User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 10

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that user page comment by User:118.100.57.159. Lately the vandals seem to be striking back by accusing other people of vandalism as a cover! - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roberts Dunstan

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roberts Dunstan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom aircraft test serials

You may wish to consider creating a redirect from Class B markings. The term is used in several aircraft articles and it is what I understand them to be. The term can then be wikilinked in the articles that use it. Normal civil aircraft markings are Class A markings. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks redirect created - I did consider the name when I created the article but it doesnt appear to be an official term. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

F-15 page media mention

Hey, MilborneOne I don't want things to get out of hand on the F-15 page, so I thought I'd come to you directly. I really want to do things by the book on the article, and I appreciate your help. The one thing I ask is that you allow us to continue polite talk without closing it down. We are not disrupting the article at all, and people seem to have useful things to add. Maybe to someone who has been with the article for a long time you feel you have heard it all before, and I can understand some wearyness after reading some of the impolite posts people made in the arguement in the past, but I'd like a clean slate to simply make a case for a simple sentence. Can you get back to me directly on this? I can see how this could devolve into reverting and bad feelings, and that is something I want to avoid. Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I don't think there is need for another admin on this. I can see why previous talks on the subject were closed, as they became very arguementative and the people in favor of adding the info provided no useful citations. You did add an olive branch with that new line in the media section. Maybe we can continue to refine it to make people on all sides happy (or at least keep feathers from being ruffled)? If I can make a suggestion, have you read this article? Ronald Reagan in fiction People who maintain the article on Reagan didn't want to add fictional appearances, but we comprimised with a smaller article that was linked off from the main one, which lists his fictional appearances. Maybe something like that would work? Keeping the fiction OFF the main page? Something like F-15 Eagle in fiction?Mathewignash (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mathewignash, a sub-article would be reasonable compromise to suggest, although perhaps F-15 Eagle in popular culture would align with the article. I would still like to keep the more generic wording of the compromise statement but a link to the sub-article may be worthy of a suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about your generic wording and a simply link off to the fiction article? It need not even be F-15 specific article, but more generic one like Jet fighters in fiction or Boeing aircraft in fiction with a sub section for F-15 Eagles (that way people could add other jets as needed. If someone wants to add some pop culture appearance to any jet article, you just direct them to this article. The jet articles seem to be plagued with pop culture problems. This might be a good way to keep those edits off the main pages. Mathewignash (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you make it a generic title their is nothing stopping you creating it yourself, a new article doesnt need a discussion, and all that needs to be added is a link to the F-15 (and others) article. It may have more chance of meeting notability guidelines if it covers multiple aircraft types. All you then have to do is to see if anybody at F-15 has an objection to adding a link. I would support you adding a link to the F-15 article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

First I'd want to see if an article like that exists already. Do you know of one? Or maybe an article on a different subject's fictional appearances (Ford trucks in fiction) and use it as a guideline for writing. I wrote the Ronald Reagan one with I just started out here on Wikipedia, and it's probably not well written. Mathewignash (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

UFOs in fiction ! or Rail transport in fiction MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture for potential downfalls. There are more AFDs like this one. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that BilCat I realise it may be a problem, perhaps Mathewignash should discuss it with one of the non-aviation projects like WikiProject Animation to make sure it is just not a list but is a properly cited article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea on keeping from just being a trivia list. I started a page and stubbed it here Aircraft in fiction. Additional and feedback is GREATLY appreciated. Right now it's JUST the F-15. Would it be wrong to copy the info from other aircraft popular media sections into it in their own sections? Mathewignash (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You can copy from other articles but be aware of attibution it might be worth reading Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia it details a couple of tags that you can use. It might be worth adding a Template:In use template to the top to show it is being worked on. MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good reading, I'll try to add some attribution and or backlinks. So you think the page on Aircraft in fiction should be part of any particular wikiproject? Mathewignash (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added the aircraft project for now but I am sure others may be interested as the article develops. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay to have the other aircraft articles add a link in media sections to my new article (like SR-71 Blackbird, who currently has no media section, but I have media for it now)? Should I just make a proposal on the talk page? Mathewignash (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be better to mention it first on the talk page if the article hasnt a popular culture section. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your tweaks to Roland Griffiths-Marsh - it's a sad little stub that need all the help it can get! Jasper33 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another copyright Q

Evening Milbourne. Having got the RAE Hurricane into the air, I thought I'd have a go at the Zenith. Jackson's Civil Aircraft (1960) has a decent photo, clearly labelled "Air Ministry Photo", obviously taken before 1925 when the Zenith was scrapped. I was about to assume AMP = Crown Copyright and scan it, but then saw the same image in Ord-Hume's quirky but encyclopaedic "British Light Aeroplanes", now labelled "Jack Bruce" presumably from the collection of J M Bruce. Any thoughts on whether its is usable? Does a later ed of Jackson change his attribution? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Meant Zephyr!TSRL (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Zephyr ? Jackson 1974 doesnt credit it but taken before 1925 it may qualify for Template:PD-UK as author unknown more than 70 years old. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

UAM's theatre club

hello!! I'm working on an University project so that I'm trying to create a "wikipage" in Spanish ("Aula de teatro de la UAM) and then translated it into English (UAM's theatre club) but I really do not know why that article was deleted. Could you help me?? I mean, I really need it for my University degree!! Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.6.78.252 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it appeared to be nonsense the text did not relate to the article's title. One would expect an article about a theatre club to describe a theatre club. If you want to create an article in Spanish then you should really create it at the spanish wikipedia es.wikipedia.org as this is English wikipedia it is for articles in English. Also note that if you create an article in English it may be best to get yourself a username then you can create a sandbox (which is space to create drafts) you can ask at this page for help. You may also want to read Help:Contents/Getting started which provides links to other help pages. You may want to make sure that any article you create needs to be about a subject that is notable, unless their is something special or notable about a theatre club it may not be allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah I've actually created the article in Spanish and I thought in English wouldn't be that difficult. I can tell you that subject is important, at least for my mark!! :) Well, thank you for your help, anyway.--Tmj english (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for joining in at Gatineau Park Protection Committee and New Woodlands Preservation League. I hope you can stay with us awhile on this, as some intervention is required. For some more complete background on the larger issues here you may want to have a read through Talk:Politics of Gatineau Park and also User_talk:Stoneacres. - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Slingsby T.53

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slingsby T.53, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Woodlands Preservation League

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Woodlands Preservation League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gatineau Park Protection Committee

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gatineau Park Protection Committee, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For helping to finish out the very first CCI to archive. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What a morale booster. :D I progress! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem glad to help. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Politics of Gatineau Park

An article that you have expressed an interest in, Politics of Gatineau Park, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Could you please review these three edits: 1, 2 and 3. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly personal attacks are not tollerated but I note that User:Dave1185 has given him a final warning so I will not make any additional comment unless he makes more personal attacks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. There is certainly a pattern of these now, so let's hope he has got the message. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just removed this as abuse from User:M.nelson's talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked following previous warnings. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick attention to this. That was particularly uncalled for, attacking a young university student... - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gordon Olley

On November 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gordon Olley, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Stoneacres

It's a completely neutral and factual statement.--Stoneacres (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SAAB340-d-cdau.jpg

File:SAAB340-d-cdau.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SAAB340-d-cdau.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SAAB340-d-cdau.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Eurocopter-ec725.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Eurocopter-ec725.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-created bio

Michael, could you look at Joey Dauben, and see what the best way to handle this is? It appears to be sefl-created, and uses no third-party sources to establish notability (or anything else!) I've speedy-tagged it to try to get the ball rolling, but I don't really know if it's eligiable for Speedies or not. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has declined the speedy so it may be worth a prod or AfD but I have raised it at the COI notice board for advice Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Joey_Dauben. See what they say. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've not dealt with bios much, so I really wasn't sure what was needed here. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skier Dude (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my user page. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing my images

Why are you removing images I have uploaded? You and SkierDude are obssessed with removing images that are not violating any copyrights.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou72JG (talk • contribs) 24 November 2009

Please sign you messages - Probably because they have some problem with copyright - I presume you are aware of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lou72JG which was notified on your talk page, note that wikipedia takes copyright violation seriously. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Heston Aerodrome etc

Hi, can I ask if you will please keep an eye on the activities of User:GraemeLeggett. He seems to have an unhelpful perspective on red links, that discourages this here editor from contributing useful material, see my entry on his talk page. He also has an obsession with italics for serials, see Heston Aircraft Company. Personally, I regard italics as useless and a complete waste of storage bytes, and there's no sign of guidance in Wikiproject Aviation style guide or notability. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Red link are good it lets you know what is required but i have adjusted some of them as they should not be pointed at other articles just to make them turn blue. I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for response; your enthusiasm seems at variance with WP:RED. I'll suspend developments of Heston-related stuff until someone else does some positive and productive work to convert red links to blue.PeterWD (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RED Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable. so having red links is healthy and not a bad thing it encourages article creation. That doesnt mean it has to happen straight away. Obviously if the article has no hope of ever being created because it is not a notable subject then it should not be added. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fane F.1/40

You were quick there adding the WP:Aviation banner! GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because I was just about to create the article myself!! I will add some more info. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised that I was not able to find anything in the Flight archives. It seems to be quite obscure. Of paticular interest is the "F.1/40 specification" - since F was used for Fighters. I wonder if this is a back attribution to the "Fane F.1" name but anything on the specification would be useful. I may yet find the specification in Flight but the GAL.47 is a harder search term because of the many instances of General Aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park

Please note I undid your revision because the comments were mine, but I had forgot to sign.--BudgeC (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park

Now that this debate is finally completed and the closing admin has firmly warned the POV and SPA accounts, I wanted to thank you for your sage and objective advice on the AfDs from start to end and also request that you add Gatineau Park to your watch list to provide just a little bit of "adult supervision" there.

I also wanted to take the opportunity to ask you about the copyright issues that you mentioned regarding the original split that I had done of Gatineau Park into Politics of Gatineau Park. I thought I had complied with the requirements of WP:SPLIT in carrying out the split, including providing traceability as to where the text all came from for licencing purposes, but if I did a poor or incomplete job then perhaps you can show me how I could do it better next time. I would appreciate any guidance you can render. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem I will keep an eye on Gatineau Park. The problem with the split was it should have had attribution, if you look at WP:SPLIT in particular at Template:Copied. It is not a problem if you are moving/split content you created but the attribution is needed if you move other peoples stuff from one article to another. One I did earlier is at Talk:Olympic Air. MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was under the impression that those templates were optional and not required if the edit summary pointed to the original location, but I will make sure I use them in the future to avoid this problem. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gatineau Park invitation

You are receiving this invitation to join other editors working on the Gatineau Park article, because you participated in the AfD debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and have thus shown an interest in this subject. The greater the number of editors who participate in articles, the better the articles become. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from XtraJet

Hello MilborneOne, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to XtraJet has been removed. It was removed by 71.142.232.147 with the following edit summary '[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 325488608 by [[Special:Contributions/MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) Article provides basic info about company, and contains other relevant info'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 71.142.232.147 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bot, an expired Prod I had forgotten about - straight to AfD de-prodder can discuss it in deletion debate. MilborneOne (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dimitri Bertsekas'page

HI Milborneone. I notice that you just added a "confict of interest" sign on this page. This page has been editted to conform to the policies upon its creation. could you inform me where is still to be editted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdwang (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on related talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on F-35 Lightning II

Please see this, please also note that User:Kozuch kept re-adding the same copyrighted cutaway image after we had removed it from the article page despite all my advices and warnings. Time for me to disengage, I've got better fish to fry. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 11:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank Dave I have removed the two images (F35 and Gulfstream) from the articles no justification for using copyrighted non-free images. Just having a rationale does not make it right. Both of these image could be replaced with a free version. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help telling him off, I think you might have to give him more pointers and time to digest it because I seriously think that he is lost on what can be done or cannot be done with image files and their related copyrights issue(s). --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 14:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney Canada PW800

Michael, could you userfy the deleted Pratt & Whitney Canada PW800 article? I'd like to see if I can restore the article. You can place it at User:BilCat/Pratt & Whitney Canada PW800. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, that was bad! - BilCat (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I could not find a direct link of the release, but I'm sure it is a copyvio. Go ahead and delete it if you would - no reason to keep what's there in public view. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cripes! It reads and reeks like an advert, thus I agree with what Bill said. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For the quote about emissions: http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/pw810 and select the "features" tab. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Mill, could you come over to User talk:Jonathon A H#Uploading Photos and give a hand to the "Jack E Hammond" with regards to image upload and copyright issue? Thanks~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 09:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Help needed how to upload use file Debonair-ind-mag-01.jpg in article Debonair_(magazine) which is the cover of the debonair magazine

Hi

please guide me how to upload use file Debonair-ind-mag-01.jpg in article Debonair_(magazine) which is the cover of the debonair magazine

Am I done right below for the file Debonair-ind-mag-01.jpg

please guide

Regards

licensing type: magazine cover

Article = Debonair-india-magazine-cover-01

|Description       = Debonair-india-magazine-cover-1992
|Source            = scanned from 1992 cover of Debonair-india-magazine
|Portion           = cover
|Low_resolution    = yes
|Purpose           = used just for information article about the debonair magazine in wiki
|Replaceability    = not now
|other_information = just used for wiki article about the source magazine

}}

Link to photos

Dear Milborne,

I saw one article that had a box to the side, with external links to photos. What is the rule on establishing such a box with external links. I am not talking a "hot link" to a webpage without permission, etc. I am referring to one in which permission would be given for the link. And not an IMG link either that shows the photo. Again, thanks for your time. --Jackehammond (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

.

Aircrafts

What's with you and the word "aircrafts"? Teehee... --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont like aircrafts. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• But you love them~!? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did think it was just the way English was taught in Asia but I notice that some Americans also make the same error with pluralizing aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quite true and while the lot of us in Singapore tend to follow commonwealth spelling, I think we get more Ozzies influence here than we would like to think. And in turn, the Ozzies would get influenced by the Yanks. Hence, the common mistake. :) --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 12:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Aircrafts" tends to be used alot by the Eastern Europeans/Russians too, including on oficial aircraft company pages! Honestly, I haven't seen "aircrafts" that often form US editors here, though government-school educated Americans are likely to misspell anything! - BilCat (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Taleb picture permission

see my talk page. I have already sent the permission by email. Have you received it? Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I dont deal with permission you need to refer to one of the admins with access to the WP:OTRS. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

any idea how I can get around this?

I am starting to lose my way in this complex process of picture uploading this is absurd. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for any link/help Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Image licence

Hi MilborneOne. I just wanted to thank you for correcting the license problems on File:WestlandYeovil 2.jpg. It is really appreciated! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 07:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky MH-53‎

Michael, we have a buch of IPs adding gamecruft to the Sikorsky MH-53‎. The consensus on the talk page is to keep this out, but none of these IPs will engage in the discussions. Would you consider a semi-p on this page? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Added it to my watch list and i will keep an eye on it, any reason why it has a transformers ref or has that been discussed? MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

List of STOL aircraft

I noticed you added the Promavia Jet Squalus and FMA IA 58 Pucará to the list along with comments with their respective distances. Did you have a ref you could cite for those two? We are getting ready to clean out all the unref aircraft on the list! - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I had to go of to a meeting half way through, I will go back and add the refs. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AirAsia destinations

Dear admin, I'm requesting a guide for this page AirAsia destinations as the editor Jasepl (talk) insist to remain his version. The thing that I been mention to him was :AirAsia is service Point-to-Point but not Hub-to-Spoke. This encyclopedia is meant to reflect facts, as there is more than 1 base for AirAsia, how can people get the information about the route been terminated by AirAsia at the main AirAsia destinations? The rules is die, but our brain is clear, should it to apply everything? Is a bit hard for him to follow the point, so I need some assist from admin I been revert it for 2times and I would not like to break the three-revert rule (3RR). Thank you~ Maninter (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. My word here is, I'm agree with list out the destination. But this should apply only to schedule flight. How about those destination been terminated by some of airline's hub but not all? Can you get my word? Sorry for questioning, because I just want to make the information clear. Thank you. Maninter (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying that hubs may have routes in different directions and that the destination list doesnt make that clear, but it was decided not to detail routes as this is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide. You could just mention the history of the hub in the main airline article, as long as you have a reliable reference and the history and development of the hub is notable to the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, is a bit confuse now. So do you suggest that I should bring this Terminated Routes' issue to talk page? or just mention the history of the hub in the main airline article? Thanks Maninter (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can either make a case at the project that routes should be listed or accept that the list is just destinations and mention the history of the hub in the article. If you want to follow the adding to main article way it still might be worth mentioning on the AirAsia page what you want to do. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

question

WRT the images uploaded by User:Gerd 72... I left a note on User talk:Gerd 72 a few minutes ago. The last activity on the deletion page on the commons was from about two months ago, saying that an OTRS ticket had been opened.

So, if for the sake of argument, 75 percent of the image Gerd 72 uploaded were mistakes, and were scans of old images, which were still under copyright, or photos like those of the Canadian Armed Forces photographer, which he shouldn't have used, would you object to the commons using the, for the sake of argument, 25 percent of the images he uploaded which he was entitled to upload?

And if he could only document that 10 percent of the images were his to upload?

What if he went through his photos, and could supply some to the OTRS volunteer, and say, "Here in this family photo you can see me holding the Canon 130x I used in 2007." Would you then accept photos he uploaded that had exif data showing they were taken by a Canon 130x?

I continue to assume his mistakes were good faith mistakes.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he clearly made some mistakes, scanning old images and using pictures taken by others. I think the idea that he could confirm he was in deed the owner of a certain camera would help. We have to accept that most of us use more than one camera over the years and I use two cameras at the moment with slightly different capability. And if he had taken the images then it wouldnt take much to upload other images taken at the same time period with the same camera. A bit like "Here is one I took on the same day in the same area with the same camera". I am afraid having been involved in looking at multiple copyright violations it is very rare that they upload their own images but I appreciate your assumption of good faith but it really down to Gerd 72 to convince an OTRS volunteer. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IP making incorrect and undiscussed changes

See this diff, plus User talk:221.138.78.19 and his contributions. Has many warnings, not all from me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I second that - many of the IPs changes are at the least unhelpful and occasionally veer towards full-blown vandalism - such as this, this, [1] and [2]. There have also been similar edits in the recent past from this ip as well - also from Korea. I'm not sure if they are related or not. I think that some admin attention may be needed here.Nigel Ish (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think he/she reads the talk page messages and it is clear they dont have an understanding on the way wikipedia works. No edit summaries and a rather strange addition of a fleet list to a dab page at Target!!. Also an unhealthy list of final warnings perhaps a temporary block may the only way. I will leave a message and and certainly look at blocking them if they make any more disruptive edits. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewed the edits and warnings and note the user has been blocked in the past so I have blocked the account for a month for continual nonsense and vandalism edits. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another IP

Hey Milborne. When you get a chance, can you take a look at the Tegel Airport article? The IP has been asked a number of times by several editors to not make certain changes, but insists on reverting the article. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the change and asked them to take it to the talk page, even if the edit was in good faith they really need to explain if challenged iaw WP:BRD. MilborneOne (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Troll attacks

Michael, would you mind semi-protecting my talk page? I've got an IP engaging in trollish behavior who won't leave my page alone. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have protected it for 24 hours while I work out what the IP user is trying to say. The discussion on ANI is very confusing but it needs to run its course. No need for warnings on your page while the discussion is in progress. Having great difficulty understanding what the IP is trying to achieve. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple: Allow me to edit articles without be harassed, eg. being called a troll for asking someone to stop attacking me.

I've tried to make myself clear on AN/I, please don't hesitate to ask if anything is unclear. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I will read through the AN/I later but it looks like a bit of missunderstanding, the term vandal/vandalism is often used on Wikipedia and can seem a bit harsh to other new editors. My first impression it is a bit of storm in a teacup, both sides probably over reacted. The IP didnt explain the edit and carried on adding it while others (it was first reverted by another editor before BilCat) assumed (due to lack of explanation) that it was some form of vandalism. I think a good nights sleep put it behind you and all get on with improving the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Blowing on the embers

At the very moment when it looks like peace might be made, you've chosen to re-hash the quarrel. Why, for goodness' sake? 91.55 had extended himself far enough to apologize to Guerillero, which gives some hope that he might possibly be persuaded to extend his hand first to BilCat and MBK004,.... and this is the moment you jump in to apportion blame instead. For crying out loud. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your peace moves but I needed to refute the claim that the IP edit was not wrong when to the reverters it clearly was, refer to my comments at ANI. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"To the reverters it clearly was," not because of the content, but because they assumed he was a vandal. So much for WP:AGF. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually wanted to give him a warning for the uncivil edit summary, but I couln'd find one. Instead, I went with the vandal warning, and I did state "apparent vandalism" in that revert edit summary, along with noting the incivility, which you've apparently ignored. That was an attempt to AGF at that point. I've admitted that I made an error in judgment on the film reverts being vandalism, but the IP just took it as an oppurtunity for more attacks on the ANI page. I did let the situation escalate too far before backing off, and I don't excuse that. I make no secret of the fact that most vandalism and none productive edits are from IPs, and I am quick to revert such edits, especially those with no or uncivl edit summaries. I make no apologies for that, and I'm not going to change that either. In most cases I am right, amd I can live with being wrong occasionally. In this case, he wasn't a vandal, but but rather is behaving like a troll - same difference in my opinion, as neither are productive users.

Finally, on the film itself, it is probably better to not state the character had a breakdown - not every plot point needs to be revealed in the plot summary. We should leave some things for viewers to discover on their own. - BilCat (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Bill, it's time for you to disengage (read as in WP:DENY), let the IP dig his own grave and be buried by any administrator who comes along later. We've done our part, cheers~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 07:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I have disengaged from interacting with the IP. I've no reason to believe that Sizzle is connected to the IP in any way other than trying to defend him (that's AGF, btw), so I don't see a problem repsonding here. - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New bio article

Hi Milb1, welcome aboard the engine task force BTW! I think that you could help here, may need moving to Richard Shuttleworth as this seems to be the convention for bio articles. I have added some basic stuff, the RAF officer infobox might be better? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved it as you can see but there seems to be a red-linked politician of the same name from the 1700s linking to the article now! Doh! Either we can rename the flyer Richard Shuttleworth (Aviator) or the other chap Richard Shuttleworth (Politician) (preferred option). Help! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably allright as it is until one of the other Shuttleworth is created, tried changing some inbound links to (politician) but they could be more than one! MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Might also be interested in this unrelated diff [3], first time that I have ever seen a populated Commons category link removed from an article, some strange things going on, I noted an anomaly on the users talk page very recently. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange behaviour we cant tell what is added to Commons so why remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I see you have discussed it with the user. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no sweat there, just thought that I should quiz the user. I think Bill put the Commons link back today. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Applealing full protection

Michael, what can I do to have an article's full protection reviewed or appealed? Xeno's full protection seems excessively harsh to me in this situtaion, especially since it was over one line in the infobox, and since the article has had hundreds of productive edits in the past two days. I mean, do you really think Xeno is going to stay up for 24 hours to edit the articel on request? Don't you think you'll end up being the one doing most of that work? ;p Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeno has changed it to semi-protection. Anyway, I looked at the pase covering Full protection , and didn't see anything about appealing it. If you have an answer, it miht be useful for the future. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was aware of the full protection Bill I was just about to semi it myself but as two of the IPs that have been changing the number built have been blocked for 12 and 24 hours they are unlikely to respond on the talk page! I will look into the semi/full business tomorrow just so I known for the future. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the Admin was just trying to work out what the problem is and later reduced the protection level. We should really bring this up at project so we can show a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Registered vandal-only

Michael, would you take a look at these "contributions"? All the edits (7 on 6 pages) appear to be low-grade vandalism over the past 6 days. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate they already have had a final warning but the edits seem more Juvenile then real vandalism, I have left a note with a link to the help page and note to say they probably will not get another chance. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that. I trust your judgment, that's way I come to you, not AIV! - BilCat (talk)

Metro production totals

G'day Milborne, I just want to discuss with you the Metro production total. Early Merlins were serialled in the SA26 series. Later, all Metros and Merlins - both short-fuselage and long-fuselage ones - were serialled consecutively in the SA226 and SA227 series starting with the Merlin IIIB. As you can see in the article, the last Metro 23 was c/n DC-904 but 904 is not the correct total. In the manufacturers maintenance, wiring and parts manuals, there are several duplicated serial numbers mentioned; these are given E, EE, EEE etc. suffixes and in one case IIRC there is even a EEEEE suffix for one particular c/n. There are also gaps in the sequence of numbers. IIRC the total for all Merlins and Metros together is 1,046, which includes several hundred Merlins; see the Operational History section of the Metro article for some more info. I don't know how Simpson arrived at 957 Metros, but he has counted short-fuselage Merlins to arrive at that total. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly my error:

• SA226-T and T(B) = 170
• SA227-TT = 35
• SA226-AT = 78
• SA227-AT = 48
• SA226-TC = 206
• SA227-AC = 228
• SA227-PC = 4

That equals 769, sorry I will correct the article I did include the Merlins! - sorry my error. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The SA226-Ts, SA226-T(B)s and SA227-TTs are all short-fuselage Merlins, and there are also the SA227-BC, -CC, and -DC long-fuselage aircraft. In 1991 Fairchild were still building SA227-AC Metro IIIs (production ending in 1998), so I can't actually see how you can use Simpson as a reference for the total anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope I didn't come across as hostile in any way. I recall that when I significantly rewrote the article a couple of years ago, trying to sort out how many of the damn things were built drove me absolutely nuts! Actually, that is the first time that I have seen evidence that the SA227-PC was actually built; and looking at the FAA TC (of which there are three for the different long-fuselage models) it does show that at least two were built. I have been working on the bloody things since 1993, they have driven me mad and also made me a very large amount of money in overtime; I have worked almost 24 hours straight on them on several occasions and I once had only five days off in a 4-1/2 month period as I installed EGPWS in ten of them. They all smell the same, regardless of when they were built or who has operated them, and no other aircraft type I have worked on smells like them. They all have the same lock on the door, so if you have a Metro key you can unlock any Metro anywhere in the world. They are a nightmare to work on; as they got more complex the designers just shoved electrical boxes anywhere there was space; they are uncomfortable, it is very difficult to do anything in the cockpit maintenance-wise because the control columns come up through the floor, to the extent that I once literally had to get out of the cockpit and vomit; on the other hand it used to take two of us less than 15 minutes to convert a Metro II from pax to freight configuration. They have caused me a lot of grief, they are noisy - and I love 'em. Cheers! YSSYguy (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem I saw the edit reversion and thought I could help but I was also busy writing an article Sikorsky S-53 at the same time so just looked up the reference and added it rather than checking the article! MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your work on copyright issues in general and specifically this CCI investigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just wrapped it. While there may be lingering (and new) WP:NFC issues, everything that wasn't asserted under fair use was deleted or tagged for deletion on commons. Closure. It's nice. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And go you.  :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IFD

Sorry, totally forgot about the rest of the nomination. They're gone now. Garion96 (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

600th aircraft article launch

Blimey! Good stuffTSRL (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is what I enjoy the most, creating the base for others to improve and grow. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Out of interest were any nominated for AfD? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nimbus is in fine form tonight! Regardless, congrats! - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not inferring that they were low quality!! I was just interested if any had been nominated as I had a problem with the Lockheed XF-104 when I started here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No as far as I can remember none have been AfD, are not all aircraft types notable! MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! Well the XF-104 was not notable apparently, maybe I was unlucky with that one. Hope the weather is not too bad where you are, Mrs Nimbus and son are trying to get home from boarding school in the Reading area, gridlocked due to snow. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what went wrong with the XF-104 perhaps just a bad day! The car is still in the garage in deepest Sussex as I cant get it up my steep drive because of the snow and ice! but as I have this week of not a big problem. Anybody know how to use a bus! Hope Mrs and Mini Nimbus make it through the weather OK. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Readers: Please note that neither of the above two editors are Canadians. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no defence! It's a well known fact that England comes to a standstill when it snows (even trains in dry tunnels)!! All good fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's be right! Only south of Watford.TSRL (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean up patrol

No problem, that is how collaboration works!! Thank you for the Barnstar! - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Message for you at the F-94 Starfire Talk

Milborne, please see Talk:F-94 Starfire. Delete this after you read it.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Beecraft Wee Bee

Hello! Your submission of Beecraft Wee Bee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of Beecraft Wee Bee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others, who may raise other concerns. Yes, you can just correct your submission, but this time you need to add to the article.) Art LaPella (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Just to say best wishes of the season to all 63 watchers of this talk page, whoever you are! MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other 62, but thank you and I hope you also have a good holiday season! - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

LouriePieterse is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

"The greatest gift they'll get this year is life." ~ Bob Geldof & Midge Ure

Spread the hugs & cheer by adding {{subst:User:Deliriousandlost/happy christmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Notable B-29 accident?

In attempting to improve the AfD nominated Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972) article, I discovered a B-29 had crashed when it landed at the wrong airfield. I've added brief details to the Ogden-Hinckley Airport article. The accident may be notable enough as it is the only recorded fatality as the result of landing at the wrong airport according to one of the sources. I've not added any detail to the B-29 Superfortress article as it does not seem to cover accidents and incidents. Will leave you to decide it this is worth developing. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

P & W PT6

G'day again Milborne, and compliments of the season to you. I have no axe to grind on this, but I once spent a very large amount of time listing users of the PT6 by engine model. Then BilCat decided that it would be better to just list the aircraft types in an applications section. I must admit that at the time I was a little put out, as I had spent so much time and effort to list each model and the aircraft they were bolted to, even if an aircraft used several different model engines (which may have been BilCat's motive for doing the whole thing differently, as well as the fact that the article was rather long). Now I see that the listing of aircraft types by engine model is creeping in again and just wanted your thoughts on the matter. This is how the article looked when I was finished with it; it looked like this before I started. The question I have is: what is the rationale for listing some types and not others? The Piper Cheyenne and AASI Jetcruzer are not exactly major applications. It seems to me that the article should either in the format that BilCat came up with, or some variation of what I came up with if length is an issue, but now we have a mish-mash of both. YSSYguy (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with listing the application types as a seperate list but I was just trying to link the types with the engine variants. It may be easier to list the engine variants as part of the application list. Not a big issue if you want to take out my edits. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Decided to revert myself as I suspect this really needs discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What we could do is list the engine models in brackets alongside the types in the Apps list; something along the lines of, Air Tractor AT-400 (-11, -15AG) Air Tractor AT-502 (-65) Basler BT-67 (-67) and so on. Still a bit of work, but it doesn't increase the length of the article markedly and any interested person can quickly cross-refer and ascertain the salient features of the engine model(s) fitted to each type. YSSYguy (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What about splitting off the list to its own page? Or perhaps having a separate list page with something similar to what YSSY had created originally? We could then simplify the existing lists on the PT6 as much as possible. My original objection was that it was simply too much info on the main page, but I never considered the posibility of splitting off some form of it at the time. Another option is to split off the PT6B and C to their own page (like with the PT6T), leaving the main ome to cover just the A (and D) models. I don't know the exact reletionship of the B and C to the A, or to each other, but both the B/C are turboshafts. Just some other options to consider. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a separate list page. I was wondering how other engines treat this sort of thing and had a look at the R-2800 article, it being another ubiquitous engine. There has been no attempt to list all of the applications there, and the PT6 list was by no means exhaustive before I got to it; my pedantic nature at work I guess - if you're going to list some, why not all was my thinking at the time IIRC. Mind you, I don't know if the article listed absolutely all of the apps before BilCat changed the format. YSSYguy (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Murphy Renegade

I know we discussed this type when you were working on the Maverick. It is on my list to create, but I thought I would check and see if you are planning to tackle it first? - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One on my list as well! I just have spec data from Brassey's 1996 on the II and Spirit but you are welcome to start it and I can add any specs you have missing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay let me start it then. I have a complete collection of company marketing literature on this type from the early days of the company in the mid 1980s until the late 1990s - a whole binder of hundreds of pages of brochures, letters and newsletters!! It may take me a few days to work through it and turn it into an article! - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year! The redlink is now blue! Murphy Renegade - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)