User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 14

Edit reviews
Michael, Happy New Year!

There is a newly regitered user, User:Lewis odane, who also appears to have used User:208.131.188.129 before registering. Bother usernames have added copyrighted material to the Western Air, and I've removed the material and warned the offending username each time.

Some of his other edits have involved adding info on TimAir to several Jamaican airport articles. TimAir appears to be solely an air charter service, yet he is adding this as an airline to the Airlines section of these airport articles, including adding TimAir to the Hub section on the infobox at Sangster International Airport. I don't deal much with airport articles, so I don't know if this ic orrect or not. My hunch is that charters shouldn't be treated as scheduled airlines, but I have know idea if this is the standrd or not. Can you review some of his edits, and see if they are inline with the WPAIRPORT MOS? I assume you know a little about it from some of your past edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Best wishes Bill and any lurkers, No problem I already took a load of rubbish out of TimAir the other day, some of the edits are OK but mainly it is a new user who doesnt know how wikipedia works. I will go through the edits and keep an eye on them. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Navbox aircraft categories
Hi, I am trying to use your Template:Navbox aircraft categories - it works in Autogyro (but also showing Aeroplane as the type), but does not show Sikorsky X2 as a helicopter or Gyrodyne but as an Aeroplane. The Navbox does not seem to be used elsewhere. How do we go on from here? TGCP (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not meant for aircraft articles only for aircraft types, like autogyro. It was originally designed to replace Template:Seriesbox Aircraft Categories which is used as part of the infobox and sometime can take up a lot of space. I need to look back and see why we didnt use agree to use or change them over. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

60K
Congratulations, that is a lot of work, by any measure! - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a week before my fifth anniversary. But only 784 aircraft articles created - trying to get to the 800! MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you are ahead of me. I have been here over 5 1/2 years and have only started 239 articles. But then I could claim that quality takes time! have set a personal goal to do 300 new articles in 2011, next on my list for today is #3 for the year. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right about the quality it would be easier to create simple stubs but they would just need more work later. Doesnt stop others creating them! MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The toolserver list says you have created 1183 articles, but it does count disambiguation pages as articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the 783 (now 785) is only aircraft articles I have done other stuff to get to the 1183 - refer User:MilborneOne/Articles1.MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been cheating on the Aircraft Project and creating articles like Lubuntu as well. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article move
Michael, could you move CASA CN-235 to CASA/IPTN CN-235? I've tried, but it says CASA/IPTN CN-235 is on an article blacklist, though I see no logical reason why. I can hold a move discussion if you feel it's warranted. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved (if anybody objects then we can revert and do a discussion). MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And it seems for some reason EADS CASA HC-144 Ocean Sentry is on the blacklist too. (I suspect it's all the caps at the start somehow?) If CASA HC-144 Ocean Sentry could be moved there, I'd be gratefil. Thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved (you may need to sort out incoming links) MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. That title blacklisting stuff is wierd! I've updated the links to EADS CASA HC-144 Ocean Sentry in the CASA/IPTN CN-235 article, and the bots should take care of the redirects. - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of external link to a campaign group
You have removed a reference to the group responsible for the Actual change 3 times to British Nationality Act's. This is a legitimate group of over 25,000 people who have come together to bring about the change in legislation 3 times in Parliament. You remove it saying it is a campaign group, campaigns is just the acronym - children and maternal parents against immigration nationality status. Odd when I look through the history of the edits of the British Nationality Page I have seen this reference to this VERY relevant group of people removed numerous times, yet when the Dutch Nationalty Page lists the group that was created to change the dutch law - as they took their lead from the work of www.turberville.org membership and it's ability to actually change the law in the UK, that is allowed to remain on wiki, But www.turberville.org is not allowed to be on teh British Page?? WHY? Please explain IN EXACTING DETAILS! there are 25000 plus people who are citizens now who are members of this organisation and well you are saying that all are insignificant by constantly removing the information as to why the law was ACTUALLY changed. IT did not spontaneously change on it's own! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_nationality_law In 2004, a number of these children of Dutch mothers and non-Dutch fathers (so-called "latent Dutch" or "latente Nederlanders") began to organise themselves in the hope of persuading the Dutch government that Article 27 of Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap condones the discrimination against women enshrined in the earlier Dutch Nationality Law (before its 1985 revision), and it should therefore be revoked. In 2005, several Dutch lawyers[2] agreed to take on the case and formalised the group into “Stichting Ne(e)derlanderschap Ja!”.[3][4] The legislative change was discussed by parliament in 2006... (A NUMBER... Well CAMPAIGNS is more than just a number, it has an ACTUAL membership of over 25,000 people - I get the impression you are some home office/ukba mole who is trying to cover the bum of the backwardsness of the homeoffice for almost a century that women were treated as nothing but the property of their husbands or fathers! 18:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.44 (talk)
 * You are welcome to comment at Talk:British nationality law once you read WP:CIVIL. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Article removal
Morning MilborneOne. I've got a Bölkow Phoebus page ready for launch, but am blocked by an existing redirect (blanked, but still there). Any chance you could remove it? Cheers, TSRL (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that there's no reason why I should not just cut and paste into the existing, blank, article, so I'll save you a job! Cheers,TSRL (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry TSRL I forgot to do it for you, looks like everything is OK now. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Flightglobal.com


A tag has been placed on Flightglobal.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Stephen 12:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Research for Infobox:Airline
Since I'm the one causing the ruckus, I thought it only fair that I should have to do the work, rather than you getting stuck with it. I've updated the Template talk:Infobox airline page with what I've found and just wanted to drop a note here as a courtesy so you didn't spend time researching unnecessarily. Thanks for your help. Ch Th Jo (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

HAL Light Observation Helicopter--Picture has been removed
Hello I have posted a pictures of the HAL Light Observation Helicopter and it has been deleted.please let me know if this picture psted in this section has violated any rules.

Thanks. Added by user:Jinu.raghavan (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2011

Penshurst Airfield
Hi, do you have a subscription to The Times website? If so, would it be worth adding a link to the webpage, even if a subscription is required? Are you intending to expand the article further? Per my note at WT:Aviation, confirmation of the reg'n of the Blériot 135 would be appreciated if possible. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We probably crossed as I have left a message on the Penshurst talk about the Bleriot (not a 135!) I use the standard ref to the Times which is a cite newspaper which doesnt need a URL! MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed we did cross. Accident corrected, aircraft articles also corrected/expanded as appropriate. Are you getting your info from the original papers, or via the 'net? If the latter, then a link could be provided, in the same way that I linked to the webpages of Flight. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been reviewed for GA status and placed on hold. The main problem is the 1910s section. Does Sturtivant's book give any details of what aircraft types the Wireless School operated? Other than that, should the info about the Officers Mess and Lindbergh be added? Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The book does give examples of aircraft flown I think, I will have a look later when I get home. I think the officers mess and Lindberg should be added. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tried accessing The Times archives via that link you left me, using my Kent Library card number. For some reason, I only seem to be able to search back as far as 1985. Can you post the ref for the date on Lindbergh's departure from Penshurst Airfield on the talk page, and I will then be able to add that info. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Shanghai Airlines CRJ-200LR.jpg
Hi, every picture is held in my computer. All these authors are my friends (aviation enthusiast) who took picture in China. Eg: DJDJDJ: (Full name: Chen Duwang, Machree: Ma Laoluan.)We also have printed them. People can never find these in Internet(except wikipedia). So, I think they are fully legal. Regards Markshen1985 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Markshen1985

Please explain
I'm here to ask you about some of the images that Markshen1985 uploaded, which you tagged list. He has posted me a massage on my talk page, explaining to me that some of the images were his (those with "Mark Shen" on them) and those of his friends (those without). Could you please explaing further on his talk page, because some of the files, such as File:China Southern Airlines Sky Team Livery.jpg, have "Mark Shen" on them. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 09:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,I don't know what's wrong. Like "File:Shanghai Airlines B757.jpg", I have tagged as own work, it is still listed here as possible unfree picture.?! Others are copy/paste errors, that I type the source as"friend", but many are my own works. Thanks! Markshen1985 (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Markshen1985


 * It is being discussed at Possibly unfree files/2011 January 15. If you read the comments Marksheen has said that the images were obtained from friends and all of them are sourced to "Friend". What we dont know is that his friends have given permission to release the images for use. All he has to do is correctly source his images and get his friends to provide evidence to what licence they have released the images. His friends can either upload them to the web showing the appropriate licence or provide an email to wikipedia WP:OTRS system. He cant claim that they are his own work by just using picassa or photoshop the rights remain with the original photographer. I know we have to assume good faith but when it comes to copyright we have to be sure, having the image on your computer does not give you any rights. You really need to explain at the Possibly unfree files/2011 January 15 page where others can comment and another admin will review the comments. MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already said, some pictures are from my friends, some are my own work(the pictures's author tagged as "Mark Shen", That is my NAME)! Why don't you trust me? Just some of them were took by my friends!!! Already added information next to the file. Maybe there are some language misunderstandings in my prvious explanation. I speak German and Chinese. English not good. Sorry. Thank you. Markshen1985 (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Markshen1985


 * replied at Possibly unfree files/2011 January 15 MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So the next step I should hand my camera to you? Ridiculous. You can do whatever you do. I will not argue any long. It's a bit wasting time. Good luck. You can do this to all the picture uploader to ask them do the same thing. Look what you have written: "You could also help if you uploaded an image taken today with camera meta data to show that you own the following cameras" Just ridiculous. bUT I can tell you, I don't own any camera you mentioned. I have a Nikon D90. I took pictures at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport Observation platform. That's it. whether you trust or not, I don't care. Who think you are? Funny.I will do nothing what you ask me to do. It worths nothing. Because you even don't respect others and act if you were a lord or something. Markshen1985 (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Markshen1985


 * replied at Possibly unfree files/2011 January 15, I would prefer not to have the same discussion in two places, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Light Aircraft Trials
Were the 1923 trials the same as the Grosvenor Cup? If so, then some of the info in the article is seriously out of kilter with that published at the time - Flight, 28 June 1923. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh, found the answer, they were different. Grosvenor Cup was in June, LATs were in October. Panic over! Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry away on a real world activity, seems you have sorted it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Britain (film)
See my final comments on this issue of pronunciation which should now finally be considered resolved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

The Times
Thanks for that link! I've now managed to write an article on the other Blériot 155 crash (my 699th). I have an article in preparation to be my 700th, and The Times seems to have a useful amount of info to include. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Air Alfa
Hi. Air Alfa is done, but is the magazine ok for a source, and is the article ok? --MKY661 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Should be no problem with a magazine you will need to use Template:Cite journal, good effort on the article I will have a look at it for problems. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Air accident articles
Don't forget that all issues of Flight and Flight International to 2005 are online - useful source of info for these. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks but they load very slowly on my machine and I have to wait to get to work to look at them, or wait for others to add info! I suspect it is an acrobat problem but I dont have problems with other sites. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you running Acrobat Reader 10? Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dont think so its probably an older verson, I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Acrobat Reader is mondo-bloatware. You might want to try out a nice very lightweight free software PDF reader, Sumatra PDF, 3.3 MB download, which may just work a whole bunch better on those PDFs. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you've got a stalker too Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dont have a problem with lurkers/watchers they perform a useful service, most of them keep an eye out when I am not here and sometimes answer questions quicker then I can! Thanks Ahunt I will have a look at that I am using Firefox but the site still takes a long time to upload in other browsers. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that having a stalker was a problem. It's nice to be appreciated enough that someone is keeping a weather eye on you. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood and agree. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes they recommend useful free software too! - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kent crash
If you're doing post-WW2 crashes, this one might be of interest. Plenty in The Times too. Mjroots (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I had a quick look at that but it is a complicated accident which may take some work to summarise properly so I have left it for now. Just found a copy at work of the CAA World Accident Summary which lists all accidents from 1946 to to 1975 with lots of ideas for articles. Although asn and the like are a source of basic info I like to go back to more official documents and reports like the Times and as you suggested Flight. Probably do a few more accidents before I change to something else, like to change subject now and then as it keeps the gray matter stirred. MilborneOne (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Me too, that's why I'm taking a rest from creating ship and windmill articles. Marden Airfield is another article that will take a bit of research. Local history group have produced a book on aviation in Marden, which I'll need to get my hands on. They also have some records in their archives which may be accessible. I'll probably do a few more pre-WW2 Kent crashes. Mjroots (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've managed to extract a copy of the original report from the AAIB. Only had a brief scan of it so far, but it appears there are some errors in the article, and that it can be expanded quite a bit. Just wondering what template to use for the ref. Would cite book be correct? I've been sent pdf scans of the original publication by HMSO. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would think that cite book should be ok as it was published at the time but we do have Template:Cite report but I think that is for reports that have not been published. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Troublesome IP
Michael, could you look at Talk:Light aircraft carrier? An IP user with intermittent edits has been causing some minor disruption on the article e: the use of "Brtish" as a clarifier, which we discussed recently at one of the avitation talk pages. This guy refuses to accept thaat I'm not the only person supporting this format, which NickD has also supported. I have a feeling a check-user might be helpful, as he seems fairly familiar with WP terminology such as "Wiki-lawyering". Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This person is a riot! Getting close to PAs with his/her claims of my making false statements. Anyway, they've made their third revert in the last day or so, so I've given them a 3RR warning. Also, they seem to be trying to claim that the different IPS are different people, so check-user is probably needed to clear that up. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Bill I was offline and I now suspect you have gone away for the day but I see that Nick-D has helped. Not sure that discussing the British qualifier directly with this IP user will really help, he/she is clearly not going to change there point of view whatever the merits for or against adding a qualifier as to which Royal Navy it is. Can I suggest leave the article for a mo and raise it at either MILHIST or SHIPS and try and get a wider consensus for using the qualifier on the first use of the term in articles where it would not be clear which Navy it is. Interesting that the Royal Navy article uses Royal Navy of the United Kingdom ! MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Feedback
Thanks for you feedback/comments on aircraft registration. If you don't mind would you pls give your valuable feedback on the merger proposal of NACIL destinations into Air India destinations here? I had infact posted on the projects page regarding the merger proposal and discussion for the same, but there has been no response till now. Thanks, Why so serious?  Talk to me 17:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Monarch Photos
Ok thanks. If i see a Monarch in the new livery and take a picture of it and its good, i will add it. Im usually on one when i go to Malaga/Gibraltar anyway. --MKY661 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

bit of strange language tweaked
Yeah, thanks! I was listening to the BBC a lot lately and heard their reporters make clever (or as they would say, 'brilliant') comments in British English and wanted to mimic them. ;-) I guess it didn't sound very British when I tried to be 'be spoken for them', eh? Maybe just sounded weird and affectatious (is that even a word?) and they would not be 'keen' to accept my 'bloody poor' English, ha. Cheers! --Inetpuppy (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem not meant to be an insult on your English it just did not sound right. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Blanche Charlet Article
Milborne One,

Article: Blanche Charlet

I've come across an unassessed article who was an SOE Agent during World War II. I've found a source that has her born five years earlier (in 1893 not 1898) than stated on the article located here: Special Forces. While trying to confirm her birth, I am also trying to confirm her death (if she has already died, possibly in 1985 as it states in the article) or any other year. I've asked User:AustralianRupert about this and he said to ask you since you've done some work on the article. You can can see his reply to my message on his talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked the dates as per the birth and death records and the sources are in the article - but if you have other information then please raise it on the Blanche Charlet talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Help!
I really messed up Klimov TV7-117, and its now at Klimov TY7-117! Can you fix this? It won't let me revert the move because it's on the title balcklist. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved it back to Klimov TV7-117. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lashenden
I've reverted myself. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, I didnt want to revert before checking. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Chronic linkspammer
See here. This account doesn't appear to be used for anything else but adding the same blog link to airline pages. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked as they already had a final warning in November. MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1947 Croydon Dakota accident
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1957 Blackbushe Viking accident
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport
No doubt you've been keeping an eye on the progress of this article. As you will be aware, I've nominated it for GA. Hopefully, this is the first step towards my first FA! I realise we need some more images, and will be addressing this in the coming week or so. I also realise we need to get a final closure date for the airport. Other than that, constructive criticism on the article would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

RAF Newchurch Article
Milborne One,

Article: RAF Newchurch

I slightly fixed up the article and assessed a WikiProject. Hope you don't mind. In my opinion it could have a little more information if you have the time to find it and add it to the article. Adamdaley (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adamdaley, I will revisit the article again when I have finished some of my ongoing projects. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1947 BOAC Douglas C-47 crash
I've now created an article on the accident at Stowting in 1947. As you said earlier, it did take some unravelling. Still not sure whether the final destination was Lagos, Nigeria or elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I will see if I have anything, the CAA accident book just says West Africa. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kent air accidents
I think I've got all the major air accidents in Kent covered now. The 1935 accident at Tatsfield being just over the Surrey border. Unless you know of any I've missed. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some good work, nice to see the Times source has been of use it often adds some of the more human aspects missing from official accounts. I will check to see if I can find anymore 'major' accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that The Times is an excellent source. Pity it is not possible to link to the articles in the same way as Flight. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have we anything on the "Meopham Air Disaster" on 21 July 1930? a Junkers F13 G-AAZK with six killed (Times 22 July) may also be some notably passengers (Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 3rd Marquess of Dufferin and Ava. Also found MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a fair amount of coverage in Flight, see with a summary of the accident report here.It appears to have been one of, if not the, first British air accidents where the results of the accident investigation were published.  Definately notable.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that certainly looks notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Started it at Meopham air disaster which was the name used in contempary sources. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have problems with access to flightglobal pdf files so would appreciate anybody can help adding Flight references and any additional info, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added an image, expanded from Flight, added accident to template and WPs to talk page. Don't forget to link in to the article on other pages, such as the victims and aircraft article. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help - just found an image of G-AAZK at the crash scene http://www.baaa-acro.com/Photos-63/G-AAZK.jpg presumably in the public domain but could be used with a fair use rationale? MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say I found the picture here. Probably taken by a local newspaper, so I'd go for fair use. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Times had a slightly different image at "The Times, Tuesday, Jul 22, 1930; pg. 18; Issue 45571; col A" MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help on Indian (airline)
Hi. An IP is adding that IC's merger into AI will take into effect on 12 February. I don't know how far this is true. I tried searching for sources, but there do seem to be very few ones and I doubt if they pass the WP:V criteria. I do know that the complete merger is underway, but I have no idea when it would come into effect and some sources only say it is likely in mid Feb. Please look into this. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * THe reference they used just indicated that both will use the IA code on flights but nothing about further merging operations. As you said really needs a reliable source, but no reason why the code sharing could not be mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AI and IC already have code share. All IC flights are marketed as AI operated by IC and the AI code for IC flights is a four digit code starting with 9 (IC 110 is AI 9110). But what is about to happen is the ceasure of operations of domestic flights under the brand Indian and it's gonna be a single airline with an SOC. So do we re-instate the IP's edits or wait till we get some RS? &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 13:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Really need a RS that a single operating certificate will be used, that would in effect make Indian a defunct airline. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for your response. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 13:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After a bit more research I am sure that Indian Airlines doesnt really exist see my comment at . MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Semantics and Pedantry at its best, like the edit and links I added cannot remain as an indicator of whats happening, its a VALID referenced edit, IT IS HAPPENING an RS is not needed, the whole industry knows about it, what will you remove next? referenced edit explaining Southern Sudan will be a new country in July, is not that not a valid source of information till the Southern Sudan government issues a press release??? here is the latest info just to confirm even if it cant be used as reference. 116.71.17.157 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read my post rather than deleting them you will see that I am generally agreeing with you 116. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Milborne, NACIL was created in 2007 to facilitate the merger of IC into AI, but the two still remain separate airlines. Since the creation of NACIL, the Indian media have started calling IC too as Air India. I'm not arguing that the merger is not taking place nor am I arguing that the completion is not on its way. Apparently there aren't any RS on this issue and we'll have to wait for the same. But AFIK, IC's merger into AI will take place if not sooner atleast by mid this year before AI's entry into star alliance. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I can only go on the sources I have read like the NACIL annual reports and the Ministry report http://civilaviation.nic.in/reports/Annual%20Report%2009%20English.pdf all the Indian Airline website redirect to Air India and my opinon is that they have already merged and it is only the IT issue that means different codes are used. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes they have merged. But they have merged into a single company (NACIL) but still remain as separate airlines. In my previous comments when I was talking about IC being merged into AI, I meant obtaining an SOC and operating only under the AI brand with the IC brand becoming defunct. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see this. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 16:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that has not been updated for a while even a few years. The government report ref above says that NACIL has three subisdaries with not mention of Indian Airlines, a list at 3.5.3 list all the active airlines, no mention of Indian Airlines. I suggest that any further comments are on the Indian Airlines page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The source just talks about why NACIL was formed. I guess once IC becomes defunct and we have only AI, all confusions will vanish. The problem is as you said that they started calling IC as Air India, but it still operated under the IC code. Even for a while assuming that the complete merger will come into effect from 12 February, I don't understand why there hasn't been a significant coverage on this issue by well known Indian media coz from then on AI will once again become the largest airline in the country. There was a lot of coverage when NACIL was formed to facilitate this complete merger. I guess we'll just have to wait and watch for some more news on this. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 04:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * NACIL has been changed or is changing to Air India Limited it will Include Air India, Air India Express and Air India Regional (which for some reason remains Alliance Air and uses CD code despite wearing AI livery) while Air India Cargo will end freighter operations and sell of their fleet, they are already on sale. So unlike the Allinace Air/AI Regional setup where Alliance still exists in AI Regional garb, IC on the other hand have been FULLY merged into AI and are now a defunct carrier a la Pan Am, TWA, BWIA, am I the only one sensing this person is going on just to prove himself right or take ownership (against wiki rules) of Indian article article so only he can edit it.Also dont understand why he is so againgst creating a Merger section in the Indian airline article with a valid reference and keeps undoing it, isnt that aganist rules, the factual information and reference are being removed, just because Indian media is not beating drums about something that has been on four years and is no news worthy anymore even to them, practically IC is no more only their code remained in use, so not much excitment there for the media.116.71.6.146 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Milborne just out of curiosity what is your take on someone threatening to block you from editing by semi-protecting the article you have edited with good intentions adding valid information and reference which are being called hoax and vandalism, I mean ok even if the merger is delayed for another six months, it is taking place, why is information and reference discussing that reality being removed, on what basis? six months or a year it dosent matter, the merger is on and completed, the information regarding it should not be removed by any individual to suit his fancy, what is the problem here?116.71.6.146 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An article would only be semi-protected (or fully protected) by an Admin to stop users edit warring and to encourage discussion if it is a content dispute, in effect to protect the article from disruption, it doesnt matter what the edit war is about. Once a consensus is reached on the article it can then be released from protection. Blocking is slightly different as it is used to protect the encyclopedia against individual actions, normally breaking the rules like 3RR or disruption editing. Blocking would not be used in a content dispute and would be more likely for continued vandalism or continuing some action after a warning. Not every case is the same. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert war
Michael, if you (or a TPS-admin) are stil around, could you take a look at M1 Abrams? There's are revert war going on between 2 users, and I've warned both for 3RR. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Watching - they really need to go to the talk page, I will protect it or block if they carry on. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Key Lime Air
Hi! Please take a look at that article's latest edit history. It looks like that editor had registered an account and had gone beyond final warning. Please consider a block and/or a protection. HkCaGu (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as I have been involved in the reversion of the edits I have asked another admin to have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've semi'd the article for 3 days. IP is on a final warning, and should they continue then I'll grant them a Wikibreak. Mjroots (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help mjr apppreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

List of airports in Kent
The list is coming on nicely. The "Private Airfields" section is going to be the one that gives most trouble. Were the balloon sites at Lidsing and Chatham military sites? If so, they can be moved to the "RFC and RAF balloon stations" section. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Aviation and the environment
Michael: Can you please review this diff. According to the policy at WP:LOWERCASE this move was wrong, but I am not able to reverse it. Can you do that please? This move seems to be part of a content dispute on another article as sort of outlined at Talk:Frequent-flyer_program and seen here. I have already given some advice on my talk page, but perhaps you can add something to this as well? - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that move. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not ignored the other stuff - I will have a look later on when I am at home. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be most appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input there. As you will have seen on my talk page I have suggested that the environmental impacts of frequent flyer programs should be a section in the Frequent-flyer program article as there are ample refs available for it already in the Aviation and the environment article and this will provide a natural link to the latter article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Polish Air Force crash
I've chucked in my 2p worth. Basically, WingmanFA2 has until Sunday evening to put forward specific examples of non-neutrality or the tag comes off. I see no glaring POV pushing on the article. There has been much discussion of various issues as they have been occurred. The MAK report is the definitive document, whether or not some editors like it or agree with it. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, considering the hard work some editors have made to make it neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Move request
Michael, could you move the history of Geared Turbofan to Geared turbofan? I'd like to ry to expand the previous content to a full article to better cover the concept, and I'd like to keep the history. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK Bill moved as requested, it is still a redirect at the moment but has the old text in the history. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have a source that I'll use to add information to the text, and to try to cite what is already there. It may take a few days to get everything ready to go. I'll also add some pics. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Another one: British Aerospace BAe 146 to British Aerospace 146. "British Aerospace" and "BAe" are not usually used together with the model number. (I had moved it there from BAe 146.) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Kent airfields
Another one down! Looks like Baldwyn's Park was not an airfield, although it was the site of Hiram Maxim's experiments with his captive flying machine in November 1894. Did you see my comments at talk:Penshurst Airfield re the WWI units? Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I did just need to go back and add a ref for Chiddingstone Causeway, still trying to find out what they were called official, certainly not RFC Foo but not sure if they were Foo aerodrome or Foo airfield or something else like they just used the name. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's not definitive, but there is evidence for RFC Foo, see this forum topic's title. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've flagged this up at WT:MILHIST. Your 2p worth is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this webpage on RFC Wye any use in expanding the article? Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that I will have a look through it during the next few days, I know of one award of an Albert Medal at Wye for a rescue from a crashed aircraft so it look like a good source. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, Oliver Bryson has an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good stuff that was the one I was looking for, notice the official citation says "Wye Aerodrome" !! MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

edit warring of Article Key Lime Air
MilborneOne,

You seem persistant to weed through Articles on aviation deleting all factual negative content. I question that maybe you are paid by these airlines to keep them clean looking in the public eye. If so, think about the 50+ people that died on Colgan Air flight 3407.

My contributions to Airline Articles are not any different than those in other wikipedia articles. I merely added content to other content in Key Lime Air that existed as far back as 2007. Is it fair that all content only be positive content. The content I added is true, verifiable and is the publics right to know. Especially since the Article company provides services to the public that effect life.

If you'll look at Article Gulfstream_International_Airlines, there is very similiar content. You also make countless efforts to clean out all factual data that is negative in that article too. This is not in the best interetst of the public to hide factual saftey related content from the public.

The public comes to Wikipedia to learn about something. To hide all the facts is not right. Although my contributions to Key Lime Air may be negative, they are factual and verifiable. But if you look deeper, not all my contributions are negative.

If you have a better idea in which the same information can be better presented that would include the information the public is entitled to know, I am open to dicussion.

User talk:24.41.52.77 —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Can I remind you about WP:CIVIL and please refrain from commenting about me or my motives. If you have notable and reliably sourced additions to any article then they will remain. But the continually persistant addition of text dumps from NTSB reports is not the right way to add content and none of the accidents you are trying to add appear to pass notability guidelines. Please read some of the other airline articles and see how accidents and incidents are included. You also add content for some reason about the first officer program which doesnt make any sense at all and does not explain why it is notable or relevant. Please go to the article talk page and I or/and other editors can discuss the content with you and if approporiate help you add content. Wikipedia is written from a balanced a neutral point of view and this has to be taken into account but please make your points on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne,

If you look back, you would see I was not the original contributor of accident content for Key Lime. If you did not know that, then you're a bad editor.

So if you feel the same information could be better presented, to meet your standards, then look at the material and offer some valid suggestions.

As for the First Officer Program. It's something related to the airline as much as all the other data contained in the article. They have promoted it as a time building program but the FAA has said it's not valid time. It's verifiable and accurate. It's information that is presented to inform the public.

I think your style if editing is improper. As a user of Wikipedia, I come here to find information. People like you censor, not edit.

Be an EDITOR!! Not a CENSOR!! User talk:24.41.52.77 24.41.52.77 (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You really need to read our guideline on civil behaviour and personal attacks. All your points have been answered above. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Need advice
As you've probably seen, I've taken Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 to DRV, originally due to changes made in WP:AIRCRASH since the article was deleted, and not because the original deletion was wrong.

However, today I have discovered that the classification of the accident was downgraded against guidelines, ostensibly so that India could claim an acciden-free year in 2009. Subsequent to this, responsibility for accident investigation in India was removed from the DGCA to an independent body created for the purpose. This was partly as a result of this accident. Thus DRV criteria 3 is now met.

I'm not sure how to go about this one, as I don't want to be seen to badgering editors who have voted against recreation of the article, yet on the other hand, their attention should be drawn to the new development. In fairness, those who have voted for restoration should also be informed of the development, so that in effect a new discussion can take place. Should I just keep quiet and hope that those who have contributed already revisit the discussion, should notification come from either myself or a non-involved editor. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like the DRV will not gain a consensus to restore mainly because the original decision was OK per the comments and views at the time. The accident report was issued by the DGCA and makes no mention of other agencies involved and although it was reported as withdrawn it is still on the dgca website. It may be better to let the DRV run its course and leave the section in Kingfisher Airlines to tell the story. I can only find a few bits on the report being withdrawn and nothing on a new body to investigate, nothing really substantial enough to re-create the article. It may be that trying to get the article re-created may be seen in a negative light by other editors, perhaps just let it be for the moment but keep looking for better sources, at first to add to Kingfisher Airlines article and perhaps later at the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.  MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tampabayfred2
Michael, you blocked User:Tampabayfred for linkspamming. He appears to be back as User:Tampabayfred2. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Boeing T-43 Bobcat
A discussion is now in progress for changing the name back to Boeing T-43. LanceBarber (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Air India and Air India destinations
Hi this user is adding all the destinations and fleet of Air India Express, Indian Airlines and Air India Regional into Air India destinations Air India respectively citing that NACIL is no more and it is now Air India. Please explain to him that Air India Limited is a holding company for all these airlines and their destinations cannot be merged. Thanks, &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Metric warrior
Michael, could you see [here, and on his talk page. This user is ignoring the US-reelated aspect ot [[WP:UNIT]] to enforce his pro-metric POV on US-related articles. I've left a note on his talk page, both last Msay and today, short but polite, but he is accusing me of not being civil! I'm really not in the mood for dealing with this sort of user today, so please help! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cant find any evidence of you being uncivl Bill, clearly you have challenged changes to metric/imperial (do you use that term - must look it up) units in US related articles. I will leave a note. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yeah, we use "Imperial units", but "US customary units" is clearer when referring to units that differ in the British Imperial system, like gallons. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood, left a note on users talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear contributors, please excuse my interference in this topic which is related to my edits, I hope it doesn't offend anyone. I hope we may soon clear up these misunderstandings. First of all, concerning the uncivil conduct I mentioned, I was referring to the talk page messages you left me (cf. []), which were, from my point of view, both very abrupt and missing the mandatory greeting when addressing anyone, especially someone you do not know (that's my point of view at least). Secondly, concerning the edits of the Pan Am article, as I mentioned on BilCat's talk page, the source does not specify the units used, hence, according to WP:UNIT rules, means placing the most widespread units used for the specific information. The sources of the article do not clearly state the weight of the explosive device (which probably should be simply removed from the article because of the lacking source), hence the use of metric system first, in accordance with WP:UNIT. Hence, BilCat's undoing of that particular edit is not in accordance with WP:Units. Secondly, after my message on BilCat's talk page, I realize the undoing of my minor edit on the Pioneer 11 article, in which the metric system was placed first instead of the US customary units, in accordance with two rules of WP:Units, 1. use the source's units, 2. use the most widespread units. In fact, for space travel, the metric system is used for distances and the source (from the NASA website) states all distances in metric. In addition, prior to my edit, the Pioneer 11 article used exclusively metric units (in accordance to the rules aforementioned). Hence, BilCat's undoing of that particular edit is, once again, not in accordance with WP:Units. Finally, I realized BilCat's undid, for the second time, my right-doing edit of the Pan Am article, which is considered as Edit warring on Wikipedia. Reporting such conduct may not be necessary if we can all agree on respecting the WP:UNIT rules. I hope we can find a consensus soon. Xionbox (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * BilCat has not as far as I can tell been uncivil, on wikipedia we dont have "mandatory greetings" in what is an informal setting. Pan American was an airline from the United States so clearly is a US-centric article and should use US customary units first. As far as I am aware Pioneer 11 is also an American product, the NASA web site http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/missions/archive/pioneer.html uses a mixture of us and metric measurements in different orders so not really a reliable indicator. But Pioneer 11 is a US-centric article, so really it should be discussed at the related talk page or WikiProject Spaceflight. Please remember as WP:UNIT says US articles generally put United States customary units first. If you have an issue then please discuss on the related talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pan Am being from the United States, does not in the least bit qualify the article as strongly associated with a given place (quote from WP:Unit). Hence the source units should be respected. Anyhow, because no current source specifies the weight of the bomb, this information should be simply removed. Regarding the Pioneer 11, it should be in fact discussed on the appropriate page you mentioned. In the meantime, please admit BilCat's wrongdoing in undoing my minor edition, especially that the provided link is the only one which even mentions the US customary units, the other three (one of which is the technical detail of the spacecraft on the NASA page) don't even use these units between parentheses. Xionbox (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but if you dont consider Pan Am as being from and strongly connected with the United States then I would suggest we have a problem. It is a bit like saying Air France has not connection with France. BilCat correctly challenged your edits please take any further comment to the related talk page. Can I suggest you also read about the history of Pan American and I would be surprised if you still say it is not strongly associated. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do know the history of Pan Am, mostly because I have read it here. And, just like I do not consider Air France of being strongly associated with a given place which in this case may be France, I do not consider Pan Am to be strongly associated with the US. However, I do consider Florida, the US civil wars or even political people of the US to be strongly associated with the US. Constructions are not strongly associated as the only association is their barely virtual interaction with the country. If that were the rules, then any thing which may have been connected to the US somehow should be expressed fully in the US customary units. For example, I think the computer I am using to type this message may have been sold, in an altered version, in the US: would that make this computer strongly associated with the US. I don't think so. More specifically, regarding the bomb on the Pan Am flight, it was most probably purchased out of the US and hence, most probably weighed in grams (as opposed to weighed in pounds). Xionbox (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that it is the subject of the article that needs to be US-centric not individual parts of the article. I am sorry but I cant help anymore, if you dont strongly associate Pan Am with the USA or Air France with France then we have a communication problem. Perhaps in other forms of English (I understand English used in England) strongly associated has other meanings so as we are unlikely to understand each other please use the article talk pages for further help. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thank you for your mediation anyways. Xionbox (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! How Y'all doin'? (mandatory greeting). Xionbox's refusal to acknowledge that US airlines or space probes launched by the US are strongly related to the US diverges strongly from Wikipedia practice.  But it is plausible that some US-related organizations like the  military might commonly use metric units, like soldiers since the Vietnam era denoting distances by "klicks (kilometers)," or NASA might give distance downrange post-launch in "nautical miles" since the beginning of US space launches, but give apogee and perigee of satellites in miles. Edison (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Back again
Hello again :) Life has taken a few unfortunate twists and turns since I was last here, but I've never been far away in spirit! :) Hoping to continue the long march towards JEA parity! :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Normal convention
Hi! Regarding This

East Devon is the municipality. Devon is the subdivision above the municipality. Usually on the infoboxes the municipality or place is stated. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry East Devon is just a local government name it not normal convention in the real world to use local government names they have no meaning to anybody except councillors, the location is Devon and that is all that is needed for UK places in infoboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Gatineau Park
MB1: I know that you have reviewed issues on this article in the past and, given your knowledge of the WP:MOS and English usage, I thought perhaps you would look at this talk page issue and offer your thoughts when you have the time to do so.. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom
I've notified the editor who originally added the notice to the talk page of the discussion, and added my 2p worth on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've re-added G-EBMM, which you originally added. Ref "Jackson525" is given, but that is not currently a valid ref, so I've temporarily hidden it. If it's a book ref, could you replace it with a sfn ref. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will have a look tonight when I get home, I was in the middle of adding entries and refs when they were all deleted the other day so I need to go back and make sure everything has a ref at some point. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been working through the list. Up to 1969 is done, but some entries from the 50s need refs. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They say, he say, she say, me say
REF: this edit
 * Hello. Per the above WP:CPUSH statement: This is getting way out of hand, the guy's rhetoric is getting from bad to worse and all he does day after day, week after week is nothing but the insertion (or the attempt of it) of content that does not readily improve the related article pages in most ways than not. Check out his contribution history and it is very apparent what I'm saying here is verified; Talk:Chengdu J-10, Talk:Chengdu J-20 and Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II being pages where he goes on and on about such crap (apologies for lack of a better word to describe it). Should we have a specially formed panel of committee members for WP:AIR or WP:MILHIST to help curb such piling of nonsense that does not serve the Military section of WP as an online free-to-edit encyclopeida (which is factual and accurately written by responsible editors backed up by verified facts and figures). Or should we refer this to WP:RFCU or WP:ARBCOM instead? -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think removing or ignoring the blog like comments may be a good start, it appears the user likes an audience for his/her often pov comments. So I would suggest delete and or ignore for the moment but note that NOT is a policy so if they continue then perhaps a polite word on there talkk page may not go amiss. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, do you think we could get away with setting up an "issues" talk page of some type on WP:AIR for these kinds of comments? Often they do lead to improvements to articles in time. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, I think it would have to be named something appropriate something like a suggestions for article content improvements ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That might work. Should we discuss it first at WTAIR, or just add the page and then issue a notice about it? - BilCat (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A word at WT:AIR would no no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for that, appreciated it a good resource for all sorts of stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Hawn
Thanks for looking at this article. If you check the article history you will see where the problem arose, as a COI editor (Therightideas) added a bunch of text. It really needs reverted back to pre-that addition and then watching. I would have reverted it myself, but I know this subject of the article and felt I am in a COI myself. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I didnt really look at the history I just rewrote it in what seemed like a balanced and reasonable text. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks a bit better now, but there are still inaccuracies, for instance he was never the wing commander at Cold Lake, he was "acting" for short periods of time while the Wing Commander was away, so that should be removed as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pitts Special
Hello MB1, I think we have a strong consensus at Talk:Pitts_S1_%26_S2 and also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft to move the article currently at Pitts S1 & S2 back to whence it came at Pitts Special. I have moved the article at Pitts Special to Pitts Special (monoplane) as Bill suggested, but because Pitts Special is now a redirect I can't make the final move. Would you please do that? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Already been moved thanks to Rlandmann. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that - thanks for looking at the issue. This same user in question seems to be continuing to disruptively move aircraft type articles without discussion. I have left a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft for an admin or two to leave him a note in addition to the one I have left, perhaps you would care to put some appropriate words together for him? - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Magus732
I don't know whether you've come across before, but this editor seems to have slipped under the radar thus far. Apparently regularly reformats articles to his preferred style, and rarely leaves an edit summary. One to keep an eye on I think. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks noted - appears to like changing date formats as well. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He has continued these types of edits today, as here, with no reponse to my note. I issued a uw-disruptive2 warning in hopes of getting his attention. I am purposely only reverting the changes he has made to items already on my watchlist, though he is doing this on other articles as well. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure he is doing anything wrong in most cases just a pain in the a* to check what are really zero value edits, for example I never really understood why foreign words should be italicised makes no sense to me and probably 99.9% of readers. The date changes are disruptive and he is arguing the case at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) although without any real response. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He's ignoring others' requests to stop making preferential changes without discussing it. I have bad eyes, his changes such as removing the spaces make the edit screens harder to read for me, and others have expresssed similar complaints in the past. It would be nice if he would at least acknowledge the issue, and try to work something out, rather than just going about making hte same changes. Where should I go to complain about his refusal to discuss this? - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can understand your problem, as it is not a content dispute then I cant see why you cant raise it at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. User talk page indicates that his format editing has caused others problems in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I'll go there if he continues these edits. As you probably realize, I prefer to handle most issues with admins that I know directly, rather than at ANI and such venues, at least initially. That just means I'm not that familiar with the most appropriate venues to use when needed. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand Bill, reading the talk page it looks like I had a long discussion with him removing non-breaking spaces in aircraft articles, it appears he now agrees and is now adding them all over the place! MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him nicely to use edit summaries to no avail. I've now issued a uw-generic4 and pointed him to WP:DE. If there's no improvement in a couple of days the banhammer will come out. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An aircrash that may interest you
Avro York G-AIUP, runway overrun at Heathrow, 25 July 1947. Harold Wilson and Thomas Fotheringham Cook (MPs), and Lord Burghley were passengers (The Times, 26 July 1947, p4), thus pushing this into the area where a stand-alone article could be justified. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, still might be borderline unless the notables were one of the three seriously injured passengers, I will have a look at the Times article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Saint-Inglevert
I see you found the Saint-Inglevert Airfield article - you stalking me or something?, LOL. What is your opinion on the eligibility of this as an external link for the Lympne and Saint-Inglevert articles. Does it fall foul of WP:ELNO or would it now be out of copyright? Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the video but I am not sure about using it as an external link but as you say the age takes it out of copyright but I dont thing it is clear where it came from. Problem is that it will probably be deleted whatever the rationale as I think they have a bot that goes round deleting youtube links. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It was stolen from British Pathé, so I linked to that instead. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain
Micheal, We got runaway trivia again in CM. In trying to clean it up, I just revert all the pop culture to mid 2010, to a simple 3 items. Could you place a temp lock on the article for a short period to stabilize it again. thanks. Lance..... LanceBarber (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As it was only one IP at the moment and they have been asked to discuss the change I will not protect it at the moment, but I have added it to my watchlist. The Canadian University IP has been asked to discuss the South Park addition so we shall see what happens. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay dokie.LanceBarber (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Waterloo Hospital
Hello MilborneOne! Thanks for your help in tidying up Royal Waterloo Hospital for Children and Women. I've just left a message on User talk:Nardilly regarding their inclusion of an external website of which you disapproved. TehGrauniad (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood, it appeared a bit bias and not very neutral but I will leave it to others to decide on the merit. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Milborne One, I completely agree with your decision to remove the link. I see it's turned up again, so I've removed it. The website in question's an opinion piece which is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article.


 * It would be great if you could continue to keep an eye on this article and edit it as needs be! All best TehGrauniad (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement
Thanks for your recent participation on the naming of this article. Because the Canadian election campaign started on this past Saturday and the F-35 is front and centre as an issue I would appreciate it if you could keep a watch on the article, if for no other reason than I am expecting more than our fair share of vandalism and other "iffy" edits between now and election day on 2 May. It will probably be close to having a featured article for over a month! - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Noted, not seen a bit about royal wedding detracts from aircraft procurement debate yet! MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No indication that Wills and Kate's wedding will be an election issue here yet! Thanks for keeping an eye on it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom aircraft registration
G'day Milborne, the article United Kingdom aircraft registration clearly has some copy missing from the "second permanent register" section. Could you swing by and have a look? YSSYguy (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks had a quick tweak, will have another look later to make sure it makes sense. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Earl
Nice job improving the article. "Died in hospital of cracked skull" rather than "burned alive in car" is important. Were you able to access the 1952 Times article? I would appreciate an email copy of it. I could not even find it at Google New archive, and I could find nothing in the Times archives. Google book search has several books which say his post WW2 book was "influential" or "important" but most do not provide online access. Edison (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, you have mail. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No. 47 Squadron RAF
Someone has pointed out that much of No. 47 Squadron RAF appears to be an almost straight copy of - the stuff that is plagerised - i.e. the 2nd formation and 3rd formation sections probably needs to be dealt with in some way, hoopefully while keeping the remainder of the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will have a look later, are the losses really notable, if they are should all the first world war and second world war combat losses be added! MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hall Vector 1
Michael: I know you have an interest in copyrighted images. I just uploaded my first ever fair-use copyrighted image into this article. I wonder if you could have a look at my licencing and such and make sure I did it all right? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks OK the only problem is the size which is probably far to big for non-free image. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I can shrink it a bit! - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

400 Boeing images available
In relation to the revert on Boeing Business Jet, please refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft - yes, Boeing have released all of these pics under CC-BY. Perhaps you may like to help upload images from their flickr stream to Commons? Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Chimes Aviation Academy
Thanks for tagging this CSD G4 - you just beat me to it! - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have deleted it myself but for some reason the drop down box with the delete/move/protect links didnt work while I was at work! MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe they are blocking WP editing to keep your nose to the grindstone! - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to close
Re: this, thanks. And point taken. :( Sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut. - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But I like your frankness, Bill. (Oh... cheer up, will'ya~?!?) --  Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not sad, just that my mouth was writing checks my wiki-user account probably couldn't cash! But anyway, that dude kept sniping at me all throughout the discussion, and I'd had enough of it. But perhaps taking a Gatling gun to a knife fight was over-doing it just a bit. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Comp Air Jet
Hi Michael: I just wanted your opinion on some odd goings-on on this aircraft type talk page. A bunch of editors (or maybe one and some socks) keep adding "peer reviews" to this talk page. I removed them all as WP:NOTBLOG, but I thought I had better get a second opinion. You can peruse it all by going though the diffs at Revision history of Talk:Comp Air Jet. In checking their user histories they all seem to be going around Wikipedia adding peer reviews to many article talk pages and ever user talk pages (check User talk:Melanie1013) and in all cases the text added is extremely generic, shows they don't know anything about the subject matter and in all cases seems to be pretty close to the same text added, regardless of the article subject. To me this just looks like an odd form of vandalism or intended to cause confusion, vexation or something - or am I way off base here and this is some sort of legimate process that I am not understanding? - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More on this. That one I reverted as vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just had a look at User talk:Rasta cahe 71 - very strange I will have a closer look later on. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you saw that - it is weird, esp if they are all socks. Maybe it is a practice page from which he copies the comments? All looks disruptive. I would appreciate it if, when you have time, you can track though their edits and see what you think is going on there. I appealed to you because you have more pateince than most admins. I would just revert them all and block them all, but perhaps this requires some careful study first. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * More clues. The edit to "Compair Jet and this edit to "Darts" are similar, both disruptive and the Darts one even mentions the jet. This is looking more like straight vandalism to me. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This makes less sense as I try to track it down. Have a look at Talk:Call of Duty: Evolution of Online Multiplayer, which has a link to Schools_and_universities_project. That last item actually makes sense, but doesn't account for any of the text added to articles or talk pages at all, in fact it looks like a "cover". - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I may have found a real clue here User:Pmedward, who is an instructor at UNC. This doesn't account for the additions of "reviews" to articles, though. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Raised at Administrators noticeboard MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking it there. It looks like you got a reasonable answer. Do you want to follow that up with the instructor or should I? - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dont mind if you do it as I will be going offline soon, if you dont manage it I will look at it again tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll do it. There is one worrying thing though out of all of this. In reading dozens of these "reviews" they are all totrally illiterate and devoid of content, too. I thought we were dealing with English-as-a-second-language-vandals, not American university students. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a note at User talk:Pmedward. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to update you on this - the instructor never responded, although his charges seem to be at it again. This time a new user linked to this project added a lot of poorly written, unsourced and wrong information to Comp Air Jet. I have totally rewritten and sourced it. Let's see if it stays that way. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

RAF Northolt reference
Do you have the full details for the Jefford 2001 reference you used for the list of units at RAF Northolt? The article is being considered for featured article and one of the suggestions so far has been for publisher and ISBN details to be added. Harrison49 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It was in the Biblio section but checking I realised I quoted the wrong edition, corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Harrison49 (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Waghorn
Nice article. His name rang a bell as I came across it researching the Rolls-Royce R. In the external links section of that article is a YouTube clip (probably one of the few allowed on WP under WP:YT). Richard Waghorn is featured in it. A link to his article could be added to the 'R' article as I think he was the winning pilot of 1929. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I have added a bit about Waghorn in the "R" article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good stuff, what I was trying to say is that the video clip could be also used again in his own article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

mispelled category Aerobatics aircrafts
Hi Milborne, instead erase my contibutions you could say me what is the correct name, so I can correct, thank you--AeroPsico (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see comment on your talk page and I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Searle
I need a bit of help with an issue over a differing fact in the Frank Searle (businessman) article. The online ONDB gives a date and place of birth as 15 July 1875 in Worthing, whilst a print version gives only the year 1874 in Greenwich. I seem to recall that you have access to the Census online. Would you please see if you can find confirmation of either one or the other? Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem - I did some research yesterday and have already copied out census information for two different Frank Searles at Talk:Frank Searle (businessman). MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for help with edit war
I am having a spot of trouble with User:Damiens.rf editing warring to remove a sentence from eHow. If you check the article history you will see that he removed it, it was reinstated and he has removed it four time. I have warned him twice for this, but he just keeps edit warring. I really expected better since he is an experienced editor with 13,000 edits. I was wondering if perhaps I could prevail upon you to review the situation. I have started a discussion on the removal. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Left a note on talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know he is carrying on his edit war against IPs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have protected the page from any more changes, I appreciate it may be the wrong version but I have to protect it as soon as I am aware of the situation and leave it up to those involved to come to a consensus either way on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is always the WP:The wrong version! But no sweat. I started the discussion on this topic on the talk page on 20 April and, despite bad faith allegations, we seem to have a consensus so far to include it. I will wait until a week has passed on 27 April and then we can see what the consensus is at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that this editor has now resorted to personal attacks. I have warned him at User_talk:Damiens.rf, but perhaps you can add some words there about the seriousness of his allegations. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I had noticed but they have not made any more comments today so I will not add to your warning unless they make more accusations. People often get frustrated and make such comments in haste. If they continue with the theme then I will raise the warning level. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After his endless edit warring and now personal attacks I'll be seeking a block on him if he makes another attack like that one. Still waiting for an apology from him. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Escalation: Sockpuppet investigations/Ahunt - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh ugly - not sure why you would accuse a 50,000 edit user of being a sockpuppet over a fairly minor content dispute. I would just let the SPI run its course as you have not done anything wrong it will not take long to clear. Appreciate you may be annoyed but it might be best to refrain from anymore comment until the SPI is closed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I did write on the SPI in support but it was closed as I was writing it! MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank for your comment there. No, I was more amused than annoyed - it was obviously bad faith and frivolous, as I had clearly proven on his talk page that the IPs were in another country from where I live. What would I do, apply for a passport, rent a car and drive 20 hours to Michigan, sneak into the university medical centre, find a computer there, make one edit agreeing with myself and then drive 20 hours home again? He now owes me three apologies - one for the original personal attack, one for failing to notify me of the SPI and then a third for the SPI itself, when I had already provided proof and he knew it was vexatious. Does he merit a warning for all that? - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I would wait and see if you get a response from the SPI closure. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I gather you mean from the closing admin? I do hope this user has finished humiliating himself, it is painful to watch. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the text inclusion/deletion issue has run for tens days now and the discussion has pretty much come to an end.

My take on the issue is: as this was existing text that had been in the article for some time, that a clear consensus is needed to remove it. The debate on the talk page shows three in favour of keeping it (including one IP who reverted the removal but did not participate in the debate) and four in favour of removing it, including one editor who indicated that he was really playing "devil's advocate" in supporting the "remove" side. To my mind that indicates no clear consensus and thus the passage should be restored and kept. Perhaps you see it differently? If so of course I will support your judgement on the case. Since you locked the page, perhaps I can ask you to make some pronouncement on the consensus or lack thereof on the talk page and unlock the page, restoring it to which ever version you see fit.

I should also note that the SPI has been archived at Sockpuppet investigations/Ahunt/Archive without comment there or on the user's page. Do you think it appropriate for you or me to comment on the user's page on this issue or not? - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I have looked throught the comments and related stuff and come to some conclusion which is on the talk page. I have also removed the protection. I have left a comment at Damiens.rf talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:
Well, normally I would agree with you... the problem is that by leaving them as they are, they aren't listed properly in the aircraft type categories... so, if you can figure out another way to list them by designation, alphabetically, I'm all ears... Magus732 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Magus732 MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI
Don't worry about commenting after the case is closed. It's only once it's archived that it's a problem. I have reverted it back. :) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Henri Coandă
Michael, could you look into semi-protecting Henri Coandă, assuming you're uninvolved? A dynamic IP user has been adding links against the clear consensus on the talk page to keep the contentious link out. This user appears not to be Lsorin, but has been continually casuing havoc on the page for about as long. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for now pending consensus, if non-IPs get involved it may need to be increased to full. MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks much. Anyway, non-IPs are easier to block for edit-warring/Sock-puppetry! - BilCat (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Waghorn
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Making sense of Stampe et Vertongen :)
Hi MilborneOne -- I've been having a fun day with André Hauet's book Les avions Renard, trying to work out how to make sense of our coverage of early Stampe et Vertongen types. It turns out that the model numbering is non-sequential. Like Bellanca and Caudron did at various times, the model numbers are actually Wing Area-Engine Horsepower (or sometimes -Engine Type). Therefore, as far as I can tell, the 22-180 and 22-Lynx are barely related (if at all — the 22-Lynx doesn't seem to have been a Renard design and therefore isn't even covered in the book!). Likewise, The 26-140 and 26-100 seem like separate (though related) types; Hauet devotes a few pages to each of these two branches quite separately. For one thing, the conversion between monoplane and biplane was unique to the 26-100 side of the family. Therefore, I was wondering: Cheers! --Rlandmann (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does de Maeyer's article in Air Digest cover the 22-Lynx, and if so, would you mind stubbifying it? (or passing the info to me to stubbify?)
 * I plan to split the RSV.26 article along the same lines that Hauet does, and rationalise the designations the same way that he (and the Illustrated Encyclopedia...) do, using a full stop after "RSV" and separating the designation elements with a dash rather than a slash. Before I went ahead, I thought I'd check with you for any objections?
 * No problem with your plan, just give me time to dig out my original source re the 22-Lynx. MilborneOne (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ta! :) And, since I left the note, I realized that the 28-180 "Type III" and the 20-100 are mentioned in the IEA but not in Hauet's book either. I'm now chasing down a copy of Réginald Jouhaud's Les avions Stampe to fill in the gaps; but any help appreciated if you beat me to it! ;) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A319
No probs. I'll just go to "Find and replace", add "Airbus A319" and change it to "Airbus A319". Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  07:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What ever you do, you've got my full support :) Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  07:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you know...
...that there was a ship named MV Milborne. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that I dont have that much connection with milborne but interesting just the same. MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)