User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 18

Listing of London Southend Airport

A lot of IPs are changing the destination for this airport. Is Southend Airport a airport serving London, UK? 68.113.120.216 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody from London itself would go to Southend to catch an aircraft it is just a bit of marketing exercise, take EasyJet for example they are trying to capture a local market that has nothing to do with London. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Partenair Mystere

Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

British Airways flight 2157

Hi, i thought you might be interested, i have marked British Airways flight 2157 for deletion. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am a new user and I think it is a good article on an incident that you almost certainly must of heard about, considering where you live! On a different note, I am trying to fix my third ribbon bar on my userpage. If you get a chance, please could you see if you can fix the link so that it looks like yours. Thanks! BritAirman (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RAF Tempsford

Hi, I'm wondering why you removed the parent category from this article. You are much more experienced than me, so I'm sure there is a good reason. Mark126 19:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark126 (talk • contribs)

Because it was already in the Category:Royal Air Force stations in Bedfordshire which is a sub-category of Category:Royal Air Force stations in England so I removed the parent 'England' category. Defeats the category tree if you use all the categories at the same time, in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryan senses...tingling...

I'm suspecting that User:YouKnowTheStuff might be our old friend, or recruited by him. [1] [2]. I'm not 100% sure though...his spelling/grammar seems (if it were possible) to be worse - is he quacking in your opinion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - saw where he commented he was from NYC and Ryan's from the UK. Hopefully his spelling will improve. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Still a bit strange - comments at User talk:Buggie111 indicates he/she has been here before, just need to keep an eye on them. MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

RAF Stations in England

Re your removal of the tag on category Category:Royal Air Force stations in England that says it includes RAF station articles in the “county” subcategories, I added that for a reason, so that articles on English RAF stations can be found wothout having to know or hunt through the “county” subcategories. That is what the tag “Allincluded” is for and it is a recognised part of Wikipedia. It does not mean as you say re RAF Tempsford above that articles appear in “all” subcategories. What is the procedure for appealing against your decision? Hugo999 (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to raise it at WP:MILHIST project. 13:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Category:Royal Air Force stations in England for comment. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

List of airlines of India

Hi. Could you please give your opnion on whether the sections: Revenue by Airline and Profit / Loss by Airline are appropriate for this article. Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 04:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Commented. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Could you have a look at my talk page (and recent contribs) please? I'm slightly concerned that I am being accused of something I haven't done. I could take it to ANI if you don't wish to comment. Cheers and Happy New Year BTW. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger has commented on your talk page and I agree with his comments, nothing wrong with your comments although User:Eddaido probably needs to read WP:CIVIL, it would be nice if he/she apologised. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did wonder what I'd done exactly to deserve the comments. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Aviation Safety Network

Milborne, you seem to be getting slightly confused over the provenance of the Aviation Safety Network as a reliable source. The best way is to think of it as two websites in one. The ASN database is a reliable source. Info is checked before it is published, and sources are given in many cases. The ASN wikibase should be treated the same as any other Wiki (i.e, not a RS). Many accidents do start off by being posted on the Wikibase, and the more serious of them may progress to the Database as info becomes availabe. Less serious accidents involving airliners may remain covered on the Wikibase, as is the case with Air India 829. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the "wikibase" is I only have seen the asn database which as a self-published source is not really reliable in wiki terms. I know we use it mainly because it is available and easy but in the end they should not be used if the article goes up the assesment scale. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

ASN database

ASN Wikibase

ASN may be self-published, but items on the database are checked and often sources are given, which is why I believe that part of the website passes RS. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your contribution on Aviation related matters. Cheers AKS (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-verifiable content Wiki page Boeing 306

The page in question is Boeing 306. I have several issues: 1) There exists a helicopter with that designation, nothing like what is on that page. 2) A fabric and wood design model was constructed at Boeing, post WW2, some of whose design drawings bore the designation model 306, but was of a different scale and intent from what is described on that page. 3) I found NO relevant information on anything Boeing on either online reference. 4) Reference is made in the page to "blended wing body" and linked to valid data in that topic, BUT the WHOLE BWB activity at Boeing post dates the WW2 era work by half a century and has nothing to do with helicopters (the real Boeing 306). 5) claims are made to the use of fuselage designs from XB-15 and Boeing model 314, BOTH of which because they share a wing design, are incompatible with a claimed delta wing. 6) The page references real information about a real engine, but the reference is bogus by the assertion on the page that no aircraft was never built. 7) All the physical design details given (except size) apply to the small design model that was never built and had nothing to do with either the XB-15 proposal nor the commercial Model 314.

I dare say none of the specified variants were ever even designed. Please help, this page is using a name that needs to contain content about the very real Boeing 306 Helicopter.

I beg your indulgence, I joined Wiki as a contributor some years ago and have added a few pages of content that have survived review. Today I find a totally bogus entry, and I do not know how to call attention to it or pose a challenge. I note in the edit log that you touched it once, thus I attempt to enlist your aid.

Thanks for any assistance you can be. skylab72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylab72 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the request, I cant see any referencec or mention of the 306 being a Helicopter, what you need to do is explain all this on the article talk. You do need to give us some references and sources for the information on the helicopter and the users who watch that talk page will be able to help and advise, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

<Unretiring for 2 minutes to make this comment!> I've commented at Talk:Boeing Model 306. BilCat (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Just a "heads up" here, but apparently there is some conjecture as to bias in the article that an anon has used as the basis of some radical reverting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, I did notice, they really need to explain what they dont like on the talk page one point at a time would help. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205

Don't know what happened here, but it appears to be a "midnight" move when no one was watching. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger has moved it back again! it could do with a better title but hiding inside an article on Meucci or some obscure congress motion number is probably not the answer, I had never heard of Meucci until a few weeks ago I had to read his article although it is a bit of a pov mess. MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be more of an issue of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing involved; reading a past edit history of one of the main participants was particularly [illuminating]. FWiW, a bit of a Napoleonic complex is seemingly involved. Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I must confess this is heading in the direction of winding up on WP:LAME... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi M, sorry to drag you into this sordid mess, but the comments made by one of the participants have now "gone over the edge" and are very similar to the mIckMac syndrome of another Wiki editor. This is now beyond WP:Tendentious editing and is symptomatic of an uncivil editor, who needs at the very least, a "slap on the wrists." A number of ANIs have been started but various admins have shied away from the issue of conduct because of the "positive" record of contributions, yet, the editor has left a illuminating record of confrontations and arbitrary actions that belie this contention that a valuable contributor is at work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific, the editor in question has previously derided other editors who opposed his/her actions with comments such as others "just show up and scrawl an X with a crayon", and was asked to moderate his comments, then continued with calling out those that opposed the arbitrary merge and move actions as "cranks." I know this sounds petty but the MO revolves around similar behaviour as well as triggering a number of ANI requests. FWiW, the issue is not the content canard, it is WP:Uncivil conduct. Bzuk (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

Rafale... promotion ??? or UK promotion ???

Hi MilborneOne ! see the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multirole_combat_aircraft#Promotion_of_Rafale.2C_you_say_.3F
I really don't understand, I can't see NPOV in 'your' Rafale page, please answer on the Multirole talk page.AirCraft (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

Hi MilborneOne I have become suspitious of a pair of editors that I believe may be the same user sockpuppeting. From my understanding, as an admin you have knowledge of certain tools to investigate the truth of the matter, hopefully it'll find that I'm just paranoid - can you make a reply on my talkpage, and I'll respond back with the usernames? Kyteto (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, my suspitions of their editing patterns have risen to the point where I now feel that it is appropriate for me to mention their names: User:VHiTek and User:AirCraft - the mimickery of topics and very similiar agendas, as well as both users showing up at the same time in the last two weeks, I would see this as more than coincidence. Perticularly pertinenant is that one account now is speaking up to support the 'other' user; if it is a sockpuppet, he's basically just agreeing with himself under another identity. Even their writing patterns show distinct similarities. Can an IP trace be performed? Kyteto (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont have anything special to detect socks you really need to raise it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations but although they are supporting each other it is not clear they are the same yetbut worth keeping an eye on. I dont think being part of the Rafale fan club is against the rules. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I've raised the matter there. I hope my suspitions are wrong - with some work, this editor could have fitted in well perhaps. Kyteto (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Burton/Southwest Airlines Flight 1763

An editor[3] is trying to redirect the Burton article over to the Southwest one so the incident can be listed at List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. He apparently didn't know the independent article rule at first, then tried adding it again even though I told him it didn't fit the criteria, then took the third route of attack namely copying the Burton article verbatim over into the Southwest article. I just told him to try bringing this up for discussion. Your two bits on this is appreciated. Reply back here, I'll keep an eye out for your input.- William 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll interject here with my POV...

My very first edit to that article did meet the "independent article rule". I explicitly stated that in my revised edit, in that the Burton article was the article about the flight incident. It just happened to be titled under the killed passenger's name. The article did not say anything about Burton's life outside of the flight. The entire article's focus was and is the flight incident. My "third route of attack" was simply to conform to the unstated "no redirects" policy, so I retitled the Burton article to be the Flight article, which it had been in the first place. I saw my last solution as totally adequate, yet this entire effort was reverted.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to see what went wrong here perhaps the original page blanking did not help and the re-creation of the article with a cut and paste from Burton should not really have been done (it breaks the contribution history). As the Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 is a cut and past copy it should be deleted as a copyright violation but once the AfD has been raised you should not really mess about with the article. I will raise it at the AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added comments at the Afd to close it down and revert the Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 article back to a redirect, the merge discussion needs to be closed and efforts on renaming or deletion concentrated on the Jonathan Burton article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how anything I did could be seen as a copyright violation. The only net effect of what I did with the Burton/SWA1763 article(s) was change its title.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answering your post-closing statement at the AfD - the article probably should be at the flight-number title, instead of the person's name. But the way to do that is through WP:RM, not by cutting-and-pasting. I happen to agree, by the way, with regards to the desired move/titling, so I'll go ahead and start the RM process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. I had no idea about copyright within Wikipedia. Fascinating!--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Cargo flights

Are they supposed to be on the commercial aircraft accident list? For example 2011 Pointe-Noire Trans Air Congo An-12 crash and Asiana Airlines Flight 991.

Also so far as crash articles go, are there different criteria for cargo flights?- William 16:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The commercial list has its own guideline at Wikipedia:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format which allows accidents to big cargo aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1962 Avensa Fairchild F-27 accident

Since you created the article, I thought I'd bring a few things to your attention that I discovered about this crash.

I noticed you made a small contradiction in the article(writing Fokker F27 instead of Fairchild F-27 one), so I went and double checked the facts. One of the sources I have available to me is a subscription to Newspaper archive.

It was a Fairchild F27, and I went about making that fix but what else I discovered is that a 1962 news article contradicts several facts about the flight.

• The death toll in the newspaper accounts say 22 not 23
• More importantly, the 1962 newspaper say the plane crashed while attempting to land at Porlamar and that Porlamar was the destination of the flight. The article as you have it written, says the plane had taken off from Porlamar.

I can do a screen capture and email(After you provide me a email address) you a copy of the newspaper story or can you WP:AGF? Before fixing the article, I wanted your input. Please write back here.- William 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to AGF on the newspaper but I have just checked the original CAA source and it does says 23, three crew and 20 passengers and is also says approx 10 minutes after take-off for a scheduled flight to Cumana. (also note ASN [4] has 23 and says it was going Porlamar to Cumana and air disaster has 23 [5]) perhaps the figures were revised after the accident and the publication of the paper. Sorry, the Fokker bit was just my error. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll leave the rest of the article as written. That CAA world accident report wouldn't have anything on either a Air France or Viasa Flight 742 crashes that also happened in Venezuela and taking place in 1969? Facts about those incidents are scarce.- William 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much but I have added a little bit of detail to the Air France article but nothing really on the Viasa Flight that it not already in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft edit war

I've reported it to the administrator board for WP:3RR but thought I'd drop you a heads up if you're on wikipedia right now.- William 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that it doesnt actually need the 2012 until we have an accident but that said it not worth edit warring over, it should have been discussed on the talk page and then help sought from others to resolve. If nobody answers your request at the edit warring page I will leave a note on Greggy123s user talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

KLM Destinations

Even if the UK is a country, what is the actual problem with my edits to KLM destinations? England is a country, of that there is no doubt. So is Scotland and the rest. My edits were perfectly correct and more accurate, but the first person to revert them did so after accusing me of vandalism and entering incorrect information! As you're a lot more experienced than me, please explain exactly what the problem is? Thanks. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the word country has more than one usage, in the destinations lists we normally list sovereign countries not former countries that are really just administrative regions of the United Kingdom. I suggest you look at the FAQ on the subject at Talk:United Kingdom which explains the different uses as related to the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I'm not sure how this is to be handled. Since you're a Wikipedia administrator, I thought I'd go to you. At least two paragraphs of the biographical part of the article on Lydia Ko has been copied from this website.[6]. I didn't take it any further than two paragraphs. Take the name Lydia off the first paragraph at Seoul Sisters and they are word for word the same.

How is something like this handled? Can you report it rather than me because I'm not sure how to do it. Please write back here and thanks.- William 20:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that William, I have removed the copied section and put a warning on User:Vkatmu talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Destination linking for table format

Since we are now in a table format for airport destinations, a discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airlines_and_Destinations_tables on whether or not to link the destinations as well. If you get a chance, your comment is appreciated. We are trying to reach a firm consensus on this. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For helping protect Indian Air Force articles from Pakistani Users P$$K 11:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs)

Please note I have to protect all articles from disruption and vandalism it doesnt matter what the subject is or where the users come from. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things

1- I saw you tweaked my recently created article Linea Aeropostal Flight 253. Thank you for doing so. New articles aren't easy to write but I try my imperfect best.

• Some aviation editors may connect me only with AFD debates but I've created over a dozen crash articles plus the Aeropostal one. Northwest Airlink Flight 5719. 1973 Kano Nigeria Air Disaster, Royal Air Maroc Flight 630, Air France Flight 212, Agadir air disaster, and articles on Viasa Flights 742 and 897 to name a few. I believe a commercial aviation incident with fatalities can have its own article but believe the vast majority of non fatal commercial accidents, plus fatal cargo or military accidents don't. Recentism is why so many unnecessary articles are created. An editor wants to do one about a 2012 cargo crash with two or three fatalities, when there are at least three accidents with over 100 fatalities that I know of that still don't have an article. (Here's one of them[7], Here's the 2nd[8], and here's the third[9]) If that isn't recentism, I don't know what is.

2- What would you name an article on this crash?[10] Take into account there was another Aeropostal crash that year. I'm thinking of writing an article on it- William 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember we have a few editors who will come along and tidy up new articles (eventually) so dont worry if they are not perfect. We have a lot of notable accidents in the 1950s and 1960s they need to be covered, so your efforts are appreciated. Although every fatal commercial accident is probably notable in the 1940s and 1950s a lot of aircraft crashed for various reasons so to document every DC-3 accident with a few people killed on each will take a lot of effort and may not be seem to be notable in the long run. I did start to create articles for accidents with more than 100 killed but we still have some missing. Your efforts with AfDs also help they get the current feeling of the community to such articles which can be used to refine what we create. So keep up the good work. The second crash doesnt have a flight number so according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Accident article naming conventions you should use <<year>> <<airline>> <<aircraft>> <<event>> and place a note at the top of the article about the other Constellation article. If you have any more questions then I am pleased to help when I can. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Special liveries sections

I have started a discussion here regarding your removals from SkyTeam, Star Alliance and Oneworld.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 767

I'm getting frustrated with a certain editor at this page. Three times I've tried rearranging or making the incidents section of the article NPOV but he reverts every time saying the article passed review so these tweaks are unnecessary. Nothing is ever perfect. The section also states opinion on whether water landings are survivable. Please take a look at my edits here[11], here[12], and here[13] and see if I'm off base. Maybe you can intervene for me. Thanks.- William 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are both right; User:Fnlayson is a long served aviation editor and he is trying to protect a featured article. But you are right in raising a question about the sentence survivors have been rare among instances of land-based aircraft ditching on water. as they appear to be talking about ditching with no victims, which Ethiopian wasnt. Suggest you raise your comments on the article talk page so they can be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has 2 references which I feel supports that ditching has been rare and that survivors have also been rare. If there are further issues with this please discuss on the article's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Avian Limited

Man you are fast! I hadn't even mentioned the existence of this article and you had the formation date up! Maybe I am getting too predictable doing them in alphabetical order? Regardless your help is much appreciated! If you have more info on the company please feel free to add it as the article is pretty skimpy right now! - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem I just happened to be on the new articles page when I saw it! MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have the World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2004-05 a year after the one you are using, I will check if it has anything different when I get time. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be super! Are you near Avian? - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No my nearest airfield is Gatwick! MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well. I was going to suggest if you were by the plant that a snap of the place would be good for the article! - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet

I reverted your edit on the 1 /2 seat issue because your opinion isn't a basis for removing content. As I said in the edit summary tag the offending line as "citation needed", provide a source that disconfirms the information I provided, or use the talk page.

I'll save you the trouble and tell you that the Alpha Jet A was a single seat aircraft. It's true that it (like the Alpha Jet E) was build with a two seat cockpit, but the A version carried extra communications and ECM gear on the second seatbearer rather than a second crew member. If you think about it a second crew member in such a small and relatively simple aircraft would have been redundant. Off hand I can't remember the source exactly, it was one of the (many) illustrated guides Bill Gunston wrote for Salamander in the 1980s. In any case the 1/2 to seat issue can be verified by any standard source, and I know because I used to own them all. I don't happen to have one handy at the moment, but I'm sure I could produce a web source in a few minutes.

Point is I don't think I should have to go out of my way to prove something that anyone can verify quite easily just because you don't "think" it's right! Lexington50 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You should, however, go out of your way to find a source before you change cited information - the specifications were cited to a very reliable source that states that all versions are two seaters - the burden of proof is on the person making the change to the cited information to justify the change.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11 Fazan

Orlady (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Mayday episodes

We're having a problem here with editors vandalizing the page by putting in unconfirmed episodes. Due to this page having a long history of editors putting in nonexistent episodes[14] or making edits based on original research[15], a consensus has been formed that nothing is listed till a reliable source states a new episode will be airing. The editors and their edits are here[16] and here[17]. Could you possibly address this to them? Thanks.- William 14:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've semi-protected the list for a week, for a start at least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Bushranger while I was away for an unexpected real life event. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We're having problems with IP vandals again. Can the page get protection again?- William 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, done (month). MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

jf-17

Hello, i saw that my edit had been reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder&diff=next&oldid=476913876 THe edit summary isn't quite clear and the relevant section on talk pages isnt updated, am i missing something ? would be helpful if you can comment on the talk page . regards --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Commented on talk page as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PIA

Agreement has been signed plus delivery schedule is also available on the following link: http://tribune.com.pk/story/336531/national-carrier-pia-to-improve-fleet-with-5-boeing-777s/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk-user (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

another link: http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=140263 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk-user (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem Pk-user but the source you supplied with the edit I reverted made no mention of an agreement being signed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Cats

Generally people don't need to discuss or seek approval to do work to categories on wikipedia - the categories I added, in context of other subjects were perfectly normal - eg if you have some objection to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by manufacturer , Category:Prototype and development unmanned aerial vehicles etc please say what they are. As for removal of categories, I only remove categories when addition categorisation has placed the page in a subcategory.

For more information see Wikipedia:Categorization. Please don't contact me seeking proof I had received permission to do useful work again.Mddkpp (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion at WT:CFD that "categories for creation" might be something to consider has merit, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good ide to have some sort of screening for cat creation, I know a few editors are spending a lot of time and effort tidying up and maintaining the current cat schemes but it only takes a few random cats to be created to defeat the objects of the cat schemes. Have you a link to the actual discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Category: Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents

All the persons I checked on this list are actually redirect pages to aviation incidents. This category IMHO should be deleted and all the redirect pages too. What purpose does it serve? I'd like to hear what you think and how would I propose these for deletions and what rationale to use.- William 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh! need to raise the category for deletion at WP:CfD and the individual re-directs also need to be nominated (there is a redirects for discussion page somewhere), nearly all of them are not actually mentioned in the target articles so clearly not notable. Wait till I have more time and I will see if I can help with nominating them etc. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to help with the redirects for discussion. Here's the page we'd have to nominate them at.[18]. There could be as many as 312 redirects for deletion. I'm predicting 20 or less articles direct to the page. Hemmingway, the amazon jungle survivor, the stewardess who fell five to six miles and a handful of others. Would the category be worth keeping then?

When you write directions for the redirects for discussion, write as if you are speaking to someone not very savvy with computers. That's me.- William 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Have not forgotten this it is on my todo list. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some have been raised at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 25 MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Cecilia Cichan

Twice articles about her were either deleted or redirected. Somebody wrote an article where a redirect page was but I converted it back to a redirect. Was I right in doing that?- William 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As a WP:BOLD move it wasnt wrong, just need to see if anybody objects. Unlike some of other redirects that need looking at this girl is mentioned in the article so should be ok as a redirect. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ryan...again! ?

90.215.158.40 (talk · contribs) is quacking somewhat as it's been doing one of Ryan's favourite things: recategorising "Aviation Accidents in the United Kingdom" articles to England, Scotland etc. - the thing is, this is all he's done so far, so I'm not quite certain, can you take a look? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, noticed it - one of his favourite things, watching the pond for more ripples if the duck splashes about. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm quite certain it's him; the IP is in a range known to be used by Ryan's IP socks and the IP's edits are all over my watchlist, which consists mostly of articles either created by Ryan and his socks or which have been the previous focus of his attention. In other words, the IP is only editing articles already known to Ryan and is engaged in behaviour typical of Ryan. Downside School is a prime example; IMO this edit is Ryan's work, especially the misplaced categorising; and I am in no doubt that this edit changing the category is him as well. YSSYguy (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's quacking loudly enough. Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• BR, methinks you have to salt his user page to prevent the needless delivery of templates and messages since he has been BANNED by the community. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• That'd be pepper, not salt, but good point - I've protected both the user and talk pages fully, that should be a sufficent dose of Bot-B-Gon! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jawohl~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pepper and salt - is it going to be a roast duck. Good work guys. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Duck à l'orange! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm ... MB1, stop mentioning duck or we'll see BR salivating all day long. See the above? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Skelmersdale* Cadet Forces

Please bear with me as I am not upto speed with wiki. I have broadened the page to include two other organisations. This way it is not deleted.--Yuusha (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it is still not notable, adding more cadet units doesnt make it notable. Although moving the article is likely to confuse the discussion you need to explain why you think it is notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1439 (Skelmersdale) Squadron so others can make a judgement on it, thanks. 23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disturbing rationale

• Ramy A330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hey MB1, see this edit summary, he did that on Cathay Pacific after he removed the entire incident section from Singapore Airlines, I got a feeling that it is the same troll trying to get a response from me. Help? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave him a stern warning regarding threats of disruption - and got this gem in reply... Facepalm - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Noticed that, see what I meant by a certain being living under them bridges? My nose can smell one from more than a mile away, that much I can say. Thanks again, guys. Cheers~! (PS:MB1, is it me or it is beginning to smell of that shameless HongKong Scania-whats-his-name-again???) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hum - anybody else use the two edits to slow down reverts trick? MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• You tell us! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Afternoon MilborneOne. Can I try you with a couple of copyright issues?

i) I've just started a page on the Caproni Ca.125 which has no images. There are images with the Italian Wiki article It:Caproni Ca.125, though these come with a warning about transfer to Wiki Commons based on the possible incompatibility Italian copyright laws. These particular images come from a work published in 1935, meeting the published >70 years, unknown photographer condition, so I hoped they could be reloaded into Wiki Commons under a standard copyright. Could remove the green hue at the same time. If this route is legal, it would help with other pre-1935 Capronis.

ii) I started getting a bit excited by images in Mason's British Flight Testing. There are many pre-1952 CC photos, including a lot of slightly obscure aircraft for which we have no photos. However, the book is quite recent(1993) and that will be the date of first publication, I suppose, and will rule out transfer to Wiki Commons?

No rush at all but any thoughts/rulings welcome. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ii)Crown copyright is based on the date the photo is taken, so should not be affected by publication date. I don't think that Commons is concered with publication rights, so I think they should be OK.

i) Even if the Italian photos were pd as being anonymous works, they are likely to be liable for deletion soon because of the URAA extension, as they wouldn't be pd as anonymous works in 1996 (which is when the US rules kicked in). They should be still be OK for uploading to en:wiki as PD-Italy, however, as they are simple works, where the copyright would have expired after 20 years (i.e. 1955) and so would be clear in 1996.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) Not really an expert but I cant see why it cant be uploaded as Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure to commons. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

{2} Dont see why they cant be uploaded as crown copyright if they can be shown to be a work of the British government it is unlikely that they have not been published before 1993. If you are unsure you could upload it here as non-free with a rare no other image available rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And another one

Michael, could you check on the deletion of File:Bell525 artist rendition.jpg? I can't see how this is replacebale at the moment, unless we're supposed to upload our own drawings of the Bell 525! - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with you, at first look not sure what can replaceable unless we draw it ourselves and fail original research. We have used this sort of image before pending the use of a free image when the machine is built. Might be worth having a word with the deleting admin. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tethered helium balloon

Hi Milliborne The way you select informations seems to be unfair! If you want to be a censor, check your information! Please contact me I'm Jerome GIACOMONI president of AEROPHILE giacomoni@aerophile.com +33 1 40 60 40 90. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.33.227 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You clearly have a conflict of interest with the subject and shouldnt really be trying to turn the pages into a promotional website. All I am doing is to make sure that the article provided clear and balanced information, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tethered helium balloon

Dear Miliborne,

Three questions : Why are you treated differently AEROPHILE, LINDSTRAND and AEROBALLOON ? Don't you think that the world first touristic destination is less important than Montecassino in South Africa? Have you check if these balloons are still existing ?

The latest entry in the world of tethered helium balloons has been of "Ahmedabad Eye"[2010], which has been installed as a new feature at the Kankaria Lakefront situated at Ahmedabad, India the site visited by millions of people after its transformation into amusement park.

AeroBalloon, Inc. incorporates technologies used in modern yacht design to build the AB-20 balloon gondola which carries over 1000 passengers per day at Chicago's Navy Pier. The modern composite gondola is lighter than traditional steel gondolas and requires less helium to lift its total payload. AeroBalloon is led by Douglas Hase, record holding lighter than air and ultralight aviation pilot.

I will be extremely pleased to talk with you give me your phone number or call me at <redacted personal information>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.34.183 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and not a promotional website so your edits to Tethered helium balloon and Aerophile have included information that is not really notable for an encyclopedia. You clearly have a conflict of interest and should read out guidelines at WP:COI about editing pages to subjects you are related to. If you have any particularly points then you should raise them on the talk page at Talk:Tethered helium balloon or Talk:Aerophile, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

MyOps

Evening Milborne:Moving an article from my sandbox, I managed to create User:Breda Ba.46 rather than Breda Ba.46. For the moment Breda Ba.46 redirects to User:Breda Ba.46. Could you change User:Breda Ba.46 to Breda Ba.46? Sorry about that. Thanks for comments on copywrite.TSRL (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Done MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!TSRL (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor Snowsnowbing

This account is being used strictly for vandalism to golf articles, mostly involving Ryder Cup play. I've found so many mistakes I'm at the point of considering anything he's done as suspect.

While he hasn't edited since 2011, can the account be suspended? He could come back....William 15:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really if they are not active, all we can do is keep an eye out for him/her editing again. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Matata Ponyo Mapon

His article cites two stories as to him dying in that Katanga plane crash. Neither article[19] however says[20] that Mapon died. Only that an advisor to Congo's President did and that Mapon was wounded. Please note also that the second article is dated four days after the crash....William 14:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood, you need to raise this at the AfD discussion to see what others think. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I misread the article unfortuantly - however, the advisor appears to be somebody who should have an article! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Noel Laurence Article

MilborneOne,

Article: Noel Laurence.

I was wondering if you've noticed the year he was born and the years of service in his Infobox. I would mostly put it down to a typing error than anything. Thought I'd point it out. Adamdaley (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. just my typo should be 1899 not 1889. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it must have been 1899, so I decided to let you know first before I changed it to make sure first. Adamdaley (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I replied to your comment here. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Powrachute Pegasus

Thanks for adding to this article! It is a great boon that you have a newer ref than I do! - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, must try and get a more recent versio, I understand they have split the directory in two, one for powered (Leisure Aviation) and one for not (Free Flight).[21] MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Checking their website, it looks like that is true! I'm keeping a lookout for both, but haven't seen either in stores recently. - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Airports style guide

Hello I reverted your reversion of the addition of links in the airport destination example table. This was discussed on the Airports WikiProject here and the consensus was to add the links. So it only made sense that he added the links to the table example, and did it with good intentions. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 02:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem compdude, sorry about that I had missed the relevance to the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Helen Skelton

This article does seem to be attracting a higher than expected level of unwanted attention and I suspect all over the same issue ie the validity of her world records. As I've said on the talk page this seems to me to be an issue about GWR not Helen Skelton. But the kite skiers and ultra kayakers don't share that view and are either vandalising or trying to coatrack. NtheP (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood, I have been watching it may need protection if they carry on anymore. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2011-12

MB1: I picked the powered aviation version up on the newstand today! Since the recent AFD pretty much confirmed it as a reliable source I think I am going to be busy incorporating all that into articles for the next year or so! - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nice one, that will keep you busy! MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely! The publication looks good, well researched by a large team. Perhaps when i am finished going though Cliche's book (very soon) I will start in on this one and just work from start to finish though it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for helping me with Madrid Runway Disaster. Did you see the message[22] I left on user Mjroots talk page and then come over to help me?

The description of the crash could still use some editing and I'll go ahead and do it sometime soon. David Gero's book Aviation Disaster has a pretty good description of what happened and I will check out Google News archive too.

Yesterday and today I created two new crash articles- Nigeria Airways Flight 825 and Iberia Airlines Flight 602 which killed 87 and 104 people respectively. The last words of the Iberia pilot were supposedly "Get me a beer ready, we are here."...William 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I did see your message and thought I could do the infobox as mjroots is not around this evening. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Waterman

Would you email Peter Waterman's obit from The Times for my file?

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I need to check the Terms & Conditions first to see if I can pass the content on. MilborneOne (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indian Airlines Flight 840

The article is copied verbatim from ASN. Check here.[23]...William 22:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Short S.27

Afternoon. I'm currently having a bit of a mess about with this article, saw that you had put a couple of comments re. Samson's machine on the talk page...what I think happened here (I'm about to read things through again) was that there was an S.27 typewith c/n 38 (Barnes drop "S.38" into the narrative without any prior mention: the aircraft then had a substantial rebuild, gaining a long nacelle & losng the front elevator, sobecoming a new type. I'm slightly puzzled by the assigntion of RN#38to a BatBoat,though: Owen Thetford says it was #118. Not taht it really matters, but it would be nice to know what aircraft bore the number. I'm thinking of includng the Tandem Twin & Triple Twin into the S.27 article, they are notable aircraft which do not have articles but are essentially S.27 variants. Thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have commented at the S.27 page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick on the draw with the S.38! Do your sources help with production figures, I've put in all Owen Thetford has to say on the type.TheLongTone (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it lists the individual aircraft, most went straight to storage! I will add something in a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Grand!TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)