User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 16

Re your WP:AVIATION ACR closures

Thanks for jumping in with that - it's probably better coming from a member of the aviation project. A few tips though:

• The instructions for closing WP:AV ACRs state that at least three supports are required for a pass. I don't think the Airbus article is quite there yet.
• It's normal (for milhist at least) to give the result of the review at the top of the review page when you close it. I suppose it's not really necessary as the outcome is obvious from the archiving and talk page, but it can be helpful.
• When you update the talk page template, you can also update the {{ArticleHistory}} template if you like (saves someone else doing it at a later date). I've done the Boeing 767 one.

There are detailed step-by-step instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Closing_an_A-Class_review. Admittedly these are written for milhist not aviation, but the general principles are the same. Hope this helps, and thanks again for stepping up :) EyeSerene^talk 09:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry new at this I counted the nom as a support on the A330, I will have a read of the Mil Hist version, thanks for the help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Continental Airlines

Hi Milborne. I want to ask you a question regarding the Continental Airlines article. Both United and Continental have absorbed or renamed some of CO's services (i.e. the airport lounges being renamed to "United CLub" and CO's frequent flyer program being phased out in favor of UA's MileagePlus frequent flyer program). Since the Continental name is soon being retired once both carriers receive a single operating certificate from the FAA that allows them to operate as one airline (under the name "United"), do we need to change any information to the infobox of the Continental article or does the entire article need to be kept historical once the merger is completed? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that we should keep the Continental article as it is and make the changes to the United article otherwise both articles will change to be the same, Continental will then be as you said an historical one. I think in time that the United article might need cutting down with the history and earlier stuff moved out to History of United Airlines article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben Gurion Airport

Hi MilborneOne

Can I report my problem?

Karparthos 10:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karparthos (talk • contribs)

Given enough rope

See here. - BilCat (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted, I still am concerned that he actually has a WP:COMPETENCY problems as well which are not helping him understand our policies particularly on copyright issues. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Also, he continues to misunderstand (volitionally or not, I don't know) what WP's purpose is, especially in adding unsourced info that he thinks is important, even though it can't be sourced.

Oh well, as I often say, the main problem with an encylopedia that any one can edit is that anyone does! I think we might evetually see a fork of WP that doesn't bother with sourcing requiremnts, and that becomes the mega-blog that some people already think it is, possibly on one of the hundreds of WP mirrors and clones that already clutter up the Ghits. many of those "miros" already violate copyrights by not stating the content is from WP, so why shouldn't they allow new plagirized content too? - BilCat (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Breguet, and matters arising thereof

Hi. I saw you'd done a bit of housekeeing on the Breguet L-1 (or whatever, extended whinge about assigning names to early aircraft types omitted), & so thought I'd pester you with a few problems I'm having in this area. The big problem is of course finding anything in print that I have access to. I only got involved in this area because of the 1912 British Military Aeroplane Competition article, & blithely thinking that manufactures/designers such as Caudron, Depurdussin or Breguet should be represented by WP articles, I started looking at the early French stuff. Which is truly horrible. There's a detailed cri de coeur on the Breguet type III talk page, btw, & edit summaries are getting increasingly snippy. But the thing I need help with is more about WP's internal working. In particular there's an article for 'Canard Voisin' which should be 'Voisin Canard'. but 'Voisin Canard' exists & is a redirect to 'Canard Voisin'. There is also an image file 'Breguet III' which is a later (mid -gap fuselage) Breguet. Renaming seems to be impossible. There are also quite a lot of redirects that either link to a different aircraft or simply to the manufacturr, where there isno mention of the type. All contributions gratefully receivedTheLongTone (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Were you not going to bed with a good book or have you decided to carry on! seriously articles and redirects can be moved easily depend on circumstances. If you think nobody would be bothered and you have a good reason you can just move it although if you are unsure or want to be safe then a note on talk page helps, leave it for a while and see if anybody objects then move it. You can raise a more formal move request but I suspect on the little watched articles that you are in a note on the talk page is probably enough. If the "target" already exists then you will not be able to move it and need an admin to move it, you can just leave me a note and I can see to it for you. Images are not so easy as they are on commons and you have to make a rename request there. Redirects can just be edited to make them point to the right place. Redirects from types to manufacturers are a pain as it makes people think with a blue link that the article exists. Normally to difficult to delete them in the past I have found it easier to just right the article! Any questions then please ask. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That was last night, and ironically the good book is 'Lord of the Flies'. Anyway, thanks...some of the redirects I could do, the article would be of the 'err, I heard about this aircraft' variety, the real problem being nomenclature. For instance, I think the Deperdussin A, B, & C are minor variants of the smae aircrft, and the next real Depurdussin type is the TT... whose article is illustrated with a picture of the example of the ealier machine in the Shuttleworth. Its just that I'm a good boy & don't like surmise. The 'circular' Voisin canard thing should be sorted, though.

Ben Gurion Airport

Hello, I want to share with you a problem that I have with a user KARPARTHOS. Two weeks ago, the user started to open edit war against me (I will not lie that I resumed with it and I know that was wrong and I should report immediately). He began to add seasonal operations for almost every airline (without proof) or even delete airlines (without proof). At one point he began to submit proof that only strengthen my claim that he was wrong for example: AIR MALTA, the airline operates charter flights all the year on the Tel Aviv - Malta route. The user decided that this airline operates seasonal flights and added proof that it contradicts his claim, which says simply that the airline operates flights to Israel but did not say at all that the airline operates seasonal flights to Tel Aviv. Another example, The airline TRAVEL SERVICE operating flights between Prague-Tel Aviv all the year and seasonal flights between Tel Aviv-Budapest, but KRPARTHOS decided to delete Budapest and write that the airline operating seasonal flights to Prague and after 7 days he delete Travel Service from the article and he didnt added some proof and he knows himself that was not true. Smart Wings operates seasonal flights to Bratislava for Travel Service. I must say it was written all over on the nespaper and on the internet and I have attached true proof. But, the user decided to delete it.Same thing happened with BRUSSELS AIRLINES CROATIA AIRLINES, VUELING and CZECH AIRLINES(the airline continues to operate flights to Tel Aviv and I've proven). In addition, a friend of KARPARTHOS, called RADIO FAN, decided (and I'm still in shock) that there are airports in Tiberias, Jerusalem (Closed), Nazareth, Acre and the Dead Sea. As an Israeli I can tell you confidently that there are no Airports there!. Radio Fan decided that Arkia Airlines operating flights to this places and delete ALL the international routes of Arkia. He gave false evidence that says there the most visited places in Israel (Dead Sea, Tiberias...) that Arkia Organized for tours (Arkia is also a travel agency). Karparthos continues to add this wrong places and he ignored from the proof that I gave to him. I can tell you confidently that he doing it on purpose and I don't know why he doing it.He treats me badly, he wrote to me an statement comment like that he need to find a special solution for me.He continues to lie, he writes to people so they would think I'm destroying the value and it's insulting and annoying. Please help me!--Assaf050 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone who is registered did something strange to the M31 HEAT rifle grenade

Dear Milborne, I really don't know what that person was up to on the M31 HEAT rifle grenade but it was very extensive with no bases of any facts. But unlike most vandalism the person is registered. It is just strange? And it is not a good faith edit. It is like they are daring anyone to do anything Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a new editor Jack, I have left a note on their talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed at AN

Dolovis (talk · contribs) is currently under a ban from moving pages. Per discussions held at WP:AN, there is a supported proposal to relax the ban to a restriction that he cannot move pages involving diacritics (these would need to be proposed via WP:RM) but allow him to move other pages. An uninvolved admin is needed to rubberstamp the request. Would you mind taking a look and maybe doing the honours? Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not quick enough it appears to have been closed already by another admin. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Landing flare

Hi, this is a courtesy note to say that I have pulled the Prod from Landing flare. Though this is a well sourced page, I can well see why it may not be appropriate to be a standalone article. I am no expert in this subject, but my respectful view is that a merge to Landing is a better solution than outright deletion. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you review a FAC?

Hi MilborneOne, as a Wikipedia who has an intimate knowledge of aviation, and thus can judge whether the article involved is worthy of FA-status or not, can you please have a look at a FAC that is stalling quite badly? The article is McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, and the FAC can be found here. Please do not think what I'm doing here is canvassing (!), because Ucucha, one of the FAC delegates, says that I can ask some specific people like you to comment on the article, to get the ball rolling again. Can you do me a favour and either "Support" or "Oppose" the article? The FAC doesn't have any objections at the moment, but I hate to see FACs go down because of a lack of interest instead of the articles being non-FA worthy. Cheers! ;)

I will keep an eye on it but with all of Bushrangers minor comments I think they need to be cleared up first before I look at the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping! :) Sp33dyphil © • © 02:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Rousfo

I noticed your revert of User:Rousfo here. He seems to be adding almost random photos to articles, often poor quality images, or with small thumb sizings, or out of place in the section he adds them. He's even added a duplicate image, per this diff. He seems to already know how to add images, so I doubt he's a new user. Something about this user's style seems very familiar to me, particulary the "'I see dead people'" quote on his talk page with nothing else. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood I am keeping an eye on his/her edits, seems strange to just randomly add images, perhaps just trying to be of help but may not understand English as they mostly dont do edit summaries. Which is strange when the last edit to Landing Signal Officer suddenly has an edit summary! MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Have a nice break in France

Sounds lovely, enjoy your time off! - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, managed to visit two bits of Canada! while I was away the Juno Beach Centre and the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial on the Somme. Also a first visit to the impressive but thought provoking Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial. We will remember them. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you have seen two Canadian sites I haven't! There are lots of Canadians buried in France. Sounds like a good trip. - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock it to me

I have not, no. Thanks for the alert - I'll open an SPI in a moment. Smells like him, alright. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI opened. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any time. Thanks for pointing it out to me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've tagged the article in question for G5. If this is truly Northern Ireland's deadliest crash it probably deserves an article - but this isn't it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion required

Hello MilborneOne. May I ask you to give your opinion here? Some words from an experienced editor in the field will shed light into the discussion. Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - commented in appropriate place. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

EasyJet

Hi. It is possible to protect the EasyJet page please? No matter how many times people are told they are removing the 737-700 from the fleet table. There are some registered to the airline on the UK Aircraft register. I have added hidden notes but people still ignore them. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Quiet at the moment so I cant protect it - I have added a note to say that they are being returned to lessor but as you say the are still legally registered to EasyJet so should remain listed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2 more edits again this morning. I have reverted them both but i cant do another due to the 3 revert rule. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Watching - I have added the retirement date as 2011 as one is at Kemble to be scrapped and other will follow shortly. Agree still needs to be in the fleet table until de-registered but as both show change in registered owner in progress it will not be long before we can remove them. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok Ace, just out of curiosity where do you find out such info about one be scrapped? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the airline mailing lists which gave a link to http://www.flickr.com/photos/egbj/6308647483/in/set-72157627626665741 for EZKD landing at Kemble. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016

Please discuss your objections to the LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 article on the talk page prior to wholesale deletions of referenced material. Would like to have a wide-as-possible consensus on the article. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I have commented on my and others "wholesale deletion" of guff on the relevant talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Aircraft Template

Sorry about the modification to the Aircraft Infobox Template, I'll ask before modifying next time. 707 (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Gruss gott from Austria; in a word, yes, as well as the IP User you reverted at No. 33 Squadron RAF. YSSYguy (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked over that Sea King accident article and went deaf from the quacking, the Gazelle accident article accident just iced the cake - or should I say orange sauced the duck? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it in the appropriate place Bushranger. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The sad thing is a lot of these accidents probably should have articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree which is why I created 1953 Nutts Corner Viking accident, one Ryan's favourite for recreating. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why a new user User:BBCX11 would have the Sea King article on watch, perhaps they come in pairs. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

BBCX11 ryanisms in the deleted 2011 M5 accident was raod accident on the M5 motorway, vehicles was destoyed by a fireball. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Whack-a-duck! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, seeing things in motion like the above is one of the most satisfying/motivating factor I think one might get for our volunteer work here on WP. Cheers~! *hick* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn straight; I went out to dinner and when I got back, I found that all this stuff had happened to banish sockpuppets left, right and centre. Great work! Mmmmm, orange sauce....(gurgling noises follow). YSSYguy (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another one for you duck hunters to watch User:Tina 56 MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting SPI result. Even more interesting manifesto from the man, the legend himself. Should we go to AN/I to formalise a ban? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The boy (or girl) needs a new hobby! although I think he/she likes the attention, but they are taking up a lot of our time to whack them back into the sock draw. MilborneOne (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• I second the motion to gather community support on ANI for a ban on the annoying thing. Supreme facepalm of destiny... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm If he/she/it put all that effort into learning English properly and following WP guidelines, they might make a decent WP user. Some people would rather just reign in their hot little corner of hell than to serve in WP heaven. Well, I'm all for turning up the heat! :) - BilCat (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Turning it up for the purpose of cooking brats? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

Duck, apparently. ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And now roast duck for everybody, as he's going, going, gone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Back again I think, this time as User:Volmont, creator of 2011 United Kingdom Red Arrows accidents. It stinks to high heaven of him. Anytime any of you guys sees an edit adding a redlink for an aircrash article into an existing article, assume that it is him - that is part of his editing style. As in this case, he then usually goes on to creating the article itself - unless the User account is blocked first - often using a copy-and-paste, and almost always butchering the english language in the process. He is also fond of creating "air crashes in country X" categories. Anyway, now that the ban is in place, what happens as far as SPI etc. goes? I don't know whether these processes must still be followed or not. Also, wasn't there an article on at least one of these crashes that got deleted? YSSYguy (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's "block on sight, G5 on sight, report to SPI for sleepers". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP that popped up to "polish" that article is deafening in its quacking as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would be the IP that made edits to List of terrorist incidents, 2011 a couple of months back. That's a safe bet; most of the IPs in the edit history for that article would be him I reckon. YSSYguy (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Brand-new User:Airbust is serially PRODding articles originally created by Rk prior to his first block. So far seven articles have been tagged in the space of eight minutes. The User has made no other edits at this time. YSSYguy (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, watching, as far as I know we dont need to remove articles that are notable before he/she was originally blocked. Although they probably all need a klen up of the bed langage. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Started to tag articles as G5 by banned user, Airbust has been blocked do we need to raise a SPI to look for any smelly footwear? MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Added him to the SPI to check for additional socks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And five more bagged. Geez! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger for the SPI work, supports my block on sight at least we dont have to wait for the SPI we can just "wack on quack". MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

One to watch User:C.A.I.A.F.N MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Quack!! 1992 Bristow Helicopters Super Puma crash - "The Britow helicopter crashed after take off from a oil platform off the Shetland island in bed weather and killed 11 of the 17 on bored." I've never heard of boredom for the passengers being the cause of a crash, but since he is so much smarter than the rest of us, perhaps he is correct. ;) Btw, is there a "Quack icon with th duck a la {{facepalm}}?  Looks like a duck to me- BilCat (talk)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me - G5s everwhere, indef, added to the SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger, he only managed four edits, well done guys. MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wirraways reserved for UK?

Hi MilborneOne, you asked on the Wirraway page if anyone knew about the 245 CA-1s which were reserved with the British serials between HP532 and HP843... I found some Australian War Cabinet documents which indicate that the "UK Government" ordered these aircraft as part of the Empire Air Training Scheme. So it would seem that they would have been built in Australia and used in Australia to train pilots there (my speculation). The order was cancelled by the Australian War Cabinet following the outbreak of war in the Pacific. What information do you have, we may be able to combine it and clarify the story on the Wirraway page. Cheers, Derek Derek B 10:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to conclude RSN & take action.

Hi, can you conclude the discussion[1] based on information provided (and verifying it) by both sides in discussion on consensus building. I guess you should take into consideration the massive canvassing being involved to tilt the discussion and its consequences. The User:dBigXray has posted a lot of repetitive comments calling in users sharing his POV [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (and many other places - I've lost count, one of the Indian project notice board was also there I guess). Another involved user, User:Swift&silent, who already has once been a sock-puppet suspect [7] and warned for editwars & vandalism related to the similar issues [8] [9] [10] is indulged in the same. A few other editors are being re-quoted in this consensus building from one of the previous inconclusive reviews of the cite also seem to be a tag team/canvassed as pointed out by another user in the same discussion as well as the canvassed editors I gave proofs for are now fully participating. I'm sure User:DBigXray would reply to this with my valid posts like informing the already involved editors labeling that as canvassing (probably including this one). In such conditions I'll like you to act in administrative capacity to handle the related issues and damage caused to the discussion without which it might be hard to resolve. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The conclusion got handled by another admin, but I think the other part needs a check. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft

Michael, you may remember that in Oct 2010, User:Thumperward put Template:Infobox aircraft up for deletion, per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 11#Template:Infobox Aircraft. In the end, no one supported my position of keeping the template with the large notice, and it was kept to be refactored. User:Thumperward did refactor it, but it doesn't work the way he intended it, and it is still a separate infobox, not a repeater for the new nested infoboxes as had stated he could do. Now, we have over 100 aircraft articles using this old outdated infobox, and several users have been using it as a regular infobox. It doesn't make sense to have two separate infoboxes formats that we have to keep updated, as is now being requested at Template talk:Infobox aircraft#Edit request from LikeLakers2, 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC). I'd like to restore the infobox back to what it was before User:Thumperward messed it up, but I'm not sure the best way to go about doing this. Thanks for any suggestions you may have. - BilCat (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that we added Category:Articles using Infobox aircraft in August so we could find and remove it from current articles, I dont think we have that many to convert, might be worth an effort so we can remove this, we must have discussed this at project? MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you and Nigel are both replacing the old infobox, so thanks. We still need some from of Template:Infobox aircraft so that the infobox shows correctly in the article hitories from before the change-over to the nested infoboxes. Rlandmann had plaeced a large "STOP" notice in the template, but that was what User:Thumperward objected. Unfortunatly, I wasn't able to gather any support for keeping it that way in the TFD. I had placed a notice at WT:AIR, but no one respinded. Of course, now Template:Infobox aircraft doesn't have the "STOP" notice, so it's being used in mainspaces by users such as Petebutt, probably inadvertantly, not realizing it's deprecated. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Down to about 70 odd now, perhaps we need to raise the adding of a stop notice or similar again. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's what we should do. The notice probably doens't have to be as large as the previous one was, assuming we can use something smaller. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jamiebijania

Hi. I would like to draw your attention to these edits 1 & 2 in the event something escalates. I would like edit number 2 to be removed as i would rather not have a personal attacked for all to see, but for me to do that i may get a reaction. Please could you help? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem User:Ahunt is quicker than me and has reverted the comment and warned the user, added article to watchlist but let me know if they are uncivil again. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt :-) --JetBlast (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I don't like people being impolite! - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look on this user page he has listed me on a "Black List", Is this allowed please? --JetBlast (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is incivil at least, but another admin has asked him to remove it. I don't think this editor will be around much longer at the rate he/she is going. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi me again. I dont want it to sound like i am picking a fight. I removed the users comments from my talk page and he reverted my edit. I overlooked this and revert it back. I then noticed on a edit notice on his talk page he is claiming to be an Administrator. After the last few days i highly doubt that. Maybe it should be removed? --JetBlast (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that he added user boxes indicting he is an admin and a bureaucrat, when he isn't. I removed them and told him not to do it again in the edit summaries, but I expect some escalation. I also let User:The Bushranger know, as he is also an admin and was watching the situation earlier. It would be helpful if User:MilborneOne would keep an eye on this as well, as I suspect we are going to need some admin action very soon. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, also there is one you missed on the edit notice page User talk:Jamiebijania/Editnotice --JetBlast (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed and the Bureaucrat user box on his user page and being watched. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi me again. Can i draw your attention to this please - Wikipedia:Administrator review/Jamiebijania --JetBlast (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tagged that for CSD and posted a firm warning on the user's talk page. (Also, I guess they consider the removal of the admin userboxes vandalism judging by the "this page has been vandalised twice" userbox...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit goes well beyond WP:CIVIL. He/she added this based on my removing a userbox saying he/she was an admin when they weren't. A review of his/her editing record shows a lot of disruption. I am not sure this person is here to build an encyclopedia. A block is going to be called for soon. - Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the userbox but not that. I've given a final warning...I also find the userbox saying they've created or siginificantly contributed to 103 featured articles to be rather...dubious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially since he or she has only 222 article edits. They seem to spend their time here doing other things than working on articles, so it is odd that they are trying to take credit for article work. - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Time to tighten the rope, methinks. - BilCat (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit, Bill. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I expect he'll shoot back over my revert in some way, and then we can spring the trapdoor! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll note this diff posted in response to my request to remove it - which did not accompany removal. Last straw waiting to be dropped. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect at the current rate of progress it will not be long. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

More like "now" - 48 hours for disruption - and immediately a loudly quacking account pops up... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Stranger and stranger. Add to that his accusations of racism on my part here, it's all quite odd. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiebijania‎. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I note the SPI turns up a direct match on the checkuser. I believe that calls for a much longer block. I note that the editor claims to have retired. One can only hope. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahunt - i doubt he has retired, he put that up before he appealed his ban. --JetBlast (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll see. Sockpuppeting is worth a ban. 13:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree he should be blocked longer, but given I imposed the initial block I'm a tad hesitant to unilaterlly extend it myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hum difficult, blocks are not meant as punishment and they are unlikely to create socks before the block expires, but on the otherhand I suspect it will not be long before they get into trouble again. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

He's back fom his expired block, unretired, and has already created 2 Chelsea FC-related articles an probable non-notable people. As I know nothing about UK football, I'll leave those articles to others to judge. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He told The Bushranger he has reformed as well. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that, we have to assume good faith but it doesnt stop us keeping an eye on him/her. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I do note that the reason for his "reform" is fear of BR/others, not a recognition that his actions were in any way problematic. Time will tell! - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Time is not on our side, the school holidays in Singapore is about to start for the 15 year old nuisance. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ICON A5

I suspect PSportoVeloce (talk · contribs) is associated with ICON Aircraft (he's a SPA at least with regards to them); I've left the canned COI notice on his talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lufthansa Flight 502

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1959 Transair Douglas Dakota accident

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1953 Nutts Corner Viking accident

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reckless Editing

Hello, thank you for your edit on my user page. However, i request that you do not screw up the formatting for the page, i had to go to the trouble of realigning everything. I know you are an admin and i hope you do not abuse your powers by screwing up user pages. Thank you :) Jamiebijania (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reckless Editing ? not sure removing a declaration that you were a Bureaucrat is really reckless. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure, MB - it's not reckless in any way. ;) - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Watch out, a 15 year old having a lot of time to spare during his school holiday now (in Singapore, that is) is a potent force to be reckoned with. As a rule, my kids are not allowed to switch on their computers without either one of us parents being around so they're less likely to get into trouble unlike the above. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Neil Williams (pilot)

Hi, what is your source for adding in this article that he died in an aviation accident in Spain? If it is true I would like to know it to improve the article.Regards--AeroPsico (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just one of those well known things he died ferrying a Heinkel bomber (probably a CASA 2.111) back to the UK, it is certainly in his obituary and newspapers of the time, if I get time later on I will add a few references and details to the article. His wife also died in the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nigel Ish who has added an appropriate text and reference for the death. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

SriLankan Airlines and Times archive

Here an IP editor removed info from the SriLankan Airlines article that was cited to the Times website and apparently "is not verified and is no longer available". As I believe you have access to the Times archive, it may be helpful if you check whether the removed paragraph was backed up by the cite.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the Times archive is only 1785-1985 so doesnt cover 2007, it doesnt sound particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This article from Flight International appears to give some credance to the story, although it isn't clear whether the Predent was successful in getting rid of Peter Hill.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy/guideline/whatsit anyway that says if the information in a reference was once available it can be kept? Or am I imagining things? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also - ta-daaa! The Internet Archive to the rescue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fun at Hawker Hunter

Can you have a look at Hawker Hunter - there appears to be an edit war going on about the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. A few heads mey need banging together.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have locked down the article to encourage them to discuss it on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't decide whether India vs. Pakistan or India vs. China is the more..."intersting"...match to watch here on Wiki. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It could get worse try understanding India map dispute between Wikipedia and the BJP's youth wing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

... Facepalm and here I thought Tejas vs JF-17 spilling over to the KAI T-50 article was bad. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Try working with engineers from both countries in my work place for a change! Some of them aren't "intersted" in furthering their parent countries quarrel while others relish at the sight of another showdown on foreign soil, even though their Super (ahem!) are watching their nonsense. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

After taking the effort to patch the article up earlier this year, I find it a pity that it has become a plaything of nationalist agendas... Thanks for protecting it. Kyteto (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO "TopGun" is a passionate editor, but his...POV shows sometimes. (At RSN, too.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• As usual, the Indians and the Pakistanis can never get along well, even in cyberspace. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And now the edit-warring has moved to Folland Gnat. Sigh.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Need someone with advance wiki programing skills at Carbon dioxide

Milborne, first references #68 and #69 are not mine, and while I looked at them to see if I could fix the red notice, I did not touch or attempt to edit the programming. The problem is way beyond my pay grade. Could you have someone with advance knowledge of multiple references to take a look at the Carbon dioxide page reference section. You can't miss the two bold red type. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem occured in this edit. He seems to be a user in good standing. Another user has posted on his talk page asking him to fix the errors by supplying the correct refs. We'll see what he does, and how long it takes. - BilCat (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BilCat, it appears the original contributer has now added the refs required. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BMI

Hi, a user has moved BMI (airline) > British Midland International. I have not seen a discussion on this. Please can i have some advice regarding this matter? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not a bad move British Midland International is widely used on the airlines website, although normally as bmi, British Midland International. It is a fairly recent change to the brand name which has always been legally British Midland Airways, if you have dont like it then raise it on the article talk page rather than reverting as the move appears to be a good faith move. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Southwest

Hi, please can you tell me what you think about this, thanks --JetBlast (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably a bit over the top, certainly worth a mention but it is not as bad as the fanboy fest at Frontier Airlines fleet. MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1959 TAI Douglas DC-7 accident

Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

An accident for you

The crash of Graham Hill's Piper Aztec is probably just notable enough for an article, given the fact that it involved a wikinotable person, the aircraft's registration had expired and that the pilot's IFR had expired. Would you like to have a go? Official report is online. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I remember a bit of a fuss at the time a classic case of gethomeitus, I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to avert an obvious edit war

See: "Sabre Slayer: controversy. FWiW, I've done all I can ... Bzuk (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Watching, I have left a note about not starting an edit war. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Need urgent input for WP:AIRPORT

Hi MilborneOne! We need some consensus quickly regarding listing of UA/CO destinations in airport articles. Please come to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#CO.2FUA_SOC_2011-11-30 at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, HkCaGu (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Self redirect

You created Gowland Jenny Wren, a self-redirect. I assume you meant to redirect it to a more useful target. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for that it should be Luton Minor. MilborneOne (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)