User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 5

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod removed for XL Airways Flight 237

I notice that your prod was removed, so I took it to the next step and listed it at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XL Airways Flight 237. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - commented at AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

198 Squadron

Good to see you've started an article on 198 Squadron. I've started adding some further information, including a list of the unit's C/Os and its incorporation into 123 Wing, 84 Group, Second Tactical Air Force. Regards, Minorhistorian (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Minor thank for supplementing and adding detail to my original. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help! To my mind 198 Squadron was one of the more interesting units of the RAF in WW II; in their short life they did a lot of work and, unfortunately, had a high casualty rate, especially after D-Day. Chris Thomas http://www.ospreypublishing.com/authors/chris_thomas/ (Typhoon and Tempest Story and Typhoon and Tempest Aces) has made up a list of Typhoon casualties and it can make for chilling reading. Minorhistorian (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'll leave 195 Squadron alone for now; I'm stretched as it is and have other articles which need finishing. I will, however, continue to help out with 198 Sqn - appreciate your work getting these Typhoon units going. Regards.Minorhistorian (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Me, once again. The record of 198 Sqn's C/Os in 1944 is daunting - 3 KIA in 20 days in June...Minorhistorian (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Fiat G.2

Well :-) Primarially I'm sorry for my poor writing english (it is for this reason that I limit myself to little modifications in the en.wiki pages). As task you will understand, being Italian I have more possibility than to find articles in my language regarding of Italian aircraft production, and I allow myself the times to make of small modifications, and then all we can make an error copying of the data. Since I often translate in Italian your voices I'm happy being able to only contribute also in minimal part. I promise that I will try to always write more (and I try to improve my English) :-) Good fly.--Threecharlie (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact check please?

At the moment, the List of military aircraft of the United States includes a short-lived (1960-62) designation letter of "S" for "sailplane". I haven't been able to verify this anywhere else, but I seem to remember seeing you citing a book on US designations from time to time. If my memory's not playing tricks and you have such a book, could you please see if it mentions anything about these? Our article asserts that two designations (S-1 and S-2) were assigned, both to Schweizer types. Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Because we've now got a 3-or-4-way conversation going, I'll make further responses on my talk page :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pitts Special

Where does Simpson 1991 come from? FWiW, nice work on the article. Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Sorry missed that, I have now added it to references. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

46 Sqn

As things stand, ones where a third party has been identified as a the creator of the image should be treated as PUI; some, however, don't have a creator named, and these should be tagged NSD. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For your reference work on the previously unreferenced Pitts Special article - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - that was for finding the reference!! The article is looking much better than when we started, due to everyone's help. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

Thanks for the help in Media Copyright Questions. Being a new editor, I jumped the gun and made a mess of the request I sent to the website in question. I have since sent them a clarifying email, asking for confirmation in accordance with Wiki standards. Thanks for the guidance, it is much appreciated. \ / (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem happy to help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Ok just done some searching and found [1] which has the same tail logo as Image:European Air Charter.jpg. Now to find the right operators article if it has one. Do you know the airlines full name? Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just did a another search and seems it's right[2](European Air Charter). Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left this message on your talk page but just for the record the aircraft in the picture is a Hifly Airbus A330-322 registered CS-TMT operating trooping flights for the Royal Australian Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic

Hey! Can you help out? I'm stuck in an edit war I don't really want to be in at Virgin Atlantic Airways \ / (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to check his previous edits. It seems he is reverting a lot of your edits. \ / (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - he/she does not want to discuss anything but just keeps on reverting. Not an approach that goes down well at wikipedia and will probably endure some sort of sanction if they keep it up. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

London City Airport

The way you have made it sound is that "Fight the Flights" is some sort of climate change group. There is not even a mention about residents protest group. Go look at heathrow and stanstead - both have a section on "opposition" and their respective campaign groups are mentioned. The Heathrow one is a bit nuts e.g. peak oil theory.

I tried to put a balanced view for London City and was trying to list the groups "why" residents opposite by referecing the Planning Officer's Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.188.151 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note the explanations at Talk:London City Airport about reliable and verifiable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cessna 402

Thanks for the note. Sure, no problem!

Incidentally, after no objections on the talk page I just amended the accident notability criteria. I am just waiting to see if there are any more objections! - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Mil, can you temporarily lock the page to prevent any further editing until the issue of captions is resolved. I would hate to see any editors going into 3R to make a WP:POINT. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

I have raised it at WP:RFP although not involved in the editing I have been involved in the talk page discussion so it is better to find another admin, just stops problems of bias. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'll talk to R. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Miltary accidents and incidents

Hey Milborne!

Thanks for your Hawks accident listing. I just finished flipping all the dates (I think) to military style day-month-year to better conform to international practice. I appreciate you following suit.

As the list has a preponderance of American military accidents and incidents, I have lately been trying to add "foreign" crashes to internationalize it. Due to the nature of English-language sources (that which I collected and can read) the focus is mostly on American. British, Russian, and German aircraft. (Hard to find detailed info on 3rd world flight activity - although you know it HAS to be out there...) If you can add any kind of off-beat references, I would be most grateful (dead). Mark Sublette (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am trying to steer clear of combat losses, for the most part. The Kargil incidents were posted by someone else, but, under the circumstances, as they link handily to other articles, I am willing to let them stand. Mark Sublette (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am of two minds about notability. There is no way that this article can or should try to list all losses of every type. Moreover, it is the nature of written histories ( I have noticed ) to focus on the loss of early models/prototypes. In my mind, the most definite data that can be boiled down to describe these accidents and incidents (model, serial, c/n, unit, base, crew) is vital to making this list more than just a boilerplate tally of crashes. Some of these warrant connecting articles, and many of them already do - I have tried to list "see also" in cases where the incident article was not part of the copy. I note also that the 1957 Philippines Cebu crash has a link article, but was not defined in the orginal listing by another contributor. Other items will probably never have self-standing articles, and this will be their reference. I have personally listed a slew of items out of my own junior high/high school newsclipping habit-based files. Documentation! Some of the articles are probably more significant than others - I will not say that all of the items I have listed are that important in the long run - but in the interest of filling out the timeline, I have used some lesser incidents/accidents to get the cohesive whole. ( I borrowed four or five Hercules crashes of notability from my own List of C-130 Hercules Crashes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_crash), because they're colorful.) If, in the future, we get enuff entries from around the world that my my random A-6E crash items seem insignificant, they could go away. In the meantime, I stand by all my research (which includes hunting up verification for MOST of the international items of the past ten years.) Mark Sublette (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, the only past identifications I listed were on the C-130s, plus the NASA CV-880 previous registration. The cases where I list civilian DC-4's military identity (as accident reports record them), I will stand by. If the back history of Herky-birds is your major concern, I will trim them. I'm trying to strike a balance between specific identities and - maybe- TMI. Mark Sublette (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Article is getting long-ish. Perhaps we can break into sections like the Railroad accidents article has - 1900-1949, 1950-1999, 2000 - ?

Mark Sublette (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I have broken the article into three pieces, as per discussion. Mark Sublette (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

EA500

Hi there, thanks for your note! That is funny! Actually there is nothing to stop the FAA, TC or EASA from issuing a type certificate for an Eclipse EA500 and an Extra EA500 - the TC numbers and manufacturers are different so it doesn't matter. You won't find a type cert for the Eclipse in Europe and, in fact, you may never do so!

Of course they won't be given the same ATC abbreviations, but that is a different argument! You probably saw the discussion Bill and I had? I think we came up with an acceptable solution. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rank style

Hey dude: I am trying to be consistent in the accidents articles. Do we have a style guide for "Lt.j.g." OR "Lt.J.G"? Mark Sublette (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of the answer but the article Lieutenant, junior grade uses LTJG, you could always ask at WT:USMIL. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

BoB page again

Mil, shenanigans afoot. Step in before editors violate 3R. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, missed the bunfight due to an early night! I will keep an eye on it particularly for sock issues. MilborneOne (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Jordan (RAF officer)

Thank you for the useful additions to this article. You may have spotted that I am slowly and labouriously working my way through all of the ROC Commandants, most of whom are missing. Can I ask where you actually found the information for Jordan's birthplace and place of death? I could not find that on the internet, but is there an alternate source I could access when researching these chaps? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is OK you can reply here as I have your talk page on my watchlist. Agreed, all of the entries will need inline references and I will get round to that at a later stage....it is such a labourious task adding them while actually compiling the entries. Crerar is a mystery in many ways, his entry is so far entirely built from the "History of the ROC" but he cannot have sprung into being fully formed as an Air Commodore and I cannot find anything about his early RAF history or what he did afterwards. You seem to have some awesome sources (judging by your wider wikiwork in aviation topics) I hope I can lean on you again in the future, any help is greatly appreciated? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Plane talk

Mil, what's the best way to set up a consensus vote? I really never have been involved in such before but I do see a marginal issue that needs clarification, but maybe not, I could be addled here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your reply, the only concern I had was not that a particular user was employing plane talk, but that the argument was drifting towards an acceptance of a colloquialsim and contraction as acceptable wherein a perfectly good word "aircraft" and an acceptable word "airplane" suffices. FWiW, the argument is now into WP:TEND so I will withdraw my challenge to go to consensus voting. Bzuk (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Lioré et Olivier

"LeO" is definitely correct - the "e" stands for "et", which has no accent! Incidentally, the error in the "missing list" is mine, not Jane's. I'll fix these so as not to create useless redirects. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines#Opening statements

Hello. I'm Ryan, the mediator of the above request for mediation. Would it be possible for you to pop over to the link above so we can start the mediation properly? Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

663 Squadron

Hello Milborne - I continue to value your always accurate 'heavyweight' contributions to Wikipedia!

However, on 663 Squadon, I happen to be the Air-Britain specialist on the unit. I have photos of three 663 Squadron Chipmunks at Hooton Park and Ringway. A total of six 'Chippys' served with 663 between 26.01.55 and 21.02.57 in the training and support role. Would you like to re-instate the reference - or shall I?

Best wishes Ringwayobserver (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Junkers Ju90 photos

While carrying out a WP:MILHIST re-assessment of Junkers Ju 90, User:Woody raised question marks about the photos used in the article. These photos claim rather dodgy GDFL releases as they all appear to have been copied from a forum with an alledged release from the person who posted them on the forum! While one of the photos (the one of the Ju 90 in the process of being shot down) may be pd-gov-uk, all the others look very suspect. Could you have a look?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I added them all to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 September 2. MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Travel City Direct

-By Scott9432- I think this information is relevant as it contains useful and resourceful information about the history of Travel City Direct, just as do other airline pages that contain information about the company's former aircraft fleet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott9432 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thank you for telling me your reasons, just one more quick thing, if possible, could you verify if the XL Airways article would be a suitable place to put this info, even if i must change bits of it. It would be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott9432 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neukom Elfe

Thank you for your note. An interesting subject. I have had an edit or two at it, see if you think that is an improvement! - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I am just glad that you thought it was help than hindrance. There seems to be more Elfe models missing, I will have to see what I can dig up on the net about them. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! I have made some updates and added some refs, but it is hard to sort out. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

C-82 Packet

Milb1, thanks for backing up some of my edits and editorial choices on the C-82 Packet page. Having my edits called "vandalism, per this diff, is a bit off-putting, and that user's post on my talk page was somewhat condescending. That's kind of odd to me, considering he has 278 edits, while I have considerably more than that! I sure hope this type of behavior by that user doesn't continue! Btw, per the C-119 article and some of my print sources, the R4Q was a C-119, not a C-82. Do your references back that up? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, agree that the R4Q is a naval C-119. MilborneOne (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

editwaring is the continual REMOVAL of disputed content until the matter is resolved, not the addition of it. All content in question is supposed to remain until the matter is resolved unless the content is clearly intended to slander or deliberately mislead, which is obviously not the case here. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised this is even in disbute. If you go to the B-17 page you will find references to several notable B-17's, even though many of these aircraft also have their own articles. Using information in several articles is never discouraged as long as it's relevant to each article.

With regard to the C-119 and C-82, my father was the chief development test pilot for the entire C-119 program as well as the chief production test pilot for the Kaiser contract. I have a wealth of original test and production documents, and can definately assure you that the R4Q-1 was the Navy version of the C-82A and the R4Q-2 was the Navy's version of several C-119 models (the Marines used only C-119F). The simplist way to verify this is with Alwyn T. Lloyd's fairly decent book "Fairchild C-82 Packet/C-119 Flying Boxcar" which came out about three years ago. He has the production figures wildly wrong, and some photos mislabeled (and charges a sinful amount for it), but it is the current standard reference guidebook on the C-82 and C-119. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Retail outlet names in Airport articles.

Hi MilborneOne,

In relation to my initial thoughts that the names of individual retail outlets in the Birmingham Airport article are in contradition to the Wikipedia policy not a travel guide, I would welcome your input. The user has reverted my removal of the corporation names, but I thought I would put this past you before further edits.

See: BHX talk page

and: my talk page.

Thanks SempreVolando (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree SV - I have removed the retail info, it should not have been in the middle of airport history either and adds no value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective Crap

Amazing how just because ppl disagree they resort to bullying tactics, I am off wikipedia for good, most of it is incorrect anyway and subjective.

Avro Vulcan

Hey, Noticed you've made quite a few edits to the Avro Vulcan page..

You wouldnt happen to be fairly familiar with the plane would you?

As im pretty sure one overflew me at home today, and i managed to get a picture, but its really small and not the best quality as all i had was a bad phone camera..

If you are familiar, any chance you could tell me if you think it is?

Avro Vulcan XH558 says it was in Jersey yesterday, and going to scotland for tommorow.. So could've quite likely been in transit - Im 20 miles south of York, in the same village as EGBR

Cheers!

—Reedy 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ace. 10 minutes or so to go from where i live to there, is about right i suspect (maybe a little on the low side). Im just a bit pissed off i didnt have my proper camera on me, ahhh well! Thanks! —Reedy 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

XH-26 Jet Jeep

I have done some tweaks to XH-26 mainly format and templates to agree with the latest project guidelines. I tried to copy your spec figures accurately into the latest template but apologies if I got them wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MilborenOne!! I'm always thankful for any help with templates. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U needing your endorsement

Hi MilborneOne. After Davegnz's latest outburst, I have decided to file an RfC/U to gain input from the wider community. Since I have specifically named you as someone who has unsuccessfully tried in the past to encourage him to work constructively with others, my version of events requires any corrections you feel are necessary, and then your endorsement. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref check please?

Hi again :)

Could you please take a look at the entry in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft for the Levasseur PL.6? I'd like to know if this entry on aviastar was plagiarised from that publication; and if so, what's the page number? There's a detail in there that contradicts Jane's (and seems more likely, IMHO), so I'd like to include it; but I'd say that any fact that contradicts Jane's needs a citation :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No entry in the IEA for the Levasseur PL 6 ! it skips from PL 5 to PL 7, under PL 7 is says After the unsuccessful PL 6 two-seat fighter plane, Levasseur's only design for the French Army, the company turned to the task of providing a replacement torpedo-bomber for the PL 2. (Page 2318) MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - curious! Given the site's nature, I'm sure it's pinched from a reliable source; but which one? :( --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LeO 40 and 41?

I've just given Template:Lioré et Olivier aircraft a bit of an overhaul to straighten out those pesky French-style subtypes. I also noticed a LeO 40 and 41 on the list from a previous expansion by you. I can't find any reference to these in the usual places, so I've removed them for now. If you know they existed, please put them back in! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LeO 40 and LeO 41 were experimental biplanes that appeared in 1932, the 40 was a two-seat tourer with a pusher propeller and the LeO 41 was a strange design. Both no more than one off prototypes. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But come on - you can't just say it was a "strange design" and leave it at that! Share! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The LeO 41 was a strange design with long control surfaces carried on a series of struts behind the wings. It was powered by a single 95hp (71kW) Renault 4Pb engine. Sorry thats all I have. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I think you probably know by now that I have a soft spot for the oddballs! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alaska Seaplane Service

An article that you have been involved in editing, Alaska Seaplane Service, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationalities of WWI aces

Milborn,

I am the one that made the distinction between the nationalities of the aces of the United Kingdom. I inherited an incomplete table that distinguished Australians, Canadians, and South Africans by their national flags. I felt it didn't give a fair picture of the RFC/RAF, so I noted the Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Americans flying for the RFC/RAF. I suspect that the Irish especially would not care for being considered British, and when I was in Australia, the expression I often heard for the British was "pommie bastards". My reasoning was that anyone not noted would by default be realized as English. I also wanted to show the great reliance the English put upon the Commonwealth and rest of the UK.

I also noted Kazakoff as flying for the French, and the Americans who flew for the French. And I do note, in the articles I write or edit about German aces, I mention the Bavarian/Prussian/etc medals won. I also intend, as I learn about them, to note which Jastas were considered Prussian, Bavarian, etc. If I get a sufficient grasp on German geography, I think I shall probably add that to the place of birth in the bio.

If you have the skills (which I still lack) to dub in national flags to replace the "false" colors so that the annotations could be removed, I wouldn't object. Alternatively, the English pilots could also be noted.

I do not feel there is reason to break the Germans or Italians back into subjects of their pre-national origins, but if a compelling argument can be made for that, I am educable.

Your views on any of the above are welcome. George J. Dorner ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Milborn,

Let me set down what we seem to have worked out between us, if only to avoid the "daft factor."

Aces from home nations all to be categorised under the UK flag. Notes appended to table pointing out Irish, etc. to be deleted. (This might take me a couple of weeks.) Their branch of service (RFC, RNAS, RAF) should denote their UK service.

Commonwealth aces to stay under their national flags. Their branch of air service (RFC, RNAS, RAF) should denote their UK service. Aussies to be designated AFC or RFC/RNAS/RAF.

Americans flying for French or British to be under U.S. flag with Air Service to indicate for whom they flew. Which presents problem of Lafayette Escadrille being designated separately. Wasn't that unit actually French?

All other nationalities to remain German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, etc.

However, in bio articles, I think it should be customary to denote Saxon German, Welsh, and so forth.

If any of this seems out of line, please let me know. I appreciate dealing with someone rational as you.

Now, please clarify one statement for me. "I will add English to the table!" Puzzled by this. Do you feel it necessary to annotate all UK pilots as English? Or will the approach I outlined above obviate any need to add English? George ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 10:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for review

The fellow who recruited me, Trevor McInnis, has posted that his personal life has taken priority over Wikipedia. (And who can blame him?)

Because we have dealt well with one another previously, I have turned to you.

I am combing back through the spate of articles I churned out last month, and adding inline citations now that I have learned how. One of these articles is Arthur Rhys Davids, which has been tagged as needing inline cites. I suppose the next step is to have an editor review it now that I added inline cites. Could you do this? Or is there some procedure I should learn to have my citations checked?

The clue-seeking rookie, Georgejdorner (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add Otto Koennecke, Karl Menckhoff, and William Lancelot Jordan to list.

Georgejdorner (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Canglesea has reviewed the above articles, at my request.

Please pardon my impatience, but I am able to work on Wikipedia daily as my retirement hobby. I do want to feel I am making progress at learning this.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Davids or Rhys-Davids?

The ONLY hyphenated use I am seeing of this pilot's name is in military papers. Everyone else shows it unhyphenated. I reminded of the old saw of the recruit who tells the clerk he has only first initials and a last name. The poor fellow spends his entire military career as Ronly Bonly Jones--ie, R only B only Jones.

You might want to revisit this issue in the cause of accuracy, as minor as it may be.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Ah, superior research will overcome every time. I concede to the use of Rhys-Davids.

As for conclusions...I conclude that if I drop an egg, it will fall. I further conclude that will break when it hits a tile floor. But I don't carry conclusions any further than that. I don't conclude that William Lancelot Jordan was on business or vacationing in Japan when he married; I only conclude that he married there, and pick up his mother's name from the announcement while I am at it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

---

It's your baby, you change his nappies...er, I defer to your wisdom on changing Rhys-Davids' name because you are so much more experienced in Wiki world. Georgejdorner (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wataniya Airways

In regards to the " History of the brand" section. Can you please explain to me, why me explaining how a brand was created, constitutes as a media " hype"? Many other airline wiki articles feature a detailed explantion. I am merely reporting to the public why and how a brand was developed. It is called information. I do not appreciate you dictating your conservative views upon mine. Why are you doing this? You are not even involved in this airline, whereas I am. Everyone is free to write on wikipedia. And my information is well sourced. Please explain yourself as to why you are destroying my additions to this article, which you didn't even create yourself. This is a mockery of freedom of speech. I am upset about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.139.197 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Commandants ROC

I am currently compiling articles for all the RAF Air Commodores who commanded the ROC during their careers. I have just reached and added Gordon Herbert Vasse if you want to go and have a quick look.

I am doing OK with the older Commandants and can find plenty of stuff for the articles...up to around 1976, but I cannot find anything on the following more recent encumbants of the position and wonder if you might have any other detailed sources that will help with building their RAF career details?:

• Air Commodore M H Miller 1976

• Air Commodore John F G Howe 1977 (later Air Vice Marshal) - the first Commandant I served under as a wholetime officer and sat on the three man board that recruited me.

• Air Commodore Raymond J Offord 1980

• Air Commodore George P Black 1983 (later Air Vice Marshal)

• Air Commodore Jack (John?) Broughton 1984

• Air Commodore Ian Horrocks 1986

• Air Commodore George M Boddy 1989

• Air Commodore Clifford Spink 1992 (later Air Marshal)

21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list I will have a look and see what I can find. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just about finished expanding the Richard Jordan (RAF officer) stub. Can you weave your magic by completing the appointments box at the bottom? I am in awe of how you find out who the various command predecessors and following incumbants were 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments on my talk page. I am enjoying our 3-way collaboration on the ROC Commandants. Greenshed (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Need help determining Copyright

Hi MilborneOne,

I'd appreciate if you could help me with this one. I want to use certain emblem Logos. Its a emblem of a Luftwaffe Wing from WWII, that does not exist any longer. The web page of Michael Reimer has those logo/emblem images. (All the images on that link except aircraft images are emblems.)

Here's the question. According to the author of the website, Michael Reimer, those images are like images of flags of countries. He said that like say images of flag of Germany in 1933, this image too is in Public domain.

Can you please clarify if I can use those images at all. If yes what do I put under License field while uploading ?

Thanks perseus71 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that information. Just one question. If I use {{non-free logo}}, I am supposed to provide Copyright information. Now the supposed entity owning that copyright no longer exists. So other than where I got the image from, what Exactly do I need to provide as per that {{non-free logo}} tag ?

Thanks perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Flightline-logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flightline-logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Flyjet logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flyjet logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Airline liveries and logos

Could you please reinsert the logos so that I could seek a consensus from people as to whether there are any copyright problems or not? Thanks Kransky (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Kransky#Airline_logos. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Slingsby T7

What the hell do you think you are doing? I spend a good five minutes looking for this article, believing it to have been deleted and started again. If you are going to change an article have the courtesy to inform the person that wrote it and make notes in the talk page, also why has the photo been deleted?

I am going to undo your vandalism.--Pandaplodder (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Pandaplodder#Slingsby_T7 MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for blasting off at you, I really couldn't work out what had happened, I am now trying to work what the difference is? all online records say its a TX3? where should XA302 go?--Pandaplodder (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Slingsby template

I had a quick look in the Simons book (which is very comprehensive) for you and the template seems to cover most of the types (great work BTW), for the military designations I would have to look in the text. The Grunau Baby 2 is the T.5. If you need any photos there are several Slingsby types at my local club including the Dart, Kestrel, T21, Skylark, Vega, Capstan (rare machine) and T61 (gained my PPL on this type). I have flown all the blue linked types and quite a few of the red ones. If I get the chance I will go through the articles in the template and add the reference (if it's needed). All the best. Nimbus (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another airline article nominated for deletion

Hello. Based on your recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service, I thought you might be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsek Air Service. -- Zyxw (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Austin Aero Company

I was just doing some research for the Cofton Hackett entry and I came across this page and wondered if you had also found it [3]. There are several aircraft there that my grandfather and father worked on during their time with Austin Aero Ltd between the wars... Austin Greyhound, Austin Osprey Triplane, Austin Whippet, Austin Kestral etc But I am sure you are already aware of them and I am trying to teach you how to suck eggs, given your interest in oddities. It does cross my mind that maybe we should separate all the info on Austin Aero from its inclusion in Longbridge plant as a separate sub article. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America Arbitration Request Filed

Hi. Please be informed that an arbitration request has been filed for Virgin America regarding the LAX focus city dispute in which you have been included as an involved party. Best Regards 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson

Greetings. Do you know if Andrew Wilson (RAF officer) and R A F Wilson[4][5] are one and the same? I think so as the seniority and type of appointments fit but google does not come back with the definative answer. Greenshed (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am convinced. Greenshed (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to WP:PUI

Did you know that images which are tagged with a free license tag but lack verification of this (by means of a website notice or an OTRS email) can now be tagged {{subst:npd|quoted source}}? It's faster than PUI and doesn't require you to list the image on a daily page. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted - thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename "All Metal Products Company"

Hi, would you please be good enough to rename the article "All Metal Products Company" to "Wyandotte Toys"? Afterwards please leave a link for "All Metal Products Company" to "Wyandotte Toys". These are very collectible toys and are always referenced by the name "Wyandotte Toys", so I'm not sure why someone wrote the original (small) article using the lesser known name. Thank you again. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I did it as a redirect, but I want it send the user there automatically. I'm going to duplicate the entire article under the "Wyandotte Toys" name. My abilities are still limited, so if you think it correct please do an automatic redirect from "All Metal Products Company" to the "Wyandott Toys" article. Thanks again - Ken keisel (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help - Ken keisel (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Medcab

You have been named as an interested party in a MEDCAB case relating to Virgin America.

I have taken the case on as mediator.

Please would you review my comments on the article talk page and indicate whether you are happy to go forward with mediation as outlined.

Many Thanks

Mayalld (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Upload

Hi. Re your message on my talk page. The following is the text of the permission I obtained to use this site's images, which I've sent now to the WP e-mail address for permissions. Thanks for pointing this out. Hope this is OK now. Scoop100 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

--- On Fri, 6/7/07, The Aerodrome <webmaster@theaerodrome.com> wrote:

From: The Aerodrome <webmaster@theaerodrome.com> Subject: RE: To: "'Simon Petitt'" <simon_petitt@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Friday, 6 July, 2007, 7:58 PM

Hi Simon, Not a problem. Thanks for asking.

Scott Hamilton

webmaster@theaerodrome.com

From: Simon Petitt [6] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:57 AM To: webmaster@theaerodrome.com Subject:

Hi Could you tell me please what the copyright situation is regarding use of images on the Aerodrome? I have quite a lot to do with Wikipedia, in terms of creating and improving articles on WWI aviation, particularly Aces and aircraft. It would be great to be able to include some more images in the articles and obviously 'The Aerodrome' is a marvellous repository for these. My understanding re photos is that the copyright period finishes 70 years after the death of the photographer. Its fairly safe to say that this would apply to most WWI photos. But in any case, Wikipedia, as you may know, is a free to all resource, so there is no commerciality attached to any use. What would your position be, please regarding uploading images to WP, with assurance that in every case that the appropriate credit to the site would be given?

Thanks Best Regards

Simon Petitt

VR-HEU

Hi MilborneOne, I am not sure if you are familiar with the story of the VR-HEU. But after creating the entry on Cathay Pacific VR-HEU last night, I have discovered an anomaly and it is:

How many people were ACTUALLY on VR-HEU? Every single source indicated to me that it was eighteen but I am counting nineteen. Please tell me I am wrong.BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As your own entry indicates:
"The aircraft had a three-man flight crew and three cabin crew two of which died. The aircraft was carrying 13 passengers..."

3+3+13=19
BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've already written to 2 sites (helianthus & dnausers (aka airdisaster.co.uk), waiting for their replies now. I will now pour my magnifying glass over scmp's and other news clippings to further investigate.BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After pouring over the newspaper articles, I think the problem lies in the Chief Stewardess Iris E. Stobart. None of the articles seem to mention her but more importantly and to my surprise, the first SCMP article on 24 July, have missed her altogether! If you read the article carefully, you'll see that her name is not on the list of "not brought home by the American rescue plane". I'll now try and ask Dennis (helianthus) where he got his passenger and crew list from.BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this article at the correct title? Shouldn't it be something like "Cathay Pacific Hainan Shoot-down, 1954" or similar? Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would agree the article title is non-standard and should be changed - have we a flight number ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Douglas Evill

Greetings. I am currently working on the article on Air Chief Marshal Sir Douglas Evill. Any assistance you can offer would be gratefully received. Greenshed (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ICAO and Bell 206

Sorry about the revert. When I was growing up in flying, ICAO was implied to be a European organization. Perhaps that was due to the FAA being stubborn about letting an international organization establish standards for them. Anyways, I don't think your summary explained the reason for your revert very well, but I now see what you were after. --Born2flie (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Article request

Hi again :)

Just wondering if you could "take care of" the MDG Midgy-Club? There's an entry in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft issue 120, but would you believe this is one of only 7 issues that I can't lay my hands on right now? Murphy's Law! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done at MDG Midgy-Club - although not a lot of info. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Still better than nothing. I think aviafrance may have a few more specs. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it a biplane or a monoplane chaps? Infobox says one and the text says it was a biplane and a monoplane! Perhaps it was both, confused! Shame we don't have pictures for these 'obscure types', just have to use one's imagination! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Nimbus it is a biplane - should check what I write! thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, all good fun! Nimbus (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The prod on Myrtle Avenue (UK)

With regards to your edit here, you were the one that prodded the article.--Rockfang (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Prod is no longer active. It was contested (removed) here. The deletion notice that is currently on the article is an AfD notice. Not a PROD.--Rockfang (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

F-104 survivors

I think you misunderstood me, it is still obviously D-8331 but also fairly obviously 'ex' Dutch air force, as in they don't operate it any more (they might still own it of course), it's only an edit summary and I could leave none like many other editors. That section is becoming a pain to keep tidy, luckily I know where to get the references from but it would be easier just to delete them I suppose. I suspect that some of the references in that section could be classed as unacceptable as they are 'self-published', I just try to find the best references out there which is preferable to none. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it because I read ex-RNLAF to indicate that it had been painted as USAF or something else. We would not for example say ex-RAF for a Spitfire still in RAF markings or ex-USAF for an aircraft still in USAF colours. Perhaps the section should be moved to a F-104 Starfighter survivors article where they may be more room to be a bit more precise. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I constantly refer to the Tiger Moth that I part-own and fly as 'ex-RAF' when people ask about its history, granted it is in civil markings now but I would still say the same if it was in RAF colours, just a different way of looking at things I guess. I've no desire to start a 'survivors' article for the F-104, maybe someone will in the future or it may be forced upon us. It's a fairly small list there at the moment although it is growing almost daily with unreferenced and vague additions. I have not read our guidelines lately but I think it says 'notable' survivors should be included, not all as sometimes happens (I am aware of recent 'survivor' article activity and can see what occurs when it goes too far)! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

AMC Museum photos

I draw exactly the same conclusion that you do; the Museum is run by a private foundation and the website and its contents belong to them. Note the copyright notice on the website, the section of the FAQ inviting the public to donate photos to the website, the site is not hosted on a .mil domain, and the contact details for the site - not a .mil address. In short, nothing to sustain a claim that the photos are the work of a USAF employee in the course of their duties. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As you may know, Commons is much stricter with its image requirements than en.wiki. These actually need to be marked for removal. As part of that strictness - this is a "one click" process on Commons. You'll find a "Nominate for deletion" link in the "Toolbox" to the left of the window. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Datelinks

Hallelujah! Thanks for pointing out about the recent change in Manual of Style policy. I see a number of editors are using the talk pages there to discuss how put out they are that the change wasn't well discussed or publicised, which I tend to agree with, but I'm personally delighted with the actual change, since there ought, indeed, to be a more elegant way for dates to be spotted by the software. Cheers, – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)