a brief articles on things that are obscure enough not to have been written about but mainstrem enough for me to have some reference on them. For what it's worth, I came across the lack of a F.3 article because I'm attempting to piece together some improvements to the Supermarine Type 224 page which imo is a shocker, and reads like the work of somebody who knows very little about the aircraft or the circumstances of its genesis. (I'm doing this offline, have not quite worked out how the sandbox or doing stuff on the user page works). So I've been sniffing around the related areas in Wikipedia in order to make sure that everything sort of hangs together, couldn't resist the F.3. It's all very difficult: every reference seems to lead me to two more things that need attention of one kind or another, it's difficult to maintain focus. I can see why nobody wants to take on the task of methodically sorting out & harmonising the manufacturer list...is there a consensus as to how it should be done? The de Havilland page looks sensible to me. I'm not repeat not volunteering, but might take a crack at Bristol Aircraft. It is where I live, after all. Well, you did say any questions....not that there are many questions above!TheLongTone (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - I dont thing any agreement on articles on unbuilt projects but if you have a look at List of de Havilland aircraft it really needs some more info on the unbuilt aircraft? Redirects are actually easy start the new article with the name that needs to be redirected and just add #REDIRECT [[article name that this is redirected to]] . Dont worry try your best we are all here to help and ask as many questions as you like MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably can't help with the de Havilland list, which is a shame since I've alvays had a thing going for de Havilland types, if I was a billionaire I'd have a D.H.88 & a Dragon Rapide to use when I didn't fancy taking the Walrus up. But as I said I'm not sitting on a huge library, and there are types on that list not in the first edition of the Putnam book on de Havilland, which is the edition I've got. Current problem is with the use of the sandbox, but I'll plug away it.TheLongTone (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nightmare. I'm fiddling around in two areas, the Supermarine 224 which clearly needs in-depth research including a possible visit to the PRO to untangle the whole sorry F.7/30 story (to hand I've only got a reprint of the spec as issued, which differs in many rspects from what is generally written about it, so probably I need to seee the amendments made): I'm also trying to improve what is written about the Bristol 'Boxkite'. That is a real can of wikiworms, leading at one end to sorting out the list of unbuilt Bristol types (should knock a few types out of the missing types list) and on the other to the Zodiac, an unlisted type by an unlisted manufacturer who did make a number of sucessful dirigibles (cited but no article) and, apart from the 'Bristol Zodiac'/Zodiac Biplane (at least) another aircraft known as the zodiac biplane.....I'm sure you are well familiar with the phenomenon. Ah well, at least the research is interesting, even if the concrete results are meagre as yet.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Air-Britain's The British Aircraft Specification File has a summary of the spec and a description of the submitted designs, sometimes the on-line Flight archive can be of use for some of the early aircraft as it goes back to 1909. I think most people start on wikipedia with a good understanding of aircraft and aircraft designs but it is soon becomes clear that they are far more stuff that needs researching and writing about! All we can do is try our best as a team and keep expanding and improving the articles. Once you get over the practicality of actual editing in Wikipedia as I have said before we have lots of editors with different areas of specialism, some like to create article, some tidy up, others improve and expand but all will help if you ask in the right place. We all have different sources but between the editors in the project the knowledge and sources can be pretty awesome at times. Just be careful of working to much in a sandbox if you amend the actual article bit by bit it is more obvious to others that watch each page and they can help, sometimes large changes can annoy some editors because they cant readily see the changes and it just creates work for everybody to check what has changed. Also it might help to discuss what you are trying to do on the article talk page Talk:Supermarine Type 224 so that others are aware, but in the end just do your best and enjoy! MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How long is it considered to wait before you blow a way some contentios bit of unreferences (looks to me like) nonsense. Leaving a notice on the talk page is great in principle-a 224-related question on the Spitfire page got a quick constructive answer- but in all honesty who apart from me has the eg Westland F.7/30 under close scrutiny. (I'm one of those people who like the obscurities, the Type 224 is about as mainstream as it gets). btw I knew about the flight global website, but not that it was completes, searchable, cut&pastable and copyright -free. Bliss, even though I am now terminally sidetracked.TheLongTone (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is unreferenced nonsense then it can be removed as soon as it has been found, if you think somebody might object still remove it and make an explanation on the related talk page and make the edit summary clear. If you dont think anybody is watching or replying to your questions then go straight to the aircraft project talk page (which has 182 people watching it!). MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interested to see that although not many people are "watching" the page the Westland F/7/30 had 74 vistors on 2 June [[1]] and the interest in the Supermarine 224 also shows a continual interest [2]. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good trick!. probably 60-odd of those visits are me, it's big spike in the stats. I'm more encouraged that there's a low but significant amount of traffic before I started messing about And quite a few for the Gloster Grebe, none mine. You say not many people are watching the page? there are some?? Have you ever encountered the term 'zone fighter'? (maybe in a 30's book on the theory of air tactics or similar)TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just butting in here, one hint about the meaning of Zone Fighter is given in Michael Bowyer's Interceptor Fighters in which he states that by 1933 the Air Staff considered the Fury a failure, having insufficient performance advantage over bombers to ensure interception of Raiders and that Furies would therefore operate back in the anti-aircraft zone.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nigel Ish: I've come across the idea of air defence zones, & indeed have just skimmed through a document downloded from Kew which is a report for the Cabinet on 'The re-orientation of the Air Defence system of Great Britain' - Secret & (keep under lock & key in July 1935, yours for a mouseclick now.) : it's principally about searchlights, AA guns and money, what little mention it makes of aircraft is limited to talk of fighters intercepting the bombers. What I round most interesting was a remark to the effect that bombing of England in the near future was 'inevitable'...I didn't know that the storm clouds were visibly forming over Europe quite that early. In an case I understand the idea, which was in fact explained in the article. I was in doubt as to whether the term had any wide use, never having encountered an aircraft described as such. It's certainly not used in the F.7/30 spec. As posted on the Westland F.7/30 talk page, it seems a flawed concept to me but would surely posit an aircraft which sacrificed rate of climb for endurance. I'd also be looking at drop tanks and issuing specs for in-flight refuelling tankers — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have found a pair of genuine 'Zone fighters', the Westland Westbury and the Bristol Bagshot. They would have been supported by more conventional fighters. The concept is as above & dates from the time of the Zeppelin raids of the Great War. Noel Pemberton-Billing was a great enthusiast. Later on during WW2 he was promoting the concept, using parasite aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 09:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Original Barnstar
Here’s a well-deserved barnstar for fixing-up new articles and taking them under your wing, as you did at Royal Waterloo Hospital for Children and Women. Chris (aka) TehGrauniad (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Chris it is appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minnow[edit]

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Hope you hadnt noticed! MilborneOne (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta MAN-JFK[edit]

Can you take a look at Delta's flight from MAN-JFK? It is listed as seasonal but it keeps on changing it to "Ends 10 September". However, the flight is suspended for Winter 2012 until March 26 and the flight does appear to be bookable after that date. Has Delta's resevation system been updated to reflect this change or they have not changed it yet? I don't know if the flight is seasonal or ending permanently. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta.com shows is bookable all the way to 30 April 2012 but via Amsterdam with KLM for the northern winter. It is certainly bookable as a direct flight in April 2012 but that looks as far as the booking system goes. It looks like the direct flight is seasonal. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for correcting my error on the easyjet page, its been a long day.

--JetBlast (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rotabuggy[edit]

I've come across the name "M.L. 10/42 Flying Jeep" attached to the Hafner Rotabuggy. It looks a lot like a Air Ministry specification and the timing is right (1942). Have you seen it included in any list of AM specs? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10/42 was for a Special Rotating Wing Glider Specification Number for identification only for a Malcolm Blitz Buggy built by R. Malcolm Ltd (later known as the Hafner Rotabuggy). MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good line in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem I can provide a reference for it if needed, I will add it later if nobody else does! MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cathay Pacific[edit]

Please do not change the special lively registrations code on any airline - they are all in airline.net if you not sure. Thanks. ANG99(talk) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC+12.00)

Registrations are not normally notable or encyclopedic particularly in the fleet sections, although I would agree that they could be mentioned in a separate section on liveries if they are notable and are reliable referenced, not sure airline.net is a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baugher crusade?[edit]

Apparently, an editor is relentless on changing the old Baugher links but... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Links to Baugher can not be corrected by simply changing the domain name, the new links are divided between navy and airforce so do not follow the structure of the dead links. Graeme374 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orbest Orizonia[edit]

Hi. Iberworld has rebranded to Orbest Orizonia Airlines. New Article?, or should I use the Iberworld page. --MKY661 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would be tempted just to move the article to the new name to keep the history of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long Japanese military aircraft designations[edit]

You have probably realised by now that the long designations must be written in full and not just shortened to Type 91 e.g. The full sequence is 1. Manufacturer 2. Service 3. Taisho or Showa Year (Type no) 4. RolePetebutt (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I probably used what the reliable source said. MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft images[edit]

The links that I added were detailed images of all the aircraft that was listed in each entry. How does that make it spam?Articseahorse (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam is the addition by one user of links to the same site in lots of articles, something that you were clearly doing. Also the website does not have any content that adds any value to the article, it appears to be promoting 3d model images which are not the real thing. Wikipedia is not a webdirectory the content has to add to the content, perhaps have a read of WP:EXTERNAL LINKS to see the guideline on external links. MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky S-80[edit]

The S-80 designation only applies to export Super Stallions, Japanese MH-53E Sea Dragons to be specific. CH-53Es and MH-53Es in US service are S-65Es. I think the S-80 designation was created for ITAR reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 03:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK understood. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Smithrr4[edit]

I just thought I would let you know that after you added a "final warning or you will be blocked if you spam again" he added another set of spam links. I removed them, but he obviously doesn't get it and needs to be blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, to be fair I gave the warning for the edit you reverted so we will wait to see if they come back again. The user appears if the name is anything to go by some connection with the website. I also would be concerned that some of the images claimed as "all rights reserved" were not actually taken by the flikr site owner so possible copyright violations of other sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it seems clear he is spamming his own Flicker website and I agree that it looks like his images are not there legally. People will go to extraordinary lengths to try to make money on web advertising. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation in World War I[edit]

Hi, Milbone,

Let me share my thoughts with you.

I rather agree with you about the list of aces in this article. The notability requirements I mooted would keep the list at about a dozen or so (eight top aces from eight national air services, plus a few firsts). However, I would not mind deleting the list altogether; the present ploy is one to shake the bushes for any objectors. If there is no interest in notability standards, then I see no interest in the table itself. Goodbye, list, in that case.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand that, I would prefer just a brief overview and a link out to the aces article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Los Angeles Astronomical Society[edit]

Hello,

I've been working to create a Wikipedia article for the Los Angeles Astronomical Society, and some content has been copied over from our website at www.laas.org. I can see that the article on Wikipedia was created due to copyright infringement, what information must I supply in order to have the page restored and prevent future deletion?

Wyckd (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to write a new article without using a word for word copy of the www.laas.org website, the website could release the words and images with a free licence but then although you could use the material it would still be better to reword to prevent plagiarism. I notice that some editors were concerned about notability and you need to provide some evidence in the article that the society is notable possibly by providing references to the society in sources other than that produced by the society or local media. If the society has done something worthy and has been mentioned in peer-reviewed journals then that would help if mentioned. So please heed my comments about finding sources for notability and write an article in your own words. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing post[edit]

On N386D talk. I know that and of course you are correct. My sincere apologies. A lapse I guess. -- Alexf(talk) 22:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta ATL-TLV[edit]

Hey. I need your opinion. Delta will drop Atlanta to Tel Aviv nonstop from September 1 to March 26 (hence making it seasonal for now). On the Tel Aviv Airport page, i changed the service to seasonal since it will not operate this winter but resumes next summer. However, an IP continues to put start and end dates for ATL and not seasonal. I was wondering if we leave this route as seasonal or will it operate year-round after next summer. Since next winter's schedules haven't been published yet, i would leave it as seasonal until we know for sure it will operate next winter. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk)

I agree with your point but it is not clear what will happen next winter - perhaps a compromise is to say Seasonal resumes 27 March. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License laundering[edit]

I think you have a nose for spotting these guys Dave. The original account would have been blocked if it had continued uploading and editing copyvio images so it would appear that Mclarenshen is a sock trying to avoid the history of the other account. Might be worth a sockpuppet report as it appears he is trying to avoid his past efforts but cant help himself by Flikr washing the images. So I would suggest a sockpuppet report and make sure none his images being used here from commons as it doesnt look like they have been deleted yet despite the block. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you have asked MRG for advice she normally knows what is best. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Hi MilborneOne. I apologise for the perceived violation but am blessed if I can see what I have done wrong. I was particularly careful about it as we had just corresponded about another matter. Can you be clearer please? This is the message I am referring to in Commons. I have just noticed you have made a croped version of my image File:1903-Daimler-AA11-1198 crop.jpg which is a copyright violation as you should attribute the original uploader image File:1903-Daimler-AA11-1198.jpg as per the licence. I still hold the copyright of the derived imaged and should be credited, please take car in future, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC). Eddaido (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Eddaio I have left a message on your talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem but I still don't see what I did wrong. Please would you be specific. Thanks Eddaido (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines fleet[edit]

Hi. I tidied the fleet table which look like what it is here, but Schalkcity seems to constantly revert it. The previous table was very messy, had aircraft codes and lot of redundant information (eg: 737-700 and 737-800 are fitted with winglets. As you know it's not only for delta, but these aircraft come with winglet). Please take a look into it. —   Abhishek   Talk to me 12:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree far to much detail, it is not meant to be a travel guide, raise it on the article talk page to get a consensus for the changes. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have infact explained the changes I had made, but the user seems to reverting for no reason. —   Abhishek   Talk to me 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the last edit at 16:06 Schalkcity has only corrected some of your details and not reverted the changes, see how it goes I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schalkcity is back to introducing factual errors. I removed Jet Konnect as a non-member affiliate of Jet Airways here as you know that Jet Konnect is merely a brand of 9W and not a separate airline, but this user is constantly reinstating it claiming Jet Konnect and JetLite both to be low-cost subsidiaries of Jet Airways. Could you please intervene? Thanks, —  Abhishek  Talk 14:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Iranian Air Force Crash[edit]

I've had to revert edits by Xonus (talk · contribs) which reduced the article from a structured, referenced article to a stub plastered with fact tags. My gut feeling is that this is an Iranian editor who wants to push a pro-Iranian version of "the truth". Would you keep a weather eye on this one please. Mjroots (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had to move the article back to its original, correct title.--2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On my watch list MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JetKonnect[edit]

As I have already added some days ago on the talk page of SkyTeam: JetKonnect is a separate brand from Jet Airways, despite having the same IATA code. It is the same for AeroMexico and AeroMexico Travel, both have the same IATA code. JetKonnect (and AeroMexico Travel) should be mentioned in the table, because they are part of a SkyTeam member. Also consider the case of Delta connection. These flights are operated by other, independent companies. However, they are for sure part of SkyTeam, since all those flights are operated under the IATA code of Delta (DL). So Delta Connection should also be mentioned in the table, because the flights are operated for Delta, a SkyTeam member. And: Aeromexico Travel is also NOT an airline, just a BRAND. Delta Connection is NOT an airline, just a BRAND (operated by several airlines). Delta Shuttle is NOT an airline, just a BRAND. And for non-SkyTeam airlines: Air Canada Express is NOT an airline, just a BRAND. And yes, Kingfisher Red is not an airline, just a BRAND, but it is in the same way mentioned in the OneWorld table. So, JetKonnect should be part of the table. Please come with references if all the above mentioned examples should be removed according to you. And if you think all those airline BRANDS should be removed, remove them all, not just one (JetKonnect). Schalkcity (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this user is up to. He is contradicting his own statements. As said earlier, Jet Konnect is a brand and not airline. It is just the name given to an all-economy class configuration of aircraft and these are flown on less popular routes. Only subsidiaries can be part of non-member affiliates and not an airlines brand. —  Abhishek  Talk 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC
Thanks for the comments perhaps we need to discuss this at SkyTeam talk page, Schalkcity has clearly brought up a problem with the way brands are handled on that page. Really need some reliable sources from SkyTeam in what they consider to be non-member affliates. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over-achiever?[edit]

Sorry Dave I just had a few things in the real world to do but I can understand your fustration, perhaps we need to explain that not every press release that included the words F-35 is actually relevant!. I thought the reply to your warning was a bit weird. What happened to the suggestion that he may be better at wikinews? MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Yakovlev AIR-3[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

List of aircraft[edit]

As discussed on the talk page could you try to avoid pipes in aircraft entries and use re-directs instead. Pipes relate only to the article,but re-directs are wikiwide. ThanksPetebutt (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline check[edit]

Sorry to bother you but this diff appears to bust the guideline on this section of articles by a wide margin and the edit summary made no sense. I am struggling to retain the enthusiasm to carry on with WP to be honest. Just need to know whether I was wrong with my reverted edit. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does say no red links in see also section, I have removed them again. Understand your struggle I find that reducing the scope of your editing when it all gets a bit much, I took some non-aviation pages of my watchlist recently as the nationalist issues were creating miles of talk page nonsense, better to reduce your scope for a bit and reduce your editing/watching world, although sometimes you like to keep an eye on articles of interest most pages do have somebody else keeping an eye on them. I find article creation better as nobody else interfers with your work! and somebody will always help with the typos! Keep away from FA/GA etc as I think you have found it all gets a bit frustrating as it can be driven by a few peoples opinions on what it should be, I dont mind helping with adding content but most "improved" articles look a right mess when they have been edited by "committee"! So the suggestion is to reduce your world to make it more comfortable, you have produced some really good work particularly for the aero-engine team so it would be a pity if you were not involved at all. MilborneOne (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MB1 on that! Writing articles on obscure subjects results in almost no interaction with anyone these days unless you invite people to check the new article out! - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the editor in question seems determined to add non-links to the "see also" I have started a discussion at Talk:Napier Lion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, I'll stick with it for now but it certainly does seem to have become very hard work lately. I stopped creating articles because someone else was following me and making stylistic changes, I dare not revert any poor changes to them for fear of ownership accusations, people are getting clever. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously?? Following you? Do whatever the F**K you want, I don't care. I'm staying retired! - BilCat (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I hzven't bothered you in months, and I've been semi-reitered on WP since June 5, so why are you still going on about this crap? Good grief! - BilCat (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MilborneOne

My website is www.atlantikwall.co.uk and is legitimatete site and I feel adding it as a link to the relevant RAF airfield pages on Wiki is good for the subject. I am not trying to advertise (my site is non profimakingne and no has NO adverts) just add content to Wiki.

I am rather upset that you feel that my site is legitimatemate, it has been running for the last 10 years and expanded in size covering most airfields in the south of England and also up into Yorkshire. The French side covers the Atlantikwall from Dunkirk to La Palice.

I feel my links are as justified as all the others you allow and I see some of them do advertise so why you are blocking me I have no idea. I am not sure how you reply to me but my email address is richardtdrew@yahoo.co.uk.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard drew (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

www.atlantikwall.co.uk[edit]

Dear MilborneOne

I would like to discuse the reasons why you seem to be blocking my added links to RAF airfields?

Please could you let me know your reasons behind this.


Richard Richard drew (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because our guidelines dont allow it on a number of reasons you need to read the conflict of interest guidelines as well as external link spamming. This is not a reflection on your website we just dont allow website owners to add links to there own sites. If you continue to add links to atlantikwall you may well find that your editing rights may be removed. Wikipedia is not a web directory and any added content must add to the value of the article, you really need to read out guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources in bibliographies[edit]

Technically, I know you are right in that only the sources that appear with citations should be used, however, you have to appreciate that many times, articles change over time and that original cites sometimes disappear mysteriously. My general rule is if the article is not a substantial one, or is not reviewed to a FA/GA standard, that the use of reference sources for "future use" or having given the sources that were instrumental in background research, is actually a boon to the casual reader who may want to go further in research. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Personally, I find this sort of mass reference addition unhelpful - references should show where the article is sourced from suddenly adding an unused reference to dozens of articles gives a false impression of the sourcing of the article. It would have helped if the editor in question had made some effort to conform with the existing reference format rather than drop in completely mangled templates and leave it to everybody else to fix.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I cant agree adding loads of references just because they may be used is just daft, if they have useful information then use them as a source. In theory I could add hundreds of books to each article just in case if the user wasnt known it looks like book spamming. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Adding unused references for others to comment, but I find it hard to believe that speculative referencing is allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi N and M, I was initially a bit reticent to lump these changes into the "spam barrage" basket, as I had noted that at least some of these refs had been used in the past and that the editor involved had later made an effort to use them as sources. Hoooooooowever, in looking at the MO, and seeing the blizing involved, I am very reluctant to be that generous now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for that Bzuk, although I can understand your point but appreciate that the addition of a general book like "Combat Aircraft since 1945" to lots of articles doesnt appear to help anybody. No reason why more specialised books cant be in further reading. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will reserve any further comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Adding unused references as that seems to be the best location to elicit a dialogue on these changes. If you look into the past history of the he-shall-not-be-mentioned (with all deference to Harry Potter), you will see that I have a major "beefsteak" with the editor involved, and I did not want to make it seem that there was piling on going here or that ulterior motives were involved... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Understood. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Carmichael Robert Owen[edit]

Writtle, Essex? Grand Officer of the Order of the Nile? I just started Mongalla, South Sudan. I stuck together some bits & pieces from the Mongalla article into a start for RCR Owen, with intent to expand the Owen article and also to start bios for the other redlinks in the Mongalla article. Who's Who thumbnail bios probably rather than anything in depth. But where do the biographical details you added come from? I do not doubt them, but would like to use the source for other articles. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology I got distracted I need to go back and add the source - it was from the London Times Obituary. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you had an online source of short biographies, maybe of army officers or colonial administrators ... But at least this person seems well-documented. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Times is online but needs either a subscription or free with membership of a UK library. It has lots of obituaries for army officers and colonial administrators! MilborneOne (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is most unfair. I have found some other content for the article though, so will add that now. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Lady[edit]

You PRODed the article in 2008, but a few days later the PROD was removed with a misleading edit summary ([3]). I completely fail to see the notability here; for one thing F-16s are still flying so some may achieve more hours. Should the PROD be put back or a new PROD added ? DexDor (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I never considered it to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, should have really taken it to an AfD after the prod was removed! I am sure you cant prod it twice so it should go to an AfD, have not got time today but if you dont get round to it I will take it to AfD tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John E. L. Hunter[edit]

Please check talk page for this article. Correction may be needed. Georgejdorner (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers Viking accident list[edit]

I was wondering about how many accidents and which accidents the Vickers VC.1 Viking article should list. Since Cj1340 reverted my deletion of one accident there, and you reverted a similar deletion I made for the Valetta, I thought you two might want to discuss the issue. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks replied on article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt[edit]

See disruptive behaviour and unseemly edit comments made by an IP. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Also see Bzuk's refusals to discuss the merits instead of making attacks and threats. --91.10.41.53 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Props for not blocking me without even looking at the matter (which is the usual reaction if a named user insult an IP).
No props for letting the attacks uncommented. Unless you stop people like Bzuk from attacking IPs, your problem won't go away. --91.10.41.53 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Dont think the IP removed anything but they did add the line The government continues to play a role in the economy, and many government-owned companies have monopolies the reference is a streaming video from reuters by David Cay Johnston (although a link to something might help). Might be best to challenge it on the talk page if it a POV as it appears to be a journalists opinion piece. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I thought too but someone apparently came over to my page to question me instead, should I direct him here to view your comment? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem but as you challenged the addition it should go to the article talk page to be resolved. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link - I will have a look at it when I get home later today. MilborneOne (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good gravy... I've been away for over a week and nothing's done. Oh well, I'm removing the POV statement per WP:BRD, Fleetham's refusal to discuss this even though I've invited him here means that I have the right to remove whatever he puts there without first discussing this to gain consensus, if there ever was one. Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did listen to the link but it not exactly a reliable source, he says I have been in Singapore for a week - a now he is an expert! if what he says is really true then lots of other far more reliable sources must be around. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supermunk[edit]

There is a discussion about this modification on the Chipmunk talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - commented. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More undiscussed moves by Petebutt[edit]

Michael, User:Petebutt has been making a slew of undiscussed moves of late, many to odd or overly long titles. These include the book-length Russian aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov (still awaiting reversion), and the totally incomprehensible Soko Vazduhoplovna Industrija, ro Vazduhoplovstvo. His defense here of the former move shows no comprehension of the problem, and particulary of WP naming conventions. I think we have given him more than enough leeway and warnings in the past. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think it would ever be a common name in English, I have left petebutt a note asking him to make move requests. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have messages, sir.[edit]

Hello, Milbone,

Please see Frederick Hunt (aviator) and John E. L. Hunter.

Thanks.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I should have said, please see the Discussion pages of the above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Green (aviator)[edit]

Nice work with the additions to this bio. It was great to read on past the point where my research hung; I enjoyed seeing what became of Green.

BTW, do you know if someone has tinkered/is tinkering with the info box for military bios? Birth and death dates no longer show on screen even though I have filled in the info.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I like it when we can add something about the lives of the aces after the war even if it was to die in another! Yes the field for date of birth and death and place of birth and death have been changed, something to do with making them the same in the different people infoboxes. I believe a bot changed all the current ones but that didnt help us where I am sure like me you have your own copy to paste into article! which doesnt now work. Just need to look at Template:Infobox Military person MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx[edit]

thx 4 help, do you have a ref for tom? Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied at Talk:Claude Thomas Stanfield Moore MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James William Wild[edit]

Thanks for your help with the James William Wild article! --sbp (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See your email[edit]

See your email about a mutual fierned, fireend, fiend, freiend, er, friend... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Noted, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.124.240.100[edit]

Michael, User:217.124.240.100 has been adding a lot of uncited info over the last few weeks to aircraft articles, and has been warned for it several times. Since yesterday, the IP has been adding alot of uncited material to Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12). Some of it appears to be based on this article, wich was first published in 2003, and is very out of date. One claim in that article, that "Another plan is to buy some TA-4J Skyhawks from U.S. Navy stocks for pilot training, since the heavier two-seat AF-1As are not suitable for carrier operations." As far as I can tell, 8 years on, that has never occured. Who knows where the rest of his info is coming from. Since this appears to be a static IP, a block would probably work quite nicely, as the user has never responded to any posts on their talk page. Thanks for looking into this matter, and for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at the ip later when I get home, some of stuff does look like copy and paste from the web. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry been busy , I have protected the article for now due to the content dispute over uncited additions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no problem. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can source some of the additions the IPs made, as some of the info is worth keeping. Like you, though, I'm a bit busy, and I've also been sick this week too, so I'm not sure when I'll get to it. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Specification C.26/43[edit]

Have you heard of this one, its not in List of Air Ministry Specifications but given underList_of_aircraft_(0-A)#Airspeed as "Airspeed AS.64 - specification C.26/43 " GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26/43 was the spec for the Brabazon Type VB and was issued to De Havilland who produced two prototype Doves against it, also related but not ordered were an Airspeed project based on the AS.64 and Westland had a twin-turbojet design. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date use[edit]

I would be interested in your opinion on the following: topic as it concerns our erstwhile advocate. FWiW, I looked over the articles in question and there are so many minor errors, that I was tempted to correct them but did not want to venture forth, fearing that the resultant "battle" would not be worth the time and effort. Bzuk (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanx. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
OK MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See contuining dialogue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Odd accusations[edit]

Michael, could you please take a look at Talk:Boeing 737#Wheel doors? I think the situation should be self-explanatory. I'm at a loss as to what Ken is talking about. If the situation deteriroates before you return online, I may go directly to ANI, but I'm hoping that won't be necessary. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All quiet at the moment, I checked the edit history and Ken appears to not have understood the sequence of events. The "saving weight" statement he was not happy with had already been removed before his first talk page edit! - I have left a reminder on his talk page to take care and check the edit summaries before raising the actions of other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking over it. The whole thing was quite a mess! - BilCat (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20/8 0716 BilCat adds a citation needed tag to an old unreferenced paragraph.
  • 20/8 0723 A bot adds the date to the cn tag
  • 20/8 1824 Ken keisel removes the paragraph
  • 20/8 1830 Fnlayson adds it back as it has only been tagged for a few hours
  • 20/8 1907 Bzuk adds a link and removes the cn tag
  • 24/8 0040 Fnlayson corrects a typo in the link related to fuel dumping
  • 24/8 0058 Ken Keisel adds a citation needed to tag to the first sentence in landing gear
  • 24/8 0108 Bzuk removed the comment about saving weight and removes the cn tag
  • 24/8 2010 Ken keisel add the citation needed tag to the first sentence again
  • 24/8 2017 A bot adds the date to the cn tag
  • 24/8 2024 (Talk) Ken keisel starts a discussion on the talk page about the claim that the having no doors saves weight
  • 24/8 2045 (Talk} Bzuk points out that the saving weight claim has been removed but the discussion continues...

Added above so in case it is needed later. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent request to Temp Semi-pp of two article pages[edit]

Tony Tan Keng Yam is already semi-protected, no activity on Bock at the moment so I cant presumptively block it. Added both to my watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latest update, a re-count is now in progress as there is a 2% margin in vote difference between these two chaps and that doesn't include another 5,000+ votes from overseas Singaporean, which won't be counted until this coming Tuesday. More sleepless nights! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might need some local admin help, somebody who is up and about at the right times of the day for Singapore to keep an eye on things. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I give up~! Can't work with these stupid mules who won't stop meddling with the articles when I've already hung the "GOCEinuse" sign up there and working on them. I'm taking all of them off my watchlist, I've got better things to do than to be pissed off with these idiotic editors... like namely, catching my 40 winks! And you can take them off your watchlist too... G'night~! (PS: Apologies for my french... you know how it is sometimes.) --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kiesel and Airco DH.9A[edit]

Ken Kiesel has started editing the Airco DH.9A article - adding a chunk of text about the very minor american variant (nine built). Some of the addition, (i.e the statement that the DH9A had an internal weapons compartment, although cited by Ken - is clearly rubbish - no DH9A ever had an internal weapons compartment of any kind. I left a note on the article talk page about this which he has ignored, and when I later removed the suspect information and replaced it with information about the variant that is cited to more well known sources, (i.e AJ Jacksons's De Havilland Aircraft since 1909 and Jack Bruce's article in Flight), he reinstated his ownh information, removed or tagging the cited infomation which I had added to the article and mangling the lede section with the apparent aim of promoting this very minor american variant. I've had it with this kind of rubbish.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, if one bit of info contradicts the other it should be discussed on the talk page. I see you have raised it the point, the article shouldnt be changed again until a consensus emerges. I have protected the article to encourage discussion rather than an edit war. MilborneOne (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC) MilborneOne (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flight material[edit]

Afternoon MilborneOne. I saw your latest article had a bit from Flight in it, reminding me that there was talk of a agreement with them over copyright about a year ago. Do you know if any progress was made? It would be a grand resource. CheersTSRL (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think so, I believe User:TraceyR was looking at it at one point. I took the point that it was more than 70 years old without a credited creator it was public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holtaheia Viking Crash[edit]

The addition of the communal burial leads to question. What happened about the other boy and teacher? Private/separate burials in a different location (another country even?) Did the Times article mention it? I can access the Times archive via my local library service but I thought I'd ask you first as you might have it directly to hand. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember it just said they had made private arrangements. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have it now. Interesting, and somewhat moving, to see the style in which newspapers used to treat the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always like to use bits from the Times as it is a better reflection of the mode of the time, years later we mostly end up with fairly dry accident reports. Also in the times is some more details of the Flight timings etc which I was going to add but if you are on the case I will leave it for now. MilborneOne (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much more to be put iin at the moment as otherwise one is just rewriting the news articles and accident reports. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK understood. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN on Pilatus PC-21[edit]

Left a note. MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I appreciate that. Another thing, I've informed Bill that I'm taking the family for vacation starting from 1 to 14 September. Talk to you again when I get back, cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy the break. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie Mozzie[edit]

Nice name - I guess its a play via "Aussie mosquito" on Australian version of the de Havilland Mosquito construction. Couldn't find anything to say that though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the name came from but it just had to have an article! MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation warning[edit]

Your statement "you really dont like Witteman for some reason" is an accusation of Bias, and a violation of rules of etiquette. Unless you have evidence to support you claim please remove this accusation, or I will have no choice but to post the violation to a board, and you could be blocked. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was not meant as an accusation of bias - I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air India destinations[edit]

Dear Milborne, You have to intervene in the Air India issue. User:Nikkul has merged the destinations of Air India Express and Air India Regional into Air India destinations article. PLease do revert the same. Thanks, 122.167.215.192 (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs to be discussed on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution FYI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1". Thank you. -- (I think Ken forgot to notify the other involved parties.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ken seems to be getting a bit confrontational about this - he seems to be naming as an involved person in the dispute everybody who disagrees with him on the requested move. This seems a bit silly - I doubt anyone other than him would be terribly bothered if consensus was to name the article Barling Bomber - certainly I wouldn't be.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I am not sure we have a dispute and I expect the move request would have ended in some form of consensus.MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tempest meet teapot... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
And he continues with the "fictional name" angle, which quite strange, since the "name" is reported in reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the somebody like the United States Air Force Museum uses the fictional made up names, although they are a reliable source for anything else. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also repeated the note about the USAFM on the dispute page FWIW, perhaps somebody not involved with the discussion will point out that the USAFM follows our naming convention! MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Ken has often cited the NMUSAF as a reliable source! - 22:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ken's repitiion of the "fictional name" angle smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More undiscussed moves[edit]

See WT:AETF#Redirects to Renault 8Gd, and follow the links there. It should be self-explanatory. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Airways[edit]

Hi, Sorry to bother you. As your an Administrator, please can we have your input on the discussion on the Qatar Airway Talk Page please? Many Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I have made a comment. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProFe D-10 Tukan[edit]

Thanks for fixing the cat on this article - I started off reading the US distributor and forgot to fix it later when I confirmed it! You will note that Pete is back to moving articles without discussion again. I had to move this one back. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had noticed the move, his changes are done in good faith but one has to question his sources he uses to make some of the decisions to move. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhardt Cycleplane[edit]

Thanks for adding the box. I have a photograph of the aircraft that I can send to you by email if you think you could add it. The image is a TIFF file. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs to be converted to a jpg or gif to be uploaded, any reason why you cant upload it? I have added a non-free image for now but I dont know the original source, if it is an official government image then it can be changed to public domain. Happy to upload the image for you but I need to know the source and what the copyright status is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I've never had any success getting an image to upload properly. The image is property of the U.S. Air Force, so it can be published as long as the Air Force is credited. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can send you the TIFF file if you can convert it to a jpeg. Please send me your email address. You can do that by writing to me at kkeisel@gmail.com - Ken keisel (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not happy about passing my email, have a try at uploading yourself it is not difficult and it appears the system will accept tiff files just go to:
  • Upload file on the left navigation panel, a few lines down it says Where is this media from? just click on It is the work from a US federal government source
  • A new page appears - where it says Source filename click Browse and browse to where the image is on your computer
  • In the summary bit it gives you a form to fill in with some details where the image came from, it is just a text file, if you are not sure of the answers it can be sorted later.
  • Further down where it says Licensing open the drop down menu and select Original work of the US Air Force
  • Click on Upload file - job done, you just need to place it in the article. If you have any more questions then please ask. MilborneOne (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher Airlines[edit]

Would you take a look at Kingfisher Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). An IP removed 11k from the article earlier, without explanation, which I reverted. The IP has now reverted me. Maybe a fresh pair of eyes on the article will tell which of us is correct. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears the IP user doesnt like the criticism so is removing it, Ahunt has reverted it back so no need for any action for now. Although the airline does appear to have financial problems perhaps the section does need to be looked at to see if it is to much weight compared with the rest of the article, that said it should have been raised on the talk page not deleted. Watching for any further activity. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello MilborneOne, I just wanted to let you know that I tood a look at your recently created article CSIR Experimental Autogyro II--It would be great if you could also Wikify the related article List of helicopters used in World War II.

It's nice to see you editing!Jipinghe (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MB1 - for some explanation about the above please read User:Jipinghe. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-160[edit]

wanted to create a redirect pageStaygyro (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect page at Tu-160 already exists, do you have a name - please sign your posts. MilborneOne (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard move[edit]

Morning MilborneOne: Afew days ago I aired here the notion that perhaps Bernard aircraft built in the SIMB period should include SIMB in the name. No one objected, though equally no one said yes, so I've now started two new ones, Bernard SMB AB10 and 12. I intended to move Bernard V.1 and V.2 to Bernard SIMB V.1 and Bernard SIMB V.2, but was blocked by an existing redirect. As an admin, could you remove the redirects to open up the move please?

I felt easy about moving pages I'd started but less so about the Bernard 14 & 15 which you began. I think that for consistency the Bernard 14 should move to Bernard SIMB AB 14; the 15 may be left as it is, even though it was SIMB machine, as Liron says explicitly that's how it was referred to - they must have been gearing up for the name change. OK with the 14 move? It would need your intervention as again a redirect exists.TSRL (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with your moves, give me a few hours until I get home and I will get them done later. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks.TSRL (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Green tickY MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saab JAS 39 Gripen[edit]

M, Can you look at [4] and [5]. I think they are the same and can be possibly an example of a copyviol. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, well spotted, have tagged at commons as a copyvio, found another website that declares it a Saab image. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Baneofzombies has been uploading copyvio images and claiming them as his own work. I found one of them yesterday that he added to the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master page, tagged it as a copyvio, and it has been deleted. See this diff, and note whose image he deleted to add "his own"! :) - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that, must take more care of my own! MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We got your six! - BilCat (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICK[edit]

Per these comments, it seem evident that Ken isn't going to stop flogging the horse, and is nearing obsession on this issue. What steps can be taken to remove the whip forcibly? - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close the discussion as no consensus to change as we dont have any evidence that the current guideline is causing a problem. Not sure if we have a solution to WP:STICK although a non-involved admin could issue a warning it really needs to raised at ANI before a RFC/U can be raised but I am not an expert in that area. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already maad a motion to close, but I don't think I should be the one to close it. Given Ken's response, I don't see him dropping the issue even if the discussion is closed. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may be distracted by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations of stalking MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Geological Black Thursday Air Disaster[edit]

  • Since I don't quite have the expertease to rapidly navigate through the edit process of Wikipedia, I will leave a brief note here. Regarding the entry on 22 Jun 73, I have revised this entry to more properly comport with published guidelines. Unlike you, I do feel that this is a significant historical event and at least deserves a mention. Given the people who were killed and their station in life, it would certainly seem to merit a mention. Kindest Regards, <email removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.149.131 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not notable in an article on world events, the accident nor the participants dont appear to have a wikipedia article, a normal sign of notability. Needs to be discussed at Talk:June 1972, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a pom?[edit]

I am guessing you is a Pom, judging by your An-148 photo that you uploaded - being at LHR. Thought you might like to see these two pics which we now have available...

Cheers --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pom - is that a polite term! The An-148 could have been better but the weather was a bit 5h1t and it was overcast, they have started a regular service into Gatwick. Nice Concorde pictures you must be thanked for getting all these images onto Commons, well done. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Did you know that we can upload all of these pics? Do you know what pics we can or can't upload? If not, let me know, I give you details. I know there are heaps you would upload, for example a lot older Mother England stuff. ;) --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA article ends with irrelevant paragraph[edit]

I think I have bent over backwards to be civil and present rational arguments as to why the two accidents in the last paragraph should not be part of this [[6]] article. My proper, constructive and good-faith edits were repeatedly reverted completely, even though the alleged problem with my edits could have easily been corrected with minor tweak editing -- the normal, good-faith way to do it -- to please the other two editors who appear to think it is "their" article.

Now, instead of offering any arguments at all, as to why the last paragraph should be retained, they have simply blocked any further editing by IP editors. Is there any way to get some other aviation minded editors to look at that FA article, so that it will not continue to appear to be "owned" by those two, and to have a legitimate and rational discussion about the last paragraph, which I think hurts, and does not help that article? Thanks for whatever time you might be able to give to this one. 66.81.53.63 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appear this is the only edit you have made to wikipedia I can only presume you have also used other IP addresses in the 66.81 block it may be better to register a user name so all your contributions can be linked. As far as I can tell no restriction has been placed on editing the article, can I suggesst you repeat you points on the talk page. You can give an intention to change the article on the talk page and if nobody responds you can edit. As far as I can tell nobody has really edited the article since August and some of the edits from 66.81 block of IPs have not been reverted. May be just better to explain on the talk page, I am happy to respond with an opinion on that page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at it. There did seem to be a block of some sort, to edits by IP editors like me. The "edit" button did not appear anywhere in the main article for many hours. I even shut down my computer and rebooted and logged back on to the Internet, but the situation remained the same until a later day, when I tried again.
I made all the edits that begin with 66.81. I have no control over how the IP numbers display, so the last ones often are different. I finally took the bull by the horns and eliminated the non-germane accidents, after waiting a considerable time for anyone to counter the arguments I offered. So far, no one has reverted again. I think the article is now a very good one and I am proud to have contributed to that improvement. Thanks again, 66.81.52.27 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aircraft categories[edit]

I've created a full nomination for the aircraft categories whose Speedy renaming you objected to. Feel free to comment on the new nomination. I haven't retagged the categories, as the link from Speedy should suffice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will comment soon. MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bellanca[edit]

Your last edit to this template seems to have created a formatting issue - the Skyrocket is stuck on a different line, even though there are no returns in between it and the previous entry. I tried fixing it, but can only do so by returning it to the previous state. Can you have a look? Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my mistake - should be fixed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/September_2011#Abolishing the lead coordinator position[edit]

Hi MilborneOne. In the coord election, you voted just for me, today ... much appreciated. Kirill and I have been arguing this morning, and I've decided the best way to get it behind us is for me to flip-flop on my position of not assuming the lead coord role ... I will now take the position if offered, then ask for consensus on what the role should be and attempt to follow the consensus. Since I only got your vote after I made a pledge, and I'm now flip-flopping on the pledge, it wouldn't bother me even a little if you want to withdraw your vote. Thanks for voting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was based on your past performance in the project and I am happy to still support your election. MilborneOne (talk)
Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schalkcity[edit]

Hi, This user has resumed to add JetKonnect under non-member affiliates in the article SkyTeam despite you and me explaining it to him. He is treating the brand as a subsidiary and mentioning it there. Please keep an eye on this. Could you also look at Delta Air Lines fleet. It is back to having too much detail in the fleet table. Thanks, — Abhishek  Talk 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at Sp33dyphil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ping! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jacobson Flare[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jacobson Flare. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tractor aircraft[edit]

Came across this on a few articles and I'm curious about it a bit. It does seem to be a logical counterpoint to Category:Pusher aircraft but I'm not sure it's quite defining, seeing as it would be so huge if and when fully populated...didn't want to start clearing it on that basis without asking, seeing as how if you made it I figure there must be a good reason! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only because it was strange that aircraft were either propeller aircraft or pusher aircraft when I thought that the choice should really be tractor or pusher. We now seem to have single engine pusher cat but not a single engined tractor, if we are doing categorisation then we should really balance the cats properly (in my opinion) even if they turn out to be big, or we are only left with categorising the unusual but what is unusual we tend to use biplane but not monoplane (which appear to use high wing and low wing instead). Perhaps we need to look as a project at what we really are trying to achieve! MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you do have a point there - I was using plain old Category:Single-engine aircraft for the "generic" tractors. As for high wing vs low wing vs biplane, I'm pretty sure I remember the consensus awhile back being to discontinue the use of all three and slowly phase them out, with the "conventional" wing arrangements being too indiscriminate for categorisation (and at what point does a "high wing" become a "mid wing" become a "low wing"...). It's been awhile though, so maybe this should be raised again at the project? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration[edit]

Hello Milborne. On 10 September you added some information to Ansett-ANA Flight 325. Thanks for that.

One of your edits clarified that the accident aircraft, serial number 46, was a medium-range four engined turbo-prop airliner. (Your diff.)

On 25 September I erased this item of information. (My diff.) I did so on three grounds:

  • The article contains a Wikilink to our article Vickers Viscount. Any reader who wishes to find out about the Vickers Viscount can click on the link and visit the article. The introduction to the article begins The Vickers Viscount was a British medium-range turboprop airliner …
  • It is misleading to state that Viscount serial number 46 was a medium-range four engined turbo-prop airliner because that is true for all Viscount aircraft. (It is like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west on Tuesdays.) It is much more encyclopedic to state that the Vickers Viscount was a type of medium-range four engined turboprop airliner, exactly as is stated in our article Vickers Viscount.
  • You did not cite your source for your information.

On 25 September you restored the information using the edit summary We shouldn’t presume the reader knows what a Viscount is. (Your diff.) Despite the fact that there was clearly a difference in our views you made no attempt to collaborate by leaving a message on my Talk page.

The article contains many blue Wikilinks and we can presume the reader is able to use those links to obtain whatever extra information is needed to fully understand the article. The same is true of virtually all Wikipedia articles.

I have had a look at a number of other articles on aircraft accidents. I didn’t find one which does as you did to Ansett-ANA Flight 325. For example:

  1. Lufthansa Flight 540 provides no description of the Boeing 747.
  2. The same is true of Tenerife Airport Disaster which involved two Boeing 747s.
  3. Turkish Airlines Flight 981 provides no description of the Douglas DC-10.

If you want to improve our suite of articles on Viscount accidents you could do a lot of good work in a short time on Mandala Airlines Flight 660.

I see you created Avro Vulcan XH558. It contains no description of the Avro Vulcan. (I think that is reasonable because you can presume the reader either knows what a Vulcan is, or knows how to select a blue link to obtain further information.)

Wikipedia works best when people collaborate. Let’s do so. Dolphin (t) 04:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a happy with the inclusion of a one line description then it is up to me to gain a consensus to add that information but you need to raise the challenge on the article talk page. If you had removed the information again I would not have restored it but raised it for discussion on the article talk page, any such arguments for inclusion I would then make on that page. If nobody comments or it is a general principle on multiple articles it could be raised at project level for more visibility. If you think it needs to be cited then an appropriate tag in the article would remind me to add a reference, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising the issue on the project page.
I disagree with raising this matter at Talk:Ansett-ANA Flight 325 because it is not specific to that article, or to the Vickers Viscount. It is a very broad question for the whole of Wikipedia - to what extent should blue links be supplemented by someone's brief description, just in case the reader doesn't know the meaning of the blue link. For example, there are many articles with a blue link to London. We shouldn't presume that all readers will know what London is, so should that be supplemented by something like a large city in the south-east of England? Alternatively, can we presume that all readers will know how to click on a blue link to obtain further information?
I notice you haven't yet edited Avro Vulcan XH558 to add a brief description of Avro Vulcan XH558. Dolphin (t) 07:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Martin U.K.[edit]

Milb, could you move Lockheed Martin U.K. to Lockheed Martin UK? per this link, the proper style appears to be "UK". Also, I'm not sure what project to tag the talk page with, if you can help on that. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilborneOne/Archive_15&oldid=1146767053"