User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 25

2015
Nearly 2015 in a few hours here in Blighty, happy new year to all talk page stalkers and thanks for all the help over the past year. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you too....William 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year MilborneOne!


Happy New Year! MilborneOne, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 10:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages. Sent using mass message sender. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from User:Northamerica1000/Mailing list.

GR8B8 M8
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bait-this-is-bait  Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, nowt so strange as Greek IPs. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry Balding Lewis
Hi there - did you remove Henry Balding Lewis from the honorary knighthood page? I added the reference I received to his entry after getting from the National Archives of the UK... Thanks... Kevinakling (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No I didnt remove it I just added way back in August a tag that it needed a reference but I missed that it was only a CBE that he was awarded, another user has noticed it is only a CBE and removed it. A CBE is not a knighthood but one rank down in the honours system so does not belong, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana
An urban legend/hoax campaign that has consumed hours of administrator time is about to happen again as same/another vandal has appeared. See curious history of Doinhoodratstuff. Protection of the article won't stop this campaign as the vandals are smart enough not to come in as anons. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Acroterion got there already. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-114
Michael, can you look at Ilyushin Il-114, and consider protection? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * semi for a week MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-34
Reverted reference doesn't say where two more were delivered, but only how many aircrafts (two). Please excuse myself if I did something wrong. I only replaced them to define sum of 57.Gotech8 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-25
Can you keep an eye on this article. It has been the object of operatives that are trying to change the specifications page to bolster a completely spurious claim by Russia that a Ukrainian SU-25 was responsible for the downing of MH17. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, it seems that the Su-25 was blamed to put the Ukrainians on the spot without checking facts. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move over redirect please
G'day, when you get a chance, could you please move Federal Public Service Transport to Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport, which is the correct name of the Belgian national aviation authority. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Fonte de regaz
Looks like User:Fonte de regaz is back on the F-104 article and talk page. Same bad grammar and pro-Malaysia nonsense. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And same pattern of removing and/or modifying posts complaining about him/her. - BilCat (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks somebody has already blocked the user and I have given the IP a break. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Some people never learn. - BilCat (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"no longer used needs to be added to wikidata"
Dear sir,

you have violated Assume good faith. The proper reaction to something done wrong is NOT to revert it; it's to do it right (in other words, fix it). When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict

-- Wesha (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly not a disagreement as we dont add these links anymore, sorry I dont have time to do other peoples tasks at this time, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Then do not revert, and allow people who a) have time, b) know how to do it, do it. (Because I don't know how to do it, sorry). My contribution was constructive (adding relevant and correct content, if incorrect in form). Your change was destructive (removing relevant and correct information), whereas the constructive change here would be correcting my edit. (BTW in ru-wiki such interwiki corrections are made by bots). -- Wesha (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure following normal practice is destructive, perhaps have a read of Help:Interlanguage links if it helps. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe practices that violate rather clearly defined rule is not normal:
 * Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * This problem was fixable. "I have no time" is not an excuse. -- Wesha (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me, and no it was not fixable as I had no idea what the non-English link says I am unlikely to add it to Wikidata myself, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wesha, you're obviously able to read instructions, so rather than continue to waste your time lecturing the same point over and over again, try learning how to use Wikidata instead. All you're doing here is making a nuisance of yourself. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Vehicle categories
Aircraft manufacturing companies are no different than other companies -- will take to wikiproject (end of message) User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 20:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Westland WS-51 Dragonfly
Michael I did a partial revert on the operators list, as it appears to defeat the purpose of WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS guidelines. While it's great idea (RMS ships) it seems to be inundate the reader with more information than needs to be. Perhaps theres a way to compact it or open up a historical operations from ships (section). It would also be great if the ship and land bases could be wikilink - regards FOX 52 (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem, I will try and find a better way of doing it I am not a great fan of hiding stuff but they may be a way of getting it into the operational section or as a summary somehow. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK sounds good, I see if I can put together some drafts on my end - FOX 52 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

El Portillo Airport
Re:El Portillo Airport I don't know either way, but virtual airline was about gaming, and as far as I could tell, many of the pages linking there were supposed to link to virtual airline (economics) so I moved it to virtual airline (hobby) and created a disambiguation page, and changed the pages that linked to it. If you want to, please check my changes. Deunanknute (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Understood there appears to be some confusion about a computer based game airline and a business that pretends to be an airline. Not helped by the virtual airline (economics) describing an American version hat is one airline operating for another as opposed to a travel company pretending to be an airline. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Warnings for trivial issues
It happened in airline related articles, kindly tell your editor Jetsreamer not to issue ban warnings to people who merely add unsrourced one line content such as new destination in tables, aircraft type leased by an airline in fleet etc. its like someone abused him or something this guy really needs to be chucked from wikipedia team. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Eastern ICAO code and callsign
I saw that you added the ICAO code and callsign to Eastern Air Lines (2015). I have not seen the announcement that those were assigned. Where did you see them? heat_fan1 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_JO_7340_345_eastern_breezy_angel_med.pdf MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Flags
Pardon me re the flags, I saw some on some pages and not on others - any you missed I removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael, another page with recurring flag issues, apparently the same user from several IPs, is MIM-104 Patriot. Could you look into semi-protecting the page? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Two-weeks semi to encourage the IP to discuss, any reason why the countries are not alphabetic and I have never seen "NATO" users grouped together before, is it a missile thing? MilborneOne (talk)


 * Thanks. On the NATO order, I don't know either, as it's not used on most other missile.pages. I'll go ahead and put it in full alpha order. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia
Thanks for your assistance! Samf4u 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit.warring on T-90 page
Michael, there's.been an edit war at T-90 for some time now,possibly with socks of one of the users whose been blocked. Could you look into fully protecting the article to encourage more discussion? I have no understanding of the underlying issue, so I've stayed.out of any involvement. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I will have a look but it is a very confused trying to work out who is who and where the issues are. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Aero & Tech Nexth
This article has an ongoing issue with IP address COI Spamming. Would it be possible to get it semi-protected? Thank you for considering this request. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure the activity warrants protection yet, although they keep coming back so I have added it to my watchlist, they have used at least two WP:SPA accounts in the past so semi might not help. I see you have tried to address some of the issues but without reliable sources I am not sure what can be done. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding it to your watch list. I did address the issues on the article talk page. As noted, none of the text they are trying to add can be verified anywhere. I have suggested that the company update their own website and I would then be happy to update the article, citing the website. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Still getting lots of IP spam and vandalism on this article. Do you think a semi is called for yet? - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Very close to pushing the button but I have left a message with User:Ktr101 to see if they can make some headway with OTRS, if the guy really wants us to use the latest information and pricing it wouldnt take a lot to update his website after all how is he going to sell the thing without providing reliable data! MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That was my vote from the start: have the company update its own website and I would be happy to add as much data as possible from that, without all the spam and peacock language they keep adding there. Not sure why they insist on doing this all the hard way. Even the manufacturer isn't allowed to vandalize Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Westland Wessex
Evening

Have you heard of a HU.5C variant of the Westland Wessex? I've been looking at ukserials.com and they list XS485, XS498, XS517, XS518, XT463 & XT479 but the book "Westland Aircraft since 1915" has no mention of the variant. Gavbadger (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember HU.5C was the designation used when the Royal Navy HU.5s were transferred to the Royal Air Force, I see if I can find anything. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand they were modified with the removal of armament and change of avionics for use in the Search and Rescue role by 84 Squadron at RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, have you got a reference for it so it can go within the article? Gavbadger (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have got a reference that they were converted in "Fleet Air Arm Helicopters since 1993" but not found anything reliable yet on what the conversion was. I will see what I can add to the article when I get time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Help
Hello, since you are the only admin I really know, I'd like some advice. Recently User:Lugnuts and another user have been exchanging some good old banter. But lugnuts took it to a whole new level by giving me death threats on email and on he'd WP:Rope. I take this very seriously and i'm actually considering retiring from Wikipedia. Thanks and please give sone advice JustPlaneEditing (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made no such threat, via email, or any other method. JPE is unhappy with his recent block at WP:3RR.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unhappy? To be honest I don't care because I rarely edit on Mondays-Thursdays due to Uni. I've considered a police report in this matter and I'll know you'll think it's ridiculous due to the nature of your personality. And they try this lie game because I'm not playing it and retirement is another possibility JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I like to know where I stand when someone makes a false accusation against me.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been suffering from depression and I'm on anti-depression meds. This constant bullying and WP:PA doesn't help. I will need to take a break from editing for a while. And not to mention he's also been blocked and he might be starting damage-control right now imo JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne, I've left JPE and Lugnuts messages about this on their talk pages. Sorry to barge in on your talk page and possibly step on your toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Floquenbeam no need for me to be involved. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:JustPlaneEditing just a suggestion if you do not get blocked, when it starts to get to much find a quiet corner of wikipedia to work, something like Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation, or other maintenance work, you are helping the project and should not get into conflict with anybody. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Aérospatiale Alouette III
Michael, we have an IP hopping editor continuing to make odd edits at Aérospatiale Alouette III. It appears to be the same editor who was making similar edits to Gulfstream IV, and also on Glenanne gang. Can you look into semi-protecting Aérospatiale Alouette III and Glenanne gang? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * semi for a while to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User:134.96.74.162
Michael, User:134.96.74.162 has been edit warring on Boeing 747-8 against consensus, and has responded to my 3RR warning by warning User talk:Fnlayson and myself, even though we each only made one edit! Can you look into this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * semi for a month to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fonte de Regaz strikes again, need a semi-protect
I think the one that you just revert is the same user who just revert my edit and leave a message on my talkpage. Should we semi-protect these four articles? Thanks! Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Malaysian Armed Forces
 * Malaysian Army
 * Royal Malaysian Air Force
 * Royal Malaysian Navy

These nothing i won't do it but we need to imrovement.TUDM MRCA Program GRIPIN AND RAFALE WAS OUT OF THE LIST.Only Super hornet and Typhoon.then Some people are stupid follow the wrong step.Colt CM901 WAS IN Strvices in Malaysian army.Hes wrong milbore one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.172.69 (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Also RMAF ANd RMN I Won't Edit.I Want to sorry guys.Can You Forgiveme Milboreone.175.136.172.69 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No matter how you would lie to us, we will know that was you because we have a tools that can detect you. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

He's back on User:115.132.230.54. Oddly, he's also accused WW and I of being socks of User:Swan183, a username that has never existed, but it's likely he misspelled the name. Now I have no idea who I'm supposed to be, after 8 and years of using this username. - BilCat (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And now for something completely.different, but still the same: User:Merkava Israel Tank! Someone has way too much time on their hands, methinks. - BilCat (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, bagged and packed back to the sock factory. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Found another one: User:175.140.89.11! - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jamaican Patois
Michael, could you look into semi-protecting Jamaican Patois? A series of IPs has been adding unsourced info to the article for several months. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk)

Airbus A320neo family
Michael, could you look at Airbus A320neo family? There's a user edit warring against cconsensus. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:187.104.207.100
Michael, you reverted several edits of User:187.104.207.100 on the Cessna 310 page. Now the user is making similar changes, especially changing thousands commas to spaces. I've reverted the user 3 times already, and warned them twice, to this point. I hope that's enough. - BilCat (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor looks suspiciously like - the same obsession with forcing references to use citation templates, the same mass changes, the same addition and wikilinking of US postal codes for states.Nigel Ish (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good catch, and I think you are right. I knew the user's style rang a bell, but I couldn't think of anyone it might have been. - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to note 108 been given a 72 hour break to think about what they are doing, IP is the same country as Lgfcd so lurkers may be right. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that User:96.52.230.209 is also almost certainly yet another Lgfcd puppet. Three years or so and over a dozen bans, and he still hasn't taken a hint about CITEVAR. Kyteto (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 108 is from Brazil but 96 is a Canadian IP. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have been mistaken - just a coincidence then. Kyteto (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Michael, the IP has returned from their block to make the same type of edits again. See Free-electron laser and Welsh rarebit. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly not listening they now have three-months to think about it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will watch for socks. -

AAM-4 (Japanese missile)
Michael, could yo move AAM-4 (Japanese missile) to AAM-4? There's no reason to disambiguate the title as far as I can tell. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ICAO aviation country codes for aircraft registration
Hi MilborneOne; I was wondering if you could add CG (Seen as C-G***) to Canadian registration codes on that article? Please and thank you! (: PS. I could not find a reference other than I am a former flight dispatcher and current flight attendant. -even the ICAO only lists "C-" as current,  and lists "C-F***" as former....not sure why, as C followed by numbers is one of our many military delegations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntgrilledcheese (talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:107.139.240.12
Michael, could you look at User:107.139.240.12's edits? They're mostly a mix of anti-India edits or outright vandalism, both with personal attacks/ racist comments. From their talk page, the may be a sock puppet too. I've already issued several warnings tonight. Thanks, as always. - BilCat (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bill, looks like somebody else has blocked them for three months already. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, good. Thanks for looking at it anyways. - BilCat (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

F-104
"he was a team leader and not a sole designer" Can you give me proof of this?Swingcar (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC) In addition it could be written as Kelly Johnson(among others) or something similar. Swingcar (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you had a read of Kelly Johnson (engineer)? not a reliable source I known but it does say things like "As a member and first team leader of the Lockheed Skunk Works". Francillon's Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913 says ""Under the guidance of Kelly Johnson and project engineer Bill Ralston, the programme then moved swiftly, with mock-up inspection taking place on 30 April.." MilborneOne (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Article tag-bombing
Michael, a series of IP users locating to Victoria, Australia have been adding a large swath of edit headers to Unmanned aerial vehicle. Could you look into this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Boeing customer codes
Regarding this edit,  is a sock of. I've informed this to HJ Mitchell, who has been intervening in the block of the many sock of this vandal.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 12:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, will keep any eye out for similar nonsense edits. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

J'accuse!
I am accusing you of censorship of Wikipedia content for political reasons. You want to edit the Russian input into the media discussion of the crash. You arbitrarily state that the blogspot Fort Russ is not "reliable" (and your proof,monsieur?). Are you aware that Colin Powell lied to the UN Security Concil regarding the presence of WMD's in Iraq and that the New York Times printed his words at face value? Are you aware that an American ABC News "anchor" has just resigned over his on-air statements concerning his experiences in Afghanistan? Are you aware that Lyndon Johnson lied about the attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and that the New York Times printed his words? Is ABC News "reliable"? Is the New York Times "reliable"? Please show me and the Wikipedia community and administrators in exactly what way Fort Russ is less reliable than ABC News or the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writtenright (talk • contribs)


 * You need to assume good faith particularly as I have no idea what you are on about but the word "blogspot" is a flag for not a reliable source, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Air Serbia
Hi, MilborneOne. Can you please keep an eye on the article? has become disruptive and keeps reverting my addition of latest financial figures claiming the source I introduced is not reliable. Thanks.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 10:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to give a counter opinion. His edits show that he is acting like owning article and is that arrogant that he is accusing me of "owning" it. His latest financial figures were may be backed by a reliable source, but author of it [source text] used and re-writed promotional content of Air Serbia:  which, unfortunetely isn't backed by the official financial statement. If we break the rule here, many other editors will have the absolute right to add similar sources in other articles. Take a look at the world's largest airlines (all top 5) by revenue and see which sources for the financial figures they are using: Qantas, Lufthansa, Air France–KLM and others. Please, don't just back Jetstreamer given to your relations in airline-related contributions, but read the facts. Otherwise, I'll have to look for the opinion of other, neutral administrators. And please, read once again WP:Verifiability-- AirWolf   talk  10:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The official revised financial statement is expected to be out in 2-3 months and my suggestion is to wait until it is released. Then, we'll have a true, accurate numbers for each figure.-- AirWolf  talk  10:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I need to look your sources which I will do later today. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see Air Transport World is a reliable source, I cant see why the original Air Serbia press release via ATW could not be a reliable source either, all we are doing is reporting the figures. Perhaps User:AirWolf it might be worth us getting a second opinion from WP:RS or the airline project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All I will say to you is that I'm glad that our circles have only one intersection point, Air Serbia article. I'm not willing to waste my time in the area of wiki where admins are protecting each other (and other users also), even if they are maybe not right. When the official release come out, I'll replace current data there. Until then, it will stay as harmful, unproven.-- AirWolf   talk  19:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from the lacking in good faith on my behalf AirWolf, I cant see why a press release reported by the industry media is not reliable, are you saying that Air Serbia would lie, I suspect that is probably illegal when dealing with financial data. So I still dont understand where you are coming from, the financial report is also from the airline so by the same logic is not reliable either. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Financial reports, well, at least in Serbia is the case, are revised by the authorized institution and sent to the Serbian Business Registry Agency. Although these figures maybe are accurate, we don't know it until the release of the revisioned official fin. statement. Also, Air Serbia PLC, is not part of any Stock Exch. Market and doesn't have that amount of responsibility towards shareholders, like it is the case in the US etc. That's why I am strongly suggesting to put it on hold for 2 months. I'm out.-- AirWolf  talk  20:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A reliable source has been used. If this is not against a Wikipedia policy there's nothing more to discuss.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

IAI Heron-1
Michael, can you look at moving IAI Heron-1 back to IAI Heron? Heron appears to be the correct name, and what is used n the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Pristina International Airport
Hello again, MilborneOne. We need your input at WT:AIRPORT regarding the recent edits made by, who doesn't want to follow/accept WP:AIRPORT consensus. Thanks.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you running to your friends, instead of discussing things on the article talk page which is Wikipedia policy? IJA (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not my friend. An editor I respect. Link to the policy that prohibits talking to other editors at their talk pages.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @MilborneOne, when I reverted your friend, I clearly mentioned the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (it is fair to assume that any experienced Wikipedian is familiar with this), thereafter I took this issue to the article talk page. Your friend just reverted me without using the talk page first (personally I find this borderline edit warring behaviour). Because of this I reverted once more telling your friend to discuss first. Subsequently your friend has come running to you without using the talk page. Article talk pages exist for a reason, I suggest you tell your friend to start using them. And I have no idea what your friend is on about re a policy which prohibits editors from talking to one another on article talk pages, I'm not familiar with such a policy. Regards IJA (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you reverted my reversion, again with your preferred version of the article (who's the one warring?) and not following consensus, as I mentioned at WT:AIRPORT, where I pinged you in order to let you know I'm referring to you there. Separately, MilborneOne is a fellow editor of mine, not my friend. And there's no policy that prohibits me to talk to whoever I want at their talk.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Of course I reverted you, you just linked through to WT:AIRPORTS. I have no idea what you're referring to, you could be make stuff up for all I know. This is why I mentioned the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and started a feed on the article talk page, you ignored both of these and reverted me. Trust me, I'm not bothered who you talk to as long as it is in the scope of Wikipedia, what bothers me is that you have avoided talking to me the article talk page. We could have resolved this between me and you, we could have cut out the middle man and not involved an admin (which you appear to have frequent contact with), which suggests he is an ally of yours. If anyone is edit warring, it is you for reverting without discussing on the article talk page unlike myself. Now be a man and take this issue to the article talk page where it belongs, instead of wasting this admin's time. Regards IJA (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's you the one who is avoiding the matter. This is not restricted to Pristina International Airport but to you trying to ignore WP:AIRPORT consensus. There's an open discussion at WT:AIRPORT and there seems to be editor positions that are not in agreemen with yours.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm not avoiding the matter, I've used the article talk page and I'm encouraging you to use it too. You first off said No consensus for these maps to be here, then after I reverted you for removing a big part of the article without a consensus before you reverted me by saying his has been thoroughly discussed at [[WT:AIRPORTS]. I have no idea what "this" is referring to, I don't know what discussion I'm looking for. Perhaps if you had used the article talk page as I suggested, this could have been avoided. Oh and I see that you have reverted one of my avoid redirect fixes on the same article with the comment "WP:NOTBROKEN". I think you're baiting and trolling me here so I will not respond to it, I refuse to be caught up in an edit war if that is what you're looking for. That is your third revision in a 24 period, so let me remind you of the WP:3RR. Regards IJA (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template you added to my talk page. It is supposed to be used by an uninvolved editor. I'm perfectly aware of WP:3RR. You don't need to give me policy lessons.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 21:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to continue the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports. Citydude1017 (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Odd revert warring
Michael, could you look at the contributions of User:86.145.107.226? The apparently stable IP is engaged in edit warring across a wide range of articles, including several Eurocopter articles. This could well be a blocked/banned user, as they seem somewhat familiar with editing. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree although the evidence is not that clear yet to block, protected Alouette III to stop the disruption and to encourage talk page discussiona, although I am sure you did explain somewhere it is all in the Gazelle article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

BAC One-Eleven
While I appreciate your particular interest in older aircraft (as I love trijets) but also love all sorts of older aircraft, I personally believe that I do not need to challenge facts on my talk page, and have given ample evidence for the operation of the aircraft. With all due respect, I am disappointed that you would challenge me in such a way, as Wikipedia does state that if I have legitimate refrences, than I have enough information. Thank you. --AirportExpert (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)AirportExpert
 * It is normal when your edit is challenged to go to the article talk page and discuss it and gain a consensus, you really need to provide reliable references that the aircraft is airworthy, something that none of your references mention. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Westland Whirlwind (helicopter) - HAR.9 book question
Good Evening

Thanks for the information on the talk page what book did you get the information from? Gavbadger (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry Gavbadger I forgot to reply - it was Air Britain's "Fleet Air Arm Helicopters since 1945" MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Gavbadger (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Beechcraft Super King Air
I see you deleted my addition t the articler Beechcraft Super King Air, I am curious why you consider it less notable than the other accidents or incidents listed. Surely the rather rare fact that a passenger was able to open a door at altitude and jump out is just as notable or more so, as any of the other incidents which merely document worst case results of what might otherwise have been common failure modes? Surely death toll is not the only reason for notability? I would appreciate understanding your logic. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, I did not see it as particularly notable, I will comment on the talk page in a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK Dabbler I have restored your edit as I see it was reported in the foreign media, I still think it is on the edge of notability but concede unless others object to it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reconsidering, let us see what happens now, Dabbler (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

192
Hi, could you please do something about that IP user User_talk:192.43.227.18. I mean apart from that shocking talk page that shows someone can vandalize Wikipedia for years, and apart from the issue that you have warned him about today, he is also involved in an attempt to deliberately introduce factual errors to the Visa requirements for Indian citizens article by attempting to change information on visa requirements to the UAE as "Visa not required" which is obviously a lie. I can't undo his edits anymore because I will violate the 3RR so I hope you can sort this out using admin powers. That article is read by over 60k people per month so we shouldn't allow vandalism to stand. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Undid edit
Hi You undid my edit at article India, can you please give me a reason? Samitus mallicus 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samitus mallicus (talk • contribs)


 * Because Bharat is not a common name used in English, see previous talk page discussions, you are welcome to raise it again on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks
Dear MilborneOne

As I am trying to clean up a mess created by someone, who left no finger-prints, last month, I am most grateful to you for trying to properly check my Think Tank exists and be accurate. I would be most grateful if, rather than deleting my present role, you used the following as a citation: UK Companies House  09041328. You could check this by putting the number into the search engine for "searching for companies" at www.companieshouse.co.uk You should see details for Intl ISA Ltd and the company trades as International Institute for Strategic Affairs. Prior to this I worked for something you will find more easily on the internet by simple search engine, The Institute of Islamic Strategic and Socio-Political Affairs at www.iisa.org.uk (2010-14) I would be happy for you to add this if you so wished.

Having worked for the MoD my new company is never likely to advertise and does not currently require a website. It's clientele are government depts. The registered address is my home address in Oxfordshire, with work being done in London.

I hope this is helpful and that you can allow the retention of my current work against my name to complete the picture for any readers.

Best wishes,

Strathisla1 (MGB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Moved discussion to article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks
I have asked Rhumidian and now you if I can email or otherwise prove I am the subject, with my passport, Who's Who entry or anythong else.

Having had this page tampered with last month I wish to 1. make sure it is accurate and 2. allow the reader to know more of my career. I have listed things in Who's Who for years such as my work overseas for a Govt dept (MoD) and given the nature of the work and my recent Foreign Policy advice to Tim Farron MP, Lib Dem FCO spokesperson, there are not necessarily any public documents. I worked in Intelligence and Strategy overseas. If you do that you do not have newspaper articles about it, but proof is always possible.

I can only hope that editor try to be sensitive about the fact I have been shot at, blown up, de-frauded and goodness knows what. I now live a normal life and my career page tells the reader - well really nothing.

take me up on the offer to provide proof perhaps by email. I have nothing to hide that you do not know but when people look me up they want to know far more than is currently in my page.

best wishes,

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts per the instructions on the edit screen, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesnt really matter if you are or Banks or not as you would not be a reliable source about yourself, but that said if you are then you should not change the article yourself and you really need to raise issues on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh and the official way to prove your identity is using the WP:OTRS system which is confidential way of talking to Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks
I am a bit taken aback by this: " a consultancy with the MoD frankly is not that notable to mention"

My role over a period of years has been to "prevent Pakistan from imploding" to quote a senior intelligence source. You have actually dimissed the whole of my career for the last ten years! What are readers supposed to read. I have not been a politician since 1997. Much of the time I have been a Govt employee. My circumstances changed hence the company when the defence cuts closed the cell i worked in at the defence academy.

I am just trying to be helpful to editors to get this sorted. I admit I find the instructions difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You really need to raise this stuff on the article talk page which is the best please to discuss issues with the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." - just not on Wikipedia. At best, Wikipedia contains a relatively tiny (even if absolutely large) residue of human knowledge, which satisfies the arcane, unobvious, fuzzily-bounded, and unavoidably subjective notability criteria. It will be nice when software becomes intelligent enough to embed a notability filter directly into the edit window, thus preventing unsuspecting editors from wasting their time by following their own common sense. It will be nicer still when software becomes intelligent enough to write new custom editions of Wikipedia from scratch, thus satisfying each reader's definition of notability, instead of the current one-size-must-fit-all compromise with all the conflict that generates. Not to mention the constant elitist judgment-passing when one group of people arbitrarily tells another group of people that what they consider notable isn't. That's like a group of chocolate-haters telling a group of chocolate-lovers that their subjective tastes are invalid. In the meantime, the number-crunchers at the Wikimedia Foundation fret over our poor retention of editors, and can't imagine what the problem is. --Teratornis (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sipriot
I've taken your welcome a stage further as there have been quite a few SIPRI referenced edits since you posted it. And I haven't seen any others. If it had been commercial linking, I'd have blocked them, but as it is, I've left a somewhat formal 'Note'. Peridon (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Cessna 414
Thanks for pointing out my mistake - I should have checked the edit history for Cessna 414 before I inadvertently re-added a mention of the recent crash. It's being widely reported in the news media (in the USA at least) but I see it does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in the essay page WP:AIRCRASH. Given the attention this crash is getting, might there be some message template we could temporarily display in the Cessna 414 article to warn other editors against wasting their time, like the several who have already tried to add this crash to the article? On the other hand, I believe the mention of the crash is appropriate in the 2014–15 Illinois State Redbirds men's basketball team article, because this tragedy is one of the biggest events in the team's season. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the crash victims has a newly-created article (Torrey Ward). If the article withstands the deletionists, then it would seem to tip this crash past the standard for inclusion for light aircraft. I will add a note to that effect on Talk:Cessna 414 and invite community discussion. I'm not looking for an edit war, just trying to get it right. As things stand currently, we have a non-fatal incident involving Patrick Swayze somehow being more notable than a crash that kills seven people and receives prominent coverage on multiple news outlets due to the profile of two of the victims. --Teratornis (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood Teratornis if it does involve somebody with an article we may need to look at again, although it is not always a free pass to an article it might just mean a mention in related articles like the subject and as you say the team. MilborneOne (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

HMLAT-303
Michael, could you look at this diff? Several IPs have been adding this info, but it's unsourced, and also unclear to the average user (including me!) what the terms even mean. Could you look into semi-protecting the page? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the social Media Manager for HMLAT-303 at the moment. That means I'm responsible for tracking things on social media that relate to HMLAT-303. At the moment, the patch that is displayed on the HMLAT-303 page is incorrect, and I would like to insert the correct one, but this page has been locked. How do I go about getting the proper patch displayed? --HMLAT303FRO (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMLAT303FRO (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox disappearance
G'day, my Sandbox disappeared a day or two ago - no explanation, no Deletion Log on my Watchlist, no notification on my Talk page, just a redlink at the top now instead of a blue one. Are you able to shed any light? Thanks and cheers YSSYguy (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I guess someone somewhere changed some code. YSSYguy (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Kinda tricky question, your opinion please
I recently came across the article on Frank Capra and noticed a weird pattern of a zillion cites from one source, which is always problematic. I looked up the book online and found it was accessible so I began to find the actual page numbers rather than a range of pages to use as reference sources. I found that the passages near or next to the cites were easy to track because the editor who was involved had done some very close paraphrasing, a diplomatic way to say that it was nearly a copy-viol. I was curious and saw that the long-time editor has been a heavy contributor in the past and still contributes, but without too much trouble, I could find the sources that were being used. All I had to do was google search on exact wording and find the source. What to do?? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Bzuk close paraphrasing is not allowed, it may be best to ask User:Moonriddengirl, she is a bit of an expert on copyright issues but it may be that the copied statements may have to be removed or re-written. If a user has developed a "habit" of close paraphrasing then WP:CCI is normally used but asking Moonriddengirl for an opinion would do no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:Bzuk. That's really unfortunate. :( Can you point out a few examples? Just as a word of caution, Emily Smith is a source that copy-pastes from Wikipedia. So if you get hits from her, it's probably okay. But examples of close paraphrasing from the cited sources would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Syndicate
Just so you know, it's more of a long-term abuse case involving a persistent problem editor than an edit dispute. And be careful with that lad, too. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott Ernest
Michael, Scott Ernest s currently the CEO of Textron Aviation. Could you look at Scott Ernest, and see if it's the same person, and there's anything salvageable in the deleted versions that I can use as a start of a new article? There should be enough sources related to that, and his previous tenure as CEO of Cessna, to meet GNG. (Forgive me if I've asked this before, my memory is a sieve!) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not related Bill, it was a childish attack page. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! - BilCat (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Photos with blurred faces
Michael, I've removed a photo with the face blurred out in this diff. Am I correct in assuming such photos aren't recommended, or am I being too picky? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you would want a blurred image, it would be better to find a free image to cover the same subject if needed. If it was blurred to protect the policeman then why use it all, just my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was my take also. - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RAF Laarbruch
Hi,

I merged RAF Laarbruch into Weeze Airport because the airfield has long been closed has been turned into a civilan airport, User:Andy Dingley reverted me stating "Rv BOLD merge - no evidence of any discussion". The whole point of being WP:BOLD is you don't need to a create a time wasting discussion for a non-controversial merge. They have been various merges over the last few years with former RAF airfield articles being merged into the current civilian airport articles. There was two merge proposals for RAF airfields in Germany into the new airport article from early last year with the clear majority supporting except 1 IP editor who didn't like it and hasn't edited since who rejected the discussion months after the discussion started.

Can you a have word please?

Thanks. Gavbadger (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I have seen your recent changes Gavbadger and I have not seen any objections so far but Andy Dingley has a right to oppose it which should really trigger a Requested moves discussion. You can then both explain your positions and come to a consensus one way or another. We do have other RAF Station articles where the station is now an airport but we have kept an article for the time with RAF as it would overwhelm the modern history, RAF Stansted Mountfitchet as an example that comes to mind so perhaps not every situation is the same so this really needs a discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bell X-1 issues
Michael, a contentious user is accusing me of deleting his posts per this diff. However, there is no record of such deletions by me. Could you please explain to this user that I didn't remove anything, and that it was likely an edit conflict of some sort that lost his posts? I'm a bit too frustrated and angry to reply to him sensibly at the moment. By the way, he did remove my post. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Left a note on Twobells talk page, also a reminder that copying chunks from other articles is a copyright violation without attribution. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that being described as 'contentious' shows a considerable lack of good faith; I have been nothing but polite with BilCat the entire time even when he took it upon himself to delete citations arbitarily. What user BilCat fails to understand is that he cannot just delete verified citations, I copied and pasted some content from the Sound Barrier article referring to it both in the article and in the talk history which is completely acceptable. Twobells''t@lk 17:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was primarily referring to the edit conflict, but you've apologized for that, so I'll apologize for this too. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now also in the North American B-25 and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress articles, the same pattern is being established. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I have seen, they dont appear to want to listen to anybody, if they carry on it might be worth me protecting the articles or if we consider the activity on B-17 it looks like disruptive edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection seem like a good idea -hopefully it will get the editor in question to use the talk page and reveal their sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All three have been semi-prot for a few days to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An IP editor who appears to be the one in question has left a note on my talk page, claiming to be "perhaps the most diligent researcher of the B-25 Program". Hmm... I' be asked them to discuss on the article talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the damage to the articles is so bad now, with a complete contempt being shown for referencing, that they may need to be scrapped and started again. The talk pages are now unusable owing to the vast unsigned screeds added at random throughout the talk page. I am giving up on these articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the articles are a mess. Since Michael is involved, perhaps we can contact one of the MILHIST admins, like Nick-D, for assistance in protecting the articles. - BilCat (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to consider rolling them back before the recent changes, I might be seen as being to involved so perhaps limited to what I can do. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have rolled both articles back and left a message on the IPs talk page, I have also dropped a request for help on Nick-Ds page to see if he can help. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And nick did not concur in you assessment feeling the edits had merits. using the talk pages has not help because no one is bothhering to use the refernces I provided. rather you continue to "circle jeck" collectively back to the mid-20 century garbage used to forulate the misinformation iin the article. your three article are rubbish, and yes I am internationally nown for my work in all the areas, 17, 24 & 25, and have been acknowledged in several books and by web authors. that you remain agressive in your ignorance explains much about why the three article are so poorly done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK I think I have had enough of personal attacks and complete lack of understanding on how we work, I know signing posts is a minor thing to do (which every one else manages to do) it shows an arogance and a lack of co-operative spirit. So while unsigned refuses to such simple requests and resorts to personal attacks on our motives I will leave it to others to get through to them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Semenyih helicopter crash
Michael can you simi-protect (2015 Semenyih helicopter crash) for a few days, the IP is just not getting it - regards FOX 52 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have suggested user goes to deletion review. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You had used an admin flag to take advantage over ip user. It will lead to desysop process. WP:AIRCRASH clear says about criterias: the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia, see Jamaluddin Jarjis. The deadlock situation. Pity, but IP user couldn't edit the new WP:DRV page. 46.200.35.170 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the IP needs to read Articles for deletion/2015 Semenyih helicopter crash were it was decided that it was not notable and the article should be redirected, the correct method is to take it to Deletion review and not edit war, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly, IP user couldn't create the new WP:DRV page. There was no consensus in that discussion (2 for, 3 against). 46.200.35.170 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the IP should ask User talk:Spartaz who closed the discussion, they appear to be active on deletion review, or perhaps the IP should just log in using their username. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you help me to start DRV page citing my first message from this talk page? 46.200.35.170 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello :)
Hi, i came here for your help in an ongoing dispute. an editor seems to be trying to promote HAL AMCA,DRDO AURA,INS Vishal etc in his or her recent edits. the editor (M.srihari) is giving some citation but they are either improper or outdated. i explained everything related to the changes i made to his edit yet still the person continues to revert my removal of improperly cited or non- referenced info. major changes were made in date of launch of air carrier ins vishal without any citation etc.now the editor is using edit summary for sending inappropriate message to other editors in Supercarrier comment was "yeah u just wake up from your sleep" (revision 661167617) currently an edit war is going on in that page.i just wanted a very experienced like you to take a look at those changes made.please take a look at m.srihari's contribution whenever you are free. thank you :).Nicky mathew (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit warring continues, with no sgn of willingness to discuss anything. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully it will help to encourage discussion. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys :). He also added some info to Specifications of DRDO AURA without proper citation and on HAL AMCA talk page you had a suggestion about going back to the stable version before the IP editing and i supported that suggestion few weeks ago. are you still considering that or dropped it for some reason. Nicky mathew (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Still think it is a good idea to take it back as most of the information doesnt add anything to the article or does not have a reliable source. Problem is others have made edits in good faith hence why we should not rush. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ok, I agree lets wait then anyway anonymous ip edits stopped for now so nothing to worry about. i removed navalised amca completely as it was unsourced and created confusion among editors.Nicky mathew (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Air-cushioned landing craft
Michael, could you look at Talk:Air-cushioned landing craft? The same editor is now edit warring at this article, and is also accusing me of racism and personal attacks. In addition, User:Andy Dingley, an editor I haves had run-ins with before, has chimed in, making this a real minefield for me. Worse, it's an article I created, so I'm trying very hard not to violate OWN while watching out for errors. Thanks for any help as an admin that you can offer. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hum I cant see any reference to landing craft in any of the references provided. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will keep any eye on it, perhaps move the "operators" to a separate section and slap fact tags on them all would be a start, but i dont really want to get involved yet I will just see how it goes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've gone ahead and apologized for the appearance of racist comments, while clarifying it was not my intent. Hopefully that will settle the issue. Also, the user has appeared to had remarkable growth in understanding WP policies. I'm suspicious that we might be dealing with a sock of a certain banned user, but I hope I'm wrong. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm really getting frustrated with this user. Rather than removing his claims again yesterday, and getting into 3RR territory, I added disputed tags to his claims in the article, which he has now removed per this diff. Is there enough activity on his part for another 3RR block? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI (very indirectly, related to Ssolbergj)
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixing my messes
Michael, could you move Template:Eurocopter Group aircraft back to Template:Eurocopter aircraft. I was attempting a simple move, and inadvertently made several implausible moves. They are Template:Template:Airbus Helicopters aircraft and Template:Template:Eurocopter aircraft, and need to be deleted. Thanks much! - BilCat (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Invasion stripes photo
Not added to illustrate the aircraft model-- added because it's altogether different when you are looking up at this and knowing you're seeing the same thing that people saw who were standing on the ground ... If you have an opportunity to take some photos like this yourself, you'll see what I mean. --Djembayz (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Djembayz I dont have a problem with the "below" image replacing the other C-47 image I just dont think we need both, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I'll put it in as a replacement for now, as it is a timely photo, and also illustrates how the stripes weren't necessarily very professional looking. Hopefully a better quality photo of this type will become available. Thanks for response! --Djembayz (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Reproduction Dolphin
Hi MilborneOne. I had removed the reference to the reproduction Dolphin at Old Rhinebeck because there is already a good description of that particular aircraft here. [] I believe this particular reproduction is the only one in existence, but I'm not sure that warrants two mentions. I was told that the reason this reproduction needed to be on multiple pages was that as many people as possible needed to know that they could go to Old Rhinebeck to see it. Which I don't think is particularly compelling, but let me know what you think.

Best regards, M Van Houten (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I cant see any reason why a reproduction can not be mentioned on the parent aircraft type article it is clearly not promotional all we are doing is describing an aircraft like all the other thousands on wikipedia. I also cant see why it cant be mentioned at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome if it is part of the collection, its not different to other museum aircraft that are also mentioned in more than one place. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it should be mentioned in the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome article, which it is. As I recall, I actually put it in that article.  I'm troubled by the idea that it needs to be in multiple articles. The justification given to me for the need for multiple page mentions was pretty clearly promotional.  It's on my talk page if you'd like to look.  Furthermore, it is problematic to the extent that for some aircraft, there are dozens of reproductions and replicas of varying accuracy. Some are built by museums, but many are built by enthusiasts. Some are not actually to scale.


 * That's not a problem with the Dolphin reproduction, because to my knowledge, there is only one. This reproduction is actually somewhat notable for that reason. But for other aircraft, it becomes difficult to draw the line.  M Van Houten (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think your are putting to much weight on the comments about being promotional as I just see it as an aircraft type, if it wasnt on the Dolphin page it could have an article of its own if it has major differences. The fact it is mentioned in the museum page is not unusual a lot of museum articles describe exhibits it doesnt stop it have a "type" article. So if it is not in the Dolphin article the other choice is a stand-alone article, the museum article is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection on Monarch Airlines
Is it possible to remove the indefinite edit protection you placed on Monarch Airlines several months ago? The debatted issue should be solved by now and the article itself is in quite bad-shape and not very well maintained due to the restrictions compared to other UK airlines. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.156.211 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:198.236.17.33
Michael, could you look at User talk:198.236.17.33? IP vandal adding false info on several pages. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 24 hours block MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * They're back! Seems to be the same person. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ellis Gowing
Have added a couple more points to the talk page.Bashereyre (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User: Futurepilot1999
Hello MilborneOne, Sorry to report that Futurepilot1999 has for the third time reverted the deletion of their aircraft pictures on the Edinburgh Airport article. They have not responded to the Talk page discussion, nor have they given a valid reason for their inclusion - apart from stating that we check with airport operations regarding the location of the illustrations! There has been no answer to my comment that Wikipedia is not a aircraft spotters guide. Is it not time for these actions to be stopped? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird
Michael, could you look into semi-protecting Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird? An IP has been enaging in a low-grade edit war of a minor grammatical usage in the article. This should help encourage discussion on the talk page, and I'm going to try to start that discussion later today. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Supercarriers
There seems to be an edit war begun in this page. The users Nick Thorne and BilCat have removed a section Proposed by giving silly reasons. I wish you to intervene and take a right stand. It is to note that I have already had 2 bad encounters with these users and this is sure a revenge edit.M.srihari (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari


 * OK User:M.srihariI have protected the page from editing for the moment, you really need to make your case on the talk page and gain some consensus from other users, I will have a look at the discussion later. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

great stuff
is being deleted because you willfully and maliciously don t follow the rules even after they have been painstakingly explained. you continue to vandalize other's work because you want to rule instead of following the rules. I have my own sites and my B-24 expertise is known world-wide. For decades I have been recognized as one of very best in this field. So do I care if wiki's B-24 article is woefully unreliable? No. Correct info is elsewhere. And wiki is universally acknowledged to be a poor source... because of people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Competence is required. You aren't demonstrating ANY, and quite frankly it places your claims of "expertise" in great doubt. No one expects you to know everything about WP the first time you edit (you quite obviously no very little about WP). But we do except you to be willing to learn from your mistakes, and not make huge messes expecting someone else to clean up. WP is never finished, so please take some time to learn how to do things right. Most editors will be very patient with a user who is genuinely trying to learn how to use WP. Rants like the one you just made are the opposite of that. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of References
Don t make edits until you learn how to use references, unless you want to continue to appear total outdated and misinformed on USAAF SUBJECTS. obviously you have limited ability in searching for US Reference materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You clearly showing a complete lack of understanding in how wikipedia work, I tried at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress&oldid=663418354 to give you a chance to read up and understand how wikipedia works so we can help each other to improve the article, I am afraid that you may need to read WP:NPA as you really need understand how wikipedia works and accepted behaviour (like signing your post and commenting at the bottom of the talk page). MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

B-17/B-24/B-25

 * With regard to the mess on B-17/B-24/B-25, I have had enough of personal attacks and complete lack of understanding on how we work, I know signing posts is a minor thing to do (which every one else manages to do) it shows an arogance on and a lack of co-operative spirit from the IP. So while unsigned refuses to such simple requests and resorts to personal attacks on our motives I will leave it to others to get through to them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not alone in giving up trying to get through to that editor. I have also abandoned and unwatched them as they show a complete unwillingness to listen or to attempt to work together with others.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a bit frustrating to see the B-25 being turned into a fanboy website, most of the language and terms used are complete gibberish and I am afraid whoever takes it on will need to do a lot of remedial work. Although as most of it is unreferenced it may be easier for however takes on the challenge to roll it back and start again. If I remember we have had "experts" before who clearly dont understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a fanboy site. Its also clear that most of the "new" content is not even written in English that can be understood. Perhaps a warning sign of what started to happen on B-17/B-24 before they were protected. Its a shame because I am sure these so called "experts" could make usefull contributions if they learned to work with others and understand how wikipedia works. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC