User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 11

Lympne trials revisited

Evening MilborneOne, Just been looking back at that and agreeing that it usefully fills a gap. I'm inclined to remove the 1925 races section, since it was unrelated to the trials; at the start of this little project I'd not realised how much else went on at Lympne. The field has its own page, and that is where those races should be. It's true the Grosvenor Cup races were held just after the trials and attracted the same aircraft, but I've changed my mind and no longer think they should be in this article (which they are not).

This only leaves possible additions: it would be good to have maps of some the routes, which brings us back to the questions over Flight images; and maybe an aerial shot, preferably pre long c. 1970 runway of the field but showing the coast. Maybe we should add a few (only) shots of aircraft (winners, pilots)? I've been pondering a summary, along the lines of "why did the Lympne trials get such attention?" or "did they matter?" or "how did they change the development of British private flying?". Ord-Hume (who, like C.G. Grey, seems to have an opinion on everything, not always sufficiently edited (a bit like reading Patrick Moore on astro)) takes a calm and neutral view; it might be possible to contrast that against a more enthusiastic voice. Any thoughts? Anyway, have a good New Year.TSRL (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that TSRL, yes I agree with your comments about the non-trial races should be in the airfield page. A few images would not do any harm, probably best to look for free ones already on wikipedia or commons first then see how it looks. You raise an interesting point that the general thought is that these trials were an important step in the development of British light aircraft - just need to find an appropriate quote from somebody! Happy New Year. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Expired PROD

An article I PRODed has run its seven days with out comment and I was wondering if you would care to do the honours? Not our usual run of articles, but definitely worth removing from Wikipedia! Self-defense jewellery - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

CFM56

Hey MilborneOne, would you mind taking a look at the CFM56 A-Class review for me? I think I should be good to go, it's been up there for 2+ weeks, and I've got the requisite 3 supports. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Promoted - Good work. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it! Feels good to get an A-class... I might push ahead for FA at some point. We're moving ahead at the AETF... two FA and an A-class now! Btw, should I wait until the Dec Aviation contest results are totaled up before adding this to the list?

I am not really involved in the competition you may have to ask User:Trevor MacInnis. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User oversight

Michael, would you mind reviewing a user's contributions, particularly this talk page edit, particularly his fist and last lines? I'm lear of getting involved myself due to his reactions so fasr. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK left a message on the article talk page, just needs a bit of calm and peace. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, MilborneOne/Archive 11! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your work in copyright matters in general and in this now completed CCI in specific. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your service to your country Wiki is much appreciated, sir. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Caproni aircraft

Got your message about Caproni aircraft, MilborneOne. I have contributed numerous articles on ships and ship histories over the past 18 months or so, but aircraft are my other love and I am branching out into that area. So I am still learning the ropes about how aircraft are done on Wikipedia. I was unaware of the new articles list for aircraft and, to the extent that my absent-mindedness allows me to, I will make an effort to get in the habit of noting new articles there. I noticed that a lot of Italian aircraft have not been covered, and I have a lot of reference materials sitting around the house that I can use to research a number of them or add public-domain photos to them, so right now I am working on that. Caproni seemed like as good a place to start as any. (I am not very adept at communicating via discussion pages, so please send any response to my talk page.) Mdnavman (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)mdnavman

Aerospecs format anomaly

By the way, in doing some of the Caproni articles, I noticed that the Aerospacs template is not flexible enough to allow rates of climb to be represented in terms of "14 minutes to 4,000 meters" or measurements like that; it only allows entries in terms of ft/min or m/s. So when you enter "14 minutes to 4,000 meters", the template displays it as "14 minutes to 4,000 meters m/s" and "14 minutes to 13,125 feet" comes out as "14 minutes to 13,125 feet ft/min," both of which look like a typos. Are there any recommended workarounds? (I would just divide the numbers of feet by the number of minutes to find feet per minute (for example), but the source did not and I do not want to take any liberties if that is misleading to aeronautical engineer.)

Also, is "m/s" meters per second? It seems that meters are in seconds but feet are in minutes, which seems a little odd, so I just want to confirm that. Thanks! (I am not very adept at communicating via discussion pages, so please send any response to my talk page.) Mdnavman (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)mdnavman

Proposed incident inclusion restriction

Hi MilborneOne, your comments here would be appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've brought up Lockheed designations again.

Since you had commented about this before, I figured I should give you a heads-up on the posting I just made to WT:AIR. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Move request

Milb, can you assist with this, I tried to move it myself but could not because a redirect is established. Talk:Operation Sealion#Sealion or Sea Lion? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Done as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks, cheers! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging Jupiters

Morning MilborneOne, NigelIsh and I had one of those moments when we almost simultaneously wrote up the same plane. We agreed to go for merger and we are happy that Moynet Jupiter now contains everything that was in it and in Moynet M 360 Jupiter before. His agreement is on User talk:Nigel Ish. Do we need an admin to do the honours? This reminds me that we have an outstanding merge issue (Boulton Paul P.6), which got stuck on the sands of what to call the company. We could merge and worry about the name another day if we wanted to tidy the books. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Done as requested - sorry forgot about the P.6 I will have another look at it latter. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.TSRL (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Bill and I, we are done talking to this guy (Scania N113 (talk · contribs)) who keep refusing to engage or discuss with us on the article page of Airbus A340 and also for repeatedly harassing us on our discussion pages. --Dave ^{♪♫1185♪♫} 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Loolks like another Admin has blocked them for 48 hours for harassment - shame really all they had to do was explain and have a reasonable discussion on the A340 talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• If pigs could fly... oh well, I'm sure he'll be back at it again, after 48 hours. --Dave ^{♪♫1185♪♫} 12:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Potential copyvio?

Hi~! Can you please take a look at this image file (File:Shaming Pillar.jpg) over at commons, seems to me like a copyvio taken off a website or something. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree looks iffy but you need to prove it! cant find it with a google search although it doesnt not appear to actually be a shaming pillar but a shrine to St. Mary built on the same site! Does the camera data agree with anything else uploaded by the user? normally a clue if it is different. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've searched through Flickr and the likes but nothing turn up so far! Agreed that I need more evidence but my hunch tells me this is not likely his work, it's too selective and well done to be one. Also, the camera data and the inserted caption on the actual image tallies, which could only mean that... someone uploaded it somewhere else and he just made a copy-and-paste move on commons. IMO, this guy's too slick but we'll get him eventually. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin intervention requested

Michael, for the past 2 years or so, a dynamic IP user has been adding POV inbformation to the NORAD article. The consensus on the talk page is that this info is misleading and highly POV, and does not belong. I restored the pre-POV version, including cited info the IP removes, last month. Today, the IP has again re-added his POV material, including badly formatted citations which are generally out of context, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command&action=historysubmit&diff=339441583&oldid=339302651 this diff0. This needs to be stopped, as he is pushing a Fringe theory re: 9/11 and NORAD. Can you look into semi-protecting the article? The consensus is against these changes. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bill I was offline, I have now semi-protected the article. Might be useful to challenge the addition material on the talk page to ensure that consensus exists for not including it. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. I'll try to do that. One problem is that the page doesn't seem to have a lot of traffic,and I'm not sure how to increase the participation without canvassing. Any suggestions? - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps try some of the seven projects that lay claim to the article! - but seriously I would suggest it might be worth adding a note at WP:MILHIST and WP:AVIATION. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor signed one of his posts as "Dean Jackson", so I decided to look his name up on Google. Well, out of many different people, I found this link. He's not citing his own "report", but he is adding the same sources, and making the same conclusions. How should this be handled? - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find - knowing nothing about the subject none of what is being said on the talk page makes any sense to me, I think the IP is trying to either make a point or use us to give provenance to theories on their website. I will have another read later but as a soviet bomber didnt hit the pentagon I still cant see the relevance to NORAD. It may take me some time to understand being a foreigner with no interest in american politics! but it looks like original research tied in with some pet theory. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From Dean Jackson's website - DNotice Corrects Wikipedia On NORAD's Monitoring Capabilities Of American Skies On 9/11 at http://dnotice.org/ ! MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From another website Dean Jackson is a writer and 9/11 researcher in Washington, DC. His website, DNotice.org provides rigorous analysis of major issues concerning government malfeasance. which does appear he is not coming from a NPOV. (I had to look malfeasance up!) MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! He seems to be trying to say that NORAD lied about not tracking and watching civilian air trafic within the US, and so therefore this proves they were in on the 9/11 attacks, as the had to know about it, but did't stop it. To be honest, some of his replies on teh NORAD talk page are self-contradictory, another reason this stuff shoulnd't e in the article. That, and he rants on and on about "truth", which of course WP is about Verifiability, not "truth". We might check out some of the 9/11 conspiracy pages to find an editor or two with some experience combatting these fringe theories. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Michael, I am posting at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#NORAD and 9/11, and am including all the links you've found. Hopefully we can get somewhere with this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They were indeed helpful, and found out he is User:Brian78046, who has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry over his mishandling of 9/11 issues! - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good move and some good work by that project - not sure how we would have known he was a blocked user. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PiperSport COI

User:Dennisolcott is mot likely the one lissted here. - BilCat (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Check! - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OD-AHB at Ethiopian Airlines

Thanks for the correction. I changed Middle East Airlines dif to fix the error there. Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Aircraft Type

Thanks for your speedy intervention! The Sukhoi PAK FA page looks much better. I left a reply to what you wrote on the template talk page - it seems to me that if what you say about preferring "introduced" to "introduction" for planes already in service is correct, then the template documentation could do with updating? Best regards, TheGrappler (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:F-5 Tiger Kenya.jpg

I think I managed to find a source for this photo here and here- it does appear to be correctly tagged as PD-USGov-Military-Air Force.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I was just checking the page as it has some iffy images - just needs the source adding to the image page and the tag removed. Logging off in a minute I will add it tomorrow if you dont get a chance. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Third party opinion needed

Read this → User talk:Keith-264#February 2010, and this → [pseudo-English as claimed by someone]. Please tell me your frank opinion on this matter because I'm quite certain that I'm correct, but due to the effect of the flu medication I'm now under.... everything including the sun, the moon and the stars, they all seem to be spinning around my head now. Thanks in advance. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave as an English English speaker (!) SP Bofors were used extensively for ground shoots as well as anti-aircraft. doesnt make sense to me it is not complete - as well as anti-aircraft what? and ground shoots sound like something to do with plants. Not a phrase I would use. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Precisely... But try telling that to User:Keith-264~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) (PS: English English speaker?!? For a moment there, you sound like Russell Brand to me... hahaha!)

Talkback

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubana de Aviación Flight 310.
Message added 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please read my comment; I'm trying to reach consensus without having to pull out the blunt cudgel of asking the closing admin to ignore majority opinion, and I would like you to either change your vote, or provide an argument supported by WP policies and guidelines that would change my vote. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I dont need to provide an argument just an opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Erich Hartmann

Can you please look over the talk page associated with this article. I am frustrated by the actions of one of the editors who appears to be on a wikilurk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange discussion but the info was properly sourced - no requirement for it to be actually true! - I have added it to my watchlist and keep an eye on those involved. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

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

BA 038

The final report is out. How close do you think this article is to GA status? Is FA an achievable objective? Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really into the assesment stuff but would be willing to help, might try asking User:Nimbus227 opinion as he has done some good work on aero-engine FAs. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aeroflot etc

Could you respond to this user (Dimitree)? He's bent on insisting that he's free to add destinations because someone from Aeroflot's planning department

sorry for interrupting: not someone, but Deputy Director of Aeroflot NETWORK Planning Department.--Dimitree (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

told him so. Doesn't have any other source, nor is the flight in schedules.

I've tried to explain basic editing requirements to him too many times to count, but all I get in response is either Comrade something, being called Kondoleeza Rice (no idea in what context and not my spelling either) or being accused of Russia bashing. And oh yeah, I get reported for vandalism or edit warring, because I demanded a source.

The whole tale is here and here, if you want to take a look.

He also doesn't quite grasp (genuinely or unwillingly, I'm not sure) of codeshares, but that's a whole other story.

Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I have had a look and I have left a note about WP:CIVIL on the Dimitree talk page and in particular about his bad language. Just remember Jasepl that WP:CIVIL applies to you as well so please dont get into these discussions if it gets personal just ask for help from the project or an admin. I have also left a note on the Aeroflot destination talk page about needing sources. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Noticed, thanx. I'm sure that I'm right: I do not violate Wiki rules, I always provide links (always deleted by Jasepl - here is just one example [1]), I never dispute over things I don't know. This something Jasepl constantly VIOLATES rules, constantly REVERTS without any VALID sources (his favourite phraseology) and constantly IMPOSES others his "uniqe" opinion. There was already a global discussion over his vision of contemporary geography [2] and he was defeated. BUT! Just few weeks later, this Jasepl launched a new editorial war [3], [4], [5], [6]...

• Frankly speaking, I do not care about what you are doing here, in English Wiki, how you are doing here, what double/triple/quadruple standards you use - it's your false and virtual world. I just care about myself, my principles: when someone like this Jasepl starts TEDIOUSLY explaining me that white is black and black is white - I will kindly explain him (using my bad and sharp tongue) that he is DEEPLY mistaken. That's all. Just business and nothing personal. Regards, --Dimitree (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jasepl may not always have the best approach to things but he is trying to make sure that the guidelines agreed by a consensus of editors is followed. Basically if your edit is challenged you need to discuss your additions on the related article talk page. You recent edits to Aeroflot destinations you did not provide a reliable source hence Jasepl challenged it. If you do not agree with the guidelines and policies on english wikipedia then you are welcome to challenge them on the related talk pages but ignoring them and edit warring is not really an option. If you edit the same airline articles as Jasepl then you will come in conflict and I am sure it is nothing personal on his side either. So assume good faith and discuss when challenged on the related talk page, if you cant agree then others can come along and help. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, MilborneOne, sorry! Jasepl always has the worst approach - reverting with no discussion. It is evident: enough examples are above. Even when the consensus was reached [7], he was constantly reverting [8], [9], [10], saying that geography "has nothing to do with the Aviation project" [11]. Or have a look at Jasepl's most spectacular example [12] wheh this Jasepl reverted again Azerbaijan and Georgia to Europe. Do you know why? Because BA destinations List is an example, a standard for all similar articles. So it is very easy to revert all other similar articles, to defigurate facts and to place again Azer and Georgia in Europe, saying "in this standard BA destinations List, Azerbaijan and Georgia are in Europe" what was discussed here [13].

Or when reliable and VALID sources are indicated [14], he reverts again, simply saying that "Aeroflot DO not codeshare with...." and explaining you that "he (=me) doesn't quite grasp (genuinely or unwillingly, I'm not sure) of codeshares" [15]. By the way, does his phrase violates any of 5 Wiki Pillars, for example: Wikipedia:Etiquette? Or not? Or may be this remark related to my proficiency of English [16]? What do you think, MilborneOne?

If you missed something, I'll fill in the gap: I provided really reliable sources - GDS Timetable (Amadeus, Sabre), Official Web-Site (Aeroflot, THAI), links to Official Aviation Revues and Magazines (Official Airline Guide – Worldwide Edition), but this Jasepl just deleted them [17] as usual claiming "VALID sources". It is already stupidity - this denying of an evident fact. Or - who knows? - lack of education...

By the way, MilborneOne, why you protect him, this Jasepl? What is the basement of your solidarity? If you are Admin, you must be objective: there are always two parts in any conflict and never one (except policy of some well-known countries whose pseudo-leaders are so keen in applying double/triple/variable standards). Regards, --Dimitree (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My only role is to protect the encyclopedia not individuals and I was asked by Jasepl to have a look that doesnt mean that I wont review his part of the proceeding as well as yours but you have to appreciate that I also have a real life and other bits and pieces to do so I will look at you comments just give me time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OFF TOP

• MilborneOne, may I ask you to give me a favour to read this article [18] and to comment somehow. Thank you! --Dimitree (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: may be it will help you to understand me better...

I have read it Dimitree although it didnt make much sense to me, seems just a rant from an American journalist. I dont have a lot of interest in American politics as a foreigner most of it doesnt make much sense. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, may I ask you where are you from? --Dimitree (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: have you also red my post above? As far as I see there are no any reaction to my remarks.

No secret it is at the top of my user page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

About Sahsa DC-2s

Yes, they used PanAm DC-3 wich are still in service with AVIAC, but the first aircraft they had, was a Douglas DC-2 (XH-SAA) is aviation history in Honduras, i edited Sahsa with a source from a friend which worked on sahsa since the 60s and know a lot about their history, Have a Great Day =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by JcHnd (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was their more than one XH-SAA as most of the online references say it was a C-47 not a DC-2. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Revolution Helicopter Corporation

I just wanted to make sure you had seen these changes? I reverted them for lack of refs, not to mention removing the existing refs and left him a note on his talk page. They do involve some pretty wild variations on then already odd, but currently well-referenced, story of this company. I just feel some POV/damage-control edits coming up. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - added it to my watchlist after seeing the Mini-500 changes just need to keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There have been more attempts to add that odd and unrefernced text to the article which I removed and discussed on the talk page. The text he is trying to add seems to be POV/OR. - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing aircraft

Hi MilborneOne -- thanks for the heads-up. I salvaged an old revision of the page to use as my "to do list" (here, FWIW). Not sure what I'll do when these are (finally!) finished, but my thoughts were to go through The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft to pick out types that Jane's omitted. As I think you know, the two works overlap by probably about 95%, but it's the ones on the fringes that need filling in! --Rlandmann (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "CG-2" is a typo; but where are you seeing this? I weeded the typos out of the list as I went; have they turned up somewhere fresh? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that User:Calaka only rolled the redlinks from the original missing aircraft page into the new pages, it shouldn't have turned up; (remember that Volumes 1–4 were completely finished with nothing left there at all). The version of the list in my userspace is of course just a reference copy of the list in its original state and shouldn't be used for anything; the link marked Missing articles is the one behind which the current hit list lies! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know that you're not behind the tangle, and your ongoing awesomeness in taking care of so much of the project's maintenance drudgery is noted and much appreciated. :) I don't really have any problem with the rolled-up "hot pages"; I just personally prefer to work towards well-defined, finite goals :) When the Jane's list is finally covered, I'll probably create a corrected version of the original list as a final "sign off" on this largish project. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of the unbuilt projects are probably notable and at least stub-able,[1] but will of course require harder digging and more specialised references to get to. I'd expect most to have entries in manufacturer- and type-based monographs. The Putnam series are probably the finest examples of the former, and works like Green & Swanborough's Encyclopedia or Fighters, Kroschel & Stützer's and Nowarra's exhaustive books on German aircraft examples of the latter. There's also a vast sea of periodical literature that we've barely tapped at all apart from Flight (to whom we owe so very very much!). So even projects that never finally reached fruition will still be the subject of articles in multiple reliable sources.

Finally, in cases where there's no hope of creating an article on a particular model number or designation, I think that rather than deleting a designation from a Navbox, it will almost always be more useful to just delink it and add a one-word description like "(unbuilt)" or "design study". This answer the question of "if there's a Foo-12 and Foo-14, what was the Foo-13?" We already do this in military designation systems where designations were unassigned for one reason or another. Just my $0.02, of course :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] of course, my preferred epistemology is very much in the "splitter", "stubs are good" camp. As an aside, one of my greatest problems with the GA/FA process is that I believe that it fosters a "bigger=better" culture here on WP, and is probably the most important reason why I don't participate in those processes. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

re: IEA list -- awesome! I look forward to helping out with this! When I did the Jane's list, I actually read through and split out the types identified in "group" articles like "Saro lesser types". IEA's habit of bolding designations will make this much, much easier than it was with Jane's (which follows this convention in All The World's Aircraft, but sadly not in the Encyclopedia). When we start work on this list in earnest, we'll need to do that. Also, I did a little bit of "preprocessing" of the list to make the entries conform better to our naming conventions; obviously the advantage is to make matching easier, but the disadvantage is that we miss opportunities to create plausible redirects -- just something that you might want to think about. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

West Coast Air

Thanks for jumping in there - the aviation COIs seem to be coming out of the woodwork these days - must be the bad economy forcing them to figure out how to get more free publicity! - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - it read like a company website. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because it was copied word-for-word from the company website! I hate it when the PR people copyright vio themselves! I left him another note on his talk page and I also updated the article logo from their website. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see he is at it again. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as bad as before! and makeing the right noises on their talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just wrote him back. I can handle the work doing that, if you want to monitor in case an admin input is needed? - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem I have just added a suggestion to make the image uploads easier. MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that - looks like a good idea. I also found a couple of third party refs and some new text for the article to balance out the adcopy. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

I'm about to punch a so-called editor in the nose! Some intervention would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a blog! left a comment on talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've stepped back for a few hours to regain my composure. - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

After 4 years of Wiki editing, I have finally found an article that I think should be deleted. It is obviously a propaganda/advertising page for a political organization which is promoting its agenda. I note that you figured that out right after it was first created last September. I don't know if I stated my case correctly as to why it should be deleted, since this is my first attempt. You might want to look at it, since you were the first one to suggest it wasn't a valid Wiki article.

[[19] and [[20]] EditorASC (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is challenged it may be better to nominate it for deletion with the WP:AfD process. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

Michael, I specifically replaced the dueling unit cost claims on the PAK-FA article with the hidden notes, and opened a discusiion of the issue on the talk page. One of the IPs has revert me here, while engaged in some near trolling on my talk page. I'd like to request the articel be semi-protected, but I fully undertand that if you believe a full protection is warranted instead, that's fine too. The silly edit-warring needs to stop. Note that I haven't reverted the IP this time, as difficult as it is! :) Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have full-protected as is and we can wait for consensus to prevail. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. That may take quite a while, but hopefully the more trollish will lose interest! I'd liove to see some more involvement from WPAIR guys, but I certainly understand why some might not want to get involved. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

XCO-5

Thanks for creating the article Engineering Division TP-1. It was on my "To do" list, but was quite some distance from being initiated—somewhere back of the back burner. Your article is a good start. :D Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - still needs some specs! MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gatineau Park Protection Committee

Check us out at http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahunt's bad faith

Ahunt is misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt is showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. Ahunt interprets them to suit his POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.

In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on Ahunt.--Stoneacres (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

MB1: Since User:Stoneacres has been warned in the past against this type of personal attack, I have cautioned him again on this issue. He seems determined to link to his own website, regardless of consensus not to do that at Talk:Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite the warning I guess he has carried out a widespread campaign of personal attacks against me. Can you please have a look? - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Stoneacres you need to assume good faith on other editors particular as you have been banned for WP:CIVIL before, as you continue to harrass Ahunt I have temporary re-instated your block. Ahunt is using the consensus on the article talk page that it is not a reliable source and it is up to editors to discuss any change in that consensus, although it certainly does not present a neutral point of view. I understand from comments that the links do not add any value to the article either. The other problem is that it is a conflict of interest to add links to your own website to wikipedia and it can be removed on those grounds as spam. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at this - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dissapointed, I have left stoneacres a note and hope he can restrain himself for a few more hours. I would rather have him continue the debate in a civil manner than block him this time for the sake of a few hours. I hope he takes the advice. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tags and the watchlist

If affixing an orphan tag to one of the articles on my watchlist actually registered there, I would be able to more easily start the de-orphaning process. As the (non)system now works, I only stumble across orphan tags by accident, and my de-orphaning is sporadic.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody adding an orphan tag should show up if they are on your watchlist, you could always try Category:All orphaned articles. Orphaned articles are not ideal but I dont think their is a mad rush to de-orphan also note that an article is called an orphan if fewer than three other articles link to it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

IndUS Aviation

In looking at User:68.28.169.230's contributions to this article they seem to be more vandalism using content than a content dispute, so i have warned him as such. I see on his talk page that others have similarly warned him about this and other articles. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already semi-protected the article after they added the content again. MilborneOne (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that, thank you - that should fix it for now! You can't even carry out an AfD debate in peace this week! - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for protection of JF-17 article

An anonymous editor keeps replacing info from the manufacturer's official website with a "photobucket" source and links to internet forums. He repeatedly undoes reverts by BilCat, McSly and myself, despite being shown on the talk page that using internet forums as sources is against wikipedia policy. Can you please take a look, thanks. --Hj108 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected it for now to encourage talk page discussion. Perhaps it may be better to change the spec section to the latest standard and getting a different reliably sourced specs may be an answer, the company website does have some specs. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, thanks again. One more thing; if I were to upload a large image with a small subject, such as this one: http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m348/sargodha10/3-3.jpg Should I crop it down to size before uploading, or upload the original and then a cropped version? --Hj108 (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure it may be better to load the uncropped first and then refer to it so you have a trail back to the original. Just looking at those pictures they have the licence declared (which is unusual for a blog) but the uploader lives in Lancashire not India! perhaps the provenance may be need to be double checked! MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cessna 172

I noted in the text that you added to this article that it says that the 172 was added to the 170 TCDS as the model 172 (originally 170C). In checking the 172 and 170 TCDSs I am not seeing that there. The TCDS seem to show that all 170 models are on one TCDS (A-799) and all 172s are on another (3A12). Neither shows a 170C. Since you didn't add a ref there for this, was this perhaps changed later or am I missing something? - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was distracted and forgot to add a ref, I will revisit it later. If I remember it says they used the 170 TC to save money. MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense as an amended TC is easier to get than a new TC, although the FAA didn't charge for aircraft certification then and they don't charge for it today, unlike every other certification authority! I was just noting that the TCDS sheets available today don't seem to reflect that, so if you have a ref that would be very helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that info. I gather that since the TCs are separate now, that at some point in time the 172s must have been removed from A-799 and the new 3A12 created? - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Help?

86.11.174.170 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) Mill, do you mind disabling this IP's ability to edit his/her own talk page? This is to prevent him/her from tagging it as his "homepage" as well as well removing those "whois" and "blocked" templates again. Cheers! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I will just keep an eye on it for the moment, in theory they can use the talk page to request unblock and we should let him/her have a chance to do that. If it is the only page they can edit they might go a find something better to do! MilborneOne (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• As far as Bill and I know, their fascination seem to be fixated on the DC-10 and MD-11. Back in Singapore during the nineteen seventies, my parents always have the perfect answer when I get cheeky monkey in the house... a cane on standby. That alone, tells me not to go find something better to do. *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 01:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with IPs is you cant really indef block them but you can keep extending the block times until they get the message. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• And he just did what we thought he would do, again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 12:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! at least he is not causing problems on other articles and changing the talk page doesnt remove the facts. Still inclined to leave it for now. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I understand your position on this but my inclination would be WP:RBI, pointless talking to them pesky schoolkids and I'd rather not give them any ideas on their talk page per WP:BEANS. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point Dave you are right about WP:RBI the user has not really shown an ability to talk. MilborneOne (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Watkinson Dingbat

I really must take issue with you about reversing my changes to the citation style. The style you favour is a horrendous template type that is difficult to understand and to work around. Surely simplicity is the path that will encourage responsible editing and easy adding of more citations? I urge you to reconsider your position, thanks.PeterWD (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Slight correction you changed the style that was originally in the article, it is normal to keep the original style, the move to keep all the citations at the bottom and make the text easier to edit is a recent one. If you disagree I suggest you bring it up at the aircraft project. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I understand the 'policy' to keep original styles, but I believe that it just results in atrophy, because it hinders constructive progress. I'm not one of the many who just tinker with other people's edits. My aim is to add real value to articles, improve them and make them easy for all comers to edit, while chopping out redundant stuff that only made sense to the one individual who created the article. In this case, I believe my version was cleaner, faster to scroll/edit, more efficient and more valuable. Surely WP servers have enough existing trouble with bandwith, without retaining bloated files stuck in a time warp? I won't take it elsewhere; your conscience will have to suffice, until I'm driven away again by unconstructive attitudes.PeterWD (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I dont understand your point at all, keeping the citations at the bottom makes the text easier to edit and easier for editors to see citations in use. I appreciate you are trying to improve articles but I cant find any redundant stuff in the article. It is normally best to stick to the style in use but I just dont understand the stuff about bandwidth and bloated files, perhaps you are not looking at the same file I am. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For information just to quote Help:Footnotes As of September 2009, the cite software allows named references to be defined within the reference list rather than in the article text. This can make editing articles much easier, particularly on heavily cited sections MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes; lack of understanding of the experiences of less-powerful editors could explain much. Given that you wish to retain inefficient, redundant and archaic template detritus etc, perhaps you will kindly consider adding back the new referenced information I contributed - I can't justify repeating my efforts in the face of inflexible and unconstructive behaviours.PeterWD (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I just remind you about WP:CIVIL, all I asked is to explain in simple terms what you are trying to do as it wasnt clear. I begin to suspect we are not looking at the same edits or you dont understand my questions. I also am sure that methods introduced by wikipedia only a few months ago cant be considered archaic. Just to be clear nobody has a problem with anybody adding newly cited information but it is current practice not to mess with the citation standard already established in the article. Without a clear explanation of what you are trying to do I have no more comment. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

460 Link removed

Please excuse any edit issues ... I am new to Wikipedia. Sir, I am helping my 87 year old Australian father put together the story of his time flying Lancaster bombers for 460 Squadron in 1943/44. I am using Google Knol to produce this work because of the freedom it gives me in publishing. I added a link to his stories on Wikipedia but you felt that it did not quality as a Wikipedia link. Sir, I would hope that you would reconsider and reinstate the link as there are very few of his kind left to tell the stories of these brave flyers that went in peril of their lives to give us the freedom we so enjoy today. He has no commercial gain to make from his effort, and is motivated mostly by the desire to tell the stories of the 1,000 flyers that lost their lives on 460 Squadron during WW2. He is constantly providing details of these lost air force personnel to grateful inquiring relativities. I think it is sad that Wikipedia can not find value in the eyewitness accounts of a pilot that actually flew the Lancaster bomber in time of war. Please advise me as to what link to Wikipedia would qualify. He has written 8 articles so far, with hopefully many more to come. I think we owe it to so many people, that his stories are published as far and wide as possible while he can still provide the missing information for so many families whose fathers/uncles made the ultimate sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 460squadron (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied at User talk:460squadron. MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Just a warning that some of your comments on other editors on your discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 20 and Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor are not appropriate under WP:CIVIL please comment on the subject at hand not the motives and attributes of other editors. 1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
• (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
• (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

I refer to refs of you stating letter written by myself was of such poor quality as to be hardly readable. So when considering pointing out WP:CIVIL to others please look at your own writings and realise that you are not exempt from the same criticism. With respect. Truthseekers666 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that I am a bit dissapointed in that as an uninvolved admin with an interest in military and images following comments at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests by Truthseekers666 I made comments at the Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor talk page and related unfree file discussion. User Truthseekers666 has questioned my motives and started personal attacks despite me giving him a warning on civility. Not sure why users ask for help and then dont accept it. For some reason he has posted my warning message to him back here. The subject image is a bad photocopy hence my comment on poor quality, but for some reason Truthseekers666 is claiming above he wrote the photocopied official RAF Police letter under discussion while also claiming to be a somebody with a completly different name. The user has also started to make personal attacks against me on the related talk pages and questioning my image uploads. So I reserve the possibility of seeking a restriction on his editing if he continues personal attacks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up - typo

G'day from Oz, just a quick note - when you cite Peperell's Piper Aircraft you are introducing a typographical error into articles. I assume you have the cite saved somewhere; if this is the case you have spelt "aircraft" as "aircaft". Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I have a sticky R on the keyboard and keep missing it out! I will check my edits later and correct them. Appreciate the heads up. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, should all be correct - found a few that were not me! MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries; I check for the mis-spellings of "aircraft" from time-to-time and always find at least a couple, "aicraft" comes up a fair bit, as well as the dreaded "aircrafts". I find that if I type too fast I will get a bit of 'finger dyslexia' and type "aircrfat" :-) Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Hey Mill, just asking here... is this kind of reference allowed? I mean, it's in Italian so we can't really verify it. Plus, I'm sure I've read this passage somewhere before but it doesn't register on me right now but one thing is for sure... what the IP editor wrote is IMO a verbatim copy of the text from that very book I can't recall! I have reverted the text a few times now, so there's a possibility of me committing 3RR here if I revert it again for the lack of clear WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see your point it does read like a passage from a book. I presume the reference is not english, Italian? Iwould think that we could find a decent english language source for the operational history. It doesnt make clear that the MR2 was far better avionics then the MR1. I am sure I have a Nimrod book somewhere I will try and dig it out and try and do it some justice. I had a trip in a Nimrod over the North Atlantic once! MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And you made it back? Amazing! ;) - BilCat (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, I believe that was before XV230! *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 14:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you stop leaving me messages in my talk page

Can you stop leaving me messages in my talk page please because I want to keep those photos. You are not a photo inspector otherwise you will not be an administrator in Wikipedia in the future yay!!!! Enoxod (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Note - Apart from his/her warning about copyrighted image uploads this user has now been warned about personal attacks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Air India

Not sure what has happened here, but Air India currently redirect to itself! Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I lost my connection in the middle of the move! looking to restore at the moment !! MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope Air India is back, move really needs discussing also note that same user has moved India Airlines to Air India (IC) but I will leave that to others to discuss. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Essex County Airport

Dear MB1: Since you have been involved in editing this article in the past and helping out with some COI issues there, could you please review Talk:Essex_County_Airport#History_section as well as the recent edits. There is a relevant note at User_talk:Ahunt#Editing_Essex_Airport as well. Thank you for your assistance. - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have put a COI notice on the two talk pages, they should really discuss anything they want to add on the talk page. Also needs some reliable references most of the information doesnt appear in the new jersey website that has been cited. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - that was my conclusion too. If you would just keep a watch on it that would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Watching MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Air Midwest Flight 5481

Hanger -> Hangar; whoops! Thank you for the good catch and correcting my typo. Imagine how useful spell check would be if I actually used it. Thanks again and best wishes! Civilengtiger (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Survivors

Evening MilborneOne. I seem to remember a discussion about the layout of Survivors sections, but can't remember or find the answer. Is the l2 header Survivors followed by l3 Flyers (or equiv) and another l3 Aircraft on display, or do we use two l2 headers? Indeed, are Aircraft on display Survivors. I'm not fussed as long as we distinguish flyers from the displayed; I was thinking of having a go at the Meteor section but wanted to get it laid out right, if there is a standard form. There are a lot of variations out there (as with many things ...).TSRL (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Found our earlier chat in your archive and the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_on_display This suggests both l2. Using survivors to include flyers and those non flying and not on display seems odd when used with an Aircraft on display section (It does say alternative I know, but no problem.TSRL (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the stand-alone articles which give more scope like List of surviving Hawker Hurricanes or the similar List of surviving Blackburn Buccaneers. This allows for three headers Airworthy, On display or Stored or under restoration by country. I would think we have more than enough Meteors to have a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look and ponder.TSRL (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Underway.TSRL (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done (well, started). There were enough.TSRL (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the pics. Might you have swapped the locations of VZ634 (W&R 21 has it at Newark) and VZ638 (W&R 21 at Gatwick)?TSRL (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooops - that will serve me right for uploading images late at night! I have changed the caption I will make a note on commons later of the real serials! Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Could you semi-protected the talkpage of BilCat (talk · contribs), due to excessive vandalism by socks and anon IPs. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a go-slow anyway, so 6-8 weeks would be fine. - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bit reluctant just to protect the article at the moment I know it is not always convenient but it is on my watchlist so if the IP users come back I will act. Just to note the guidline says User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to note I have left the recent IP editor a note about civility. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

USER ALR WP:CIVIL

I also noticed you had warned the truthseeker666 regarding WP:CIVIL on being rude or abusive. However you failed to warn user ALR for comments like "nutters and idiots" directed back to truthseekers. This seems very one sided. Can you explain why you did not warn user ALR also. Would it be because both you and user ALR are freemasons like truthseeker666 pointed out and freemasons cannot speak badly of one another due to their vows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh my... dear "95.154.240.208", it seems that you did not login first to post this message, could you please do so and then come back to discuss this? Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is no useful excuse to avoid answering the point. Answer the point. BTW I dont have to log in to edit wiki and I dont really want an account thanks very much. So answer the point. Whats wrong with Milborne one, has the cat got his tongue? The question was clearly asked of him not of you, or perhaps you missed that and tought it this whole point was asked of Dave, not Milborune one. How could you miss something like that. Not very observant of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with other users like Dave1185 helping out on my talk page, I am not online all the time and they may well be able to help. Sorry for the delay but as I now appear to have some connection with freemasonary, I was waiting for the membership card and instructions to appear. The post has just arrived but it only contained some utility bills. Although to be honest I dont remember being asked to join, I was hoping that I could then get some discount on building work or perhaps a new brick wall around the garden for free but the website only mentions a free fancy apron so perhaps I will decline. Oh for the answer to your question then please read all the other various discussions on the subject on various talk pages, as you have already raised the matter at WP:ANI I dont see the need to comment further. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be surprised to learn that when you scratch the surface of every conspiracy theory you find that they are all fundamentally mental health issues? - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you forget to wear your tin foil hat they can make you think things. Hadn't you heard? :-) User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a mason, or evne a carpentror plumber, but if I were, I couln't work for free. Not only am I not independently wealthy, I'm dependently poor! - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

All of you have yet again avoided the point. User ALR was not given a warning. Milborne one has rafts of friends who just come on to back him up to wander way off the point being made. Back to the point, user ALR was never warned about his use of RUDE words. The other user was warned to be civil. Why one rule for one and one rule for another. Or will you just all avoid this and fudge over it again. You Wiki lot really do wear your colours on your shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.232.11 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It was you who brought up your Freemason conspiracy, not us lurkers. Besides that go back and read User:MilborneOne's reply - he did answer you - he said that it is being addressed on ANI and that there is no need to comment further here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, watching a talk page (lurking) is not cognate to being "friends". More to having an overlapping interest. In fact I'm happy to declare that as far as I can tell, I've never so much as seen any of the people who have commented here, though I'm sure many of them are very nice (with the exception of SineBot who is recognized as having very little personality at all). That said, allegations of rudeness must be taken seriously. Please provide the relevant WP:DIFFs to support the accusation. User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject was not dealt with and has been relisted on wp:ani for an explaination of why milborneone seems to refuse to admonish user:alr for wp:civil when he describes ufo researchers as nutters and idiots. Please give answers there so the admin community can see why you flout wp:civil rules with alr when addressing same rule on ufo researcher truthseekers666. We still need an answer. petey bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to my early comments and the advice of User:LeadSongDog. MilborneOne (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Petey": I really think you ought to read the article at Tu quoque. When you get pulled over by the cops for speeding it is not a useful defence to say "you can't charge me, because other people were speeding and you didn't pull them over". Cops can pick one single speeder and ticket them and by the same token an admin can warn one user without therefore having to warn all uers who did the same thing. You will note that "Tu quoque" is a logical fallacy. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

"...glider (aircraft, unpowered, non-mammal)..." You made me LOL --Rlandmann (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture taken from website.

Hey Milborne, I have just got off the Cyprus Turkish Airlines article and it appears that an image, recently added, is from KTHY's fleet page ([21]) and here ([22]). I don't know how to suggest deletion or what ever the rules and was wondering if you could take a look please. Kind regards, Zaps93 (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has already deleted them from commons. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The power of lurking!! I figured you were busy, so I tagged it on Commons. - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for that, bit confused when the image disapeared as I was looking at it! MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I wasn't sure what to do myself. Zaps93 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually dealing with copy right vio images on Commons is very easy - just go to the Commons page and add {{copyvio|source or reason}} to the page and under reason give a link to the place it was stolen from. A Commons Admin will review it and remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

hello

hello,the information you have about the IAR 46 is correct but refers to a group of several aircraft (hopefully not wrong but only 3 to 6 were made specifically for export 1 remained in Romania but no longer fly). Specifications written by me are for the second variant of the aircraft currently used as training aircraft, and are taken from the aircraft's manual, if you want I can upload it in pdf format. I will edit the page and hope will stay that way. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponsoru2006 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at Talk:List of Dragonair destinations.
Message added 09:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aviator006 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki entry for Charles Edward Murray Pickthorn RFC - updated 20 Feb 2010

Dear MilborneOne - In researching the life of my maternal grandfather (CEM [Max] Pickthorn) I saw that you had recently updated his entry including the addition of date of death. I have some further information on his post war life and service but have no experience of wikipedia. How do I go about adding to it or contacting other people interested in this field who may have more information? 91.111.109.161 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, if you are not sure about adding any information to the Charles Pickthorn then it is best to use the article talk page. This is at Talk:Charles Pickthorn, if you explain what you want to add then I or somebody else will add it for you. It is allways best if you have some connection with the subject to discuss changes first as it might appear to be a conflict of interest if you add the information directly. This is not a big problem if you explain what you want to add although one important thing is that you may know through personal knowledge information on him but wikipedia relies on information being referenced to reliable sources. Again not a big problem if you explain what information you have. Wikipedia is not really the best place for geneological research as it relies on other sources for information but a number of forums exist to ask questions. The best for military persons is probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or for more general research questions then try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. If you have have any further questions or help with using wikipedia then you can leave a message here. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected page for Hand grenade article

Milborne I don't understand, but it seems when the weekends come and the college kids without dates get to much fire water, they hit the Hand grenade article with some pretty gross vandalism. A lot of editors spend a lot of time keeping a watch on that page on weekends. Would it be possible to give that page some kind of protection, to where edits for example do not go into effect for 12 hours or so? Thanks. PS> Believe it or not, I have not accidentally insulted or stepped on anyone's toes any more. Dave, Jonothan and Wilson, sent me to charm and manners school. <GRIN> JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing happening at the moment so I will not protect it just yet. We should not really use protection as a pre-emptive weapon. I have added it to my watchlist and will keep and eye on it. If you are concerned then please leave a note here or with one of the military project admins. I do still keep an eye on your talk page so I have seen some good work from you. Perhaps it shows that if you ask questions and seek guidance how wikipedia works will soon become second nature and allow you to concentrate on content. MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

MilborneLook at the history and the last revision. It is about a once a week thing. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GOL flight 1907

Your removal of the list of victims has been reverted. It was actually part of the article when it was promoted to FA status. Probably best discussed on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I did raise it on the talk page as soon as I removed it, I have made further comment on the talk page on the slippery slope that is listing non-notable accident victims. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

John Adrian Chamier

John Adrian Chamier

I have taken out the link to biography on the Fascist propaganda website about Oswald Mosley. Links to Propaganda sites should not be used in this way. If you can find any additional independent information that links Chamier to this group then fair enough but the information on the website is pretty much tenuous.--Pandaplodder (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what a link showing that he was a director of Vickers and and BBC correspondence has to do with fascist propaganda, so the reference was just that a reference not sure how that links him to the group. May have been better to add fact tags when removing the references to indicate that a better reference is needed rather then just leaving the statements unreferenced. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View and reference articles and the author

Milborne Dave, asked me a while back to take a look at the RBS 70 article (ie that is how we originally got started off on the wrong foot when I came to WP). I know an excellent article for reference on the RBS-70. Problem is that author's name is Jack E. Hammond JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The WP:COI guideline says Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. we also have If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. So I dont see it as a problem if you declare on the talk page what you are doing and the source is a reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

Ah, thanks for pointing me to that, I'll use it from now on. - The Bushranger (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey MilborneOne; by now you know (I hope) how deeply I respect your opinion and the work that you do around here; so I thought it fair that I mention that I have posted some contradictory advice on Bushranger's talk page. I'm genuinely saddened that you've decided to opt for this template, but far be it from me to persuade you otherwise! :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Understand your comments about the template, I dont have a strong view on any of the templates I was just more concerned that everybody appears to be using a different one! MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I hear you :(

Out of curiosity, since you've used both templates extensively now, is there anything useful that you think that {{aerospecs}} is missing? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The main difference is that Template:Aircraft specs does auto convert the entries which saves having to convert them manual, the main problem with Aircraft specs is that it has far to many unused entries that need to be deleted so aerospecs is a lot better in that respect. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I did look into autoconvert templates early in the design process for aerospecs. The biggest problem then was handling significant figures reliably. The autoconvert templates might have become more sophisticated at this since then, however. I'll take another look, and also look at how aircraft specs handles significant figures as well. As you might know, this is an area in which we've had "significant" problems from some editors...! As usual, any insights from practical experience would be most welcome. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really that much difference in aircraft specs/aerospecs really, aircraft specs has a lot more fields added to cater for every eventuality most of them in 99% of times are not used. The things in specs that aerospecs doesnt have is a free text line note after each item which can be useful to add notes to qualify some of the entries, it does have fields to do with propeller types which I have used a few times and it has a maximum take off weight added which is probably better than gross weight as the MTOW appears in most references. It also allows kts in the speeds entries mostly by conversion. Most of the rest is extras that a hardly used like ferry range. They are not that different really. I do think we also need to formalise the minimum requirement to not use the specs needed tag. I still have your suggestion from many years ago but I am not sure it was properly agreed:

• Powered, heavier-than-air: span, length, wing/rotor area, at least one weight, engine type and power/thrust, at least one speed, range/endurance, and ceiling.
• Unpowered, heavier-than-air: span, length, wing/rotor area, aspect ratio (for fixed-wing types!), at least one weight, at least one speed, and glide ratio.
• Powered, lighter-than-air: diameter, length, volume, lift, at least one weight, engine type and power, at least one speed, range/endurance, and ceiling.
• Unpowered, lighter-than-air: tba

Hope that is of help, I would probably agree that in most cases aerospecs has everything that is needed and perhaps with a few tweaks they would not be that different. The main problem is that some users are still using Template:Aircraft specifications which is old and not that good but is still the official template. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Thanks! :-) - The Bushranger (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

IOC codes

It just looks ridiculous in the List of fatalities from aviation accidents that UK is spelled with two letters and the other countries are shorted with three. Don't you think it's better to use GBR instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.34.85 (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not what I think the GBR template says it used specifically for sports events and as the country is the United Kingdom and not Great Britain I have to agree. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine then. Seems Europe is divided between the British Island- life and the mainland. In the mainland, the countries use Euro as currency and elect a President. They also drive in the correct way of the road. They also use centimetres and kilograms, while in UK they do it in a way that even God himself gets confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.34.85 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What a strange reply which appears to be unrelated to the question I will presume good faith at this point and the IP editor is replying to something else in error which is clearly nothing to do with the point raised about templates and not assume it is a WP:CIVIL breach. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not difficult to understand my point. What I meant was that the site has IOC codes, except for the British people. UK is like DE for Germany, codes made in the European Union for products. It should be either EU-codes or IOC-codes, not both, and especially not for one nationality only.

And UK is a bit unlogical. I mean, room 2 is on top in a hostel and room 10 is next door. My brother works as producer for the Miss Europe delegation in Bellevue in France. 2004 there was Miss UK, 2005 Miss Scotland only, 2006, England and Wales, 2007 as Britain, 2008 Scotland again with England. And in Speedway, it's even more unlogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.197.227 (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK is not unlogical just a long and complicated history, Great Britain is actually the geographical name of the biggest island in the British Isles so tends to be used instead of the full country name which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This can upset some of the Northern Irish as Northern Ireland is not actually part of the island of Great Britain so we should really use UK when appropriate. Sport is just designed to confuse everybody as when the UK joined the Olympic movement many years ago it did so as Great Britain and some of the home nations joined sport governing bodies in their own right hence England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can sometimes appear at sports venues. If you look at the relevant wiki pages they have yards or even metres of discussion on the confusion of names. The ISO code for Germany appears to be DEU not GER and not all of them are IOC codes either so the article is not really consistant with any standard. So you can change all the codes to ISO or IOC codes but UK/GBR is not the only that is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rule Number 1: Never edit while stoned - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please review the article 'Vietnam Airlines'

Hello MilborneOne, I have been editting the article Vietnam Airlines and because I have put it up for peer review, could you please have a look at it? And also, please ask some edittors who are aviation fans that you know, to give the article a look and leave some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive1. Thanks and Happy Easter! Sp33dyphil 11:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time. Sp33dyphil 22:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier

Mill, we could use a hand advising a potentially disruptive editor on the above-mentioned page who keeps re-introduce an unwanted table into the article. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Replicas

Morning MilborneOne. Do we have policy or a view on the inclusion or not of replicas in Aircraft on Display? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe we have as most replicas would not be notable, replicas could also be previously flown reproductions like the Vickers Vimy at Brooklands which would be notable in their own right. If it is just a non-flying non-real display aircraft then I dont think it would pass the general notability threshold. Do you have a particular example? MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the Junkers F 13 page, where a "Survivors & Displays" section has been added. It is a list taken straight from the Hugo Junkers site, with two replicas included (at Hannover and Stuttgart). I've gone through the non-replicas and got better links and refs to museums etc, and will replace the headers with our recent standard ones (Survivors with Aircraft on display and In storage or under restoration), but was not sure about the reps.TSRL (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Helen Skelton

I think I've calmed Westergaardhansen about his beef with this article. He reckons they aren't proper world records becasue other people have kayaked further and that by not mentioning them in this article wikipedia is spreading misinformation. That's why I made it clear that the records are those 'awarded' by Guinness World Records and told Westergaardhansen if he doesn't like how they set their criteria for a world record to take it up with them - or add a section the the article on GWR evidencing his concerns. NtheP (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, seems a reasonably approach to clarify what type of record, all the other claimants/etc is not relevant to Skelton. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Boeing customer codes from Boeing 747 to Boeing 777

Hi MilborneOne, the reason I changed it to Boeing 777 was because I thought it would be better to have an aircraft type that is currently being delivered. I have since been corrected that Boeing are no longer delivering Boeing 777s to BA and agree with your change back to the Boeing 747-400. Kinglevaux (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood, no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

British Airways Fleet

Hi there. I've just seen the BA Fleet section and someone has totally ruined it, particularly the numbers of seats on board so I'm just wondering if you know where to find the correct information to fix it. I've also posted this problem on the BA discusion page but thought you might know.

Many thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried http://www.britishairways.com/travel/seatpl/public/en_gb MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo error in article title

Milborne, I really goofed this time. I posted an article on an Italian medium caliber naval cannon that was direct ancestor of a famous Italian naval cannon used world wide today (ie I was requested by Dave to take a look and try and clean that article up that lacks references, etc. and to make a long sentence short, this article leads to that article). Well, after researching and working -- ie with great help from Wilson -- on it I posted it. Then when I thought I was finished I noticed the title and I had an "R" at the end that did not belong there. The article 76/62mm Allargator is suppose to be "76/62mm Allargato". No "R" at the end. Can you help me out. If I could I would have deleted the article and started over. But it seems that is not possible for me. Do administrators have a rename authority over articles? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignore this message. Someone else read it and told me how to take care of the problem. Sorry to bother you. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

List of mid air collisions and mid air incidents in the United Kingdom

G'day, I noticed you made a bunch of edits to List of mid air collisions and mid air incidents in the United Kingdom to add a large number of wartime incidents, but none have any references. YSSYguy (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks my mistake I will go and dig out my sources. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Userpage restore request

Michael (or an admin lurker), could you please restore User:BilCat/Sandbox/A-4M Skyhawk II? I decided to work on a new sanbox for the A-4M at User:BilCat/Sandbox/A-4M Skyhawk, then realized I had made one before. I'd like to check it and see if I have any useable work there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I found what I needed, and it's been deleted by my request again.

User page redirection

Michael, could you take a look at User:Ryebonfire and User talk:Ryebonfire? They both redirect to articlespace, Stodmarsh National Nature Reserve and Talk:Stodmarsh National Nature Reserve respectively. Talk:Stodmarsh National Nature Reserve appears to be his userpage, moved when He moved the article he created on hins main userspace page. I don't know where to report this. Thanks for whatever you can do about this. - BilCat (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have deleted the user page and moved the talk page back to his user space. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please fix my mess!

Hello Milborne, I recently tried to move the Aerogal article to AeroGal (capital G) as it's the airlines official trademark name, todo this I thought I'd could move the article to one place then the other to over write the lower case G. This did not happen! Now I have accidently made two pages which do absolutely nothing! Could you please delete them and move Aerogal to the AeroGal please. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael, note that the history of the article is at Aero Gal, so I've restored that version. I've added a DB-move tag to AeroGal, since I assume you asleep now, but if you think it should bo back to Aerogal, that's fine too. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bill it looks OK at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

John William Dunne

Your recent edit mentioned the 1911 census which gave John William Dunne's birthplace. Does it also include his date of birth? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

Yes I have been looking for that but I am afraid it doesnt just his age. His obit in the Times doesnt say his date of birth either just born 1875. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvio image

File:Lch pro.jpg, which is also on Commons now at the same name. I couldn't find anything in a Google search, but I'm still suspicious. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is credited to Shiv Aroor who appears to be a defence Correspondent for the Indian press and a blogger. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But is the uploader Shiv Aroor? Has he granted his permission for the image to be used? Does he own the rights to the image? - BilCat (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And on his page http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-04-28T07%3A59%3A00%2B05%3A30 it is credited to HAL ! MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I figured. He probably has some sort of permission from HaL to use it in his blog. - BilCat (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of activities

Hello MilborneOne,

You may remember me from the British Airways series of articles, we used to frequently improve them for quality back in October/November. Anyhow, I've recently put up History of British Airways, the article you helped me develop as its own spinoff from the main page, as a FAC, having recently gone through its GAN. If you have the time, can you stop off and take a look at the article, if you see anything either give me a tap on my talkpage or on the review itself, so I can get my first-ever FAC off as a success. Plus I think the article deserves the status!

Thanks in advance, Kyteto (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem I will go and have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

50K

Congratulations! That represents a lot of work! - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:No Personal Attacks and BilCat

I understand your concern although I respectfully disagree with it. I don't believe I made a personal attack against BilCat as reminding someone that they were violating Wikipedia policy is not a crime. Under the definition of what are considered personal attacks, reminding someone that they routinely edit war (based on their block log and a review of their contributions) is not what I'd consider an attack. I don't recall threatening or making racist/derogatory accusations against BilCat nor do I recall dismissing him based on his personal beliefs or affiliations. Please also note, that I did leave a warning for Bcs09 as well.

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Burgess-Dunne

Evening MilborneOne. On the J.W.Dunne discussion page you mentioned a letter to the Times from Katherine Atholl about USN Burgess-Dunne aircraft. Do you have the ref? I've just added what I can glean from Flight and Lewis to the Dunne D.8#Variants section, and this would help.--TSRL (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice please

G'day, just wondering if there is any mechanism, protocol or precedent of blocking registered Users from creating articles, or perhaps imposing a mentor on them. The articles created by this guy, while often dealing with notable aircraft accidents, are of extremely poor quality; this is a fairly typical example, note that he got the airline wrong as well as a number of factual details. Also, about 20% of the articles he has created have been deleted, which seems high to me, and a number of others are of dubious worth IMO, especially those dealing with CFIT accidents more than 60 years ago. I have limited time to spend on WP, and I find that a large part of that time is spent cleaning up after him (I think I spent over an hour on the Cubana crash article's cleanup). I know that I don't have to do this, but his articles are so messy, and he is so prolific, that the problem his edits represent gets bigger by the day; and not many people are engaging in cleaning up his edits. Anyway, I have had my little rant now and feel a bit better :-) YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood YSSYguy I have seen some of the articles, I will have a look at it later today. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left them a message to see if we get any response, not sure we have a sanction against good faith editors who do not understand notability and have problems with spelling and writing in English. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I have been busy proof-reading my partner's doctoral thesis the last few days (ever tried to remove 20,000 words from a 140,000-word document?) but she's submitted a draft now so I can do some more stuff around here. He seems to have moved from concentrating on aircraft crashes of little notability to concentrating on minor earthquakes (or as he tends to spell it, earthqaukes), so at the moment it's what Douglas Adams called an SEP as far as I'm concerned. English appears to be his first language and from his edits he appears to live in the Wolverhampton area; I don't recall ever coming across another native speaker of English spelling that badly. YSSYguy (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of American Airlines Flight 614

An article that you have been involved in editing, American Airlines Flight 614, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 614. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

List of pilots awarded an Aviator's Certificate by the Royal Aero Club in 1910 and 1911

I decided that I couldn't keep up with your new pioneer aviator articles, so I created the two list articles List of pilots awarded an Aviator's Certificate by the Royal Aero Club in 1910 and List of pilots awarded an Aviator's Certificate by the Royal Aero Club in 1911. There's still a lot of work to be done (e.g. brief details under comments, wikilinking where possible), but at least they're out there now. The 1912 article is under way in my sandbox - please feel free to make any amendments there prior to 'publication'. I haven't added categories yet - any suggestions? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of old comments on talk pages

Michael, when you can, can you look at Talk:HAL Tejas? A user has been removing old comments he feels should not be on the page, including comments you've made. I don't think simply removing the comments is going to solve the problems, as the two users involved have their own points of view, as usually occurs on pages such as this one. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may elaborate further, I have no issues with either BilCat's rationale for reverting the deletions or your response to By78's question. I accept that it is generally a bad idea to remove talk page comments and usually don't partake in it. I removed the topic User:By78 created primarily because I felt it was malicious in nature as the user has been indefinitely blocked from editing due to numerous WP:BLP, WP:NPOV violations in addition to sockpuppetry and for failing to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. The other issue is that User:Ao333 does not always adhere to WP:NPOV and some of his talk page comments and edits reflect on this. There is also a rather lengthy discussion on the matter at User:Elockid's talk page that delves more into this. I feel that if another user does not have the time to commit to understanding a disagreement, that that user should either investigate more thoroughly or simply leave the article as-is. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't be restoring the comments again, but I don't believe removing them will solve the problem either. I know Michael is away from WP for now, but I'll let him deal with this when he gets back, if it hasn't been solved by then. - BilCat (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that removing the comments will solve the problem either for that matter. I have not yet taken the case to WP:ANI as I don't believe that the issue has reached a level where administrative action is required. I have issues with said user's commitment to impartiality but at the same time the conflict hasn't reached a level where administrator intervention is necessary. We were both involved in an edit war on the HAL Tejas article but I believe the issue regarding that was resolved. I will keep an eye on Ao333's edits and take the appropriate action based on his response. Regardless, if MilborneOne feels that the section on the talk page for Tejas has to stay, then I will not contest the restoration. Vedant (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have restored the comment but have archived the talk page as the the discusssion is closed and has been stated is not adding any value. None of the other talk page topics have comments this year. MilborneOne (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting copyvios

I see that you are deleting what I believe are copyvios uploaded by User:Zaps93. Any that are left on Commons, I will take care of those. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume good faith but after Zaps removed the notices on the images without any evidence of permission. If permission is granted they can be uploaded again. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tupolev ANT-37

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete photos?!!

Why did you delete all those photo's which I had gotten permission for?! If somebody clearly explains to me where to forward the emails with the the comfirmation then this problem would not have arose! THANKS!!!! Zaps93 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Milborne, I blame this heat. Having a stressful day, but if you could please tell me where to forward this email saying I have been given rights, that would be apprieciated. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK understood, you need to follow the instruction at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, if you read all the notices that Russavia added to your talk page they also detail the procedure. Basically you need to forward the emails from the copyright owners to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org. You have to make sure the email details the conditions and licence that they want to release the images as, Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries may be of help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently forwarded the email with copyright approval but I haven't heard anything from Wiki yet? What do I do? Zaps93 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It has to wait for an OTRS volunteer to look at it, more info at meta:OTRS. You could always ask one of the names listed about your email. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed U-2

Micahel, User:Bryan TMF has got upset over his work being edited or meoved at Lockheed U-2, and decided to remove all his additions to the article. I know under GFDL we could not do that. What is the situation under CCA. Can you advise? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the principals have changed once you have released the text you cant really revoke and remove it. So if it is relevant properly cited text it shouldnt really be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

HAL helicopter

I agree with the semi-protection. The rationale give at Commons is clearly inadequate, and no doubt the image will be deleted. It may be suitable for fair use with a NFR but I'd guess that this would be objected to as well. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright query

Morning MilborneOne, I'm about to launch a Green D.4 page, and found this File:Green's 4-cylinder aerial engine (Rankin Kennedy, Modern Engines, Vol III).jpg image in the Commons collection. Do you think it's OK, in copyright terms, in the UK. The copyright section talks about a 70 year rule, which I did not think was a UK thing? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dont think you will have a problem with the image as it appears to have been published 98 years ago and it would be public domain 70 years after the death of the author or if the author is not known 70 years from creation. Which might be 1902 but it is a bit vague, it says it is a reprint but the cover says it is revised edition. Also note that it is normally the US law that applies to wikipedia. 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll put it in.TSRL (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft by tail number

I've commented at the talk page re the organisation of the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Elías Durnford

I am not sure how you found the article, but thank you for looking in on it! As you can tell from the page history he is a notable subject for an article, but the repeated plagiarism and copyright vios have been problematic. If you could keep a watch on it I think that might help move things along in that regard. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw it in your history and being nosey had a look, tried looking for some reliable references but only found one primary reference in the London Gazette, I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be sorry, everything on Wikipedia is open and transparent! I am glad you popped by to help out! As you can see from the article history there have been some issues with copyright vios and so I was thinking about asking an admin to keep an eye on it if it persisted. You just read my mind from across the Atlantic and that is much appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Elias Durnford and have completely rewritten it from the copyright vio sources, adding them as footnotes instead. If you have a chance to look it over I would appreciate any improvements you can make! - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced changing of numbers

I noticed you reverted NoBiasPlease's edits on Chengdu J-10 primarily because they were unsourced. It seems the user has gone around several articles and reverted my edits all of which had cited sources. It appears that this is also a recently created account and has a very specific area of interest (namely Chinese military related articles). Given that another Ao333 received a temporary block for edit-warring across numerous articles with a similar modus operandi and that another user has been indefinitely blocked for excessive sockpuppetry, I suspect this user is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet for one of these two. I was just wondering if you could go through my recent contributions and tell me if I did anything wrong and also if you'd suggest I open up an SPI case. I have a gut feeling that NoBiasPlease is a sockpuppet for Polylepsis but someone would probably have to run CheckUser to make sure for certain. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think you have found some socks you really need some evidence (see Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry) although I appreciate that WP:DUCK probably applies. I will take a peek at your edits as you request. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just one point I dont have any opinion on the goings on with List of fighter aircraft, it is basically ignored by the aircraft project and is just left as a fan-boy magnet to let them let of patriotic steam and keeps them away from other articles! Most aircraft project editors find better things to do with their limited time! MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont see any real problems with your edits, you challenge unreliable changes and it is up to the other editors to provide reliable references. This is an encyclopedia not a news service so having a two-year old reliable source is still better than original research/blogs etc. I will keep an eye on things not sure if you have enough for an SPI yet, although experience says that if they are socks they normally show themselves up and provide evidence in their actions at some point, it is difficult not to revert to type at some point. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at my edits. I have decided to be a little pro-active on the List of fighter aircraft article primarily because it's used by a bunch of nationalist fanboys and I'd like to keep that section as free from POV as possible. I'll sit on the possible sock for now though as I generally think it's detrimental to the project when editors are mistakenly reported as sockpuppets when they are in fact not. Vedant (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... seems like I've opened up a can of worms here. A bunch of users who have an obvious bias seem to have issue with some of my cited edits. A particular point of contention is on Shenyang J-15 where a number of anons from Beijing as well as a usual suspect seem to have issues with the claims posted. Ao333 seems particularly hostile and has also accused me of having no business editing articles and no sense in general on several pages. I warned him this was a personal attack and ofcourse he promptly deleted this information from his talk page. Regardless, when I instated a claim from a reliable source, he then proceeded to claim it was a dead link despite the fact that I viewed it TODAY. He did leave a message on my talk page which I reverted primarily because I have issues with his neutrality which are documented by the investigation I opened up. He then ofcourse prompted to revert the changes I made to my own talk page which seem to suggest that he's taking ownership of my talk page. Regardless, I was just wondering if you could take a look at the article and let me know what you think. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I will have a look later on but as you have noticed most long-term aircraft editors just ignore this article and just let the fanboys fight it out, probably on the thought that they will leave other articles alone. But despite our lack of interest in it it they should not be breaking the rules and reverting sourced edits. I will also take a look at your talk page others should just leave messages anything else is really up to you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was just a stub until recently. My main issue is that some of the users editing said article engage in what I'd consider a ton of POV pushing on random Chinese military articles. Vedant (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Moon

Thanks for your contributions/corrections to this article. Do you think that we can use the photo on the Hampshire CC website here? Presumably it was taken pre-1914; does that mean it's out of copyright? -Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like the image is more than 70 years old, suggest use Template:PD-UK. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cecil Grace

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For your attention

Hello MB1, sorry to trouble you again but I just spotted a serial uploader of possibly copyrighted images... Please see → User talk:LightAj#Clarifications requested ← for further details. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you are right per WP:DUCK just found a source for File:F-28 Fellowship.jpg one and tagged it as a copyvio at commons, appears to have had lots of blocks and warnings at commons but it has not stopped them. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Them"? Whoa... did I read it wrongly? BTW, thanks for the quick reply. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to tag another at commons but somebody beat me to it, them perhaps not but strange that he/she upload copyvios straight to commons and not here! MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Judging by his behavioural pattern, I'm guessing that he was indef'ed prior to this and is now back here with a new account, resorting to a slightly sneakier way (IMO, it looks more like a backdoor method) of adding images by uploading them straight to commons (and not here!) so we can't tag them directly even if we want to. Unfortunately and due in part to my current backlog in the hangar, I can't dwell into the edit history part of Philippines' Armed Forces article pages to find out more. I suppose you may have better luck digging up the dirt about this chap, eh? Cheers and regards~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked this editor on Wikipedia (they can edit their own page though). I've got these articles on my watchlist and have been concerned about the photos for a while - I warned LightAj for this conduct when one of their copyvios was deleted from Commons in late April. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Their"??? Whoa... now I'm really concerned~! ;P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Aero Club lists

I'm wondering how to distinguish between accidental flying deaths and KIA. I copied the 'violet' background for accident deaths from US test pilot list, and for the time being have been marking "Killed in action" as bold type. Would a different background colour be more appropriate, or perhaps a black border? Since we're the busiest on these lists at the moment, I'd like your ideas. Thanks --TraceyR (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I keep finding non-flying KIAs so perhaps it would be appropriate, perhaps a different background colour. You are welcome to try something although I dont have a problem with the bolding I suspect it might not be liked by some editors, perhaps a grey background. Some interesting people coming up in the list it is nice to give them some space to honour them. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll find a suitable grey background - sooner rather than later, too, since you're steaming ahead with the KIAs! As well as ghoulishly finding accidental deaths, I'm currently gathering information about Arthur Wellesley Bigsworth, with a view to creating an article on him in the near future, but it'll be a couple of days yet. I was surprised that there wasn't one for him already! --TraceyR (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Check user

Michael, do you know any checkusers? I got some vandalism on my talk page, and I have a pretty god idea who it came from. I'd rather bypass the random wonks for someone who will actually listen! Thanks. - 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bill not had to deal with them, have a look at the list Special:ListUsers/checkuser and see if you have seen any around. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Borg2008.jpg

Also, Check this one, Please.69.137.120.81 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 4 MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Micahel, could you take a look at these contributions by User:Militaryguru? It looks like he started out by disagreeing with Bill Zuk on ref formatting, but his reverts today have reverted good changes made recently. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The user has been doing these type edits on and off since about May 22. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk has given him/her a warning just need to keep an eye, certainly disruptive are we sure this is a new editor just seems strange to deal in references only. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Michael-Simms-(software-developer).png

Based on your concern over the image, I took the original source and put it through Google translate (it was originally in Czech). After scouring the article, I found a notice on the bottom that says that all web content from LinuxEXPRES is under the GFDL. I have changed the image description to show this. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• • In response to your statement "I dont see anything in... that says all the content is GFDL.", please see the current image description where I added the following statement from the article. It is a little hard to find but it is there: "Article derives from an earlier number of the magazine, which was not based on the paper version - we are online! On our site, this text is published with the GNU FDL license, which entitles anyone to use text or redistribute."Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But this is an image not text, I will wait for any comments from Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Michael-Simms-.28software-developer.29.png, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Bill Tilden 001.jpg‎

What made you all of a sudden look at this upload by me? Am I under some sort of microscope all of a sudden? In the last 24 hours it seems like every photo I found on the internet that said public domain is being challenged or looked at by someone. After 3 of them I thought coincidence, but something is going on here that I don't like. This last one came right out of your wikipedia commons photos at "File:Bill Tilden.jpg" for goodness sake. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see Bill Tilden is a public domain image all I did was add some proof in case it was questioned in the future. I was looking at some tennis images following your comment at WP:PUF questioning other images and the Bill Tilden image was on the same page as the Rod Laver image being discussed it was natural to have a look at all the images on a page it just happened that you uploaded some of them. Please assume good faith. MilborneOne (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the extra proof. I guess you can't have too much of that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your contributions to the stock of WP images, I hereby award you this Barnstar. YSSYguy (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually you could be awarded any number of Barnstars for your work on WP, so look on this as the awarding of more than one :-) YSSYguy (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that YSSYguy it is nice to be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas DC-5 article

Please see article and corrections I have made to preclude a massive copy/viol case. It just so happens that I have the exact article that was used and was dismayed at the blatant direct unattributed quotes. I made a comment on the article talk page, the user's home talk page and simply changed the article. What else needs doing? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Well spotted, I have added a Template:uw-copyright notice to his/her talk page, you need to make sure that all direct text copies from the article have been removed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oneworld - member elect

Hi Milbourne One, there are a couple of occasion in your reference article in regards to S7's status as future member (member elect). (1) The last sentence before 'About Kingfisher Airlines' where it states "... member elect S7 Airlines Deputy Chief Executive Anton Erimen..." and (2) In the 'About Oneworld' section, where it states "... Russia's S7 Airlines will join the alliance in 2010 with India's Kingfisher Airlines now also a member elect..." Aviator006 (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Aviator006 I was wrong and have changed back the edits. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Evert picture

I found a new one to replace the old one, just go look and tell me if it is indeed okay!69.137.120.81 (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft article moves

Hello MilnorneOne, I'm Airplaneman. I saw you move many pages so that they conformed with the new Aircraft naming conventions. While I certainly don't object to that, many of your moves, such as to Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, left the talk page archives redlinked from the talk page and named with the old name. I think it would be a good idea to move all talk page archives as well. I therefore have moved Talk:B-17 Flying Fortress/Archive 1 (Pre-FA) to Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress/Archive 1 (Pre-FA). If you don't mind, I'll go through your contribs and fix the rest of the archives. Did anyone else move pages for the new naming convention? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 13:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not many of the pages moved had archives in their old names. I fixed Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, and Talk:Operation Sea Lion, which were the only pages I found in your logs with archives :). Airplaneman ✈ 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted Airplaneman, I am not the only one moving the pages it probably involves five or six people User:BilCat, User:The Bushranger, User:Bzuk, user:Nimbus227 and probably others. I will leave a note on the aircraft project to remind others, might be worth checking Special:Log/move. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you! Airplaneman ✈ 17:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Chengdu J-10

OK, you've stopped the edit war and protected the article at the WP:WRONGVERSION like a good admin should do. I think the question that needs to be addressed is whether Sinodefence.com meets WP:RS. Not sure about indefinate protection, although I do understand that indefinate is not forever. Maybe a {{pp-dispute}} on the article would be worthwhile. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to unprotect the article now given that the content dispute is resolved? If the article gets unprotected, I'm going to change the number in the infobox from 55 to 80 as per the SAIC source that Jim101 provided. Vedant (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alec Ogilvie

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

United Express 8050

You removed as not notable...I was working on a plane nearby as it happened & this is the 2nd overshoot on this runway in two years. personally felt it was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.226.160 (talk)

The article has been proposed for deletion which means at least two other editors dont think it is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

American Airlines accidents and incidents

Would you take a look at the two most recent "incidents" on that list? I don't think they are notable but my deletion of them has been reverted. I asked the editor to reconsider but without success. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree neither appears to be notable - I have removed them with edit summary that invites talk page discussion if users want to re-add MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For that vandal fix on my userpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It continues

See Ao333's wholesale revert here. I did make a few minor changes and style edits after your edits, but nothing major, and I'm not making any wholesale reverts after the "warning" from MBK here. Perhaps it's time for full protection? I don't see this stopping anytime soon! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted Bill, some of the stuff I removed from the lead was a direct copy from the globalsecurity website and as such a copy vio. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising! Adam and Nigel are working on the article now, so hopefully a full-protect won't be necessary. Ao333 certainly knows better than to keep doing this! - BilCat (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left a copyright violation warning on his/her talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:ProfessorJane has appeared out of thin air, and is editing the article in the exact smae manner as the 88-series IP. I've warned for 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seen that Bill, we need to find some more reliable references and explain that the lead is just a summary of what is in the body of the article! MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article move

Michael, could you move Chance Vought F7U Cutlass to Vought F7U Cutlass? BushRanger agreed that we should use "Vought" on all that company's article titles, but neither of us can move it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Smithsonian Artifact category

I wanted to let you know that the reason I put that cat on those particular articles is because the SI has the only aircraft of those types known to still exist. I agree that in general not all aircraft on display should have that category (like the SR71). I am going to put the categories back but I will put a comment after them stating that the museum has the only remaining one to help explain the reasoning behind it. --Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK understood, you can appreciate if we added museum categories to all the aircraft articles they could be overwhelmed. I will not remove them again but I will bring it up at the aircraft project for discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand and I agree actually and just for clarification I only intend to put it only on the ones were the SI has in its collection the only one still around. The SI has thousands of planes and I agree that would be overwhelming and not within the scope of what we are trying to accomplish. Basically right now we are trying to determine which articles relate to SI so that in future collaborations with them we will have a good understanding of what footprint they and their related articles have on WP. Of course its also to generate interest and visibility of these articles as well. Thanks and please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Artifacts_in_the_collection_of_the_Smithsonian_Institution just to record what has been said and to make sure that the rationale as you have explained is in the project archive. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Aircraft in the IAF

I've been keeping a close watch on this page and a lot of anons are just editing in whatever information they feel like without providing sources (i.e. claiming that 65 LCH are on order or 140 Tejas are on order). I'll continue to watch the page but it might be better to atleast semi-protect the article to ensure said editing does not take place. Vedant (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I have semi-protected for a month to discourage edit warring and encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Vedant (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

BA incident

In May 2009, a BA flight from South Africa to the UK experienced a slat retraction on take-off. The South African CAA investigate the incident and praised the crew for their action during the incident. Reported by Flight Global and extensively discussed at Pprune. The report linke at Pprune is allegedly at this web address but it doesn't seem to exist and I can't find it on the South African Civil Aviation Authority website.

Question is, is the incident notable enough to mention under airline and airport, and further, would it sustain a stand-alone article? Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy of the Aviation Herald website, this link should work. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt seem to be particlarly notable for an article but the flight comment Boeing subsequently developed a safety bulletin for Rolls-Royce-powered 747-400s to disable this reverser-based automated stowing. may make it worthy of a mention on 747-400 but I am not sure it is notable to the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if it's worth including under the aircraft, then it is also worth including under airline and airport too IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont hold a strong view either way but with the issue of a safety bulletin then I would not disagree with you on adding to all three articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)