User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 1

Re: British Eagle
Hello! I've just checked with my copy of the 'Independent Airlines' book by A.C.Merton-Jones, and have added the precise title, publishers, year and ISBN as shown at the foot of page one of the first volume. Hope that helps!

Regards

Ringwayobserver.

Sorry!
It looks like I did it by accident. I was looking to see where it was switched to the "circa" in the birth and death year and most likely edited an older version when I was making a change. I usually catch the warning that I am saving an outdated version but it looks like I didn't catch it that time. You make the restoration so you get credit for the work. If I add back your new information, which was great, it will get credited back to me. I just wanted to change the "c. 1800 - c. 1900" for birth and death back to the exact years, which are correct. Circa means "plus or minus 5 years". I hope you get addicted to Wikipedia! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! I see the confusion and the need for "circa". How about I look him up in the census and we use the year that he provided in the US Census? Then you can correct both article and I will post whatever document I find at the biography page. I have found at least two birth years this way that differed from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Both were actors that wanted to look younger as they aged. See: Ben Turpin and Buster Crabbe. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

De Havilland Comet
Thanks very much for your help with the DH Comet article! Nick Moss 06:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

CV-540
Before you make a dozen pages for the different Convair CVs, please consider writing them all within one page. They were all variants of the CV-240 Convairliner. Unless you have a tremendous amount of information on each of these, I would suggest writing a Convair CV-240 page and listing all the 340s, 440s, 600's, etc. in the Variants section.

Also, to place the specs template in the article, please use and not just.

Thanks for contributing! - Emt147 Burninate!  23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The CV-600 page was actually created by someone who was trying to advertise their website on Wikipedia. All of that information can be moved to the CV-240 page. The rest of the CV- family should be made as redirects (see Redirect) pointing to the CV-240 page. - Emt147 Burninate!  22:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

BA/AA Merger
Back in the 1990s BA and AA did attempt to obtain antitrust immunity in order to codeshare on their routes, but they did not attempt a merger. U.S. law prevents ownership by a foreign carrier, so a merger could never have taken place. When the antitrust immunity was denied, a less comprehensive partnership ensued.

UK Airports
Thanks for picking up on the errors before I created any articles. Working from the AIP it's hard to tell what the name should be, Airport, Airfield, Aerodrome. I have a question about Salisbury Plain. The only information I could find was this. Does it really exist as place that aircraft can land. If not then it should be removed from the list, as should RAF Coltishall if its now closed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the follow up. I'm starting to prepare the rest of the airports that are listed in the Aeronautical Information Publication. The problem there is with the airport operator and the community served. It lists both but the operator may have a different public name as opposed to the government registered one. Also the AIP may say that the airport is a certain distance from "village X" but it might be better to say that the airport serves "larger town Y". I'm still feeling embrassed over this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. That will help with the coding and with coordinates for ones not listed in the AIP or World Aero Data site. I got all the AIP ones finished today and just need to create the redirects from the ICAO/IATA codes. The "Airport, Airfield, Aerodrome" naming I was able to get from the some of the official sites. I just noticed that Multimap provides information that is not always available in other map views but in some cases such as Aberdeen it has no aerial view. Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Flyglobespan
Trivial point here but I disagree with the removal of the word "raft" services to 13 airports are being launched surely that counts as a raft I quote the definition "a large but unspecified number".

link to Rolls-Royce
Hello, when you want to link to the article about a Rolls-Royce, please do not link to Rolls-Royce, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Rolls-Royce plc by writing out Rolls-Royce. Regards, Jeff3000 06:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:M-509-merlin.jpg
I would very much like to use this image on the Danish Wikipedia, so I would like to encourage you to upload it to Commons, which will give users of other Wikimedia projects instant access to the image.

Thanks in advance. --&#124;EPO&#124; 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Qantas - well spotted!
I've been going around hunting down "QANTAS" and replacing it with Qantas. I couldn't remember any QF F27s, but figured whoever put in the entry knew what they were talking about. On checking I find you are correct. TAA became Australian Airlines in 1986, and there is one photograph of an F27 dated 1987. Qantas took over Australian in 1992, but by that stage the Fokkers must have gone. Nowadays Qantas runs Dash-8s, and in fact I have a model of their new Q400 plane within arm's length. I love flying them, as they fly low and you get a great view largely unobstructed by wing. But they don't have the character of the Fokker. --Jumbo 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your additions to List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft
While updating this list, would you mind also dropping the same information onto the appropriate Year in Aviation article listed under Timeline of aviation? Thanks for the help! Akradecki 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stansted
Since you are in England, do you know if London Stansted has 747s landing there anymore? I know it did, but I cant find an airline that still does? thanks --Bangabalunga 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits on my user page
Why are you placing text on my user page?

--IRelayer 01:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, someone (User:GENET) seems to be spamming me about Gatwick Airport or something...--IRelayer 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Manchester Woodford Airport
Please don't remove the towns from airports even if they are private. All airports are located near somewhere. Take a look at random airports on Wikipedia. They all have a town/area if it's known. As to the aerodrome category. Most people don't see any difference between airport or aerodrome or airfield. Thus I suspect it's easier to just have a "Category:Airports in Country]] rather than have sub-categories by aerodrome or airfield but I'm just guessing.

As to the name of this one I would suggest that it be moved to whatever the company/official/common name is and then include the others. Take a look at Region of Waterloo International Airport, that's the name that the airport authority uses but the name used by the government agency is "Kitchener/Waterloo Regional Airport".

I noticed that you seem to be interested in airports and such, so WikiProject Airports, WikiProject Airlines and WikiProject Aircraft. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Airports vs aerodromes names
I think I see what may have been causing me some confusion. After looking through CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes (3 mb PDF) I see that they define aerodrome but not airport, although the file does mention airport several times. Thus it would appear that every airport listed in the AIP is officially an "aerodrome" no matter what size. This of course would suggest that "London Heathrow Aerodrome" would be the CAA name, which I admit looks a bit silly. This is a bit different from the Canadaian system, where the definition of "aerodrome" is similar to the UK. Then you have "registered aerodrome" and these are listed in the Canada Flight Supplement. Finally we have "certified aerodrome" which are able to legally call themselves "airports".

My suggestion is that if you know the airport should really be at aerodrome, then just be bold and move it. I just listed them as airports because they were in the AIP and assumed that as such they were cerfifed airports. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Runway
No problem. I went through the AIP and couldn't find a reference to it being a taxiway. So as far as I was concerned it is a runway. Probably little used but more so than a taxiway that is sometimes used as a runway. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Airline Callsigns
Please note that I am adding a reference (or source) which relates to all three codes under code data (not just callsign). References (which can be websites, articles, newspapers, books etc) are used to enable readers to prove the accuracy and veracity of the information entered. All entries should be referenced to ensure they are not made up, or are purely opinion. The information you have been adding on codes is not referenced, as it should be. Take off my reference if you must (it was the only one I could find that cited all three codes), but only if you replace it with a reference to where you got the information you are adding from. For comparison the entries I am entering on airline fleets are all referenced as required. Ardfern 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Registration - Serbia
It seems that I was wrong but I guessed it would be RS since that is the new code for Serbia while YU was for Yugoslavia. I am really puzzled now as I don`t see which code will be applied for Serbia as all other things that need a code got the RS. Maybe put back the YU in the article but with the note it is outdated with independent Serbia and that new code should be added to the article as soon as it's revealed. Avala 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Short Brothers
Thanks for reorganising the Shorts aircraft list, ordered on Shorts' own type designations. It is a major improvement and one which I was contemplating doing myself soon!

Was the company consistent with the format of its internal numbering? I know that both the SA/4 and the SB/5 were referred to in company publications using the "Sx/n" format; is this true for all type numbers? It also seems to hold that the name, once chosen, completely replaced the type number, i.e. once the name had been chosen the type number was dropped. Is there therefore a case to be made for e.g. placing the type number in brackets, e.g. "Short (SA/4) Sperrin" or "Short Sperrin (SA/4)"? Or even (since the list is on the Short Brothers page) for dropping "Short" altogether, e.g. SA/4 Sperrin or SA/4 (Sperrin) or some similar convention? It seems to me to be eminently sensible to retain the order based on the number portion of the designation. TraceyR 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Refs
Thank you for covering the more obscure British aircraft! As a reminder, please cite your sources as you are writing the article -- it will considerably increase their quality and value to the reader. See WP:CITE for general instructions and WP:FOOT for how to use the footnote system. I will be happy to help with specific questions. - Emt147 Burninate!  03:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

New Aircraft Pages
It's no problem at all, you're doing a good job on those "grand old ladies" from the Golden Age. :-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Engine specs
I hate the parameter names for engine specs in the template because they are not intuitive.


 * engine (prop)= Name of the engine only


 * type of prop= Type of engine (e.g. liquid-cooled V12 engine... V-engines are not "inline" by definition), propeller information (e.g. six-blade contrarotating propeller) goes here as well


 * number of props= Number of engines

Please use x or the × symbol (under the Insert heading in the symbol box below the edit window) instead of an asterisk (*) since asterisk is a bullet list in Wiki code and can create unexpected layout problems.

Please remove all text to the right of the equal sign (=) for all parameters with no values — that way they will not appear in the template output at all (looks neater than having all those ft and kg/m² hanging around with no numbers).

Thank you for writing about these obscure British aircraft! - Emt147 Burninate!  22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:T67Firefly-logo.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:T67Firefly-logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

British Eagle
Hello, Milborne Port!

I'm really very impressed with the long list of aviation subjects you've contributed to on 'Wikipedia' !

Sorry - I really did not know that there was a 1972 edition of 'British Independent Airlines' - news to me! 'You live and learn', as they say.

I had a minor part to play in the 1976 four-volume BIAL, as the then Chairman of the Merseyside mob. I had to help find the finance for it !! It's a publication of which MAS and LAAS can still be very proud, thanks to ACM-J and his helping team.

The 'Eagle' article in Wikipedia is a good start, but the heroic efforts of Bamberg and Co will justify further postings of facts and anecdotes.

Regards

Ringwayobserver

Dominator UAV
Hello, thank you for getting involved.

I think the main problem here is the mob rule is causing the inevitable wikiality.

First, I called the article Dominator UAV, then the first member of the mob Moved the article to Aeronautics Dominator, without a word of discussion to obtain a consensus or even an opinion, so I Moved it back. Then the next member of the mob shows up comments we both make good points, then a third member of the mob shows up and Moves the article to Aeronautics Defense Dominator. So who is right?

You have chosen the mob rather than the original author of the work, without any discussion or consultation to obtain an opinion or consensus. Do you think it is possible the author of the article might just know something about about the article they have just written and an appropriate name, do you now understand why Wikipedia gets stomped on in the free press so often?

The civilized way to Move an article less than 24 hours old is simply starting a polite discussion on the article Talk Page, which would have been adequate for me, let's discuss and find the best name for the article.

From you, I do not require a response, in fact, please do not post any response to my Talk Page, you can just post it here, but I doubt I will read it...bye! Headphonos 22:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow
Hi Mr. MilborneOne, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I am afraid that the aforementioned editor has championed his cause a little too vigorously and has reverted some of the commentary. Bzuk 23:33 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Uhhh, am I supposed to provide my own tar & feathers?(:-)) or a novel? “Gord of the Wings”, chapter thirteen: “…It’s the Presssscious! Myyyy Pressssuicous! Screamed the Craffordgordon as the ARROW slipped deeper into the budget of Mt. Diefenwrekker…”

Hey I know its not good, but a cave troll gotta start somewhere…, right?. (Dedicated to the chain letter!)

Opuscalgary 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Bill, why don't you canvass for a volunteer to clean up the article, while you are rounding up your gang?

I'll stay out of the school yard after dark..yukyukyuk Opuscalgary 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and threats on my talk page but please read Wikipedia:Civility. There is no such concept as a gang of editors on Wikipedia any contributer can canvas comments from neutral observers which is all Bzuk is doing.MilborneOne 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks- I am rather amused by the search. Really. I proposed a constructive article clean up, backed by a fully researched ,internet available thesis. If I can provide anything else, ( cookies, etc.) make sure I'm the first to know... Cheers!Opuscalgary 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Specs
You omitted a  right before the "jet or prop" parameter at the start of the template (see the diff for the articles), therefore this parameter was commented out. FWIW, I think engine spec handling in the current template is rather cumbersome but I haven't had time to brainstorm how to fix it without breaking the current articles. - Emt147 Burninate!  01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Flybe
Thamks for rephrasing the section on the aquistion of BA Connect. I felt it was important to included the date of the initial announcement. Unfortunately I did not rephrase it accordingly. --Stewart 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellows this is silly stuff.
Maury, Bill, Relax.

Fellows,its spring. count the disputes you are in( I'm at one) & rack up for free play. Fellow CDNS, Look, the date of jet service entry is not that important. All WW2 records are incomplete, esp. in Germany.(Citation, Reg's Dad-, fluent in German & English, Cdn army sargent, Occ. forces, 1945!) Artillery trumps files- big time. Please note that over 80% of these "We will take action, Michael" edits come from my fellow Canadians. Given our tiny worldwide overall membership, this is SCARRRY.

Fellows,its spring. Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\

Ps: Bill old fella, how come Michael didn't get one of your infamous chain letters accusing me of being a "sock puppet?' I thought you sent that to EVERYYONE ON the Wikinet [edit] posted with a mediator: Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument in view of: a. Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany, summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable. The reasons: 1. Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted. German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences to render them complicit. In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documetation ,is 'produced' that he was flying the Me262 on a certain date, for example.

I refer you to Robert Jacksons' Nuremburg summaries. Not only were the Nazis masters at altering fact, some records were altered to protect the truly innocent.

Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ?

Red,I posted this at "Gloster Meteor", as BZUK wants to have Michael Shrimpton 'executed on line':-')

Bill, can we just close some of these disputes without jurisprudence? Regards

Opuscalgary 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation WikiProject Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request regarding Beagle B.206
You recently created an article on the Beagle B.206. Could you provide a citation for the information about the purchase by "Maidenhead Organ Studios Limited for transporting electronic organs". Thanks. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are a couple of acronyms in the article that are not defined and will not be clear to the uniniated &mdash; G-ARRM and G-ATHO.  From the context in the article, it seems that G-ARRM is the designation/name for a particular prototype, so I'd assume the same for G-ATHO.  But, it would be nice to include what these letters stand for. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the Jackson reference also the proper citation for the RAF order? &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Beagle B.206 on DYK for 12 March 2007
Thank you for your contributions! &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RNZAF aircraft list
Thanks for adding the Wicko :-) Winstonwolfe 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List of active United Kingdom military aircraft
Hi, I like your new table layout in List of active United Kingdom military aircraft, but I think it might be better not to confuse company designations like G115D2 and T-67M, or foreign designations like C-17 with military mark numbers like T.1 and F.3. Personally, I would leave the "Version" column empty for types with no official British military designation, and add the company designation to the "Aircraft" column. Letdorf 11:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Westland Sea King
I assume you know why I added Canada to the header on the Westland Sea King page. I couldn't think of a better way of letting these morons know that Canada didn't use Westland Sea Kings. No other country using the Sikorsky models has been added recently (Canada twice), so putting them in the list isn't needed (yet!). I'm open to other options, perhaps hidded text notes, though that doesn't always work either. We can take this to the article talk page if you want to broaden the discussion beyond just us. - BillCJ 23:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Yes, you are right. Anyway, these same people would probably be the ones adding other names to the header! I am keeping an eye on the article, so I guess that's the best we can do. - BillCJ 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job on the reorganization. I noticed that long Australian section in the variants, and wanted to move it, but had other projects I was working on. Thanks for the good work! - BillCJ 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You may find useful for images of all these planes of the 1910s - they are public domain due to age  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 15:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy paste. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

Missing articles
Hi! Yes - please remove any links once they've been created or redirected. Please be conservative when redirecting though - it's better we have redlinks to show up holes in the coverage than to lump aircraft in together. Jane's had a separate entry on (almost) each of these... And please feel free to correct typos if you find them - these lists were all hand typed! Cheers --Rlandmann 11:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Callsign format
I noticed that you changed the format of the callsign to all-caps on the go! (airline) article. There was some discussion about whether they should be all caps or not a couple weeks ago here and thus far the preference (of the two of us who were involved anyway) is for them not to be in all caps. You might want to add your input on why you think they should be in all caps. Thanks. -- Hawaiian717 20:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aviation articles formatting talk
I've prepared some proposals for page content and started discussion at WikiProject Aircraft talk. I'll be happy to hear your comments. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New aircraft
Hi there! When creating new aircraft, could you please also make sure that they're linked from the List of aircraft? Cheers --Rlandmann 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Zoom Airlines
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Copy of my reply to Xulu8 Thank for your comments on my user page can I refer you to Assume good faith. MilborneOne 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for Cargo carriers
Hi, Could you comment on the proposal for setting up Guidelines for Cargo carriers. Thanks, → AA (talk • contribs) — 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

London Airports
No need to worry, i have gone for a voluntary merger. Simply south 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Avro
My trudge through the missing aircraft will be reaching Avro in the next few days - I'd love you to jump in and give me a hand filling in some of the gaps for this manufacturer! --Rlandmann 23:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)