User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 12

Image permission process
MilborneOne, I'm trying to advise an user on the image permission and OTRS ticket process, but have no direct experience with that. If you can please add/correct my post on my talk page here. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, You left a note for me saying that there was no proof that 2 pics were from the author. According to the Author, he emailed the pictures and permissions to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (along with several others) granting CCA-SA 3.0. I do not know how to verify that but will you please check that before you delete the pictures. If I need them resent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org please let me know. I do want to be correct in what I do. Thank you for reviewing my article. R. T. Gates (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

List of honorary British knights and dames
Good work on editing Talk:List of honorary British knights and dames/Temp table version draft. As part of my updating of this page, when I have been updating nationalities of those with Wikipedia pages, I have also been ensuring that the categorisation on the person's main article is for the honorary award, not the substantive award (less the Royal Victorian Chain which, strictly speaking, was always awarded substantively, not honorarily). I have been using the unlinked status of the nationality column as a visual marker to aid me in identifying who I need to check. Given that you have also been updating and linking nationality, could I ask that when you do this, you also perform the same categorisation check I have been doing. This way we won't miss anyone. As a rule of thumb, I think that when referring to someone's occupation, it should be the occupation contemporary to the service recognised by the award with a note, if relevant, to what the person ultimately achieved if this is more widely known. I suspect that this is what you have already been doing. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem Aus I will check and add cats next time I update an entry. Just to assure you when I add information about occupation etc it is how the contempary report describes them. MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

G'day MilborneOne, I am nearing readiness to re-sort the list alphabetically (still have to double check the royalty category first). Are you wedded to the current sequence for your ongoing program of updating (and need me to hold off) or are you happy for me to launch when I am ready? When I do, I will put up a notification to avoid editing whilst I am transitioning the table to the new structure. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with you changing the sequence, I am just working my way through the unreferenced in no particular order. MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class opinion needed for British Airways page
I've been doing a lot of work on the British Airways page since June 5 2010 to get the page to A-Class from GA-Class but I need two uninvolved editors to say yes or no to the change. You seem to have done a lot in this field so I thought you would probably be best qualified to help me with this. You don't have to do it right away but a quick response would be helpful. The review page is here and I've done all the work outlined by SidewinderX (talk) even though it isn't all scored through. Thanks in advance, Plane Person (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

Fighter aircraft
I noticed you semi-protected the article because of ongoing content disputes. I was just wondering whether you think I was being overzealous in my actions and whether or not I was right to revert edits by the anonymous IP based on his past contribution log. Vedant (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you have has some problems with IPs following you about but you need to take care reverting them as anybody new looking at the article could conclude that you are part of the problem as they may not be aware of the history (yours or the IPs). If it is not obvious vandalism then after you have reverted an iffy change the second time you need to get help or assistance. You did the right thing by bringing it up at the project page and asking for help. Just be careful you dont end up acting like the anonymous IPs whatever the rights or wrongs. As these mainly UK IPs keep changing it is better to protect the article in the first instance to encourage the IPs to talk. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do, I will take more care in the future and make a note on the project prior to any further reversions. Vedant (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Have cold feet?
Her's a possible sock for you: User:SuperJewishBrain here. Quite strange all these new users showing up and making the same exat edits! Oh, he's edited a few Jewish topics for good measure! Can I request a full-page protect? Thanks for looking into this, again! - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the problem Bill but I will leave it be for the moment unless they come back in earnest, strange that the socks like flags it may help tie them up and close the draw. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, just asking. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Radar lock was just achieved~! =P --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Target destroyed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Airline destination lists
May I know how the previous decision can be enforced? 61.18.170.156 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware a clear consensus was not achieved. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection request for British Airways
As you will be aware, the British Airways page has just reached A-Class but a number of unregistered users (see edit history of the BA page) have been changing the fleet numbers and saying some aircraft are in service or on order etc without references (and some are clearly wrong such as one person wrote that BA had 737-400 aircraft on order). I'm just wondering if this qualifies the page for semi-protection to try and prevent this from occurring and to promote discussion of changes prior to just going ahead with any old change. I'm not sure if these edits count as vandalism but it's getting very annoying having to revert all these edits. Many thanks, Plane Person (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I appreciate it is annoying after all the hard work you have put in but I will not protect at the moment unless is carries on. We have to balance protection and allowing anybody to edit in good faith. I am watching the article and will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Flight images again
Evening MilborneOne: You might recall the discussion after I had Flight images of three aircraft removed from the Commons on copyright grounds (though, oddly, two three-views survived). The conclusion, on TraceyR's page was that we needed to go back to the editor of Flight to work out a statement that would satisfy our copyright folk. Is there any movement on this, do you know? I was not part of the earlier interchange with Flight and don't know the editor, nor have a very clear grasp of copyright law; I guess the only advantage I have is more time than most, together with a strong belief in the ability of the Flight archive to repair WikiAviation's major (in my view) flaw, the lack of images and three-views. I'd rather spend time grabbing images and uploading them to Commons and thence to the articles, but not without the certainty that these images are acceptable and will remain in place. We need to try to nail it.

I was reminded of this issue by the appearance of a Flight image in the Vickers Viastra article; just what we want, but will it survive, do you think? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a new discussion on TraceyRs talk page User_talk:TraceyR. A few images have been uploaded using the original comments on the talk page from flightglobal but I am not sure that it would stand real scrutiny. We really need something watertight in the OTRS system. One editor has already upload a high-quality (non-pdf) image from flightglobal and tried to use the same permission, something that will upset the apple cart. Might be worth leaving a message with TraceyR to encourage progress. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of my edit to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
Hi MilborneOne. You removed my section of specs on the F-35B, saying, 'we only list the specs for one variant'. Are you sure. Both our articles on the Grumman F4F Wildcat and North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco have specs for two variants. Is there some rule in AV that says we only need the specs from one variant? Please write my talk page or leave a talkback. Thanks, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The current consensus is at WikiProject Aircraft/page content, if you have like to raise the issue then can I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in here. By consensus WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content says: "Note that these specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labelled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous one. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To note or not to note
Hello again MB1, this edit got me confused despite him being told that it is not notable unless there was a hull loss or passenger casualty involved. Note also the condescending tone of his edit summary. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, none of them appear to be notable so you were right to challenge they have now been removed again by RomanceofTravel. They were probably wound up because you didnt leave an edit summary! please take care. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria Air destinations
Hi Milborne, could you please solve the issue at Bulgaria Air destinations. IP user keeps adding flags even though I have told him to stop. I don't want to get in an edit war. Please may you protect the page. Thanks. Zaps93 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All quiet at the moment so it doesnt need protection I have added it to my watchlist, best if you dont revert next time let somebody else do it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dyn'Aéro
I've added an accident to the Dyn'Aéro article. I don't know whether or not you have this watchlisted, but please see my comments at the talk page re accidents involving these aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks added it to my watchlist, dont have a problem with your comments accident caused a grounding so is ok. The rest of the article is a bit of a mess! MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cvision Technologies
Dear MB1: I hope your computer problems are resolved? We had no internet here for 12 hours yesterday - I was just in the middle of an AfD, so I know how frustrating that can be. I'll assume that you will get this note whenever you are back on line.

I realize this article is is a bit off your normal beat, but I thought I could trouble you to have a look at it regardless. The above article was started and deleted once (I think it was via CSD as Spam). It was recently restarted by a COI editor and was initially identical to the previously deleted version. Rather than renominate it for deletion I engaged the creator on Talk:Cvision Technologies to see if we could fix it up instead. Since no one else seems to have found it yet, I have removed all the corpspam text, added a bunch of text and refs and generally fixed it up as far as I can go, given the refs available. I did ask the other editor to see if he can find some better refs and he did, but mostly they are press releases, company webpages and such. There is just one real third party ref that discusses the company and it looks like a "soft-lob interview" type press release to me too. Basically at this point I am not sure the article makes Notability and especially WP:CORP with its opening statement: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

The whole notability issue is discussed at Talk:Cvision Technologies.

Since you have a well-won reputation for fair and neutral assessments of articles for this sort of thing I thought perhaps I could prevail upon you to review the article and talk page and offer some advice and recommendations on what should be done with it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not my normal area but i will have a look, my laptop display was only showing half a screen which is realy difficult to work with. Treated myself to a 22inch monitor in the sales so that should keep me going for a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad that you are back with us! Like you, I mostly work on aviation articles, but get into computer technology and history articles now and then for variety! I look forward to your thoughts on this one. It is a company profile, so not very technical. - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Left a comment on the talk page but it doesnt appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That was my thought too. I shall see what the AFD participants have to say about it. Thank you for your time in reviewing it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Expired PROD Ogags
Good morning MB1: This article has an expired WP:PROD (just part of my effort to clean up the encyclopedia). Just to avoid the problem of someone removing the tag after it has expired, I was wondering if I could prevail upon you to delete the article. Thank you for your consideration. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dashes and destinations
Hello MilborneOne. I was just looking at Delta Air Lines destinations and noticed that all destination lists do not follow WP:DASH. A while back I fixed the dashes (- to –) and was reverted, being told that destination articles didn't use en dashes. I shrugged it off then, but I'm curious to know why, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks, Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 07:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry dont know it is really a trivial subject its not worth worrying over, the average reader doesnt really care, or even notice it is just something some people on wikipedia get a bit AR about. MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Good to know my reverter wasn't the average editor! :) Airplaneman   ✈  03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rude administrator
Hello Milborne. I recently had an article (My WINGS - a planned German airline) I had worked hard on deleted by an administrator (User talk:RHaworth). I got annoyed by this and posted a comment on his page as I didn't get time to put a "hang-on" tag in. He then responded in a rude manner and I was disappointed by this, he is an admin and was speaking very rudely back at me, yes I put a quite snappy comment first but then I decided to re-ask him in a calm professional manner, he did not do the same and continued being power-obsessive and very rude. I decided to look through the rest of his comments to other people, such a rude person. Please may you look into this user and see if there is anything I could do about him. Kind regards, Zaps93 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think the admin was rude then you could bring it up at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents although to be honest it was not that serious and it is probably best just to walk away. The Admin was responding to a tag placed by somebody else and lacking any references other than a company website and a blog accepted the reasons for deletion. If you think that is wrong then the best would be to question the decision at Deletion review. I have parked a copy for you to review at User:Zaps93/My Wings. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Milborne, but I do feel he was rude to others than just me. Zaps93 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the link to the Great Barrier Airlines official accident report about ZK-LOU. Based on that report, I think that the section that's being deleted isn't really NPOV. I mean there is some information in the report that didn't make it into the article. If I don't hear from the other editor (the deleting editor) in the next few days, I will have a go at rewriting the section on my own. Thanks very much. Susfele (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Susfele

2009 Act
The 2009 Act that came in in 2010 still discriminates against the children of British female citizens who are born before 1983. This is because the citizenship process requires registration, fees, and good character check. It is not automatic and the same for either those born to male citizens or to those born after 1983. The issue here is that the discrimination is applied as a path through registration against automatic nationality. I fear you have misunderstood my point! You may also read this petition online by another person also fighting about the same issue : http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/nationality-via-british-mother

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmortoza26 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks but you need to discuss this on the relevant talk page Talk:British nationality law. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Children Born between 1948-1983
There has been a movement going on that these persons are being held hostage to fees by the UKBA through the use of secondary legislations and not quite making things equal on a playing field for everyone. Its important to point this out. Last march we had managed to get the home secretary to agree to abolish the fees and the process however with the new government we have had to start all over again. Hence its important to high light this fault in the law and try and bring it to more wide spread public attention and scrutiny. There is another petition on line that I am running. the url to the previous one is being run by Maureen Bow.

You could sign up to it at http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/british-nationality.html

The overall problem is that of ageist problems along with gender problems. The ageist factor also effects those children who may be born here inside the UK to European or other mothers but are the children of unmarried British fathers. They too are suffering this injustice and finally even those born before 2002 to British by descent citizens also suffering this.

I would like to enlist your help in how to make this a bit more obvious to users in order to gain more wide spread support and knowledge over this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmortoza26 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you need to understand what wikipedia is, please read Five pillars and note it is not a campaign website. Anything you add needs to meet the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Anything you add needs to be relevant, notable and have Reliable References, also note that you may a have a conflict of interest if you are associated with the campaign. You need to discuss this on the articles talk page where interested editors can comment and come to a consensus if it can be added to the article. If you keep adding the information to the article after being challenged you may find that your editing may be restricted, so please read the five pillars and other guidelines and make your points on the article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Britain Aircrew
Thanks for helping me with the BoB aircrew list... I'm now in Canada, so probably working on it through your night! Do you have access to Kenneth Wynne's book "Men of the Battle"? I can't get hold of a copy out here, so if you can get one from a library it would be fantastic! There's loads of events going on to celebrate the 70th Anniversary - check them out at http://battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/index.html - I just wish I were in the UK. I doesn't seem like five years since I was saluting Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall as they unveiled the Battle of Britain Monument in London! Best wishes and thanks again --KizzyB (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
When sockpuppets using IP addresses via proxies, or caches at large ISPs that rotate IP addresses, it is not common to ban the IP itself, because it would block hundreds of users. The behavior at WP:AIRLINES is re-inserting conversations that were removed months ago, because that is what this sockpuppet does. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * OK I understood but you originally reverted without explanation and the IP has nothing on the talk page, perhaps you should consider at least adding a sock label or explantion on the IP talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, but the user is using two connections at 112.118.0.0/16 which is potentially 65,536 IPs, and also at 116.49.137.0/24 which is 256 IPs. Labelling 66,000 IP addresses as a single sockpuppet is way too temporary and also impossible. The speed at which the banned user restores his edits (hundreds a day if not blocked by other means) means it isn't always possible to leave a useful edit summary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * OK I understand but to help the ignorant like me perhaps you can just have an explanation page, perhaps a sub-page of your talk page that you can just link to when you revert with an explanation like ''sockpuppet refer User:SchmuckyTheCat/Socks. But as he/she is at it again I understand your time is better spent reverting! MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Article moves
Michael, I have a couple of move requests for you when you can.

First, per WT:AIRENG, could you move List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical) to List of aircraft engine manufacturers? Once the redirects are taken care of, Lists of aircraft engine manufacturers can probably be deleted.

Second, per WT:AIRENG, Salmson 9 (air cooled engine) should probably go back to Salmson 9, as it still covers both the water- and air-cooled variants. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem Bill both moves done. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks much! - BilCat (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Serial vandal/harasser
Thanks for reverting this guy, please note that his IP is dynamic and falls in the category of troublemaker who had previously harassed me and another user, the Admin -. When I saw his edit today, my instinct was to revert him but for some reason, I stopped half-way and decided to wait it out... then you came along to revert him. Thanks, that low life can be very persistent, check his contribution and page edit history to see for yourself. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, it just wasnt notable enough but he/she has a strange edit history. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is indeed strange~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines article
I see that you're an active participant of the aviation section on Wikipedia as well as an administrator. Would be grateful if you could advise whether or not the SQ A380 incident involving the engine failure on the way to Paris/Charles de Gaulle is notable enough to be put onto the Singapore Airlines article. According to WikiProject_Aviation/Notability, it suggests that the first incident for any aircraft type is notable but some other Wikipedians dispute this. The same question applies for the B747 tailstrike in Auckland. According to news releases, it caused 'severe damage' to the aircraft (criteria under WikiProject Airlines/page content). Regards, Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 09:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines are really for stand-alone articles the airline page has a content guideline at WikiProject Airlines/page content which says:

Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
 * The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
 * The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
 * The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

So your addition is seen as not notable enough for the airline article, the A380 is very minor and I suspect not the first incident with a A380. A tailstrike is not that unusual and it looks like this one was repaired. But if you think they should be included it does no harm to bring it up for discussion on the talk page to see if a local consensus can be reached on inclusion or not. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash
Hi MilborneOne

Could you possibly have a look at this (as an independent editor) - 1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash, I don't think the notability tags are justified, thanks Pandaplodder (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesnt at first glance appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, and listing the crew is a bit WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Combat losses are not normally notable unless they had some effect on the civilian population, which means they really need to be civilian deaths a good example is another B-24 Freckleton Air Disaster. A very large number of aircraft crashed (either in training or combat missions) in the UK during the 1940s and it is difficult not to find an area of Lincolnshire or South East England that did not see any aircraft crash. It may be worth a one-line mention in the Cheshunt article but I suspect it was one of many in the area and not that notable to Cheshunt but it may be worth discussing on the Cheshunt talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A
THANKS a lot --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar aircraft edit wars
Michael, I seem to recall that the similar aircrft section were removed from the HAL Tejas and JF-17 Thunder articles awhile back because of the relentless edit warring. The JF-17 one is still disabled, with an hidden note, but the Tejas one is back again. The ubiquitous 59.xxx IP that never ever discussed anything is involved again. I've tride to remove it, but when I came back to add the hidden note, he had restored it with his onw hidden coments! I'm too close to 3RR on this to intervene again, so can you help? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the section as we never had consensus on the talk page to add it back in, although I suspect it will appear again! MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lurker here... *grin* fret not, I've given it a track number up on my radar scope now. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, waiting for your track and scan to go to lock at some point! MilborneOne (talk)
 * Cripes, before I can even give you a track number, you've IFF-ed it and went straight to Fox Three... way to go, MB1~! =P --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! - BilCat (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Airlines/Notability
Hi, this page seems like a good idea. I'm just  wondering  if you  are going  to  finish  it.--Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The related discussion appears to have stalled at the moment but I will have another look at it soon. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Viceroy
Evening MilborneOne. Following the flurry on the Envoy,I'm having a quick look at the Viceroy. I seem to recall that you have the 1970 ed of AJ Jackson's British Civil Aircraft and I'm wondering what figure he gives for the wing area. In the 1959 ed he says 299 sq ft, significantly less than the Envoy's 339 sq ft. Spans were the same, though the Viceroy's nacelles were fatter. Taylor's Airspeed Aircraft is not helpful, since he only says dimensions the same. Might or might not include the wing area. We (Airspeed Viceroy)say 399 sq ft, but not where that came from. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1973 Edition Page 24 - Wing Area 299 sq ft - same as in you older version the wingspan was less than the Envoy 51ft instead of 52ft 4in not sure if that accounts for the 41 sq. ft difference! MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, again, for the fast response. Looks like one of those issues that gets more confusing before clearing.TSRL (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 140 Squadron RAF
-- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Need Some Help
Milborne,

Do you know what the first aircraft (s) was (were) that used aluminum in the skin or cowling? THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I dont know - you may be better asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try it, but I usually get ignored on those forums.  What is the first one that you know of? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of the White Elephant
G'day MilborneOne, Welcome to WP:ODM! By the way, you recently added a Times citation for Queen Victoria's appointment to the Order of the White Elephant. Did the Times article indicate what she was appointed as? I expect that it was something along the lines of Knight (or possibly Lady) Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Eagle. I'm trying to ensure that everyone is reflected with their appropriate grade which is also important for article categorisation. Notwithstanding, this can sometimes be tricky as too often historical sources don't mention the grade. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No I did check as I appreciate we want to categorise them better but most of the entries in the Times for the Order of the White Elephant dont mention the grade. Your Majesty, It is the wish of my Sovereign that the amicable relations so happily subsisting between the kingdoms of Siam and of Great Britain and its dependencies under you Majesty, has appointed me his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, to offer to your majesty in his Royal name and person the most exalted and distinguished Royal Order of the White Elephant of Siam. MilborneOne (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. This seems to be a recurring issue with this particular order. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding
Hi MilborneOne,

Many thanks for rationalising the refs and categories on George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding, the sort of task that I haven't managed to get my head around. Appreciated.

Acabashi (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing other peoples stuff
Dear MilborneOne, how tiresome the work of an administrator must be. But do you have any idea's how frustrating it can be for anyone who wishes to contribute? It is nearly impossible to understand the guidelines and policies the Wikipedia posts. I find it more helpful to look at showcase articles to see what is allowed or not.

Also a lot articles are vandalised, but this seems to go unnoticed. There are people that seem to have no brain and discuss stuff on the discussion page that should not be there (have a look on the discussion page of Rachel, the French actress).

Recently I wrote an article on Philip Sayer, not because he is interesting, but for some reason he is omitted. During my research I came across some interesting photographs. You can see them here. Is it my imagination or are PS and SS intimate? I am not going to upload these pictures because I respect the privacy of SS. I originally stated that PS was reputed to have had an affair with SS. What are you afraid of?

--JHvW (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sympathy on the tiresome work of administrator but it has nothing to do with my editing the Philip Sayer article. We have lots of rules and guidelines but one in particularly suggests that information should be reliably sourced particularly when it relates to living people. So if you have a reliable source then the information could be re-added, although I dont think your interpretation of photographs is a reliable source. I would also need to question if it is really notable. Some of the other statements really need sourcing as well and I am not sure a list of his friends is really encyclopedic. A reliably sourced list of his work would be a better addition and also may go to prove that he is notable enough for Wikipedia. If you have any other questions then the article talk page is probably the best place. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In principle I would agree. My point is that it is a waste of both our times to have discussions like these. Philip Sayer did not live very long (compared to some other actors). This is the reason why I have included a list of his works on the IMDb (a source I do not find reliable). I started the article because he is mentioned in the (tiny) article on the Bluebell series. Because I feel the Wikipedia should be complete and that the facts are well resourced, I have written a short article. But it has also meant that in the past few years I have shied away from mainstream articles. I try to do one major and one minor article a week. Sometimes however, I get so bogged down in discussion about certain facts, that it is impossible to move on. Removing the information seems to be the best way of stifling arguments. But this does not make the Wikipedia a richer place. As a scientist I try to find at least three independent sources (if need be) before I confirm anything in the Wikipedia. But this willynilly editing drives serious contributors away. In this case it is not important, but the same happens in the important articles. Having arbritation just slows up the proces. Sometimes, I think an administrator should just aks a contributor where the information came from or ask to withdraw it. This may also prevent a contributor from making the same mistake again, making an administrators life easier. What you think is subjective. Maybe somebody will find a given fact interesting. Maybe no one will ever see it. The chance that anybody is going to complain about something that happened 20-30 years ago is unlikely, especially as, in this case, one of the parties has been dead for more than twenty years. It is not that I feel strongly about this, but there are many contributors that are treated unfairly and this behaviour drives them away. You seem to be interested in aircraft. My grandfather was a bomber pilot flying Mitchell's during the war. My father was a Navy pilot and flew amongst others, the SeaFury and the Gloucester Meteor. But I would not upload pictures (although I know their source) or their stories, until I had at least verified them from two independent sources (not to forget that I should feel they should add to the WP). Now I am going to do something fun and not think about the WP for a while. --JHvW (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your view but you have to assume good faith on other editors, if somebody thinks a fact or even an article is a problem then it really needs to be cleared up. I dont have a problem with an article on Philip Sayer but the article really needs to show why he is notable enough for an article, a list of his friends or even his affairs is probably not encyclopedic enough. In some areas like biographies that involve living people it more normal to remove anything unsourced or anything that appears to be nonsense, if information otherwise appears to be right then we would just add a Fact tag to flag up a problem. I dont edit these articles as an administrator just an experienced editor, being an administrator does not give me any special rights in the normal editing process. But if you have any questions then please feel free to come here and ask. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not worry, I have already removed the article. There are many more articles that are basically one-liners (and not of the humorous kind). But I do not make Wikipedia policy and do not wish to make it. On the other hand contributing (which I have done for more than five years) is no longer any fun, so I will stop, after finishing the articles that I have already started. What is worth publishing in an online encyclopaedia is obviously something I do not understand. But I will leave you with one story. A few years ago I wanted to look something up in a reputable encyclopaedia. I looked at the preface and was surprised by the Roman numbering because it was a different system than I was taught at school. So I looked up Roman numbering in this encyclopedia and sure enough it was the same system as I was taught at school, yet the designer who designed the preface obviously did not adhere to what was in the encyclopedia. It seems that administrating the Wikipedia has now become such a big project that the Wikipedia is starting to censor what is written. I do not wish to be a part of that. Best of luck with your tasks. --JHvW (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines changes
I know it's a minor change but can you move the article to:Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. Note the slight change to the capitalization noted by another editor and this is confirmed by the use of the original movie poster. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a heap (that's a lot in Canadianize)! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC).

Here we go again...
Hello MB1, I apologise as I understand that it must be in the wee hours of the morning when you get this message but as the previously-blocked-one is back after a 3 months block, can you please take a look at this? About his insults and name-callings, I've left a similar note on User talk:Moonriddengirl. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that "this" is totally not a disruptive edit. What I am trying to say is only the truth. Also, I did not insult anyone nor call anyone names. Scania N113 (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "not disruptive" then why are you following me here and here? --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 07:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was because what you said was not the truth, and it was unfair to me. Scania N113 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read the messages on on User talk:Moonriddengirl, not the best way to behave when you return from being blocked. Although there is a content dispute on Airbus A340 we dont need the insults. Scania has one notice about civility so if I can suggest they leave out the attacks on other editors and just try and make the relevant points on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello MB1, per this latest edit, this is his umpteen times at it again despite being told off by User:Denniss, User:BilCat and me that is wrong to be asserting that misinformation over and over and over again. Thoughts? --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 16:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tolgagurcan.
This user keeps removing content from TAI Hürkuş and Talk:TAI Hürkuş without explanations. The user just reverted my edit again on TAI Hürkuş, but I'd rather not revert anymore and get into trouble. Can you see if you can do something? Thanks! - Donald Duck (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have blocked him/her for 24 hours as they are clearly being disruptive as well as adding copyrighted text. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I go ahead and revert the talk page again? Also, I think it'd be fair to place a block template on there. =) - Donald Duck (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes on the revert, working on a block notice for the user - just having some real world issues to deal with at the same time! MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BilCat beat me. Also, okay. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tolgagurcan
Deleted at the request of the user. Fred Talk 20:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK still dont understand as far as I was aware user can only blank talk pages not delete them particularly when blocked. Presume a change of rules that I cant find. Any guidance to where talk page deletion by users is mentioned as it says under U1 it cant be done? MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to my reading of Criteria for speedy deletion U1 this page should not have been deleted. I think it would be wise to reinstate it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Users have a right to disappear. Fred Talk 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right to vanish Fred Talk 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vanish is only a courtesy, not a requirement, but unless we have more business with this user I can see no rational basis to continue to maintain user pages when they have asked to leave permanently. Fred Talk 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose as long as he doesn't come back with a new account then it doesn't really matter either way. The whole episode adds up very oddly. - Ahunt (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they have a slight advantage if they come back and start in again, but then the talk page can be undeleted for everyone's reference. Are we talking about a menace, or just annoyance? Fred Talk 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the guidelines state the user talk page should not be deleted, then it sounds like its deletion could be challenged successfully. Where do I go to challenge it? - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No need. You are correct that the user talk page should not have been deleted. Fred Talk 01:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring it. - Ahunt (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 Air Experience Flight RAF
I have placed a {merge to} on this and the other similar articles of listed AEF's, all seem to cover pretty much what the other says, have suggested that they be merged into Air Experience Flight, any opinion?

Also somone has changed the cat from AEF to Air Cadet Experience Flight, seeing as they are also used by UAS I think this cat is wrong. Pandaplodder (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably not a bad idea as some of the other squadrons need more information and some of the stuff in 1 AEF would be common to them all. You need to explain why you want to merge them on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft engine
The revert war at Aircraft engine continues, per this diff. To this point,m there seems to be no discussion on the talk page, just in edit summaries. A dynamic IP user appears to be pushing a POC agenda there, and shows know signs of letting up. I've not checked to se if they are discussing this somewhere on a user page. Could you check the page, and see if you can protect it? I guess a ful -protect is warranted if there is no discussion being carried aout anywhere. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit war appears to be continuing on some other pages too, such as Jet aircraft and Coandă-1910. Three cheers for Open editing and the dynamic IPs which make our jobs so much fun! - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody has started a talk page discussion on the Coanda turbine so I will see what develops, looks like a standard nationalistic mine is bigger, first, faster than yours argument. Normally the weaker the argument the more references are added! MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be more civil with these(this?) users, but I'd just like to point out that I have no Nationalistic agenda. I'm just saying it wasn't Coanda for reasons mostly listed on the Coanda 1910 talk page. I am neither German, nor English.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Romaniantruths and apology for the presumption. I have not looked at the Coanda page yet I will go and have a look. I would like to see some consensus on this subject and as it looks like it is spread over more than one article it really needs consensus and support from the aero-engine project. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

JetBlue "for further info"
I understand your concerns on "for further info" and agree. My concern is this page last seen as Steven Slater is now called a very non-notable, and in my opinion very unhelpful name, so I believe that those seeking further information will not find it? Maybe I should wait until the AfD and inevitable appeal go though, as that detail article should be moved if it survives. Obviously I can;t port more data across to Jet Blue (I shortened it recently) due to undue weight issues. Maybe I'll try and edit the 1st link on JetBlue? 24.23.198.90 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed your change as it has been challenged a number of times so you really need to take it to the talk page or it can be seen as disruptive. The JetBlue Flight 1052 article name meet the agreed naming convention for air accident/incident articles but that has nothing to do with the JetBlue article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Mdnavman and photos from Aviastar
User:Mdnavman is adding a lot of photos of British aircraft using Aviastoar as a source, with the rational that the photos are unattributed and hence are pd-uk because the author is unknown. As Aviastar has a habit of blatent copyvio from books, I'm not sure whether Aviastar can be claimed as trustworthy about whether the authours are unkown - as I understand, some effort is required by UK copyright law to look for the author of the photos before making this claim. Any opinions?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the images should be challenged as Aviastar is a known copyright violator and we should not assume that the images are pd. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some will be OK - for example - this was published by Flight here in 1919 and so and so is pd in the US as it was published prior to 1923, but many of the others may not be - it will need some work to see what can be saved and what has to go.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood just looked at a few myself, presumably before 1923 and published is OK but some are clearly after 1923. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Left a note on Mdnavman's talk page about the problem. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tagged File:Vickers 284 Warwick.jpg as puf.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to leave this earlier, but it appears not to have uploaded, so I'll try again. (Sorry if what I sent got through and then got deleted or something.) Anyway, I apologize for causing anyone any problems or extra work with the aviastar.org photos. I researched image copyright information Wikipedia provides and looked over the available image copyright tags. The image copyright guidance is complex and vague and not of enough help, but the tag is pretty clear that unattributed images are in the public domain after 70 years, which in 2010 means in 1939 or before. So I used what to me was a common-sense approach, and you will notice I stuck fairly rigorously to the 70-year cutoff. Frankly, it is likely that many, most, or even all of the photos came from the RAF or its predecessors, meaning that only the more permissive 50-year rule applies (making photos from 1959 or before in the public domain), but the photos are unattributed so I used the more rigorous 70-year criteron for unattributed photos just to be safe. MilbourneOne's message to me that aviastar.org is known for violating copyright is new information to me, and his admonishment to me to consider using better sources overlooks several important points: (1) How would I know that aviastar.org is a problem? Does Wikipedia have a list of sites that one should not download photos from? (2) I would like to use "better sources," but I do not know which sources are considered "better". Again, where do I go to find out which ones are "better," or what the criteria are for a "better" source, and who gets to decide the required level of "betterness" and can tell me which sites qualify and which do not? (3) How does one go about searching all the world's photos and all the world's publications to determine the copyright status of unattributed (sometimes also undated) photos? Wikipedia does not appear to explain that. How do you do it? (4) You seem to say that aviastar.org posts legitimately public-domain photos at least sometimes, so how do I discriminate between the two when there is no author attribution? Or should I just condemn aviastar.org entirely and not try to upload what appear to public domain photos from it? (5) I understand trhat copyright research takes work, and I take copyright issues seriosly, but I am a Wikipedia writer and historical researcher lacking image copyright expertise beyond what I can find on Wikipedia. If it is wrong to upload an apparently public-domain photo and make someone else have to research it, what is the right way to handle unattributed and/or undated photos? Where do I send apparently public domain photos for consideration by Wikipedia copyright experts before I upload them? I have not been able to find a clear link to such a place on Wikipedia. I don't want to do bad things or make work for anyone, but I also have received no information -- and can find none on Wikipedia -- on how to ascertain copyright status on unattributed and/or undated photos taken since 1923. Let me know about all this so that I can do better in the future. I don't want to stumble around and make mistakes that cause problems for others, but right now that is what happening despite my best efforts to follow the Wikipedia guidelines I have been able to find. Best regards. Mdnavman (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)mdnavman

Thanks for the reply Mdnavman, first can I say that nobody thinks that you uploaded the images in bad faith.
 * 1 - How do you know aviastar is a problem - unless you follow the aircraft projects messages probably not but the large number of images with no attribution is normally a clue.
 * 2 - Sources are difficult but probably attributed images are normally a good sign or even we dont know who this belongs to but type messages show that they tried.
 * 3 - It is difficult if the image is not attributed but we really need to know who took them, in this case they were not attributed because the site is using copyrighted text and images.
 * 4 - My point about aviastar images being public domain is nothing to do with the site more to do with the age of the image. Some of the early aircraft images are now over hundred years old.
 * 5 - You can allways ask at places like Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or for aircraft related images then the WP:AIRCRAFT project may be able to help

AS you can see from the Warwick image that has been sent to PUF for review we can guess who took the image but wikipedia really needs to know particularly when it come to copyright. You see a number of WW2 aircraft images on wikipedia that have been declared pd because they were crown copyright when we dont have any evidence. People like Charles Brown took many wartime photographs some for the RAF but a lot were taken for the aircraft companies which still hold the copyright. So just because it was taken during the war is not a clear indication of crown copyright. Some of this is very confusing and I cant say I am an expert on it but is the reason why many aircraft articles dont have any images, we can all scan images from books etc but without a provenance it is just best to do without. Although rare and one of images can be used under fair use but again you still need to know where they came from. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Swoose Snead
Michael, I could use some advice on Swoose Snead, a probable copyvio of this site. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force‎ for further details. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill good spot, as it was a word for word copy of the website I have removed the text and added a copyright violation notice, we can always create a new article under his real name. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

More copyvios
See Piaggio Aero and Piaggio P.180 Avanti - these are direct copyvios from the Piaggio website, from both User:Enrisga and User:213.156.53.158. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I will keep an eye on them to make sure they dont add copyright info again, I have left Enrisga a note. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sutton Wick air disaster
I've been trying to get Sutton Wick air disaster to GA status, and have been asked to clarify what is meant by "blind approach" in the article. I'm not sure who added it, but it was there before I started working on the article, and I was wondering if you could confirm what it means. On a similar note, do you know what time of day or night the accident took place? Regards, <font color="#00A693">WackyWace  converse 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I have seen your good work on the article I started, it was probably me who added it, I will see if I can find my original sources. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, <font color="#00A693">WackyWace  converse 09:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6
Can you look at the discussions in this AFD? Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have seen it, not sure what is going on but it is annoying for contributors when good faith comments are questioned and analysed all the time, and also bombarded with an attack of acronyms! All it does is just stop users commenting and prolongs the debate although in cases I have seen the direction of comments is obvious to all but one or two contributers. Not sure if it is related to Requests for comment/Mjroots but as I have commented on the AfD I will keep out of it for the time being unless we have an outbreak of WP:CIVIL. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Time-out
Can you do a 48-hour user-requested enforced wikibreak? Please note in the block log that it's user requested, so people don't confuse it with my 2 non-user-requested blocks! Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my request. I have no doubt you will respect my request to withdraw this, and not do it anyway in a show of extreme disrepect, like that which triggered my outburst. It wasn't the first time Mick has done that either, hence my extreme anger. I'm going to stay away from WT:AV for thr time being, and any aircrash-related AFDs. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Understand Bill I suspect users sometimes dont appreciate the stress these situations create in other users. Also agree that keeping a distance at this time to protect your health and sanity. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Vulcan XM610 loss
Do you buy Aeroplane magazine. Fascinating account of the loss of Avro Vulcan XM610. Probably notable enough for an article IMHO. As a direct result of the accident, engine bays and the bomb bay of all Vulcans were strengthened to prevent an uncontained failure of an engine damaging other engines or the bomb bay. Pilot awarded the Air Force Cross and named RAF Man of the Year, all other crew awarded a Queens Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Never sure about military aircraft crashes being notable but as you say it did have consequences, I dont buy Aeroplane regularly but have just read the account at http://www.neam.co.uk/wingate.html May be worth a go as the notability hangs on the subsequent actions, the awards and recommendation, you dont normally get an AFC awarded. MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, two sources are better than one. No doubt a trawl of the net will reveal others. What about "Royal Air Force Avro Vulcan XM610 crash" for a title? Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I always like the 1971 Wingate Avro Vulcan accident or similar but as long as it is unique. Although some users have been taking the year of early RAF accident articles I have created! MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed prod from Qantas Flight 74.
I have removed the prod tag from Qantas Flight 74, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Just an FYI, I don't dispute the basis of your PROD and might bring it to AFD despite the fact that I made improvements to the article itself, but an editor protested deletion on the article's talk page. --  At am a  頭 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We ought to all state Keep on this. It would be fun to watch the responses from the M&M twins! - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree it should go to AfD to get a wider consensus on these non-fatal possible not news articles, not sure anybody can take the stress of another AfD at the moment! MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I won't be participating! But if I do anyway, block me! ;)- BilCat (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot to tell you, I did go ahead and nominate the article for deletion, see it here. Sorry about the late notice, I've informed everyone else who participated at the article (there weren't very many). --  At am a  頭 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bf 110
Okay. I don't really understand, but just for the record: the entire section of the op history in the original was written by me. So I am moving my own work to a different article for the sake of bettering the former one. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood I dont have an issue with the split, but can you really say that none of the text existed before your first edit and that no other users in the last few years have changed anything you have written! Not going to make a song and dance about it just ask you to read Copying within Wikipedia, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee that all the citations and 99.99% of the words that are there were put there by me. So I can offer that much certainty. Any other few (and it will only be a handful) words that are used will soon be phased out all together v. soon. Appreciate the concern though. Dapi89 (talk)


 * Question: Isn't there a template that one can add to the talk page of the copied-to article to state the attribution? I think that's that alternative to mentioning it in the edit summaries, which is usually what I do. I believe either option is considered sufficient for licensing. - BilCat (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that Template:Copied normally does the trick. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you stop adding the tag to the articles. You are practically accusing me of plagiarism. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not accusing anybody just not sure why the fuss over what is a standard template, but as you insist I just picked one random sentence:

Based around the concept of the long-range Zerstörer or "Destroyer Fighter" the Bf110 enjoyed some success in the Polish and French campaigns before the Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engined aircraft. was part of the page when it was created in 2003 by an IP user 80.177.108.194.

In April 2004 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=3119720 User:GreatWhiteNortherner split and tweaked the sentence and it became However, the Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against more maneuverable single-engine aircraft

In February 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=40844075 User:62.6.139.1 removed the word maneuverable.

In August 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=71097083 User:Evil Merlin made a minor change and removed the however to make it The Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engine aircraft

In May 2007 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=131455059 User:Geeman added the Bf 110 bit to make it The Battle of Britain revealed the Bf 110's fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engine aircraft which it has remained unaltered until it was moved to the operational history. So all we are doing is giving these guys the courtesy of attribution. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a matter of principle.
 * That's a poor response Millborne. I could remove these completely and then it would make no difference. Thank you for proving my case. The section was rewritten and the edits phased out. I'll copy this across to my complaint at the wiki:aircraft project. Dapi89 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry you have lost me you copied the above sentence to another article so I added the appropriate attribution still dont see why you have an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you do Milborne
 * I have an issue because I'm the author. Would you be happy if I removed all of these contributions - about, a dozen or so words?
 * Are you really telling me that despite adding every single citation and practically all the wording, and certainly all of the information content, I cannot claim to be the author? I find that nonsensical in the extreme. Dapi89 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK have you evidence that you are User:80.177.108.194, User:GreatWhiteNortherner, User:62.6.139.1 and User:Evil Merlin ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making less and less sense. Please answer my question (which will render yours irrelevant). Dapi89 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK removing text has nothing to do with the attribution it relates to the text as copied and pasted. It was just one sentence as an example. I notice that since claiming to have written all the text you now state that you added practically all the wording. I dont doubt that or your hard work in the article. Point is you didnt create all the content, hence the example. Although it has been tweaked along the way it was written by an IP user in 2003. All the copied template does is give a path back to the history of the text that was copied. Not a big deal but it all relates to copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No I didn't. I said I added "99.99 percent" of it. Based on the wording involved that is correct. I did say I added all the technical content and citations, which is true. Dapi89 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a small point as you contradict yourself the statement practically all the wording was added by you to this page above, I didnt make it up. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted)Even if you (Dapi) now remove words you didn't write, they are still in the article history. Rather than accusing you of plagiarism, use of the template prevents such an accusation sticking as the original source (and its history) is then properly attributed.  All Wikipedia text is of course CC-by-SA (or whatever the name of the licence is) so it may be copied - providing attribution is made when the text is moved from one article to another.  David Underdown (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken this elsewhere now David. Thanks anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Normally polite to mention if you have raised what is the use of a standard template in another forum. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. See above. Dapi89 (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology Dapi89 you did. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK found it - I think we are finished here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get over it. Onwards and upwards. I won't bother messing with it, I'll just leave it. Dapi89 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ford Trimotor
What's the deal here with comments like this? Bzuk (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the comment has to with adding spelling errors, dummy could be uncivil but it is difficult to see what was meant by the statement. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be more than that judging by the prickly comments in the edit history of a very recent conversion to Wikiwonderland. His/her/its edits are also problematic in that they all tend to be WP:POINTy and require an inordinate amount of clean-up, see Bernt Balchen where he constantly reverted to his WP:OWN version despite the presence of and tags. FWiW, he/she/it seems to be on crusade to link every word that a reader might not understand. Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC).


 * I have left a note on his/her talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Airbus A340-200
Hello, I am an aviation ethusiast and I would like to ask you whether the Airbus A340-200 has two types of 3-class seating configuration, which are 239 seats and 261 seats. Is there any difference between the two of them? Thanks. (please reply on my talk page) -- LS C HIST (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An airline or an operator can have as many seats up to the legal maximum it wants, so in theory every aircraft could have a different seating arrangement. It may be that Airbus has some standard configurations it sells but I have not seen a reliable source for that. Some airlines have their own seat suppliers and galley configurations. May be best to email Airbus public relations and ask them. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

René Leduc
I came across René Leduc (1898–1968) and should be able to expand it quite usefully. It seems to me that the article title convention is unusual for a bio article, thought I would check with you before moving it as you are more au fait with bio articles. It should be René Leduc (engineer) I think or probably better just plain René Leduc as there seems to be nobody else with this name on WP at the moment, might need moving over the redirect. Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that it was renamed because of the possibilty of two Leducs:


 * René Leduc (1898–1968) was the designer of the world's first ramjet-powered aircraft.
 * René Leduc (1907–1990) designed light aircraft for amateur construction and was prominent in the French aeroclub movement.

René Leduc re-directs to René Leduc (1898–1968) as the other article does not exist. I think that (engineer) is better (as per the French wiki) but can we find out anything about the other Leduc? MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, it's normally subsequent articles that carry the disambiguator though isn't it? No strong feeling, it just looked unusual. Perhaps we need an article on the second guy then?!! Have they covered him at wiki:fr? You learn something every day here!! Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like RL moved it originally (must have had a good reason) and someone else moved it (took me a while to work out that was due to the wrong kind of dash being used!!). There is a French mayor of the same name (I suppose it is a relatively common name over there) but there was nothing on the other guy that I could see with my schoolboy French skills!! Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   17:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * May be best for now to move it to (engineer) at least it will not look wrong.MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, should paste this on the talk page I suppose as there is nothing there at all and the move edit summaries could have been longer, would also allow for objections but I can't see that there would be any. Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have pasted this onto the article talk page - if it does not generate any objections after a few days then we can move it. 18:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, make sure we don't forget to move it, brain like a sieve at the moment! Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   20:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

First IAF AWACS.jpg
I agree that it being an aircraft is not stationary and will visit other airfields. But as of now, no free images of the aircraft is available. The situation is unlikely to change till the aircraft is displayed to the public in some way (perhaps a fly-past at the Indian Republic Day parade). I agree that removing the image is not detrimental to the article, but there are no other pictures which illustrate a Phalcon AWACS radar mounted on an Il-76 platform. So I feel that the image should not be deleted. --Gremaldin (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I understand what you say, but the fact that a free image is possible means we cant really use a non-free one. It is really up to the admin who reviews the deletion request to look at the facts so any factors you think are important to keep a non-free image should be on the image page or related talk page. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... you are suggesting that a free image is possible despite the fact that the aircraft is based at a secure IAF airbase because the aircraft fly around and visit other airfields? So you think someone will photograph the aircraft mid-air? I don't see how that is possible. The details of when the aircraft is transferred to another airbase will not be released to the public, so no one knows when the aircraft is going to leave the airbase or which airbase it is transfered to. --Gremaldin (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion at the image talk page. Thanks.--Gremaldin (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD issue
Michael, could you look at User talk:Beeblebrox? I'm not sure when the admin will be back online. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry looks like it has already been deleted as a copyvio while I was offline. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Correctly Identifying Uploaded Image For OTRS Review
MilborneOne, I had some problem uploading the HZurichAA.jpg image properly as you know (you flagged it for early deletion). I gave it a permission of CC-BY-SA version 3.0 because I have the permission in an email that I forward to permissions AT wikipedia DOT org as required. My problem is I can't remember what I was supposed to use as a tag that states the permission was sent to OTRS. I've done it in the past but can't recall what it was. Additionally, I don't know how to change the current settings. I can't figure out what the edit process is for the tags on the image. Your help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnhoops (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem I have added Template:OTRS pending. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I noticed the Early Deletion template is still attached. Can that be removed? The last time I added an image with OTRS pending took a little over 4 weeks to be reviewed and approved. Jrnhoops (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

FVA-18
I was intrigued to read that the FVA-18 was a glider tug on 40hp. Of course it wasn't. it was an ultra-ligtgh trainer intended to give chep flying to all that want it. I think the confusion may have come in a tranlation somewhere, as it is compared to a powered primary glider in the german text of the FVA site -. I have editted your article to suit and will probably fill it out when I get round to the aircraft articles for the Akafliegs.Petebutt (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, seems a reasonable conclusion, my source did say glider tug but as you say unlikely for such a small light powered-glider. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aircraft engine#Edit request: Maintenance tags
Talk:Aircraft engine has an editprotected request that at first glance looks uncontroversial. As you protected the page without a set expiration date, I assume that you are monitoring the situation, but here is a quick ping just in case. As at least some of the dispute seems to have revolved around issues of sourcing, I would rather not step on your toes with a low-priority edit to a protected article. Please let me know if you would like me to actually look at the article and the dispute. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bell P-39 Airacobra page is a love fest guarded very well indeed
Dear Milborne,

I know I had some rough spots when I first started editing, but I think I now have the hang of it. I hate to bother you but could you please check out this discussion about the P-39. To be honest there are people who look at the beautiful lines of the P-39 and it is like a man and a beautiful woman. They can't see beyond the looks. A neutral POV is impossible. I posted a paragraph on how disappointed the UK and US was with the P-39 in combat and how the finger pointed back at the manufacture Bell. I was preparing to add the references (ie in my notes I stated that) when it got reverted. I reverted it back. Again reverted. That means I stopped. I do one revert in pages (I don't even wait like many in these disputes a day or a week and then revert what I had posted without an understanding it will not be reverted).

Finally, if you believe it is not important and just leave the editor (who has worked hard on this page) alone with it, I am fine moving on. Lot more work to do (Dave wants me to really work on the Compacto 76mm page, but GAWD that is going to be a lot of work!). Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Review of admin behavior
Michael, what's the first step to take in haveing an admin's behavior reviewed, and possibley having his adminship revoked? I'm dealing with one who got his nose out of joint that I dared to revert him on the F-35 page, and dispite his own lectures to me that my revert was a misuse of my own limited tools, he seems to be taking this extremely personally, and won't even discuss serious questions addressed to him on improving the article, per this diff and previous ones. Do you have any advice on how to proceed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it extremely difficult to assum good faith with this "user", especially given edit summaries such as "sorry for editing... totally my bad. Thought this was an open project". He appears to be taking our "dispute" very personally, as his comments in that edit, "Likewise, I respect that I don't care for you, and I've made no effort to revert that either", indicate. Sorry, but nothing excuses this sort of behavior from an admin. The last few comments are escpecially provocative, and I've "nearly bitten my tongue in half" in holding back my natural inclination to respond in kind. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood Bill, can you give me some time when I get home later to have look at the diffs etc, and then I will get back to you. Understand you frustration but please dont get provoked. MilborneOne (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and the time constraints are no problem. I'm genuinely trying not to get provoked here, but some "try" from the other side would be useful, and ought to be expected of an admin. - BilCat (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left Hiberniantears a message at User_talk:Hiberniantears. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded. As you point out on my page, the best way to move forward is for BilCat and myself to avoid each other, which I've done for days now. Bill's ticked that I got angry at him for reverting a perfectly reasonable edit, and that I remained angry with him for threatening to edit war with me after I made my points regarding my edit. I never reintroduced my edit, and instead engaged in a conversation with him, as well as on the Talk page of the article. If he didn't get the warm and fuzzies from our interaction, then there is no shortage of blame to split between the two of us. In either event, as noted, he now wants my admin buttons removed, and I never so much as used my regular buttons, let alone my admin buttons in the debate. It is what it is; two guys who don't work well together, which doesn't much surprise me given the number of politically pointed (and frankly bigoted) userboxes displayed on his page. He presents himself as biased from the get-go, which is a mentality that has a profoundly negative impact on the building of an encyclopedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The insults and personal attacks need to stop. Whether you agree with my beliefs or not, that is no cause for the tone you've taken with me. This is certainly not becoming of an admin. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The insults are continung on my talk page, which I have now removed. I'm sorry, but claiming that my political/religious beliefs prevent me from editing WP neutrally is a bit much, especially in regards to an "'aircraft'' article! If this user does not cease and desist from these attacks, and apologize for those already made, I will file a complaint against him as permitted by WP. This persecution for political/religious beliefs should not be tolerated on WP. I- BilCat (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've received no apology as yet for the personal attacks and insults. I will be filing a complaint in 24 hours if a sincere apology is not made by that time. Such reverse-bigotry may be permitted in "enlightended" countries, but I won't stand for it. I'm far from the only user who has publically stated these views, and there are many more users who display the opposite/couunter views on their web pages. I have NEVER treated another user differently because he/she held views that I opposed, and I have certain;y never publically questioned their mentality, or their ability to edit neutrally in articles unrelated to those issues. I'm also saddened that no other user has made a public statement against this sort of behavior by an admin. I do hope that changes. - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for hashing this out on your Talk page MilborneOne. I haven't apologised to BilCat, but I have explained my position on his talk page in response to him wanting an apology. I've honestly tried to move on, but the guy reverted me yesterday, and I sent him a list of links about proper uses of reversion as well as an explanation of why I found offensive about his user boxes, and a clear explanation that I think he does solid work on articles. He hasn't been censored, and certainly hasn't been threatened by me. He's essentially now angry that I find some of his userboxes offensive and/or overly pointed. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats OK I tried to help but really it is up to both of you to either ignore each other or come to some other accomodation. Certainly in reverting your edits he has not done anything different then would have been done by other aircraft project members, so perhaps it is a culture thing. Have you noted that BilCat has removed some of his userboxes recently perhaps he is trying to come half way, it may be nobody has said that they find it offensive before. Dont really take much notice of userboxes myself so I dont have a view but if you still find an individual userbox offensive then perhaps it may be better to discuss that with BilCat or take it to WP:MFD. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ilayarajaphoto.jpg
Hi,

I got a message from you saying with the above subject/headline. As per legal terms I have submitted the things in respectable articles.

I followed all the rules and policies and strongly feel it all meets with the condition to permit for all my edits in regard to this subject.

I want you to message once it is done as a mark of acknowledgement. Many thanks.

Keyan20 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, in my opinion the image does not pass the requirement of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpos) in that as the subject is still alive it is possible to have a free image of the subject. The page already has two non-free images and this one is being used for decoration. As long as you have stated your case on the file page it is up to the closing admin to review the status. thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Name list
On the List of fatalities from aviation accidents, you stated once that GBR is the name for British sporting teams/Brits who compete in sports. Now you claim that the sporting list should be added as UK. Make your mind up, you are getting annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.50.194 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that I have left a message about civility on your talk page. Perhaps you also need to also check what I said before about GBR and raise it on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Land mine page and absolutely no unbiased POV
Dear Milborneone,

Working the weapons pages and just fiddling and adding external links and correcting and fixing external links (came across the most gross bit of vandalism seen since I started on Wiki and I am hard to shock!). Was adding a good external link to the Land mine page. Jeez! I mean that page has been taken over by the Ban the Land Mine groups. History and technical explanation of land mines is not 2nd or even 3rd. It is maybe 10th on the list. The external links is filled with groups trying to ban land mines -- over 20 such links. The Ottowa Treaty page should be for that. Or maybe a Ban The Land Mine" page. There is a box requesting the deletion of external links (or moving them to notes and references), but I have a feeling that if I delete agenda driven external links and agenda driven comments sh*t will hit the fan.  And advise? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the third paragraph of that page:


 * The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow. These facts pose serious difficulties in many developing nations where the presence of mines hampers resettlement, agriculture, and tourism. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines campaigned successfully to prohibit their use, culminating in the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty. As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to the treaty. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Poland, Russia and the United States. Jackehammond (talk)


 * I have done a tidy up of the links and also tweaked the lead and moved some of the detail back down in the article. You may need to keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Milborneone, Jeez, when you sweep house, you are a busy beaver. To be honest, I am sort of a Wiki coward. There are going to be some people mad over your deletions. Glad it is not going to be me. <GRIN> Finally, have you had a chance to think over that P-39 dispute (it is a couple of sections above this one) or do you think it is just not worth the point-of-order? Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did have a quick look at the P-39 but I didnt see a major problem just needs to be worked out on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted the info on the Talk page, along with the reference, and he requested if I had the magazine and I stated yes, and whether I could post it or would it be reverted again, and got no answer. Guess I will just post it and find out.  Might even scan the article pages and post links to those pages, so it is show a reputable article as just republishing that the RAF stated in 1941.  Will see what happens.  Have a feeling it will get reverted.  Then I think I will move to other pages.  Thanks. Jackehammond (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User: Spyder GSR
I've just given this editor a uw-ics4. Should he upload any more images without copyright status being shown, particularly where it is claimed that he made the image when it is patently obvious he did not, then I propose an indef block until such time as it is demonstrated that the policy on images will be complied with. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks looks a good move, we could assume good faith and that he/she is really hundred years old! Some of the images are probably public domain but we really need to know the source which is why I just didnt change the licence. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Piaggio and COI
Michael, I wanted to make sure that you saw this post. It's a response to the copyvios added to the Piaggio articles, and an admission of COI. WOuld you want to respond to this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill I have replied, although he has a COI he may be of help with the articles if he is restricted to the talk pages. I have left a note with the blocking admin to see what they think. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Political view point injected into Incendiary device
Dear Milborne,

I found a great link on the incendiary bombs and was posting it to Incendiary device. The agenda groups had struck again. They had the laws of warfare being discussed after the first sentence. I did not delete that large section. I just moved it down the page like you did with land mines and added a separate section to address the subject. Can you take a gander and make sure I broke no rules with my editing. Thanks.

Jack E. Hammond

Fishy image?
Milb, can you have a look at this please File:Genet Major - (7cyl.).jpg? It's not being used but I do doubt that it is the author's own work. If it is then I wish I could draw like that!! Always like to be proved wrong. Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it! from ebay Genet Major 1A Aero Engine Manual on CD at http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Genet-Major-1A-Aero-Engine-Manual-CD-/260667414361 or bigger http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=260667414361 MilborneOne (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work. There is another one File:Genet Major - (7cyl) .jpg, they were both added to the RWD-6 article yesterday. Guess they should both be removed as they are almost certainly copyvios. Should buy that manual and use it as a reference!! Cheers Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Tenditious user
Michael, could you check this post here, and give me some advice on what the next step should be? The user has raised an RFC at Talk:Football, but seems intent on doing his own thing without a clear consensus to do so. Any direct help you can provide is also welcome. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem if you can wait till this evening when I have more time I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just read the RFC etc which was interesting just looks like some North American users are miffed because almost everybody else in the world relates football to football (officially association football although nobody uses that term) not the American version. As the RFC has no support the user really has no grounds for changing articles particular at Houston Texans where a local consensus against the change exists. The use of the term American football is perfectly clear to me as a foreigner but talk of AFC, NFL or whatever doesnt mean anything to me (but then I am not a big sports fan either). Not sure what can be done but if the user persists they should really be taken to ANI as per Disruptive editing. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the advice. I'll talk it over with the other user involved, and see if they want to go to ANI with this with me, though I forsee it being another long talk-fest! Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:124x247x221x146
Hi, can you look over and their editing. I noticed what appeared to be an edit war with over the Ngurah Rai International Airport and issued both with a uw-3rr. Felix505 has engaged in discussion, and a look at 124's talk page suggests that that is where the problem lies. Felix505 states that 124's editing covers other articles too. Not sure whether an absolute final warning or a short "across the bows" block would be best here so I'm asking for a second opinion. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem if you can wait till this evening when I have more time I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See also WP:ANI, where there is a thread about this. Seems that ip may also be involved. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was just reading through the contributions at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Had a look at the contributions and it would seem that most of what 124x247x221x146 does is well intended what he/she does have a problem with is sometimes explaining what they are doing. This becomes a problem when the article is looked after by other editors. And rather then discussing and getting help, either on the article talk page or going to project for advise we get an edit war. I dont believe Felix505 had done anything wrong and again is well intended. I would suggest is give 124x247x221x146 a bit of friendly advice about edit summaries, winding up the article locals, and seeking help or advice rather than edit warring. Some of this is down to different interpretations on project guidelines which really needs to be taken to the project and not by revert wars in articles, so I suggest that both of them should be reminded to seek help or advice if they have problems. If the reverting has stopped I dont think a block at this time would help, most of these guys have a lot of knowledge and enthusiasm for airports/airlines and we should try to channel that for the good of the encyclopedia. Hope that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given the editor some advice. I notice that he's acquired another uw-3rr overnight and is active at the moment. I hope that he accepts the advice given, otherwise the next step will have to be a short block. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother a no doubt complaint weary administrator but I think it is appropriate for you to review your rather kind assessment of User:124x247x221x146 (talk) /blocked User:124.247.221.146 (talk), He has a quite colourful history of unpleasantness going back at least to mid last year. The edit history of his IP 124.247.221.146 as a user name leaves little doubt as to a possibly controversial past under another user name prior to 30 June 2009. When he started using that the 124.247.221.146 User name it was apparent he had already accumulated some depth of experience and conflict activity on WP, the tone of his edits and his references to edits priot to 30 June 2009 make that clear. No doubt an IP history search is going to turn up his user name prior to June 30 2009. There is doubt that User:124x247x221x146 (talk) is a rebirth of blocked User:124.247.221.146 (talk)  The editing style and attitude is unmistakable as is the acrimonious nature of his relationships  with other WP editors. Accordingly I encourage you to revisit this matter. I think I have made my views clear on my (talk) page and I really have nothing more to say on the matter after that. I will not repeat it all here there is plenty enough said on my talk page, indeed probably too much but as he keeps on at it I have now started looking into his history. Obviously I wanted to see if it was just me being intolerant or a jerk. It appears there is more than just the one conflict with me chalked up on this keyboard flyers fuselage. I think it is up to WP administrators to deal with appropriately and with out any further niceties. He is just a nasty game playing idiot with a clear history of destructive and antagonistic editing. If the content integrity of his other edits is anything near the quality of his edits on Ngurah Rai International Airport then I would hazard a guess he is doing a lot of damage.MilborneOne with due respect to the humility and impartial common sense approach that both you and Mjroots have I think viewing this individuals behaviour as being in good faith is stretching reasonableness a little too far. I will not take you to task over this, you are both administrators on WP and I am certain have far more experience with WP issues than I have even come close too but I do urge you both to look a little deeper. Felix505 (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am requesting your assistance as a WP Administrator to establish an IP block to mitigate the effect of ongoing malicious, destructive and not in good faith editing behaviour by User:124x247x221x146 (talk) as he is block reverting all and any of my edits to the Ngurah Rai International Airport article again. If he wants to edit to satisfy some arcane table formatting obsession there is nothing stopping him, certainly I am not. If he edited to that effect within WP:Airport guidelines it would be absurd to even raise an objection to it.  But he does not just edit the table mark-up.  Rather he engages in disruptive editing and destroys content belligerently replacing it with clearly incorrect information. He has been advised of this countless times in both simple and highly elaborate detail including a table of sources for the airlines concerned.  He continues to delete current correct data in the Airline and Destination table of Ngurah Rai International Airport article and replaces it with that which is incorrect.


 * I however have no issue with the formatting I have used and upon reading the WikiProject_Airports/page_content I cannot identify an breach of guidelines by myself. They are not described as absolutes more so as "guidelines". Further to that I have clearly made several attempts toward compromise to appease his ego or whatever it is that is driving his behaviour. Unsurprisingly it fails to satisfy, he continues to delete any edit I make, including those entirely unrelated to the table or any the content of that table. I note that on the main page this statement is clearly displayed (the bolding is from the page) Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article. I have already referred him to WikiProject Airports/page content and WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports) on several occasions in response to his previous commentary. The last time I did that was on his (talk) page when I refered him to my response to a post he had placed there. In that response I again drew your attention to this. He has since removed that notice from his  (talk) page. I note he frequently flushes out his User page of comments related to his edit behaviour. I have also noted that there are a lot of these comments arriving on a daily basis and being deleted on a daily basis. Including another on the same issue. For clarity I repeat, If he comes along and changes the table mark up and it conforms to WP:Airport that is his business. He has made it clear now that this is not what he seeks. He wants to ablate any edit I make. A casual examination of his editing histories elsewhere indicates this is hi normal mode of operation, hence he is controversial and his Talk page fills rapidly with various calls to common sense, block warnings and similar, he deletes them with equal vigour. They only last a day or so, sometimes only minutes and they are gone.He also makes many references to guidelines on WP:Airport that simply do not exist. I have done key word searches on each sub-page Of WP:Airports and find any mention at all of these 'quoted' guidelines that he claims I am breaching. It is just afantastical nonsense.


 * He recently removed the message on his talk page posted by never stop flying (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC), I assume as it was topical. He also deleted my post to him to visit my Talk page, I suppose he did not want visitors going there and my comments exposing him to scrutiny, especially to his previous user histories as they are quite revealing as to his character and behaviour..
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Wikipedia policy regarding airline and airport articles says that "you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article". (Icon copied from post of [User:Ritwikbmca|never stop flying]] (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC) - for reference)


 * I also draw your attention to Contributions of User 124x247x221x146, also Contributions of User 124.247.221.146


 * In regard to his objections to my formatting I have merely used my chosen formatting when I have uploaded accurate and adequately sourced and checked data. However he insists on reverts to incorrrect data. This has been repeated several times making it clear he is blocking me from editing the article.


 * In my view his deleting of ANY edit I make to that article, this underlines my protests about him. This makes it abundantly clear his edits are not in good faith and are malicious and content destructive in intent.. There is apparently no point trying to discuss this further as he clearly does not wish to read information I have posted on the discussion and talk pages, indeed he has commented to that effect in his feedback.


 * I am sorry to be so blunt but I must insist this person is reigned in, preferably flushed out, he is a menace and a boor.Felix505 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi MilborneOne, can you please have a look over my edit proposal on the Destinations table of the Ngurah Rai International Airport article and the addition of a weblink in the External sites section. I have painstakingly reviewed the content of the airline and destination content, found some more oversights and errors including a couple of my own and really I can see no reason why anyone would object to that content if it were uploaded now. I am certainly not infallible but it is a vast improvement on what I found there originally. The result of 124xxx's editing is still there and although he did return a couple of my edit details the bulk of them remain deleted and the table is really quite inaccurate and misleading. I have draw attention to a couple of entries that could benefit from your overview as to the appropriateness of them being in the table. I have also supplied a table with the airlines URL's and a full breakdown of the edits with the sources and reasons for changing the original table and the current version on the page edited by 124xxx. I hope you are able to find the time to have a look at it. Thanks. Felix505 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi [MilborneOne], I have reviewed the table again and incorporated your suggestions re -ref- to Aeroflot, then I have blinded it as you appear to agree the begins from date is too obscure. I have removed the JAL listing as the last flight should have landed in JP today making that listing obsolete. I have incorporated your suggestions re -ref- to Strategic. I have supplied some further info on Citilink. I still think it is Citilink op by GA and my reasons are on the D page -- but maybe I am just not seeing it correctly. Please review my comments on Citilink and you decide as appropriate, like I said before-your call on that. When you have a chance please have a look the table update and notes. Thanks. Felix505 (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi [MilborneOne], this edit problem seems to be dragging out a little too long. The rubbish put into the article by User:124x247x221x146 remains there. I think it is time the mess was cleaned up. Why is the edit proposal I have made not yet incorporated into the article? I will look forward to hearling from you. thanks. Felix505 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Image-fair use File:MS-dhoni.jpg
This file is deleted. I do not know the reason. Even on the discussion page one felt that it should not be deleted as it is very very important to the article aand it is no way replaceable in future. Please do keep this photo back on the article. Many Thanks,

I am writing this since both the image and policy meets all wiki norms and it should have not deleted. Please do not make the process very very complicated by adding a BOT tag on this image. Review it how much you want - but no deletion is accepted as it meets all needs to make the article complete and informative.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 10:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)


 * If you would like to discuss why you think the image should be restored then please raise it at Deletion review but please consider the requirements for non-free images at WP:NFCC particularly #1 No free equivalent. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Honda AC15 photo permission
I placed the email permission on the discussion page. Honda AC15 Noles1984 (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Does not appear to be any content on the discussion page - permission needs to be sent into the WP:OTRS system as per notice on your talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Kawasaki copyright permission
Yes, the files I uploaded I will attach the email permission number after I apply. I just received two tickets for two websites. Should I place the ticket number on the file page or discussion page?... or both? Thanks for the help. Noles1984 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you should only add the OTRS pending to the image page, an OTRS volunteer will add the OTRS ticket info when it is checked. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re permission problem
Maybe you should have first addressed the issue on my talk page in an assumption of good faith. You didn't have to template a regular. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I will assume good faith that you will go back through your image uploads and seek permission through OTRS so I dont have to tag any more. 23:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the jpg file at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IT_1971-09-09_B-IT-Volume-1_Iss-112_020-clip.jpg
'''I believe I've already done everything which could conceivably be required regarding the image in question. Here is an account of the history of the image so far:'''

Firstly I received the following message from User:Fastily on the 28th of March 2010:

''* ==File copyright problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg==  Thank you for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.''

''If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.''

''If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)''

Then I added the required tag.

Next I received the following message from User:IngerAlHaosului on the 23rd of May 2010:

''* ==File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg==  Thanks for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. ''

''If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.''

''If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to . ''

''If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.''

''If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)''

'''To which I responded by emailing the owner of the International Times material used in the image. He emailed me back and gave the appropriate permission. I then forwarded a copy of his email to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org and left a message to say so on User:IngerAlHaosului's talk page.'''

Then today I received your message saying:

''==File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg==  Thanks for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg, which you've sourced to International Times. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. ''

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either  ''* make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.''

''If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to . ''

''If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.''

''If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)''

'''I believe the matter is already fully dealt with. However, I will send the copies of the emails in question to permissions again (in case the previous ones have, in some mysterious way, been lost. Also, here are copies of those same emails (I have removed the actual email addresses of myself and of Mike Lesser from these copies (for security) but the copies sent to permissions have the original addresses in place):'''

from	Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> to	email address withheld from this copy date	29 March 2010 00:19 subject	Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia mailed-by	googlemail.com hide details 29 Mar Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground.

Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file.

Cheers, Peter-David Smith

-- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward Reply email address withheld from this copy to me show details 29 Mar Dear Petre, Please take thiis msg as authoriuty to use the cliip you mention.. The Archive was created for just such use and seems to be providing a constant flow of facts.. We are delighted with the uses it has already found and hope to provide more infomation on restance to tyrany.. Good hunting. Mike Lesser.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 To: <email address withheld from this copy> Subject: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia - Show quoted text -

Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground.

Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file.

Cheers, Peter-David Smith

-- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward Reply Peter-David Smith to permissions-en show details 24 May - Show quoted text -

-- Forwarded message -- From: <email address withheld from this copy> Date: 29 March 2010 00:18 Subject: Re: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia To: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy>

Dear Petre, Please take thiis msg as authoriuty to use the cliip you mention.. The Archive was created for just such use and seems to be providing a constant flow of facts.. We are delighted with the uses it has already found and hope to provide more infomation on restance to tyrany.. Good hunting. Mike Lesser.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 To: <email address withheld from this copy> Subject: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia

Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground.

Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file.

Cheers, Peter-David Smith

-- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/

-- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward Reply Permissions to me show details 21 Jul Dear Peter-David Smith,

Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message. - Show quoted text -

05/23/2010 23:28 - Peter-David Smith wrote:

> -- Forwarded message -- > From: <email address withheld from this copy> > Date: 29 March 2010 00:18 > Subject: Re: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia > To: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> > > > Dear Petre, > Please take thiis msg as authoriuty to use the cliip you mention.. The > Archive was created for just such use and seems to be providing a constant > flow of facts.. We are delighted with the uses it has already found and hope > to provide more infomation on restance to tyrany.. > Good hunting. > Mike Lesser. > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > -- > *From: * Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> > *Date: *Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 > *To: *<email address withheld from this copy> > *Subject: *Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia > > Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International > Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the > authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information > Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief > that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain > or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite > permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 > from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an > article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the > alternative society and the UK underground. > > Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status > to the image file. > > Cheers, > Peter-David Smith > > -- > http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com > http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ > http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- > http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com > http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ > http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ >

If you wish for text from another website to be included in Wikimedia projects, it must be released by the copyright holder under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, which may be viewed at <http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>.

Images and other media are allowed if they are under a free license (such as the above and certain other Creative Commons licenses). You can see the allowable licenses at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses>.

If you provide us with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed.

Thank you for your understanding! Please see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> for more information.

Yours sincerely, Maggie Dennis

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org

I'll send fresh copies of these emails to permissions again now (including the original addresses) and hope that these new copies will not become lost or mislaid. I'm assuming good faith on this and trying not to feel harrassed or unfairly censored, although you will, I am sure, understand the inevitable temptation which exists to regard in such a light the repetition of these stages. :-)

--wayland (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File talk:Diegojourdan1.jpg
Hello MilborneOne, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File talk:Diegojourdan1.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Image is on Commons, not technically a G8, though it is Commons problem to solve. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 18:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strange a talk page without a related file page should be deletable! as the contents are not relevant I have blanked the page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:Carmen Conteras Bozak.jpg
Hello MilborneOne, wow, I can't understand what happened. I did send the permit to OTRS on Feb., but these things happen. What I just did was re-email the permit today. Just in case, I am posting the signed permit here for your observation. I will make a notation on the file and remove the deletion tag since the new e-mail sent will have an OTRS pending. Maybe you know some one in OTRS who can now look at the new e-mail sent. take care Tony the Marine (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy of permit

Thank you once more. Here is the permit slip allowing us to use Carmen Bozak's image. Once signed, I will forward it "OTRS". "I Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, director of the U.S. Latino & Latina WWII Oral History Project_____, have written permissions to use the image attached/in url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carmen_Conteras_Bozak.jpg, I agree to release in under the terms of GFDL I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, like attribution, are respected."


 * No problem Marine understood. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Roger pielke jr.png
Errm, what are you doing? The file has an OTRS tag William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see, as far as I can tell it has been pending since April 2009 and I cant see a ticket number. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

La Carmina photograph license
Hello, I have previously forwarded proof of license to the Wikimedia address, but perhaps it did not go through. I will submit it again if needed. Thank you, Feather Jonah (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, may be worth a note on the image page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Mail art - György Galántai image
Permission has already been sent from György for the use of his artwork on the Wiki page. I've asked him to re-send the consent with the ticket number. Keithbates51 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, may be worth a note on the image page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Plunderland Logo.jpg
I did email Johnny Two Shoes a while ago asking to provide the licensing information to OTRS. They did licensing out a bunch under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. I set the Plunderland Logo image to this license under anticipation that they would license the image as that, as they said they most likely would. I don't know if they will be able to respond by October 2nd because they are currently on a long vacation in Greece (they live in London). You can try to help by emailing them at hello@johnnytwoshoes.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthEnigma (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, may be worth a note on the image page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: File permission problem with File:Covered Carriage Truck BR 94300.png
http://anoraksia.ukgeeks.co.uk/

From this page, Find the box named 'Welcome' (Top of page, right side), read the fourth paragraph. I already emailed the emails about the image, the last time this came up, to WP:OTRS! "Pictures from this site may be used to illustrate articles on Wikipedia without seeking my specific permission but please acknowledge this site as the source." If there's a actual issue, please be more specific.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that the email in January 2010 into OTRS did not confirm the permission and the website statement does not release the image with a free licence. You need to get the website owner to release the image with an acceptable licence or it will be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How did it not clear? And tell the guy who deleted it to replace it, since it is permitted to be used, see the stuff above.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get the image undeleted then you can raise it at Deletion review where others can review the deletion decision. I dont know what was in the emails into the OTRS system said but the statement Pictures from this site may be used to illustrate articles on Wikipedia without seeking my specific permission but please acknowledge this site as the source. is not acceptable release for wikipedia as for example it doesnt allow commercial use. The statement above this one on the webpage says Please feel free to copy or print off any of these pictures for your own personal use. Any commercial use of the pictures requires my written consent. the bit about no-commercial use means it is not free enough for wikipedia use. If you have a look at Contact us/Permit it says Whatever license you choose must allow material to be freely copied and modified by anyone (including third parties not affiliated with Wikipedia), for any purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Air Training Corps squadrons
This was due for deletion today but someone has removed the tag without any justification, when tackled about this they referred to List of RAF Squadrons which is totally different, I have put a speedy delete tag on it (as I am the original author!)Can you have a look at this one + the list of ACF units which is the same Pandaplodder (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One the prod has been removed it really needs to be taken to Articles for Deletion for a community decision. Two many other editors have been involved with the article and the speedy delete will probably be removed so AfD is the best approach. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with various Peter Hitchens-related files
Hi there. I understand that I need to get some extra permission from the Mail on Sunday Picture Desk to use these images. Could you please point me to a template which will give me the exact wording that I need to achieve this? I've exchanged a number of friendly emails with the Desk and I'm confident that they will be amenable to including any required text in an e-mail. Best wishes, Jprw (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Some information at Declaration of consent for all enquiries on the wording to use. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ticket numbers for File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg
Hi. It turns out the ticket number for the image was "2010092510006993" and has now been merged with a new number: "2010052310032466". Presumably there is somewhere where administrators keep these numbers so that other administrators can check them. I have never applied to be an administrator and so I remain blissfully ignorant of that procedure. However I am reliably assured that these numbers do exist. Today I received this response from Fae Styles at Permissions:

Dear Peter-David Smith,

''Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.''

Your email with ticket number "2010092510006993" is merged to "2010052310032466".

Yours sincerely, Fae Styles

File: Shaky Smithson.jpg
I sent a message to Stuart Adams, the photographer of this image: File:Shaky Smithson.jpg and he says he emailed OTRS today. Sorry about the delay. —Ute in DC (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I am new to this, so pleas bear with me. (Verybluesky (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

"Operational security" deletions
Michael, you might want to have a look at this diff. We get these types every so often, but other than reverting them, I'm not sure the best way to handle these. If the info is from a reliable source, it's quite silly to try to "censor" it on WP. - BilCat (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strange perhaps he/she thinks we all work for the US military. If it wasnt in the public domain for whatever reason it is now in hundreds of wiki mirrors, perhaps they are going to visit all of them. They have only made one edit but we need to keep an eye on any further edits. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for a review by an uninvolved admin
MB1 - Since you haven't taken part in this AfD perhaps I can prevail upon you to have a little read though Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243 and perhaps see if a quiet word with one participant in particular might not be in order or not. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts on this issue? - Ahunt (talk)


 * I looked to see who the problem user was, but I didn't have to look to know! :) Perhaps an ANI is in order, but it won't be an easy process. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An ArbCom is probably in order, but I thought perhaps a word or a warning from an uninvolved admin, like MB1 would be a good first step. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you take some action, esp. Arbcom, and I'll look in, and see if I can contribute. - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly grounds for some sort of complaint but I have to apologise as I didnt want to get involved while Requests for comment/Mjroots is still open and others have commented in the past about civility on his talk page with very little effect and also see . But I would have thought the uncivil comments and behaviour at the Afd are enough for somebody involved in that discussion to take the uncivil behaviour to ANI or higher. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem is that he wears everyone out so much at the AFDs, that no one has the energy to take him on at an ANI or higher. It won't be an easy task, and he appears to have friends in high places, as most of his previous blocks were reverted in short order. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to try an ANI, only to have someone else intervene and overturn any blocks. That's the main reason I never took hin to ANI. For someone to be as uncivil as he is on a regular basis, and to still be editing freely, he's got some sort of immunity. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response to this. I hadn't seen Requests for comment/Mjroots or his very long block log, although Bill is right, his blocks seem to get suspended pretty quickly. Not clear why he is not permanently blocked, as he is far more disruptive than others I have seen blocked for far less, but let's see how it plays out. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem again

 * Yo Big Kahuna, your presence is greatly required → here ←, many thanks and may peace (or was it the force?) be with you. Out. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the article talk page - not sure if it will help! MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As always, your presence brings peace and clarity to any page that's on fire. Thanks. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)