User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 2

Aussie BBJs
Thanks for the edit summary on RAAF BBJs. When IPs add info, one never knows what they are thinking, and I find it best to revert and ask for clarification. I did think the RAAF may have had some 737s other than the ordered Wedgetails, but didn't have a source on it. Thanks for the clarification. - BillCJ 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More missing requests
Hi again MilborneOne - care to take care of the BAT Baboon and BAT F.K.26? --Rlandmann 08:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done as requested. MilborneOne 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Rlandmann 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) and for the missing Bells too! And of course, always feel free to redirect entries like these --Rlandmann 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some early Blackburns coming up soon, if you're interested? --Rlandmann 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Culver
Oops! FCA is indeed a typo for LCA. Cheers --Rlandmann 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and references

 * Your work on adding infoboxes in airline articles is good stuff, but is it possible to add references/sources for the IATA and ICAO Codes and Callsign. See eg AVE.com - originally the ICAO Code was referenced, but when it appeared in the infobox the ref was gone and the callsign has no ref either.
 * I noticed also that in other airline articles you had been marking some codes "not current" (without a ref), even where there is already a ref for the code in the article. Quoting the source would be helpful. Thanks Ardfern 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bird Innovator
In conversion cases, I'm usually guided by "is there something interesting we can say about the type beyond simply recording its existence"? In this case there's this article online that gives us more than enough information I think! And no hard feelings about the P-16, but you might want to drop User:Colputt a note. --Rlandmann 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Berliner-Joyce P-16/PB-1
So many aircraft, so little time. I don't mind at all that you "butted in" one less thing on my To-Do list.--Colputt 21:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle America

 * Milborne, is there anyone who can umpire between us on this issue? Paul in Saudi


 * Thank you, Milborne. I will abide by whatever the third party decides. In fact you might want to drop me a line and let me know. I am on vacation and not monitoring the net as I usually do. Also, the Youtbe source I posted might be worth your time. I swear, those darn video camera phoes are everywhere. Paul in Saudi

Hello. I saw your edits to my new Project Lauren article. These edits are welcomed because I don't want to be the sole editor of an article. I am happy to give away ownership of articles! What is the dispute in the Shuttle America article. I am willing to help. I saw the airline years ago and thought it was an odd airline. It could be improved, in part, by rewriting things like "it's a great airport". Will wait until I understand the dispute before editing myself. If I help with the dispute, I don't want to be editing the same article, if possible. Archtransit (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dabpages
Hi there, when you add an entry to a disambiguation page keep in mind the manual of style for dabpages: WP:MOSDAB. So instead of:


 * CAA is the ICAO airline designator for Atlantic Southeast Airlines, United States

I would suggest:


 * Atlantic Southeast Airlines, ICAO airline designator

Thanks/wangi 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Call sign
Please post your views here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virgin_Blue#Callsigns

Cosolidated O-17
When I "adjusted" the citations in the Variants section, I just assumed that those two that I didn't have references for were the ones you cited with the other reference. Please fix it, if I assumed too much. --Colputt 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Early Cessnas
Thanks very much! Every one counts :) As you can see, the main aim is to expand the breadth of coverage for now; depth can come later (yeah, I'm an eventualist!). Almost every entry in Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation is what we'd classify as a stub. By the time we match its breadth, we'll automatically have surpassed its depth and at that point, Wikipedia will become the most comprehensive encyclopedia of aircraft ever published (to the best of my knowledge). --Rlandmann 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Av8air-logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Av8air-logo.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pegasus Air
Hi. Given that you have added airline stub articles such as Eagle Air (Tanzania), I thought you might wish to weigh in to the discussion on a Pegasus Air article I recently added, which has come under attack as non-notable etc etc. Despite my stub arguments, a group of people are attacking it and it does not bode well for stub articles such as yours. Any help (or that of Wiki Aviation group) would be appreciated. Ardfern 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Chinook Pop Culture
Greetings, I am curious for your reasoning for deletion of the Popular Culture section of the CH-47 Chinook. Apparently before you voted to keep a separate article on the topic of Helicopters in Popular Culture. Since the information was not notable enough for a separate article I have returned it to some of the helicopter articles themselves. Just curious of your thoughts... Thanks, --Trashbag 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Helicopters in Popular Culture was a magnet for trivia to keep it out of the articles as it was a loosing battle by some members of the aircraft project to keep it out of the aircraft article. I believe that nearly all of the entries are not notable and not really relevant to the aircraft article. Just my opinion happy to take it to the talk page. MilborneOne 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft per your request. --Trashbag 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

CallAir
Most references seem to use "CallAir", so I'd suggest that we use as well until and unless some primary source contradicts it. --Rlandmann 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One other little tip about US engine designations - the letter generally tells you what type of engine it is: the R-985 was a Radial, the V-1650 was a Vee, the L-365 was inLine, and the O-360 is horizontally Opposed. These can sometimes be modified with extra letters affixed, so T for Turbocharged (confusingly, TS for Continental engines), I for fuel Injection, G for Geared, and S for Supercharged. The number generally indicates the displacement in cubic inches. So the Lycoming O-360 is a horizontally Opposed engine with a displacement of 360 cu in. The fuel injected version is the IO-360. A version with fuel injection and turbocharging becomes the TIO-360, etc. This might come in handy for working out redirects; the Wikipedia article should be under the base model of the engine. Hope this helps! --Rlandmann 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryan XV-8 and Paresev
Re: Maximum speed. Originally I quoted max. speed: 105 Km/h = 65 mph. Thank you for bringing this stub up to required standards. While we are at it, could you please check out this experimental glider aircraft page: Paresev, for appropriate formatting consistency, classification, etc. Thank you! BatteryIncluded 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gloster Meteor
BUT the world war two allies broke up as a unit in 1945, with the end of the war - the numerically most important ally (the U.S.S.R.) in fact soon became the main "cold war" enemy of the others. So "the allies" in this context really needs something firmly linking it to WW2. It would be different if "the allies" referred to a grouping of nations that had remained more or less unchanged for many years before and after the war.Soundofmusicals 06:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand your point about Allies - have no problem with your latest change. MilborneOne 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. If only all differences were so simple! Soundofmusicals 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

British Airways plc
In regards to British Airways, British Airways Plc, and parent companies, you may want to take a look at this. Cheers --Russavia 11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

UK built Airplanes
I am sorry but i dont see your point. Are Toyotas or BMWs built in US Plants american cars?. - basilicum 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about BMW but Toyota does much of it's design work in California66.155.195.2 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didnt reply to this message at the time as I have only just noticed it at the top of the page, normally expect new messages at the bottom.MilborneOne 11:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GR4/GR.4
Hi. I totally agree with your edit. Thing is - I was about to revert it, but then noticed all the other instances are GR.4. Given the operator (RAF) and manufacturer (BAE) describe it as "GR4" - do you not think we should change them all to GR4?

As for the other (e.g. GR.1) I think they should stay as is, because I remember reading around 2002 that the RAF converted their aircraft codes from GR.4 > GR4 for some technical reason. Any thoughts? Mark83 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I can't claim any expertise on the issue. It's just I remember reading in Air Forces Monthly that the RAF had adopted 'non full stopped' codes because computers handled the codes better that way. My memory is 100% correct about it, but I'm a bit unsure about the story myself. Why would a full stop give a modern computer a problem? And further, why would it even be an issue if it wasn't an official designation? Anyway, you think convert everything? e.g. GR.1 > GR1? Mark83 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I have explained at Talk:Panavia Tornado. Mark83 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Concorde
FWIW the bit you just tagged is IMO probably true- or at least it wouldn't surprise me in any way whatsoever. At one point after a market survey BA doubled or tripled the cost of fares, and they went from making a slight loss, to making a profit, although significantly they refused to discuss how much; and they had also taken steps to reduce their costs. The implication is that they were making almost 200% profit on each flight. Normal profit margins are 10-50%. 200% would be essentially extortion, and very probably BA wouldn't want their customers to know this, even after the fact, for legal reasons.WolfKeeper 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BA Connect
Hi, Ref your removal of the aviotech paragraph from the Ba connect entry. I disagree when you say its not relevant to Ba connect. Aviotech IOM was set up by 4 ex BA Connect managers and employs 20 ex BA Connect staff. It is the only company set up from the remains of BA connect following Flybes complete shutdown of BA connect (ex pilots/cc). This is not only relevant but also important information to be in the Ba connect history section. Can you or I please reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Av2007 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

nmi --> NM edits
Hi. I just wanted to say that I think you are correct in making these edits. I have started to do the same myself. You may want to add something to the discussion on the B2 Spirit talk page. Thunderbird2 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tailless aircraft
Hi, before this gets out of hand.... The quickest way to see what I mean is to google things like "Concorde tailless delta", "Douglas Skyray tailless delta" and so forth. You will soon find loads of references, which should clarify the technical meaning of "tailless" for you. Otherwise I guess I will have to dig out some books and quote them. -- Steelpillow 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on your talkpage. MilborneOne 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Found it, thanks. Have added my two penn'orth to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft -- Steelpillow 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

British Airways Family Guy
Hi- you recently repeatedly removed my addition to the British Airways Media section about the BA Jet in family Guy. Family guy is not 'non-notable' and is a very popular comedy series worldwide. As this is an item of 'Media' which chose to show a British Airways jet, (albeit it is a drawn aeroplane), it is therefore worthy of being in the British Airways 'Media' Section (There are 5 Movies listed where a British Airways Jet has appeared).

I shall be adding the picture and text again, and if you have any problem with my reasoning, please alert an administrator. Robin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.236.224 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, nothing personal Robin just a difference of opinion I dont think its notable - you do. I have brought it up on the Talk Page for others to comment. MilborneOne 21:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion on List of notable...
At this edit you seem to imply that the first incident of multiple tornados in the UK affecting aviation is not notable. Care to rethink? The global warming folks might differ.LeadSongDog 16:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

H-53
That is a main article? Could have fooled me. --Colputt 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you didn't revert it, you changed it to the other variant. Works for me. --Colputt 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines fleet
This is to inform that the Singapore Airlines fleet article has been nominated for deletion by Russavia. Please refer to Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet (2nd nomination) and weigh in your opinion if you wish. Thank you!--Huaiwei 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747 incidents
Thanks for removing bad food and smoke incidents. I thought they were non-notable and not aircraft safety related. I wasn't sure about justifying removing it. I was just be safe I guess. Any idea on a reference for the 747 being commonly nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet"? Thanks. -Fnlayson 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been discussing these incidents on my talk page. Feel free to chime in.LeadSongDog 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes on American Airlines
I have made changes on American Airlines page because some of the information like coshared partners was wrong so I update it. When I check back the page, it went back to the same before I had update. I was informed that you have change the information back to the original. I want to know why you change the information because the information given on Wikipedia was wrong and I had to correct it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.27.179 (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not MilborneOne. I added a possible explanation at Help desk. You can examine oneworld to find out more. PrimeHunter 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the revert as it looked like the Oneworld airlines were being added in - as PrimeHunter has quoted at Help desk the first line "In addition to Oneworld..", if they were other changes to the list then I apologise, but please note that the paragraph is about frequent flier partnerships not codesharing. MilborneOne 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are invited on a proposal at WP:MILAIR
As an editor who has been active in working on air force-related articles, I’d appreciate your input on a a proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles. I’d like to get broader inputs and would appreciate your suggestions on improving the proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aero Commander
Given your recent edits at Aero Commander (aircraft), could look at User talk:Akradecki, and comment if you have any further suggestions to add/assistance to offer? Thanks. - BillCJ 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Belfast International airport
The photos that i upload are not copy righted! they are pasted from the Belfast International Airport masterplan! which isnt copyrighted! so please do not accuse me of uploading copyrighted images so that i will not be able to upload any! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loughrey13 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for seeing that. I've deleted them and will fix the airport page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I found a couple more. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar
You are very welcome - you deserve it for the work you have done! - Ahunt 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well deserved! Bzuk (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Norwich International Airport
Hello MilborneOne I Have undone your revision of the image as the aesthetics of the page look far better with the image lining up with the info box if you don’t agree perhaps it may look better inserted as an image inside the info box.Stavros1 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review
F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Norwich International Airport
Hi MilborneOne I have taken on board your comments on the users preset thumbnail image size (set in my preferences). I have now placed the control tower image in the info-box with its caption. Hope to get some better pictures soon as I live close to the Airport.Stavros1 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Book Cites
Thanks for your tweaks on my latest edits, I have used the cite book template thing before - is it not the right format to use? MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC). It's fine but unfortunately written in an APA (American Psychiatric Association) style where the rest of the reference notes were written in MLA (Modern Language Association) style. For consistency, I reverted to the style already in place. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Starvation
G'day from Oz. I'm not upset by your edit and will not be undoing it, but if you think the "Lady Be Good" incident doesn't belong, then neither does the Helios accident; and the Charles Ulm and Amelia Earhart references (which I added at the same time as the "Lady Be Good"), and the Ethiopian hijack, should probably go as well if we are going to be consistent. The "Lady Be Good" got lost & effectively ran out of fuel; Ulm and Earhart also got lost and effectively ran out of fuel (in all three cases some fuel may still have been available, we will never know). The Ethiopian A/L 767 got waylaid & ran out of fuel. Helios crashed because no-one was in control of the a/c and it eventually ran out of fuel. IMO all of these incidents (including the "Lady Be Good") are of interest to the aviation fraternity, and to an extent would interest the general public as well (especially those who watch Air Crash Investigation et al as a form of entertainment). When I first came across the article it was tagged as an orphan. I made some changes to beef it up a bit and to clean it up a bit, and I got into a situation with User 202.95.200.17 that you are also involved with now (with among other things the repetitive changing back to F-100 and reversions of that, see the revision history if you haven't already), and the article has turned into one which I feel I have a stake now without my intending it to end up that way. I included the "Lady Be Good" to raise the number of links and also because IMO we should remember that there are still guys out there who died in military service whose bodies have never been found. A final comment regarding a concept that is familiar to members of the aviation industry but that you might not have heard of: the Reason "Swiss Cheese" model of accident causation shows that for an accident to occur, all the holes have to line up. If one hole is out of alignment, then there is no accident. Fuel exhaustion/starvation (and I should probably mention that I was in a light aircraft that crashed because of fuel starvation seven years ago, which is partly why I made the distinction in the article in the first place), is just one of a number of holes in the swiss cheese. Hapag Lloyd became an accident because the crew initially made the decision to continue flying towards their home country instead of stranding their passengers by landing back at their departure airport, but if they had had enough fuel on board then nothing would have come of that decision. Just my two cents' worth. Regards YSSYguy 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sub article for RMAF?
I just noticed you moved the order of battle to a separate article. I am not against it, but the RMAF article itself has so much trivia to delete, a cleanup would had shorten the article to an appropriate length? ChowHui (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well its OK for me. Keep up the good work! ChowHui (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BR.20
Thanks. Your edits didn't cause any problems anyway. Nigel Ish (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting out the Churchill quote.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First midair collision of airliners
Thanks for pitching in. Hard to believe this was never wikied up before. Great find on the Flight reference. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, glad to have other eyes on it.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A319
Notable or not? Archtransit (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What was the first midair collision of airliners? I'm sure it wasn't the 1960 United/TWA collision over Staten Island, NY? Archtransit (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied on both Talk:Airbus_A320_family and User talk:Archtransit. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Limited" vs. "Ltd."
I went looking to see what the usage was in other articles about UK private limited companies and it's a bit of a mixed bag, and some use neither. With PLCs: some use "plc" and some not, but I've not found any that use "Public Limited Company". Same with U.S. companies: some use "Inc." and some not, but I've not found any that use "Incorporated".

And I can't find anything in the MOS pages.

My opinion, FWIW, is that it can be helpful to use the full, legal name of the company (i.e., including the "Ltd.", "plc", or whatever), but we should follow the common, accepted usage -- in the case of private limited companies, I'd say that was almost-universally "Ltd."

... richi (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy of my reply on User talk:Richi - Thanks for your comments, I changed the first time the company name is used to the legal name, which for Virgin Atlantic is Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited. But that is the official name of the company as registered with Companies House. I dont have a problem with using Ltd elsewhere but we we should mention the legal name properly at least once. A quick look at the companies house website indicates that companies can use Limited or Ltd as they are the same thing, and indeed some companies are listed as Foo Ltd and not Foo Limited in the website. But not Virgin Atlantic Airways !

Dont want to make a big fuss but we should be accurate in our usage and I accept your point about common usage but basically Limited and Ltd are the same thing not all our readers may understand that. Also of interest is that normal UK usage is without the fullstop Ltd not Ltd. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template problem
Thanks for the heads-up - I'll check it out and get back to you. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's fixed it - please let me know if you notice any other strangeness! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Volume 2 missing aircraft
Want to see if we can finish by the end of 2007? :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add the Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation reference to any of these more obscure articles, you can find the page references on my "master list" here (warning - big page! slow loading!) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * - It was first published as a 5-volume set in 1980, and later in an omnibus edition in 1989. The citation above, and my page references are to the 1989 edition. As an aside, the 1989 edition contained a supplementary section with new designs from 1980-1989 (that's the list here), but omitted a detailed chronology of aviation that made up a large part of Volume 1 in 1980 (which is why that volume only contained 285 aircraft types) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cvjetkovic
Hi MilborneOne - I wasn't sure what you were asking here. Were you suggesting merging the CA-61 and CA-65? While they're obviously closely related, I don't think that's necessary: the manufacturer issued separate designations for them, the ICAO has different codes for them, and Jane's treats them separately, both in the encyclopedia, and in JAWA. If you still want to merge them, however, I'd recommend re-writing the CA-61 article to incorporate the CA-65; I can then merge the page histories for you. Thanks for your ongoing efforts :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine to leave them as they are: more consistent that way! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Flywhoosh
Hi - I don't know if you have a link to Flywhoosh. You cannot remove factual information relating to the current government investigation into Flywhoosh and it is NPOV to quote Flywhoosh claiming restart possibilities which are impossible in the light of these investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.222.149 (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not connection with any airline, a strange accusation from an IP user that has only ever edited Flywhoosh and White Eagle articles. As my edit summary stated I removed information from that made Wikipedia appear to be either a company or government website. If you can find a citable source for the trading standards investigation you are welcome to add it, the restart quote is not NPOV it is what Flywhoosh are stating on their website. MilborneOne (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff International Airport
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry I did not add any personal analysis or commentry to the Cardiff International Airport all I did was change a major airport to read is the main airport for Wales with the edit summary not a major airport even for the UK - but I have reworded it as a compromise and note other editors have also made the point that Cardiff is not a major airport. Other editors have rightly so suggested that this is a talk page discussion and not really merit the tone of the message above. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

THANKS
Thanks for your assistance with the "Major Green" question. You are a good one. . . . Raymondwinn (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Moved from user page) - no problem we are all here to help an improved Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)