User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 22

SR20 & 22 photos, plus company logo

Thanks for removing those photos from the articles. I agree that the ownership and ability to release them under free licenses is questionable. I know who this editor is in real life but am precluded from mentioning by wiki policies. They seem to have been detailed to fix up all the Cirrus related articles and make them read and look better as sales tools. The aircraft photos are from one of the companies off-line press kits as far as I can tell and were issued in that regard as "all rights reserved". This one also worries me: File:Cirrus_Aircraft_Logo.jpg as she uploaded the company logo as used on the Cirrus Aircraft page under two free licences. I am not sure she really can do that, or understands what the implications of that move are. For instance Cirrus competitors can now legally use that logo in their ads. Oddly enough the logo image metadata says "Copyright status Public domain". If that is true then it can't be released under those licenses, but it is probably a metadata error. I know you understand copyright rules better than I, should perhaps those files on Commons be sent for deletion? - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of images...

I just uploaded this fair use image File:Technam Astore.jpg of an aircraft that only exists in prototype form and so there are no free images yet. As you see it immediately got tagged for deletion. This seems to happen a lot lately. Any thoughts on this? I am wrong in my assumptions and arguments on this? - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK understand your logic but if the aircraft exists it can probably be photographed by somebody hence the deletion request. The fact that nobody has taken an over the fence image doesnt mean it cant be done! MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that explanation. - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Return of the blocked Pinoy

• MB1, just to let you know that User:Gcguevarra, who was blocked by you for multiple violations has returned to WP (User:Geeciii & User:HonerableHerb) but was shot down again in flame by us for basically the same behaviour elsewhere. Can we ask for a ban on him if he continues to be a dick? Or will now be a good time to do so? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, probably will not make a difference as I am sure the duck patrol can spot them when they surface, lets wait and see they normally get fed up before we do (apart from Ryan). MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Newbie copyrights issue again?

• Hey MB1, could you take a look at File:Wep-02.jpg? FWIW, I could be wrong but my instinct tells me that this isn't the uploader's work. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, i noticed his post when looking for some advice MilborneOne gave me in the past. Anyway i put the image through a reverse look-up on google and found it on this site. I have listed the image for speedy deletion. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I have been busy with some real life stuff so thanks to JetBlast for that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi again MB1, between image 1 (@1,200 × 504 pixels) & image 2 (@500 × 267 pixels) and (image 3 (@2,048 × 1,536 pixels), which would you have used inside the infobox weapon template of the article page? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have used the third image, only because the others look a bit iffy, although I have no evidence they looked like crops from web pages or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Same opinion here but two other editors have rejected our choice because of their own hidden agenda. Sigh... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

UH-72 or EC145

Hey Michael I came across this, and was wondering should we put it under the EC145 article, or the Lakota article thoughts - FOX 52 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

<Delurking> It's already listed on the UH-72 page, which looks to be where it belongs. It appears these are standard Lakotas being bought through Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Note that it's not a sale yet, just a notification of the proposal. - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bill you are right it looks like a Foreign Military Sale of production UH-72s from EADS North America, so standard US Army UH-72A helicopters sold from the production line. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's where thought there might be confusion to, which line it came from - Many thanks you guys FOX 52 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ALQ-144

G'day from Oz, I just came across ALQ-144, whch has a redirect from AN/ALQ-144; all of the other WP articles dealing with items in these equipment series seem to be named "AN/ABC-nnn". Could you please take a look at it, and if you agree with my assessment, move it over the redirect? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

JETGO Edit

I see you edited the JETGO page.

Although it does not worry me but the callsign "JETGO" was issued by AirServices Australia not ICAO. And our aircraft are operating not only all over Australia but also internationally on the AirServices issued "JETGO" call sign.

Cheers Paul Bredereck, Managing Director Airlines, JETGO Australia.

Swiss Air Force

Obviously you have absolutly now knowleg about the Swiss Air Force, so stop deleting informations. Simulators like the Superpuma /Cougar Simulator have no Imatriculation, but the Instruction Airframe F/A-18C has the Imatriculation X-5099 and is listet on the Aircraft inventary list of the Swiss Air Force this is what count.This airframe can also be used for training groundcrew taxi handling. The Swiss air force is not very big, so the insert of the imatriculations is not a blow up, it shows the systemathic of it and the roll the aircrafts are used in the Swiss Air Force. Also change the list of outpassed aircrafts into alphabetic order is no imporovement to the list in a timeline (Falcon 50 past out 2013 on the top). So PLEASE stop deleting here araound without having any konwoleg about the Swiss Air Force. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, what a really good example of a personal attack. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add P-16 I have left a couple of warnings on your talk page, one for this and the previous attack on the Swiss Air Force talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)~

This was not an attack to you as person, I only want made clear my point about your actions on the Swiss Air Force page. Speak against your changes on the page is not critize you as person. I said that it is obviously that you have no knowing about the Swiss Air Force. But I didn't say that you have no knowleg in any other topic, or so. May this sounds hard and not friendly but as you had deletet the text about the Hornet Display Team (who exist for more than 10 years and took every year part in several air shows in europe) and deleting the text about the Axalp (the Axalpshow who took place nearly every year sinc decades and is the only puplic life fiering show in europe)[1] this are well known topics about the Swiss Air Force and not such less well-known topics like the FLORAKO or so one and let me come to the conclusion that you don't know much about the Swiss Air Force and ask you don't to delet on the page until you know more about it. I did not say you should never again delet something on the SAF page. I realy don't attack you as person. I didn't understand why you say the tailnumbers and sqadron emblems are too much for wikipedia and too deep into details, wikipedia should give just a overall view, and on the other hand we can found pages who goo so deep in a quite simelar topic (for eg.[[2]]). How ever I work on a solution with the sqadron insgineas who you might can agree with it. About the Tailnumbers I have to say that they show the use of the aircraft, and are in a sytem who made it possible to identfy the type of aircraft, also you can finde the X-5099 nearly on the end (down)of this (german) pdf [3]. I think change the list of outpassed aircft's to the page History of the SAF is good, but in what do you see the advantage of listen it in alphabetic order to the timeline order? The pdf with the tailnumbers should help you to understand the using of them in the SAF. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at the pages with the programm of the Teams of the swiss air Force in the past, [4] , Superpuma Display Team [5], this year [6], please notice that there are not much shows of the F/A-18 solodisplay because problems with the 2013 Solodisplay pilot). The Swiss air force has all this Teams lisdtend as "Kunstflugteams" [7]. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh Sorry i din't saw that you createt the Display aircraft section. But i am still in doupt if the F/A-18 solodisplay not belong to the Aerobatic teams, Usulaly the F/A-18 solodisplay is flown by the same pilot a few years, and if possible he uses the aircraft who belongs to his Sqadron (if the Pilot is from Sqd 11 he uses the J-5011, if he is from Sqd 17 J-5017, and if he is from Sqd 18 J-50189 this 3 F/A18 are the only F/A-18 in the swiss air Force with a special paint (O.K. there are roumors about J-5014 because of the 100years Swiss air Force Show Air14 in 2014). FFA P-16 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One aircraft cant really be an aerobatic team which is why I moved it and the helicopters to "display teams" perhaps we just have a problem with the common English terms. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Aeroflot

Hello there, MilborneOne. Please check this out. I'm sick of this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the video - it adds nothing and is very poor quality. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the user has now been blocked for being a pain elsewhere in wikiland so we should have seen the last of the poor quality video. MilborneOne (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

Hi. I see you "prod"ed this (it's been removed), I was wondering where you could point me to a place where we collect all the worst aviation incidents in one article, as that seems to be what you're suggesting? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation has a list, not as many but they could be added and improved on
• Aviation accidents and incidents has a list of the worst accidents

not in one placce but we also have

• List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location
• List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

we also have some military and private aircraft lists refer to Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to note I have made some suggestions and comments on the list talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, those lists which are fundamentally unreferenced and specific to "by location" and "involving commercial aircraft"? You'd prefer to keep those and delete a list with over 400 references? Curious. Also, you say "it is full of abbreviations and jargon but that hasnt stopped lists being featured and then used an "good examples".", could you do me a favour and point me to those "lists" which are "featured and then used an "good examples" (sic)"? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Really should be discussing this on the AfD or article talk pages, where in fact I have made some suggestions and observations to improve the article if the AfD fails, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, really already started responding to your concerns and then, all of a sudden, the article was up for deletion. So your some of your comments have been responded to on the article talk page. It would be useful if you could respond there, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just wanted to stop by and introduce myself. It's obvious that you don't really have any intention of improving this new list, just cannibalizing the parts you want for another list or article. I get the fact that you're an admin, and it's never a good idea to piss-off people in a position of power. The motives behind the AfD nomination seems a bit fuzzy to me. It's too bad that things had to start off this way, I really enjoyed working on the aviation article and, had there been even the smallest degree of civility, I would have been encouraged to continue. As an editor and administrator, do you truly believe that this new list should be deleted so that the two comparison lists continue to thrive? There's some quote about the triumph of mediocrity that probably belongs here...--Godot13 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere I didnt take the article to AfD but after your comments following the prod removal raised my concerns on the article talk page, not sure why I would do that if I had no intention of helping improve the list or finding a solution. I believe that the material you have created could be used to replace the List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation, it just needs a bit of discussion and consensus on some of bits. Certainly I belive that some of the talk about trends and stats belongs on the Aviation accidents and incidents page and not in the list. I will not comment on the AfD while I think we could make some progress on the talk page. Please dont be scared of by the aviation project, some editors have worked hard and long on creating articles and gaining a consensus on the way forward. Despite what others say we are here to improve the coverage of aviation in wikipedia, if you go back only a few years you would be suprised at what was not covered including a large number of really notable accidents (and even some really notable aircraft). So talk to us on the relevant project pages we are open to new ideas and have a good team of editors that will help with any projects or ideas that somebody has. MilborneOne (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It's difficult to parse things out when a group of editors engage in what feels like a Shock and awe campaign without attempting to make any kind of contact or attempt at discussion first. The reception the list has had among the aviation project community has not been collaborative.
This list was written to be a stand alone list. The statistics wouldn't work in other articles because they are specifically based on the criteria and sample used in the list. List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation is a very rudimentary list and, for the record, I did actually make an attempt to assist them a few months ago. I have enjoyed the research that has gone into this list and would like to continue making more. I would be happy to help develop a "less than 50" companion list that may be more in-line with what you envision. This list, given the nature of the criteria, will not require significant upkeep or maintenance.
I approached this project with the goal being Feature List. I wanted it to be far better and more comprehensive than its peers. In the process, I even started writing short crash articles (3 of them now, all B-Class). I would really like to continue, and work with the Aviation Project, but I really would like this list to remain intact, and become a Featured List. When I was familiarizing myself with Wikipedia I told myself I would only write Lists that would meet or exceed the standards to be featured. When I started this list I knew nothing about aviation accidents. I can work with you or move on to another topic. I'd rather do more with aviation, but I need support (within Aviation) for this list. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and I'm not trying to be pushy, just speaking my mind.--Godot13 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support on the FLC. I'm glad we were able to work together and resolve the outstanding issues. I added a comments resolved header in the FLC review area for housekeeping purposes. If there is any problem with that please let me know. As I explore options for additional Aviation lists, I will seek out your input.--Godot13 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem with the resolved collapse, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi MilbourneOne- I have had two editors in FLC comment that they question the removal of the Fatality Ratio statistic. You and I reached a compromise regarding its removal so I would not simply add it back. If you are still opposed to its inclusion in the list I will propose it on the talk page for discussion. This is not an attempt to circumvent our compromise but rather an effort to balance as many reviewers' concerns as possible, simultaneously. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood I will have a look at the talk and comment if required. MilborneOne (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of some of my comments

Hi. Your removal of some of my comments on the Talk:Three surface aircraft page are not helpful if you are not going to investigate the reasons behind the comments. The comments were made solely in a effort to improve this article and several others. How did you become aware of the edits? The answer is likely important to the case in question. (Sorry about multiple edits of this message.) Stodieck (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments were not relevant to improving the article and were removed, if you have issues behind the comments then you need to let me know so I can look at them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you have endorsed a personal attack on me as an editor:

[[8]] [[9]]

If that was not the intent, let me suggest that your the appearance of your authority being twisted to the purpose of someone else. Let me suggest that the editor in question does this routinely and this is the reason for the comment on confabulation. Further the entire chain evidence against my credibility and other editors is similarly constructed and the sequences can be documented by wiki histories. The chains of 'evidence' for any general statements he enforces in the articles are similarly constructed by this person and also documented by the wiki.

Far from being a disruptive editor I created the Three surface aircraft article and there would not be anything to discuss here if I had not done that. The editor in question is actually 'taking possession' of new territory on the Wikipedia and needs to discredit and disappear anyone who understands what is going on. This was the motivation for post on narcissistic personalities. (This should have been tightly edited but was posted as a citation.) Unfortunately Larry Sanger did not implement an objective voting and commenting mechanism in the Wiki, so chaos reigns.

Since you seem to know something about aircraft I suggest that drop in on stability (aircraft) and see the result of years of control of this article by the same individual. Stodieck (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look but can I remind you that nobody controls any article on wikipedia everything is done by consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OBE

He was only a Knight Commander, not a Knight Grand Cross. Interesting use of the word "only"! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages LOT, CSA and Lockheed Electra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Survivor redirect

Thanks for the notification! Usually I don't challenge them since there is no independent notability. For what you found I won't challenge the deletion WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks they are a few more in the same category created a while ago that need to be look at later as well. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

E V Thomson

Hi!

I see you reverted my edit of the British author to read he was an 'English' author because "he was still English as well as British". While that is correct to a point, you could also say he was still a Londoner. Just as you could say he was European. To add all of the possible levels of identity (Londoner AND English AND British AND European) would be exhausting and not helpful. I suggest the correct level depends on the perspective. While English, Scottish, Welsh may be appropriate references for discussion within the United Kingdom, outside of that isn't 'British' the correct term?

Wikipedia is an international medium. When referring to someone from Britain within that context, isn't it correct to say they are British? It says 'Nationality British' on passports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

It seems clear that David Cameron would be considered British. He is the British Prime Minister. In an international context would it be more appropriate to refer to 'British' armed forces even though some units might come from Cardiff, Wales? British athletes at the Olympics? British scientists?

So, given the above, shouldn't E V Thomson, as a British person and an author whose works go beyond the United Kingdom be referred to as 'British?

Best wishes Robata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

He is clearly British and English so to describe him as one or the other are both correct, dont think we have a rule that says that the lead has to show nationality and he is clearly an English author. Certainly it is accepted to use the home countries within the United Kingdom as descriptions and in categories, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Gulfstream G650 images

You reverted my edit replacing the main photo and adding one more to this article. Your explanation was that it was "not the best image".

Could you please explain a bit further what you mean with that and what the reason was for your revert? The previous image was backlit, low in quality and resolution and a part of the aircraft is cut off. Apart from that, it shows an unpainted and therefore unfinished aircraft. The photos I added show the aircraft in official livery and presentation at Paris Air Show, with good light and in far higher quality.

Apart from mine and the ones in the article, there are no further photos of the aircraft available on Commons.

Thanks. --Julian H. (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks stretched and distorted and clearly not an improvement. Perhaps raise it on the talk page to gain other views, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --Julian H. (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thai Airways International

Hi, the user Do do doggy keeps putting junk into the fleet table on Thai Airways International. He then threatened to block me (not sure how) on my talk page. I explained the reasons why it should be removed but refuses to accept this. Can you have a word please? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also told me on my talk its original research. --JetBlast (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK JetBlast I have reverted the change and left them a message. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pal! --JetBlast (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Me again, I assume you have noticed he has ignored you and undone your changes. --JetBlast (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just seen but somebody else has reverted them, I have left them another note about using sources, not sure why they can add them to your talk page but not the article! MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I don't suppose you can have a look at Talk:No. 144 Squadron RAF/Temp - the original article appeared to be a copyvio from [10] (archived here), tagged and blanked per the instructions on WP:CP and rewrote it to avoid the copyvio on a temporary subpage (again as per instructions). Unfortunately, the draft rewrite has been sitting on the temp page waiting for someone to look at it and let it go back live for well over too months now as it appears that the backlog at the copyright pages is insane. It is quite dispiriting to put the effort in to sort out a problem and see it go to waste.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay had a day at RAF Fairford yesterday watching aircraft for a change, I will have a look in a minute and see what can be done. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express

Hi, I have posted a message on the Optical Express talk page re POV editors breaching previous agreement around consensus and direct edits. I would appreciate if you could visit and comment. Thanks. --Hardlygone (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Another admin User:HJ Mitchell is active at the moment on the page so I will leave it to him to sort out for the moment but I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Flight 214 / Criticism of NTSB by ALPA

Please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Criticism_of_NTSB_by_ALPA to discuss encyclopedic value of criticism from ALPA based on questions designed to raise doubts about the real cause of the crash or divert blame from the pilots. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Few

Hi MilborneOne, Thanks for your attention to the page The Few. The connection between "The Few" and "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" is that they both refer to military men as "The Few". This may be of interest to people who wonder if the names have a common history (in fact they don't, as described in the article The Few). Also, this may be of interest to people who are aware of one group but not the other. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." After reading The Few, I wanted to read The Few, The Proud, The Marines, and I believe that enough other people would too that it's worth having the articles linked in the 'See also' section. The Manual of Style says that "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." It's not clear cut whether or not the link to The Few, The Proud, The Marines should or shouldn't be in the article. Perhaps British and U.S. readers prefer to only read about their own "Few", and other readers don't care either way. But my sense is that enough people will be interested in the two "Few" articles that it is worth linking them. Throughme (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand but being English the Few only relates to the Battle of Britain, I have never heard of the Marines being called the Few which is why I removed it as readers would not I believe think that a connection exists. If you feel strong about it then I will not oppose you adding it back. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I was still working on that!

Did you happen to see the talk page? I did not really like the placement of the image either but I was in the middle of adding more ref. to the article when you deleted my image. the talk page states that the image (previous), was "not" Army One because it was not being used to fly a president.Housewifehader (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has edited the talk page since January so I didnt see any mention of an image added today, the old discussion was from four years ago about an image that has not been in the article for a long time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I updated and replaced the image. What I meant about the talk page is that there was a dispute and correction about the page's image. (which I agree). The photo of the helicopter restored at the Nixon Library simply could not be named "Army One", or "Marine One", because it was not in service to a US President at the time, (airborne)-it would be identified by it's tail #, unless there were some special designation given which is not said anywhere.Housewifehader (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The image under discussion File:Nixon-depart.png has has not been in the article since early in 2012 so pretty difficult to replace, nobody as far as I know had a problem with the museum image as the related source mentions Army One so is representative. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE- OK so as of this moment, the direct page link to the source image is working. When I uploaded it, I was getting an error page. That is why at the time and when I added again, I left-out the exact page-because I thought that it was going to return an error. Here is the info. from the file in case it disappears again: I don't know if there is any way to be sure if that flight specifically was a Marine or Army pilot but it was in the time period when most of the flights were done as "Army One"AFAIK.Housewifehader (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DDRS Record Details for Record Accession Number "N1D0068954" Accession Number N1D0068954 Document Number DPI-1058-PHOTO Alternate Document Number DPI-1058-PHOTO Title Description PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT TO RICHLAND, WASHINGTON Number of Pages 1 Key Word(s) PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT,PROOFS Author(s) Company(s) Document Date 26-Sep-1971 Public Availability Date 29-Sep-2002

also, maybe you can help answer that question? This photo here, http://www5.hanford.gov/ddrs/common/findpage.cfm?AKey=N1D0068929 Has more details. I am not up on uniforms etc. very well, so maybe that could answer the Army or Marine question? Thank-you for your helpHousewifehader (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

also, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the title:The Picture Cannot Be "Army One on the article talk page, not the content of that sub-section. What I meant was that the image that was currently attached to the article, was "also" (The Picture Cannot Be "Army One)---because it was out of service at that point, not flying a President.Housewifehader (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim psycho

Need help in monitoring this lunatic - Surtsicna, the claim on names and royal styles from birth is clearly pointless and senseless, all because we heard news that William was named after a week and Charles was named after a month, who knows when Elizabeth or George VI was named. If you look at the articles of Elizabeth and George, they are featured articles, and have passed wikipedia standards. I know you get my point and we share the same sentiments Pseud 14 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted but the user is on a bit of a mission as he has flagged a lot of European Royalty with the same dubious tag, he/she is clearly edit warring and possibly now being disruptive to make a point. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way that he/she can be barred from editing those? Or be flagged from being disruptive, I don't mind reverting from all the mess the user makes, but its going to be a challenge. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a disruptive editing warning for keep adding the tags might help, but I am possibly to involved to do anything, just take care not to be involved in any edit war/reverting yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor, Viscount Severn, danish and swedish princes, all of those being tagged, all for the same reasons, I really don't get the point, trying to get consensus so this can be stopped. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps raise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility or the more localised Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty to come to some consensus on the matter. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash‎

Good morning Michael. I have an AfD question for you. This AfD which I started, was scheduled to be closed six days ago, but has not been actioned. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 17 it seems to be the only article from that date that has not been closed or re-listed, so I think it has been overlooked. I did post a note about this at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#More_unclosed_AfDs but that doesn't seem to have attracted any admin attention either. I recognize that the debate on this AfD is a complex one and that a closing admin cannot just quickly count votes and close it, but that the arguments made need to be carefully weighed, and this may have put off some admins from closing it. Are there any other steps that can be taken to have an admin read it over, weigh the arguments and then close it? - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look like a no consensus to delete from my first read through the points, I will have another read through later. Not sure about getting somebody to close it but I have not commented in the actual debate so I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oneworld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Duchess of Cambridge Style

Hi, i have reviewed catherine middleton's page and someone has been reverting her current sytle. As I understand that HRH The duchess of cambridge is her addressed style, a user has been reverting it to HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. Althought in point it is her complete and full style, but it has been discussed in the lead section of styles section. I have reverted it back from when you have corrected it, but it has been reverted by the same user again Pseud 14 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it has been corrected again by another used, I have it on my watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Powerfin

Hi Micheal: Unfortunately this article about the US propeller manufacturer was tagged for CSD and deleted before I could even act on improving it. Can you possibly "userfy" it for me so I can find some more complete sources? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Another admin offered to do it, so this is handled! - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not quick enough trying to do real life stuff at the same time as keeping an eye on here! MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I had the same problem - I was sleeping when it got tagged and deleted! No time for sleeping on Wikipedia. I have expanded the article to address the reason for the CSD and the article is back. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

F3D Skyknight

I'm giving up on this article and unwatching it, as any attempt to edit it or even try to discuss the changes on the talk page is met with a stream of attacks. Good luck if you attempt to reason with Pheasantpete, but I want nothing more to do with him.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks the user clearly has no idea how wikipedia works, I think it will probably end with an NPA block the rate they are going. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

See this section in the article: "After successful trials, the Skyknight test pilots enjoyed some good times at the Southern California legendary Happy Bottom Riding Club. The world record airspeed breaking aviatrix, stunt pilot and Lockheed test pilot Pancho Barnes and proprietor did not offer them the customary free steak dinner for breaking the sound barrier as the F3D Skyknight never received the much powerful Westinghouse J46 engines that likely would have made this possible if only in a dive. This was the tradition the legendary Florence "Pancho Barnes began with her good friend Chuck Yeager for Muroc Army Airfield test pilots of this small yet extraordinary era of those who flew faster than the speed of sound." I have temporarily moved it into a "Note to readers" but it really doesn't belong at all. I think this needs an admin (hint, hint) to make an executive decision here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this once and so has Nigel but evidently this is vandalism and the originator has resorted to personal attacks, as they have not really a clue I have left a few messages on the users talk page but I dont think he understands how wikipedia works. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention it's absolute textbook WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Celina, Ohio

We have an editor[11] who keeps reverting at this page. Me and another editor have said his notable person edits are unnecessary. 3RR might be in play. Can you check it out? Editor was also warned[12] yesterday for violating WP:CIVIL in regards to posts towards me. In this edit summary[13] he told me to stop being disruptive. His NP person edits adding CN tags are what might be disruptive. He selectively chooses articles for them to make a point....William 11:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I edited this article and many like them as it's clear to me that there are problems common to many of them, with regard to dead references, unreferenced sections, lists without clearly defined inclusion criteria, and lists of people, many of whom have no references in their respective articles that relate to their "notable residence" of such locations. Sadly these problems are massively widespread amongst the poor US town and village articles. It was noted at AN/I that the articles need substantial help, it appears that some editors just don't want to help that process. It was also noted at AN/I that no admin action was required following the correct tagging of such articles. This request seems like a shopping request to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

TRM fails to note several things.

1- The persons in the NP are all clearly from Celina. A person with a article is considered notable.

2- The NP section of Celina was created by me. And another editor had no problem with criteria. Its not a simple case of me vs. TRM.

3- TRM's recent edit history as pointed out here[14], showed over 25 consecutive edits to articles NP sections where I was either the last or next to last editor to work on. I asked if this constituted if this constituted a case of wikihounding.

4- TRM's 'seems like a case of forum shopping' fails to note I wasn't a part of that ANI[15]. It was however started by a IP editor who TRM has alleged or insinuated on multiple occasions is me. That led to his being warned as I noted above, not once but twice, that he further violations of WP:CIVIl can result in his getting blocked. His thinking I'm forum shopping may or may not cross that line. I've told him on multiple occasions to take me and the IP to SPI. The proof of the matter is- I'm from Florida and the IP is from Connecticut. Which are separated by over 1,000 miles.

The Bushranger just reminded[16] TRM about edit warring and 3RR....William 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, following an email request from..... The "persons" not clearly from Celina unless verifiable evidence is produced to back that up. That's what I've been asking for. You various AN/I threads have been closed, no action. The one yesterday was closed, no action. Not sure why the forum shopping should continue - it's time to get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's getting to be about the time for a block being placed on you. You have been multiple times to stop saying I'm socking or editing via IP to escape scrutiny or make other personal attacks towards me. You are clearly doing that again with the forum shopping accusations. I didn't start yesterday's ANI....William 14:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the various admins you've got involved here, after both of your previous AN/Is have been declined. Nothing else. Simple. And no, I never said you were socking, I just noted how much of a coincidence the IP popping up everywhere you were was. That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash. You're clearly forgetting this edit[17] and its summary. The summary includes 'third strike time?' Something you used in referring to me. And this edit was removal of a thread involving yesterday's ANI. In it you refer to the editor as 'Billy'. Why would you do that unless you thought the IP was me? Also the IP never used the name Bill or Billy....William 14:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Third strike? Because your continuing threats and AN/Is are becoming disruptive. Billy? That's what I called my dog. So, back to basics, I didn't accuse you of socking, I stated that there were several coincidences. Even funnier was that your IP friend then accused me, GiantSnowman and Lukeno94 of being socks. Amazing! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to believe anything you say. Yesterday you claimed 4 articles and after repeated questioning you couldn't produce one. You also said at TFD that you had told me to never post to your talk page. Totally untrue at the time. Based on that, your being threatened with a block by Nyttend, and your three strike and Billy comments, it wouldn't be any wonder if someone stops believing anything you say in this matter. You've been caught saying things that aren't true Multiple times in the last few days and they've been addressed to me or somebody who you thought was me....William 18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care what you "believe", it's of no relevance at all. Why don't you just stop addressing me, I'll do the same, and we can go about our business. After all, there are thousands of utterly crap American town and city articles that need fixing. I'll continue to point them out. Nyttend's input is... interesting at best, but demonstrates a lack of competence which shocks me (that an admin can't determine who created a template). Anyway, have a great afternoon in Florida (as you keep pointing out), and let's look forward to never dealing with each other again. Perhaps now your IP buddy will leave me alone as well. Poor old MilbourneOne having to deal with all this crap on his talkpage. Maybe time for just one more AN/I? If not, let's just go our separate ways, and you can crack on with all the fixes needed on those pathetic articles. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who initiated the ANI in question, not WilliamJE. (I have a dynamic IP.) It was initiated on the basis of a series of specious tags by TRM. As you can plainly see, the closing admin did not indicate that "that no admin action was required", nor did he note "that the articles need substantial help". The latter assertion was made by TRM himself. Just wanted to set the record straight. 71.139.153.14 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Try reading properly. Where did I indicate the closing admin said anything? You just set the record wonkier. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the statement "It was noted at AN/I that the articles need substantial help" implies that somebody other than yourself did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger, have you actually read the AN/I? It doesn't appear to be the case. Clue: was it me that said "An experienced editor adding valid maintenance tags to articles in dire need of a clean up?" or was it me that said "There is lots of information in the article which is unreferenced" or was it me that said "Whole paragraphs are missing references" or was it me that said " If whole sections lack references, as is the case here, then there's nothing wrong with the tags."? Just asking.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger, you never responded to this note. It would be helpful if you could acknowledge that my statement "It was noted at AN/I that the articles need substantial help" was actually substantiated by "somebody other than [me]". Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ta. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys I think we need to calm down a bit, I would suggest that you all ignore each other for a bit and dont interact at all. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bingo!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

MilbourneOne, both thanks and sorry for you having to host such a pointless waste of bytes. User:WilliamJE has gone through AN/I at least twice with no "success" and User:The Bushranger seems (in this case) incapable of reading and/or comprehending the posts from various editors in the AN/I thread referenced. It appears that certain editors have both left messages and emailed various admins to monitor my actions, some of it has been conducted in public, some in private (for reasons unknown). Furthermore, some admins have demonstrated a startling lack of clue (e.g. when User:Nyttend suggested he wasn't sure if I'd created a template but then went on to claim I'd use it in some form of bad faith. I'm staggered, as an admin and as an experienced editor, he doesn't know about edit histories, or about how to unambiguously phrase topics). All in all, there are several contributors here who need to clue-up. I'm glad you made the recommendation you did, as I've discovered a huge trove of appalling articles that need serious work, and it's tiresome to be continually reverted by some editors who think WP:V isn't worth bothering about. Thanks for your level-headed approach, and once again, sorry for all this detritus on your talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not read all the interactions but it is clear that you have certainly annoyed a few people with your actions and way of going about things. Although the issues dont involve any admin actions you still need to hold a higher standard of behaviour, so just be carefull how you interact with others. You may not agree with WilliamJE and clearly dont have much respect for him (which to be fair appears to be mutual) but something caused him to take the action he did. You have also commented on two admins above clearly not in flatering terms which will only increase the scrutiny on you, so have a think about what you do and how you do it. You clearly are doing some good work in the featured list and other quality improvement areas so to settle things down concentrate on what you do well and try not to get involved or comment on other players in this conflict. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I do think that the two admins I noted above acted incorrectly. Not being able to check an edit history before making incorrect assumptions, not being able to read AN/I reports correctly, warning one editor publicly but not another, all, in my opinion, not competent. I honestly don't care about "scrutiny" on me, all editors should be scrutinised and I'm no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. TRM writes= "It appears that certain editors have both left messages and emailed various admins to monitor my actions". Absolutely untrue accusations and I can prove it by providing the emails. TRM was warned yesterday[18] not to make further accusations. It is time for him to be blocked....William 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

50+ fatalities FLC

Hey MilborneOne, just wanted to pass by quickly and say how grateful I was for your constructive comments at the above FLC, after a few false starts from several editors (including me). I'm hoping, in due course, we have a featured list that we can all be proud of. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

List of aviation pioneers

Hi MilbourneOne- I was reading this list and at first thought that it would benefit from some housekeeping edits (e.g., some entries have dates of birth and death while others do not, date format is not consistent, wording for very similar achievements is quite different, etc.). On further examination I found myself trying to conceptualize it as a sortable table. Before trying to do this (in my sandbox), do you think this would be a helpful format change, and (understanding that you probably do not have a crystal ball) do you think it would be well-received? Thanks for your thoughts, and obviously I fully concur with TRM's comment above-Godot13 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly could do with a good tidy up, a lot of people missing and as you said different depths of information on each. A table might work perhaps you could try a sample on what you are thinking so I can have a look. Only 16 users are watching it so not a high profile article but I dont think anybody would object to a shake-up. If the table looks OK then we can get help from others, we have a few editors around with knowledge of early aviators (User:TSRL springs to mind) who I am sure would help with the content. A few people missing so it would need a clear definition of who is a pioneer and perhaps divided into areas like the early flyers, builders and later ones who pioneered new techniques in flying and construction. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try and come up with a sandbox-sample of about 10-15 people. If I can make that work (or come reasonably close) I'll give you the link for a look.-Godot13 (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not seen this article before: Imo needs a thorough going over. As above, loads of omissions. For instance absurd to include Brindjonc de Moulinais but not his employer Louis Bleriot.TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• When you have a chance, please take a look at this draft and let me know what you think. It is a bit rough but gives an idea of what I'm getting at. The checklist-style columns are an attempt to get at what you suggested above (dividing the list into different categories of pioneer, but without actually having to divide the list). The dates are formatted to allow for a missing day and/or month without throwing off the ability to sort. Aircraft type is intended to represent the different classes of aircraft that any one individual achieved notability. The list as it stands now has woefully inadequate references. Unfortunately, many of the individual articles I've reviewed so far are not much better. I hope there are a few aviation editors out there with good reference libraries to draw on... Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesnt look that bad (although I dont like the date format!) certainly makes the why they are pioneers a bit clearer than the list. Perhaps we should raise it on the talk page as a suggested improvement and I make a note at the project to get help with more information and references. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the date format (I agree with you). I'll be happy to raise it on the talk page if you will leave a note at the project for input on the proposal. Should I complete the transformation of the current list into the tabular format in my sandbox or proceed with the sample as is?-Godot13 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Make a note on the talk page just to make it clear what you are doing, sometimes people get upset with huge changes without being informed, I will make a request at the project to get help. I cant see why you cant change the article after you have made the talk page notice, perhaps give it 24 hours. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree with the format change: Take a look at the section on Canada and Brazil. The amount of information plus references in these sections would not fit a table format at all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

• Hi MB1. please see this, I'm pretty sure that SQ is not wholly owned by Singapore government but Sj96 insist on using a person's opinion as the basis of his input (but first he did it using another source but was caught by me for making it a WP:SYNTHESIS)? Which is right? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have had a tweak, the event was mentioned in far to much detail in two different parts of the article so I have had a tweak, minor point but Tamsek only hold 54% so wholly government owned is not strictly true. MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! And now the tricky bit, could you please take a look at this to assess if the image can be of use on WP? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thats interesting an image that is crown copyright but has been protected against commercial use, cc normally last 50 years from being published, which is before 1963. We have no evidence of the date of the image or when if ever it was published so it is unlikely to be free enough for wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Understood, as the Aden Emergency lasted from late 1963 to late 1967, that image of a 43 Sqn's machine is almost up for release into PD. Oh well, guess we just have to wait a while longer then. Another thing, I've been wanting to rewrite Scrambling (military) with regards to QRA alert and the closely associated Minimum Interval Takeoff but was somewhat handicapped by the small lack of appropriate photo for illustration. Is this suitable (Note that this is not my ideal as I've seen one somewhere with several Valiants/Victors/Vulcans taking off in rapid sucession ala "minimum interval takeoff" style but cannot locate it)? Do you have something we could use? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yo! Found the one I was talking about here. Unfortunately, I don't think its PD material. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That brought back a few memories, I am sure they use to do the four-ship Vulcan scramble at the some of the old RAF displays like at RAF Finningley but a picture may be hard to find. Most of my time on RAF airfields we were not allowed cameras, far cry from today. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/valiants/V89.jpg 1965 I am afraid! MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Vickers Valiants? Thought they were retired by 1965? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy tag on commons

I removed the speedy tag from File:Croatian MiG-21UMD 2013-08-24 18-57.jpg as there appears to be a broadbrush OTRS permission on photos by Chris Lofting on airliners.net. Of course, that doesn't necessarily help with User:Stipe gojanović's other uploads, most of which don't seem to have such permissions.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel I didnt see that, I did block User:Stipe gojanović while he has a think about image copyright as he clearly just dumping images on Commons to use. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

SNCASE SE-1010

see this and this ;-)--Threecharlie (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

737 Max

I hope everything is correctly done? Tistscien (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks for that, not something people remember to do all the time, I have also seen it done as a declaration in the edit summary. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by Kahastok

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt) Martinvl (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	Pretty busy day at the CSD corral. I noticed you helping a lot.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks for that, just doing what I can. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Formalising the status of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Falklands

I suggest you look at Martin's comment on your proposal. Do you believe that a reasonable reading of WP:UNITS would consider geographical contexts to be "scientific"? Is this your understanding of what you proposed?

Bear in mind that, according to Martin's previous comments here, such an interpretation implies that all distance measurements on Wikipedia - including those in US- or UK-related contexts, essentially every time one might ever use a mile - are not just required to be metric first but metric only. Kahastok talk 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to assume that non-science UK-related articles relates to articles only and I doubt that we have many 'science' related articles about the Falklands. So I would suggest it is only articles about Geography or Environment that would be scientific, certainly the main articles like Falkland Islands which is an overview would come under non-scientific article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no intention of joining in but having seen User:Martinvl operate for 4 1/2 years I can only comment that he will take the royally take the piss if your proposal succeeds. Do you know why that guideline was written to be so prescriptive? It was precisely because Martin and Michael created chaos editing articles people tried to improve and creating a beggars muddle. Enjoy and fondest regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have tried my best it is up to others to see if the proposal has consensus so I will not make any further comment yet. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may observe that is precisely why it has gone on for 4 1/2 years driving reasonable editors nuts, its because people won't do anything to tackle it. If I may be blunt your best will only make it worse. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sara.streeb/Hawker P.V.

F.Y.I - I closed your Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sara.streeb/Hawker P.V. as delete. It was linked by User:Joegrohens/btw261-spring11-student-user-pages-C, which similar pages. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thirteen Colonies

Michael, could you consider semi-protecting Thirteen Colonies for 3 to 7 days? We've had a slew oh non-productive IP edits there for the past few days. Hopefully the school classes will have movex on to other topics by the time the block is lifted. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done for ten days. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Short Tucano (lic. from Embraer)

Thanks for pointing this out -- I'll pass info along to the photographer. Didn't know Short was still in business. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Password is Courage

Can you help here? I rewrote the article on this curio and found I could not change the title to the correct: The Password is Courage (note the punctuation of "is"), as it needs an administrator to make the alteration. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As ever, thanks! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Aviation lists

Michael, could you look at the recent edits to Template:Aviation lists? Perhaps this template needs to be full-protected too? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected, highly visible template. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as always. - BilCat (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Imber friendly fire incident

I think was created by Ryan kirkpatrick. 'Pilot error and bed weather was blamed for the incident', 'The pilots would be shot down over France during a night time ride a week later' sound just like him....William 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Could well be the user also has the same interest in disasters and the like, I have done some work on tidying it up and improving it but if you think it needs to be tagged as the work of a banned user then I dont have a problem with that but remember a lot of work has been done by others since Ryan. Perhaps if somebody can look at the other contributions to see if we need to block this user, if any ryan experts are watching other opinions may help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon sillyness

I think that full protection may be needed on the Eurofighter Typhoon page to stop the ridiculous edit warring over its top speed. As you arn't involved in the whole shenanigans, you may be able to knock some sense into people before the situation escalates too much.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Its noe gone to DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was offline, but as it has now gone to multiple drama boards (it is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) I will see what happens but I was part of the discussion way back in August so I have to be wary of being seen to be involved. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the only admin to take the appropriate course of action in freezing the article. A lot of problems could have been avoided if the first admin to pull McSly for edit-warring had taken the same action 2 days ago. Thanks, you've earned this.

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	Award for taking correct action.Z07x10 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Unneeded redirect

Hello MilborneOne. I've created this redirect by mistake, as the name was incorrectly spelled. Can you please delete it for me? Thanks--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Powrachute Sky Rascal

It is great to see someone else working creating on powered parachute articles! - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont have that much information other than some old World Directory of Leisure Aviation's from 2004 and 2005, I will try and do some more as they are certainly more notable as toy helicopters pretending to be uavs! MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too! I have actually completed going through the whole WDLA 2011-12 from cover to cover yesterday and now am working through Plane and Pilot's 1978 Aircraft Directory to see if we missed any types there before getting back to hang gliders from WDLA 2003-04. This might take a while! - Ahunt (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

P-3 notable incidents, accidents, and events

You really need to check your sources. The Aviation Safety Network is far from reliable. It is a user generated data base just like this one. I can tell you, with 100 percent accuracy, that incident took place in 1988, on VP-46's Indian Ocean deployment and involved a USN P-3. It's some sort of sick joke that you would be so stubborn as to use bad information as your facts and call me an unreliable source. Where you on that plane? I was. It was 15 minutes of pure hell. That's how long it took to complete the "circuit" or giant circle we were flying around in as the aircraft was shaking and falling apart. Too low to bail out, aircraft wouldn't climb, and ditching was out of the question because the buckled wing had us flying almost sideways. 15 fucking minutes of taking what you thought was your last breath, as you watched more pieces of the aircraft separate and the water get closer. Once we figured out we were flying in a giant uncontrollable circle, we had a little hope that eventually it would put us back over the island. 15 mins later it did. Dropping the landing gear is what almost did us in at the end, when they extended the aircraft lost all aerodynamics and dropped like a rock below the tree line. Thinking quickly, our Flight Engineer yanked the gear back up as we skimmed the water looking directly at a thick palm trees in front of us. With the gear retracted we were able to barely clear the palms and but not with enough time to get the gear back down. We skimmed the trees and with only the nose and port landing gear extended we came to a fiery controlled ditch at the edge of the lagoon. I can honestly say I owe my life to LtCmdr Olcalvich who wrestled the plane (with no hydraulics) to a safe landing that day. His instincts, brute strength, and sheer determination are why I'm here today. The final damage report - starboard wing buckled, leading edge completely gone between engines 3 and 4. Rear starboard tail horizontal stabilizer destroyed due to contact with pieces of leading edge. MAD boom separated due to violent shaking. Fire damage destroyed engine 4. It was one hell of a ride! I will gladly due a little research and find the incident report for you. Until then take some advice- don't take everything you read on the internet as complete fact. Be careful who you refer to as a unreliable source when your the one with the wrong info. Respectfully, James V Accardi, AW USN, VP-46 Combat Aircrew 6 'The Survivors' 1987-89

You assume a lot of others we have more sources than ASN, but you dont make it clear why VP-46 was flying an Australian P-3 if anything your change to the article was a slur on the Australian who was killed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading through your explanation it is clear that you have confused your accident with the Australian one in 1991, but you say nobody was hurt and the aircraft appears to have been repaired it is not notable enough for an entry in Wikipedia. So please slow down and read the article with more care before you edit and jump to conclusions about other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Also he needs to read about WP:OR... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

T129 image change

Milb1, I don't think this image change needs discussion! See here for the image that was linked. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OOps, no I didnt look at it! left them a vandalism warning. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for warning them. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Please have some baclava sir and STOP deleting my photos! I've made those pictures and i've lost a lot o time to upload those pictures the and update that wiki page for Tuzla Airfield. How come that you can decide if that pictures are my property or not? Is there a copyright claim from someone? I don't think so because i've made the pictures, i work there. GHalichia (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you work for the company and they have used images on a website then they hold the copyright, just get your company to release them into the public domain either by removing the copyright statements from the website or sending an email to OTRS. If you do work for the company then you also need to read our info about Conflict of Interest. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

737 Revert

Thanks, that's one I didn't even see happen! I hate to do it, but I think it's time to disable my rollback privileges. Is that something you can do? If so, can you make sure to note that it's being removed at my request? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed the right for now, I have left a note on your talk page and the edit summary also show it was at your request and should be put back if you want. Just let me know if you miss it, I have it as well but hardly use it (nearly always by accident! as my laptop has a touchcreen). MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Request move

Hello MilborneOne. Can you please move Talk:VARIG – Viação Aérea Rio-Grandense to Talk:Varig? For some reason, the article's name differs from the talk page's name? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is, I'd presume, the result of debris from a previous move; the cybergnomes who handle moves can spot when you need to delete an articlespace page to complete the move, but they won't delete a talk page with multiple edits to make way for the move as part of the move - or even tell you it has to be done...which often leaves the 'talk page was not moved' warning at the bottom of the move-complete page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Zona da Mata Regional Airport

A year passed, and no disputes occur since semi-protection enabled. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I have removed the semi-protection but need to keep an eye on IPs returning. MilborneOne (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Natalie Forrest.jpeg

Hi MilborneOne,

Thanks, it's my first article that I've created like this. Being a public figure, I assumed that their say was enough to allow a picture to be used. Does the fact that it's a publicity shot that is given out by their employer (who would own the copyright) make it enough to be usable, or do I need to obtain explicit permission from the copyright holder? If so, I'll go down that path. Deshuis (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Deshuis being a publicity image doesnt release it from copyright so we normally need a clear indication that the image is free to use, this also includes commercial use. Have a read of WP:DONATEIMAGE which explains what the copyright holder can do to release the image for use. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello MilborneOne is this email sufficient? I can forward to the wikipedia copyright email if you feel it is.

Hi Dan,

We (myself and Prime7) expressly give permission to use the attached photo for any broadcast and publication purposes including Wikipedia.

cheers, Nat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshuis (talk • contribs) 09:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect not it has to be released for any purpose including commercial use have a read of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to get the idea. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

G7 on HFF_(commercial_real_estate)

I noticed you declined the G7 there. If you feel I'm the "author of the only substantial content", I'm entirely happy with the G7. I've been quite unsure what to do with that (and, sigh, in an edit war, naughty me) with an obvious PR flack introducing a mass of self-sourced content repeatedly. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont have a problem if you want to refer it to another admin for an opinion on G7 but I dont think it is a candidate for speedy deletion, not an expert on American companies but a listing on the NYSE probably indicates it is notable and that may not get it deleted at AfD but it really needs some independant references. Perhaps take it to one of the projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Business to see if anybody can help add some notable content. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alliance Aeroplane aircraft

Template:Alliance Aeroplane aircraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

RAF Castletown

Good Evening MilborneOne

I am working on the squadron table on the RAF Castletown article and I wanted your opinion on it please. Mostly I'm not sure if "Arrived" should come before "From" or not. I've still a few more squadrons to add. Gavbadger (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I would do it the other way round and use from then arrived, although perhaps you may consider combining the dates in one col like "99 Foo 1943 - 99 Foo 1944". MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

Your input is requested at WT:AV. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Serial numbers are needed

Hello MilborneOne. Because the registration/ID symbols transfer, serial numbers need to be added when referring to a specific aircraft (exception when referring to limited numbers, or does not have one). The registration "D-ECJB" has been used on 2 other aircraft, including another 172(H model). -Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia we do not need to quote the manufacturers serial number, it is not encyclopedic and that sort of information can be found on enthusiast sites and a google search, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is actually imperative to list mfg numbers with historic aircraft, especially those from significant events. An extreme example of multiple aircraft with name identifying marks can be found with the Memphis Belle (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It isnt actually and never "imperative" it is just not encyclopedic, as far as I can see Memphis Belle (B-17) doesnt have any manufacturers serial numbers anywhere in the article and doesnt need any. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It's there, first line in main section, "B-17F-10-BO, USAAC Serial No. 41-24485". Also, there is another B-17 flying as Memphis Belle, "B-17G-85-DL, AAC Serial No. 44-83546, FAA registered N3703G, was converted into a B-17F". You can find that info just above the link I posted. =Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You do understand the difference between serial numbers allocated by the United States military and manufacturers serial nunbers are not the same thing. This discussion has nothing to do with military serial numbers. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is why the mfg. number is better referred to as 'constrution number' or c/n. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I would agree with that Bushranger. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The assigned serial number is still effectively unique only to that aircraft. Registration of ID changes, the paint scheme changes, "nose art" changes a lot, but that ID always stays (unless salvaged for parts). I am fine if we want to use wording "Construction Number". =Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The c/n is however not encyclopedically relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Then please explain why serial numbers allocated by the United States military are listed with each aircraft in Wiki? =Flightsoffancy (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Serial Numbers allocated by the United States Military are not manufacturers serial numbers/construction numbers they are different things. When an aircraft is built the builder normally allocates it some sort of number which is always related to that airframe. When the aircraft is sold then if it is civil it gets a registration but the military also have a system to identity aircraft that is painted on the airframe, it is not the same as the number allocated by the builder. The construction number you added (and I removed) in the Cessna 172 article is a construction number allocated by Reims Aircraft in France when they built the aircraft, it and the Cessna 172 have nothing to do with the United States military. As the aircraft was already identified by the registration then as far as the encyclopedia is concerned that is all that is required. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the "N-number" (registration; N123AB, G-URUS, D-OMES et.al.) or serial number/Bureau number (44-12345, 142259, etc.) are relevant. Construction number (c/n, what the layman usually thinks of when "serial number" is mentioned) is not; it's the equivilant of putting a vehicle's VIN number in the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(CR/LF on discussion)
Let me ask, has any two US aircraft ever had the same "Bureau number"? If not, then the "Bureau number" is a stand-in for the construction number. Also the Luftwaffe did not use "Bureau number", instead they used the factory Werk nummer, or Wk. Nr. and those are documented on wiki entries of LW aircraft.
Registration changes, paint changes, parts changes, the only part of an aircraft that will never change is the C/N, or "Bureau number". (It is an old joke in aviation that as long as you have the data plate and wheel rims, you can "rebuild" the airplane; exaggeration, but it shows the importance of the C/N).

The fact that you state "the bureau number is a stand-in for the construction number" indicates you have not been listening to what we have been trying to tell you. Also, just because other things are done wrong doesn't mean we need to do them all wrong - werke numbers need to be removed (the relevant ideintity of Luftwaffe aircraft for captions and such would be the AB+01 radio codes). While the c/n may be important in real life it has no encyclopedic importance to the discussion or identity of an aircraft in a Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not ignoring, I am arguing for the need of C/N numbers. The reason, once again, is positive ID of object when hundreds, thousands, or tens-of-thousands of copies are made. Another example, George Clooney, almost everyone knows who he is, yet Wiki also his full name, George Timothy Clooney, in his bio. Why? Because there can be dozens, even hundreds, of other George Clooney's in the world. Then consider the markings of an item can and often change, and the markings of a subject item are often copied. So the encyclopedic value exists, but it should be used sparingly, mainly to historic or noteworthy items. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

OK but when you are clear that American military serial numbers are not manufacturer construction numbers then you need to make your case as WP:AIRCRAFT to use construction numbers as the consensus comes from the project per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations, but note we dont need to positive ID anything we use reliable sources to do that and all we need is the notable external identity like the registration. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, MilborneOne, never found that page. (O.O) I will read up and post my argument for in there. Thanks -Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

C-130 Hercules Biafran airlift edits

I was surprised by your undoing of my edit/addition to the C-130 Hercules page, notably the small addition regarding the Biafran airlift. You stated it was "not particularly notable this sort of thing is what the Hercules has done for years". Participating in the largest civilian airlift and the 2nd largest airlift of all times is not notable? "Sort of thing the Hercules has done for years" - please look at other entries in this article's section and tell me if this is not as notable as say the RAAF's donation of 4 aircraft. I did carefully consider its notability in light of other entries in this article and stand by my position. If this is something that should be on the article's Talk page, I am happy to discuss it there. Thanks,

You are welcome to raise it on the talk page, the RAAF donation is not really notable either in an overview article on the type. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Concorde and "former operators"/"operators"

Thanks for telling NolanCRules to take the dispute identified in the subject line above to the talk page. While you were undoing his/her edit, I was creating a discussion about it on the talk page. Appreciate your timely involvement as it helps avoid 3RR/edit war temptation. 1995hoo (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, we just need to wait and see how the user responds, he/she has only made a few edits to wikipedia so we may need to not WP:BITE and the user appears to be a minor. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon

Eurofighter Typhoon has now been indefinitely fully-protected for a month. Do you think it warrants unprotection now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OK dispute appears to have died down. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one of the participants in the dispute has reintroduced contested edits, within eighteen hours of protection being lifted. Suggest topic bans for contributors involved instead? HLGallon (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have placed a little note on the talk page requesting that users gain a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Norwich International Airport edits

G'day Mb, I'd be willing to bet that the IP editing Norwich International Airport is our old 'friend' Ryan. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hum not thought of that, not his normal routine but certainly the IP is the right part of the world for him. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like an attempt was made to restore one of those minor incidents. [19] but I've removed it as of no particular significance to the history of Norwich Airport. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Jet2.com

Hello hows things? Please can we protect Jet2.com? In the recent history of the article its IP users repeatedly adding wet leased aircraft. You and other users have reverted and explained why but it doesn't seem to sink in! Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected but it does need somebody to start a talk page discussion to explain why the IPs changes keep being reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss Peer Review

Hello,

As you have previously shown interest in biographies of World War I flying aces, you are invited to critique the above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Email

• You've got mail|subject=Questions

Tphan92 (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood Thomas, I would like to see the questions for your project first but you are welcome to ask them on this page rather than email and I will see what I can do. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for allowing me to interview you. I was wondering what are the most frustrating aspects of navigating through WikiProjects? Is there any features you find excessively tedious, or difficult to use? Tphan92

No most stuff is on the front page and easy to find and most activity is on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What are your favorite aspects / features of WikiProjects? Tphan92

The ability to improve the encyclopedia through team work with like minded editors. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How did you get involved in this particular WikiProject, or WikiProjects in general? Tphan92 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

With an interest in a particular topic or subject you soon notice related projects and then use them initially to find out the general direction and how things are done and then to discuss and work to improving the encyclopedia related to subjects you know. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

So you can have a coffee break in the middle of all the good work you're doing! Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in Wikipedia Guideline

Hi MilborneOne, I've noticed a possible vandalism in the page Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, as in several places there is a sentence that doesn't make sense:

wikipedia is not a good website! 

As you have admin rights and experience, can you please validate this and revert to a sensible version of this page? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It was just vandalism and thanks to User:BilCat he has reverted the recent changes back to the original version. MilborneOne (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fairly generic artist's rendition of jet airliner

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 flying normally

I am directing a question to you because of your expansion of the proposed Aviation style guide. You wrote that computer images of accidents were not to be inserted into an aircraft accident article. I wonder if your wording was unintentionally too absolute, disallowing an image which does not attempt to show any of the accident, an image of the jet airliner flying normally just prior to any accident. Such an image would not have problems with original research.

The article involved is Korean Air Lines Flight 007; the image at right shows the KAL-liveried airliner flying normally in the pre-sunrise darkness, leaving slight contrails. What are your thoughts on this case? Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Still can be misleading - it infers that is what the actually aircraft looked like including illumination and markings at the time of the accident - all original research so I would object to any home-made images that did not come out of official accident reports. The stance was agreed at project level if I remember and I dont have a problem with you raising it again for other opinions but I would object to the use of these images. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Milb1, could you semi-protect my talk page for about a month? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Y MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

US Airways

Can you keep an eye on the US Airways page? An IP insists that US Airways is joining Oneworld sometime in 2014 (as Oneworld's web page states that US Airways is joining in 2014). Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK added to by watchlist, probably the same IP that keeps adding it to the Oneworld article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Although note that Oneworld think US Airways is joining have a look at http://www.oneworld.com/member-airlines/members-elect although in the small print it says US Airways aims to merge with oneworld founder member American Airlines, subject to approvals, bringing the former into oneworld. For latest details, see www.aa.com/arriving MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Rumney Samson -- Thank you

Thank you for the nearly instantaneous response to my question on the Samson page! It's interesting how quickly that field advanced in its early days; clearly "the first" of anything came and went within months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseymh (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Help needed please

I managed to mess up the contents of a sandbox draft to mainspace, and the contents of User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox ARA Buenos Aires (1895) ended up being moved to User:ARA Buenos Aires (1895) instead of the intended target of ARA Buenos Aires (1895). I don't suppose you could fix it please?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Y MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Milb1, could you take a look at this? The user has commented on this subject on that talk page before, but generally not at th i s level of incivility. I was tempted to remove these comments myself, but I thought it might be better if a non-American dealt with them. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Left a comment on Epikuro57's talk page about being civil. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Merger

Can we make this happen? I would do it myself, but wouldn't want to screw things up. regards FOX 52 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Y MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. FOX 52 (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Americans, trying for a fresh and friendly discussion

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at Talk:Americans.
Message added 01:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express

Hi. As a neutral editor who has previous experience of dealing with the article in question, I would appreciate if you could take a look at the Optical Express Talk Page and, more specifically, my posts about recent edits which have been made using original research. Thanks --Hardlygone (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optical Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Boeing customer codes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Boeing customer codes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boeing customer codes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Banaticus (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Eveendetla

Hi Milbourne, I am not so sure that this user is a sockpuppet of Kirkpatrick, do you have definite evidence? his/her other contributions don't fit with his editting style.--Petebutt (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In my judgement the style and subject matters were consistant with a Ryan production, as he reads these talk pages we dont want to give him to many clues or publicity but the three articles he created all had fairly standard ryanisms. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Westinghouse J30

Can you remove protection from the Westinghouse J30 article? The user in question appears to be long gone, and I'm not sure the original problem warranted semi-prot in the first place. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ida Slater may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• received the Daniel Pidgeon Fund jointly with [[Helen Drew]]<ref name="Making of the Geol Soc" /> ) (funding awarded in 1907 and 1906 respectively) to undertake field work investigating the [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Hello MilborneOne! Can you please move Aurora Airlines (Russia) back to SAT Airlines. Aurora (airline) already exists. Furthermore, there is not even a single mention to "Aurora" in the original SAT Airlines article. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Already did it. No admin permissions to perform the task. Thanks anyway!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

MilborneOne, thank you for having stepped in, answering my call for help on two entirely different occasions: The Spantax accident at Cologne/Bonn Airport [20] and the Karlslust dance hall fire [21]. You are a truly awsome Wikipedian! FoxyOrange (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that FoxyOrange, appreciated, I help when I can. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dockerty Cup file deletion

According to the log, you deleted the photo I uploaded of the Dockerty Cup trophy, with the reason being that I had not provided any evidence that I had permission to upload that photo. I had forwarded evidence of the email exchange to the permissions-en@wikimedia.org email address. Was that email not received? Was it perceived as inadequate? Is there any way of rectifying this situation? Blackmissionary (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Blackmissionary OK I have restored the image and added a tag to say an email has been sent to the OTRS system. They sometimes take a few weeks to respond. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Blackmissionary (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

New York Air Show

MB1: Could you please have a look at the recent history of this article with a view to semi-protecting it. Various IP editors keep adding huge amounts of unsourced blog-like and very unencyclopedic text to it over and over again. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done to encourage talk-page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Bell 429 GlobalRanger

Michael, this was reverted before. I couldn't find an official source at the time, so I didn't re-add it then. Just a head-up in case they revert you. - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I took the fact that Flight http://www.flightglobal.com/features/nbaa12/bell-429/ called it the GlobalRanger was a reliable source. Certainly used by a number of websites like http://www.paramountbusinessjets.com/private-jet-charter/aircraft/bell-429.html http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-tpc-tech-partnership.htm and by ICAO document 8643 Aircraft Type Designators shows code "B429" as a Bell 429 GlobalRanger. I will wait and see if anybody questions it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Those certainly show it's still being used in eources, even if Bell isn't using it publicly on it's site. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

US Airways joining Oneworld

Just letting you know that US Airways is indeed joining Oneworld on March 31, 2014 as officially announced by Oneworld (http://www.oneworld.com/news-information/oneworldnews/-/asset_publisher/QtTQ7EuCzxhd/content/us-airways-to-join-oneworld-on-31-march-2014/maximized?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oneworld.com%2Fnews-information%2Foneworldnews%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_QtTQ7EuCzxhd%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D2%26p_p_col_count%3D5). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK that is not how I read it as American and US Airways have merged then this is all about the merging the brand into one world, until they paint all the aircraft and merge the systems, not the same as becoming a full or even partial member. Note it uses the term "The new American" at one point. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, actually it will become a oneworld affiliate member of AA as stated in the third paragraph "until the full intergration of AA and US have been completed, US Airways and its regional carriers will operate as oneoworld affiliate members under the AA umbrella" so on the Oneworld page, US Airways should be listed under the column "member affiliates" for American Airlines when March 31, 2014 approaches. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel like doing some smiting?

G'day; assuming no-one steps in before you, care to wield a mace or a cricket bat - or re-enact the bombing of Dresden - against the creations of Ryan k's latest sock Deman999 - and the man himself? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry somebody beat me to it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Iloilo International Airport

Thanks. I've left a couple of comments on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "iloilo international airport". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning iloilo international airport, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Eleanor Trehawke Davies

I've been thinking of starting an article on this splendid woman for a while....thanks!TheLongTone (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:TheLongTone Yes I was intrigued when she appeared in your Aerial Derby article an interesting lady, she seemed to have been ill for a long time and died in her mid 30s but I cant find anything more about her at the moment but anything you can add would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You put that together since I put up the Aerial Derby article? I'm amazed. My articles tend to lurk round in userspace until they grow mould on them.TheLongTone (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did, its just the way I work most of my articles are created in one hit, I figure that the sooner it is out in the open in a reasonable form we have a lot of really good people that will clean up and add stuff as soon as the article is created, including some who regular fix my typos and add links and stuff!!, all good team work. MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I see how it ca be done with an aircraft where you have a couple of books to do it from, but with a biog from Flight & The Times... it's just taken me nearly a week to do Grahame Gilmour, which I started a week ago. For me, thats faster than a speeding bullet.TheLongTone (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think after you have done a few it doesnt take long to create the basic framework, but we dont all work the same and it doesnt matter whatever is best, as long as we are making this a better place for information it doesnt matter. MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd found that story about the manslaughter chatge, but didn't know hoe to build it into the narrative. I don't know how much digging you did, but he was already banned from driving for speeding (like many of the puioneer aviators, he was also an early adopter of the horseless carrriage) & there's an amusing bit about him not having a horn on his car beecause it was so noisy...might build it into the article another time!TheLongTone (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I did read that he prefered to use a spanner hit against the body work to make a noise, but he did not use that when the young lad was killed. I cant find it now but I did read that it was difficultfor the met police to give him a speeding ticket as they couldnt catch him, clearly a bit of a character. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

British United Airways

Not the only article with a degree of citation overkill (sometimes I think its successive pages of the Flight archive being cited sequentially rather than as a range). Have a look at British Eagle, which is also largely by the same editor, and other British airlines of the same era. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh! not looked at them for some time, need a bit of work, they must hold the record for the most citations for one simple fact! Flight is a good resource but you still have to tell a story based on the facts rather than just quote everything. Perhaps one to put on the list to look at over the holidays. It may be easier to go back to an older version rather than check all the hundreds of citations for what is really required! MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The cites probably do "double up" in most cases. So if there are four cites for one sentence, one could throw out (well, hide) two and see what happens. The ledes need attacking to remove the cites in them; though that means finding where the cite is also used in the text and moving the cite text to there (I don't hold with lumping all the cites in the References section and linking from the text - makes it much harder to edit a section). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bzuk, all the best to you and all talk page stalkers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nowell Parr

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryan k is back

He created 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash and I CSD it. The Bushranger isn't around. Maybe you would like to check it out....William 13:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done per WP:DENY no reason why it could not be recreated if required. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that you deleted that article, despite my having already opposed speedy deletion on its talk page, please restore it forthwith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opposition was noted but in these cases with Ryan we normally delete the article and as I have already said we can re-create it later if required. Being notable and referenced is not a free card for banned editors to create articles and be exempt from G5. You are welcomed to raise it at Wikipedia:Deletion review, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted, thanks (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 27). MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI I emailed Pigsonthewing a copy of the page....William 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Avery JA-5 Walrus

MB1: As you noted this has been sent to AfD by another editor. I don't suppose to you have Janes All The World's Aircraft handy from the 2002 - 2010 period to see if it rated an item in there? I think if it is in Jane's that would prove notability and allow the article to be kept and perhaps even sourced better. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry when the company I work for was taken over recently I lost access to a very good library of old Janes :-{ In the past the fact that the aircraft exists and flown has been enough to pass as notable. Looking to see if I can find anything else, is it worth asking at project if anybody else has access to Janes of the period? MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that is too bad! I can get at Janes, but they are in our city central library downtown. Perhaps I'll make the trip and see what I can find there. I hate to see an aircraft type article deleted when the type has actually flown! - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed that the picture of the JA-5 in the Mojave airshow magazine we link to was taken by User:Akradecki, shame that he has not been around for a few years to help! MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that would be good, he hasn't been seen in several years, though! - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I went down to our central library today and went though Jane's All the World's Aircraft from 2002 to 2010. I think they are going to have to change the name of that publication to Jane's Some the World's Aircraft, because it wasn't in any of those volumes. It is getting hard to make a notability case for this aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, it did exist (FAA records) and it did fly (airshow magazine) so really is should be notable per other deletion discussions in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would keep the article just based on "completionism" alone, but I was hoping it would show up in Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Belle Air

Can you unprotect Belle Air? It's been indefinitely fully protected to stop edit warring for over a month. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express

I wonder if you could take a look at the recent edit that I reverted on the Optical Express page and maybe post your thoughts on the talk page? Neutrality seems to be an ongoing problem for this article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK had a go at adding a neutral bit to the article, refer talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Moy, Moy.

So how do you do that??? Putting the Moy article together I became very very suspicious of the birth/death date, because there is as you may well know, a fairly notable (in the DNB but not on WP) theatre critic & journalist called William Moy Thomas with the same dates. I had a look at what I have access to but altho I did find your Thomas Moy b.1823 in the 1900 census, (in Camberwell) that is as far as could get, because as far as I can tell you need to be a subscriber.Certainly does look like our man because of the legal/engineering connection. Death date????TheLongTone (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I could see "William Thomas Moy" with the same dates and a Thomas Moy of Colchester who died in 1910, pretty sure "our" Thomas Moy died in 1908 in Southwark as it is the only one that matches (you can see them all at http://www.freebmd.org.uk/). The key to the census was they all included Thomas with his wife Henrietta (who is German/Prussian born) and using the 1823 date rather than the 1828. The census entries are fairly clear that the ages all point to 1822/1823. Not found them in every census year so far so I will have another go at some point to find them. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)