User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 32

Louis Blériot
Saw you reverted an edit (not mine) in this biog claiming that Bleriot invented the joystick/rudder combination. I'd say that this is a big claim that does deserve to be in the lede, but I agree with your removal & rationale. It's been a while since I did any editing on the article & am therefore not up to speed, but I do recall believe that the claim could be referenced from the Elliot biography, which as I recall describes Bleriot's disappointment when Esnault-Pelterie's claim was preferred- bring with it substantial royalties. I'll get Elliot out of the library ...TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ercan and North Nicosia
Can you explain why its not allowed to list North Nicosia by name in airport articles, why is it listed as Ercan which is the airport name, why does the city have a dedicated article identifying it as the capital of Northern Cyprus if its not to be used, its not just an area of Nicosia that it cannot be listed as a city, no city is listed by its airport name unless it has more than one airport and in that too the city name is included, I hope to receive a decent response from you since you are a rep of this site, and its a valid query, another admin just ignored my post on his talk page and responded to a post below mine posted a few days later, is harbouring personal grudges and dislikes for strangers a wiki policy?. 45.116.232.19 (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have commented at WP:AIRPORTS on this. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, greatly appreciated.45.116.232.47 (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Third column for refs in airline destination table
Hi Mil. Is there any rule that third column should not be in place for refs in the airline dest table? keeps reverting the addition of this column to make a point. I personally feel the airline destination table is one place that is in dire need for references and adding a third column should mandate adding and keeping them esp given that imaginary destinations are added often by many unknown users. Perhaps time for an rfc on this? &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 15:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

deleting unused edits
Hi Mil, This is what you sent me, Warning[edit]

Your edit to ERCO Ercoupe appears to be vandalism which is not appreciated on wikipedia, please take care and note that if you vandalise wikipedia you may get blocked from editing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Mil., I can't delete something that I posted that didn't get used? I do not call that vandalism I call it getting rid of data that was not approved and freeing up space for something else? Doesn't that make sense?

I have made hundreds of edits, most get used some don't. But the ones that don't should be delete to free up space. Please consider that. coupemanwi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coupemanwi (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have repled at User talk:Coupemanwi you seem to have some misconception on how wikipedia works. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear. The edits did not get used means someone undid my edit, for some reason they did not like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coupemanwi (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OK so your saying that somebody had already removed your edits - so as they have already been removed from the article you dont need to do anything. So you need to understand your edits remain in the history of the article and reverting to an earlier version does not actually remove anything other the appear to be vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

WOW air
Hi - not sure I understand your revert of the Further reading addition to WOW air. AP articles aren't opinion pieces (looking at the comment with the revert). It was a good faith addition, as the AP article provides context about the acquisition, not found on the page itself. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If it a reliable source for information that can go in the article then it can be used as a reference, I cant see any value as a "further reading". As a challenged edit you need to gain a consensus on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

User removing future routes
I would like to bring this discussion to your attention Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports. The user in question keeps removing future routes from airport articles and refuses to engage in any discussion. Your input/help would be appreciated. Thanks, VG31 20:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with removal of crash of CF188737 (Ejection on take-off in Cold Lake in 1985) from crash history.
Hi I see that you disagreed with my comment on the above subject. You seemed to object without having actually read and analyzed my comment. Let me make it short and sweet for you: 1. The standard for significant military accident includes whether or not it lead to any of (among other things): change in procedures, or change in aircraft design. 2. The CF-18 crash in question led to: a. Significant change in procedures (takeoff trim setting changed, lines painted on aircraft for groundcrew to verify, and changes to challenge/response between pilot and groundcrew during starts). b. Change to the software in the FCS; takeoff trim is now (since 2004) set to 12 instead of 4 degrees nose up.

In my opinion, that is what justifies the entry of this accident. I felt attacked when you said nobody would read my "wall of text." I ALMOST made a snarky reply to you about not wanting to write it in crayon. I thought Wikipedia was a place where serious, informed people exchanged factual information. If that is so, then a 2-line "tweetable" response is not often going to cut it on complex topics. I have proof of this aircraft design change, and images showing the new lines painted on the fuselage. What more do you need? Danmcw (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Danmcw


 * You need to comment on the article talk page please. MilborneOne (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of a news link?
Funny, why remove the youtube link to Good Morning Britain, a well-known news from ITV, and keep a tweet from twitter, which is more of an unreliable source?

Sammartinlai (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Take it up on the talk page and refer to WP:YOUTUBE, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * did so, you should then ask yourself, why is a tweet acceptable? Sammartinlai (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You yourself aren't engaging in the talke page on the new section I created. Sammartinlai (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Commented on talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Air Hyperbole
Hi MilborneOne been a while, Looks like you've got a tiger by the tail dude. :-) Samf4u (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think that the A1 article needed a good clear out...
... it is a model for a proud hausfrau compared with the A45 article. See discussion at talk:A45 road. I've given up! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor trying to be article section owner
Can admin please take note of CBG17 at Istanbul Airport airlines and destinations, I dont understand why he thinks he is authority on that article, request intervention/warning, thanks.

The list there also needs changing, the consensus led to a tie between options 2 an easier read list and option 3 no list, so 2 is the winner since a list is needed, if I change it to that, this editor will revert it because he created the current list option 1 which no one voted for nor did he participate in consensus despite being invited. 45.116.232.39 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * List changed to option 2 from concensus, but another editor is now trying to own the section, removing valid referenced content i.e BA moving to new airport and making it seem that all currently served routes will start later in the week when only two are, he is pompously is adressing himself as WE as if he is an established editor with a track record and star or an admin member.45.116.232.57 (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Phil M again
See this gem: "It long range and capacity marked designed improvement compared to the more numerious...". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one: "It was deliveted as both a flying boat and an anphibian." Maybe we should give him his own blog. ;) - BilCat (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

New Swiss user
A new Swiss user has created 2 new articles on topics favored by our favorite Swiss sock. See Swiss Air Force F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display and Swiss Air Force Super Puma Display Team. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have deleted them both on behavioural evidence, not got time at the moment to do anything more than tag the user but I will come back to it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and no problem. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Encourage more use of the translation tool
So out of all the 88,000 people who use the translation tool, I'm probably the only one who actually translates for aviation disasters. We need to encourage others to use the translation tool more, especially members of the Aviation Accident Task Force like us. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree as not all accidents have English sources, perhaps add something to the project page to encourage others. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was thinking about putting an announcement on the page to do so, but I'm not sure what to say. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Air Algérie Flight 6289
The following is urgent: So last night I was bored and I decided to read the report of Air Algérie Flight 6289, and discovered several shocking things. 1. The accident section had been copied from section 1.1 of the report. 2. The investigation section had also been copied and pasted from the report. I've already put issues up on the article (https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2003/7t-z030306a/pdf/7t-z030306a.pdf). Read the report carefully. This is a case of plagiarism. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I dont wa t to be disruptive or disturb you, but pease tell me you saw this message! This situation is very urgent. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * sorry I have been busy, will have a look at his now. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Thank you. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

How much copying is actually allowed? I'm always wary of trying to "copy edit" material from official reports as they are usually based entirely on facts and use technical language in a very precise way. Also there are no commercial considerations here - air crash investigation reports are not published to make money. Is there a way around the problem, even partially, by the use of quotation marks and blockquotes? I guess there maybe guidelines on this topic somehere? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I dont think there is a problem with quotes and using the facts presented, what is not liked is a word for word copy of the source which is what happened in this case. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Well we've saved the day! However since we had to remove the copied text, the article has lost a lot of important and critical information. It needs to be re-added, but not copied. We could revise the text. Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If nobody else get to it first I will write some new words based on the sources but it will not be today. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick update (which you might have already noticed), I've added a short accident description while you write your new words. Should we change the class and importance, due to the issue? Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tigerdude, I think it is OK to leave it at "start" for the moment, the importance shouldnt change. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and I will leave the importance at "start." Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

British English
Can you tell me if this edit request would be appropriate in British English? Thanks Sario528 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, "The 30th of November 1979" not appropriate per MOS:DATESNO: "" However, the DMY format, 30 November 1979, is British, and is appropriate per MOS:DATETIES. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That does help. Thanks BilCat. Sario528 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of RED A03


The article RED A03 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:N."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

North American F-86 Sabre
Your recent editing history at North American F-86 Sabre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

And also, you. 92.39.207.50 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * IP has been blocked for edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this user twice; since the second block he has been editing using 87.254.86.118. Some of his edits are (mildly) constructive, but others are not. (And some of his edit summaries are sarcastic rather than helpful.)Ehrenkater (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Ehrenkater - I have blocked that IP as well, shame as if they had just sat out the original 24 hour block they would be fine but decided to evade the block instead. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163
Thank you for cleaning up Saudia Flight 163, I really apreciate it. However, an issue (to me it was an issue) I noticed is that when you put aircraft passengers and crew at the bottom, it made the accident section suddenly look all confusing, as the last names "Khowter" and "Curtis" seem to appear abrupt now. In addition most aviation disaster articles feature the aircraft passengers and crew first. I respect your opinion though. Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Tigerdude9 it is the agreed layout at WP:AVIMOS. MilborneOne (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the layout and you are right, except it doesn't say which order they should be used in. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesnt as it is the the agreed order already per normal practice ! MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Deadliest crash" trivia
I'm finally going to state why I support the deadliest crash trvia: I know it looks bloated and all, but still, it gives the article more information, however, the trivia requires an RS, as we don't want OR. I've learned three exceptions of trivia that are ok to add: the deadliest involving the aircraft type, the deadliest for the location, and the deadliest of the year. We also need to put the rules about the deadliest crash trivia in the WP:AVIMOS, as I've seen other people re-adding this kind of trivia to articles that previously had them removed. We should include that there should be RS's and no OR. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should make a suggest at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide to update the guidance. It would not be usual to mention RSs and OR as that is normal practice. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I took your advice. I created a new subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#%22Deadliest_crash%22_trivia Feel free to join! Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to User:Bzuk and all the talk page watchers for all the support given this year with all the best wishes of the season. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Eurofighter Typhoon procurement for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eurofighter Typhoon procurement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eurofighter Typhoon procurement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan k sighting?
A fairly new editor is creating aviation accident articles. Look at this and this. There are lots of typos. might want to chime in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You may well be right but using AFC is not a Ryan skill, probably not enough to take action unless some of the other ryan flags appear. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a good chance it’s him. He has changed his methods (previous socks building edit numbers by working on Categories) but the style is the same, and he has used AFC tools in the past. The Username is a tick, being a sophisticated editor from the get-go is a tick, articles about obscure incidents is a tick, listing only ASN as a source is a tick, copyvios from that source is a tick, including information that is not in the source is a tick, the overall incoherence is a tick. I’ve been editing on devices for the last two months, which makes things rather more difficult than using a computer, otherwise I’d look under a few rocks via an SPI myself and see what crawls into the daylight; if someone else opens an SPI I will add a comment. YSSYguy (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure about that guy, but this is definitely him. YSSYguy (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable deaths of 2019 and Edit summary
Some of those names were famous people that passed away. That has to count as notable in my book. And the only reason I said your username isn't recognized is because the user didn't have a name and if theres no name than you are not recognized and it was only in numbers. Matt Campbell (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Matt Campbell how do we know who they are you just added a list of name. And note an IP address is a valid user name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IndiGo incident
Hey, Please do not remove true content from pages as you did at IndiGo. Sources were mentioned below in the References section. Vinthelegend (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What you did is not sourcing. Read WP:CITE in order to learn the way sources are used. Separately, your addition is not notable and that is the reason it has been removed multiple times.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 21:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please find out whether the incident is true or not? Vinthelegend (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I replied at my talk, it is not me who should find for sources but you.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles to use for 2019:
I found at least 30 notable articles. Maybe this will help:




 * It is up to you to prove they are noteworthy, its not for others to do the work for you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user
Milb, can you have a look at Special:Contributions/95.151.254.197, and see if it's time for a block? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * two-week holiday MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! - BilCat (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Piper Malibu disappearance
Do you have a reliable source for that registration? If not, please revert your edits. I have seen it on a forum and the ASN Wikibase, but with nothing solid to back it up with, which is why I didn't add the info to the article, apart from changing the image to that of the rumoured accident aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem, I have reverted, it was pprune I was reading (not a reliable source) that reported N264DB had left Cardiff for Nantes on Saturday morning. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI, the ASN Wikibase now stating reg'n is unconfirmed. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 - people with insufficient notability
What are you talking about? Matt Campbell (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You keep adding people who clearly dont meet the criteria for these pages as has been explained a number of times. MilborneOne (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Who did I add? Matt Campbell (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to take it to the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Matt Campbell (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will when you raise each of them on the talk page as you were asked to do. MilborneOne (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Look if the info that I typed in, or any of the info the other user's are typing in isn't correct, or if we made a mistake, and if you want to correct it than that's fine. But we shouldn't ban anyone if they made a mistake, they are just trying to contribute, just like how I am. Matt Campbell (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, please do what I asked, and suggest entries on the talk page (unless they're very obvious), rather than adding people at random and then having them removed again. Eventually people's patience will run out if you keep doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Fine. Matt Campbell (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I did as you asked. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of VIF Airways for deletion
Hi, A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VIF Airways is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. Please do comment. Thanks. Trinidade (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Kaye Ballard
When I added Kaye Ballard you erased it, then another user added it the name. Why did you erase it the first time? Matt Campbell (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It was not just her but another one of your mass addition of names that you were were asked not to add without an explanation and consensus on the talk page as it was clear you did not undertand the criteria for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect deletion
Milb, can you take a look at this new redirect, and see if they need to be deleted? P-2 Lockheed Neptune. It seems made up. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It could be a search term but I dont think it is needed, user more likely to use P-2 Neptune. Deletion may be the best. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Appears to have been used to redirect a typo at Estrella Warbird Museum. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

2019
I saw your recent edit on the 2019 yearly page, and that you erased a few notable people, so I changed it back. You do realise it's not only about about obituaries it's also about there life stories. Matt Campbell (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As you have been asked to before you need to raise it on the 2019 talk page, you have been already been warned that you may get blocked soon for adding names without talk page consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well fine. But you should also know to it's about what some of those people did with there live's and being known for doing certain things. Don't be a jerk about this either. Matt Campbell (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have left another warning on your talk page, you still need to use the 2019 talk page so you understand how things work on that page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't need you to tell me how to understand how things work. Everyone has to understand things, including you. Being is not only about obituaries from others countries, it's about there life stories too, and what they experienced in there live's. and make sure you do your research too, and think before you talk. Matt Campbell (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have left you another warning for WP:NPA, you need to take notice. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

When did I do a personal attack? You started this whole conflict. It's no different than Jackie Robinson, or Willie McCovey. Also keep in mind I told on you to another admin, and his name will be added again once the situation gets resolved. Matt Campbell (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that User:Matt Campbell has earned himself a 60 hour block. Given his history, getting into WP:NOTHERE territory, if he continues after this short block, then I think it is time for an indef. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I know that this is none of my business, but User:Matt Campbell is a very good friend of mine. I'm sure he wasnt trying to be rude. I some of the things he said were inappropriate but he is not a bully or anything. Man Roger (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Heh, this is almost as funny as this, this and this. Perhaps "very good friend"s all sign off in an identically erroneous fashion! Fails WP:DUCK. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * At least one other admin thinks that User:Man Roger account is a sockpuppet. It certainly doesn't pass WP:DUCK. Hmm, it seems that opening a new account to circumvent a block is a bad idea. - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had the feeling it would not end well MilborneOne (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Conquest Air Cargo Flight 504
I have removed the tag from Conquest Air Cargo Flight 504, which you proposed for deletion. see article talk page. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!Pizzaguy875 (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

IAW Gov't plane
The tail number for the Government of Iraq plane of Iraqi Airways is YI-ASF. I got this from planespotters.net. There is a note on the Iraqi AIrways fleet page for YI-ASF. All the other Boeing 737-800s had a Configuration Number of C12Y150. However, YI-ASF has a Config Number of VIP - F75. ALso, if you go to the YI-ASF page, you will see under Remarks it says "Operated for Iraqi Government. Also, further proof shows that the aircraft does operate flights, but it always uses the callsign of IAW1. There is no pubic record of passenger operated flights operated under Iraqi Airways with the flight number of 1. The plane may also use different callsigns. I know this because i have a subscription for alerts on flightaware.com. Every time YI-ASF operates a flight, i am notified of the route, callsign, etc. Pilot0674 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrewgprout
Hi Milborne, Andrew undid the edit with the coyprighted photo of Aeroperu 603, which is understandable but in the summary of his edit, I don't know if this word means anything rude towards me, but he said 'Cham'. But to me it sounds like he calling by a rude word. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesnt make sense in English but It looks more like a typo and he was trying to type Change, easily done. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Arh okay, no worries. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Indo-Pak POV wars
Milb1, would you take a look at AIM-120 AMRAAM and Spice (bomb), and see if the recent POV edits warrant semi-protection? Most of the other articles related to the recent conflict have already been semi-protected, so these articles are getting the IP edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected AIM-120 although I dont see why we even need to mention every time the missile is used. Didnt really understood Spice (bomb) the article is such a mess that I dont think protection will actually do any good, probable needs reverting from before the childish tiff. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also Indian Air Force. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Somebody else has set pending changes - although I have never really understood how that works. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, a lot of the semi-protected or edit-confirmed articles probably warrant a higher level of protection (or a much stronger presence from admins). There is still nationalistic edit warring going on, just by ediors with accounts rather than ip editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but keeping out the IPs cuts down on a lot of it,and makes the clean-up task a little more manageable. - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You may (if you are a masochist) want to look at Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses and List of aircraft shootdowns as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On my way. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As always, thanks. I don't see the editing dispute ever really stopping, as there are still disputes over how many aircraft were shot down by whom in the 1971 war, which is nearly fifty years ago. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * At least one distraction is the really funny short descriptions that keep being added to aircraft articles and changed (sometimes daily), almost a comedy channel. Although it is concerning when the annotated links actually make them visible on see also sections <!> MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Short description, the annotations are totally optional. "Both of these options can be appropriate, and it is a matter of judgement which is better in a specific case. (Bold-Revert-Discuss applies)" As such, we can raise the issue at WT:AIR, and get a consensus as to whether we want to use them or not. If we decide not to use them, per BRD, the proponents of using annotations will have to discuss the issues on each article's talk page to get a consensus to add them back on each article. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

2019
Hi, I saw your recent edit on the 2019 yearly article page. Some of it was a mistake and some of it wasn't. Also I'm sorry for some of the things I said a few weeks back, we both said few things we didn't mean. Hopefully we can call it even, and if something like this does happen again, hopefully we can have a discussion about it. Matt Campbell (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that we do have an inclusion criteria for these articles and we dont add everybody as that is what Deaths in 2019 is for. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know that. Well some of them names will be added back but not all of them. your messing up the document. And everyone has already agreed that some of the names should be on there. Matt Campbell (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I cant see any mention of them on the talk page so I doubt any of them should be added back without some discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not right now, but later. One of them was an assassination, and most assassinations are worldwide! Matt Campbell (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to help I have listed them on the talk page, you can add your support for them. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I will. Matt Campbell (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Serious Issue
Hi Milborne, I'd like to report someone in which they are accusing me of attacking another under another aliais. They have sent Deeday-UK 4 external links to a foreign wiki in which some user has brought my name up. I am incredibly shaken by what I just witnessed and I'd like you to investigate this issue, or at least find a way to ban this IP address 176.61.118.44 which has been spreading flase and attacking information about 'me' apparently attacking a wiki.

To make this clear to you and to you only, I work my backside off ensuring my information is accurate and reliable, to see that? God I am incredibly shaken. In all seriousness I am scared about my safety. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

{Information removed per WP:OUTING)


 * Orbital dont worry about it, it is not taken kindly to what could be considered Harassment, your activities outside of wikipedia are not our concern and the IP user should not have exposed information from another place. If you have not done anything that breaks the rules here then dont worry about it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you helping me out. In all honesty I have no idea who the person is or what he is talking about. I have already contacted their website administrators about the harassment. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I probably sound a bit silly saying this, but my god this has really put a toll on my mindset. Seeing someone out of nowhere suddenly accusing me of doing something on another website is out of this world. Please do anything in your power to stop this, this is not healthy for me, along the fact that he messages Deeday-UK the same things as well. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonian Air Force??
Probably not a correct move (North Macedonian Air Force), but I'm not sure how to change it back -cheers FOX 52 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Probably a can of worms as all the articles that use "Macedonian" have been changed to "Noth Macedonian" without regard to them actually changing in real life. You could try moving it back but it might be better on the dont touch with a barge pole area of nationalistic stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gregg Air


A tag has been placed on Gregg Air requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  SITH   (talk)   15:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Issue Urgent
Hey man we have an issue, Harro Ranter would like those photos I accienelty uploaded wrong deleted immediaetly. He sounds very upset from the email I just read. I would like to be on good terms with the guy as his website is key for photos and informaiton. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The same answer as you had from User:Mjroots if they are on commons we cant do anything about it and I see you have already made a deletion request. 15:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s all good now. I had Jeff sling them all in the bin thankfully. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Lion Air 610 Image!
Hey buddy great news! I got permission to use a better image of Lion air 610! The person filled out the email template which is fantastic! OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well done, patience and jumping the hoops has probably helped. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Here!!!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B737M8-PK-LQP.png

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It really needs an "OTRS Pending" template and when the OTRS team clear the email they will change it. The copyright owner has sent the email to the appropriate address which was on one of the instruction pages? MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure....

If you give me more detail Ill message him again for requests about an approval. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You wouldnt mind helping me out, man I didnt know there was more... OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you follow the instructions at Requesting copyright permission particularly the "When permission is confirmed" the email has to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org more hoops to jump but the permission has to be officially logged and cleared for use because of any possible legal problems. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so If i send them, the photogrpahers name and email, link to image and email template? will that do OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please tead the instructions where it explains the copyright holder has to send the email and what is required. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrewgprout again
Look Milborne, I am feeling quite upset about the comment Andrew said on his summary of lion air 610, this is a quote 'your autism is getting in the way of sensible editing'. I seriosuly do not know what to say, I feel like he is basically calling my edits crap and not sensible? I undid his edit after Jeff a commons administrator added the dates on the photo. That comment andrew made makes me sick. I'm sorry it's getting in the way of his editing. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Dont get upset, calm down and just ask either on his talkpage or the article talk page for guidance. Although articles do have mistakes and updates that need to be corrected perhaps before you make a change consider that "thats been there for a while why has nobody else changed it" which may lead to a good reason for being in the stable format before your change. Nobody should mind you asking questions to help you understand what is required. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but his comment has really made me uncomfortable being here. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I messaged him yesterday and he is clearly ignoring me. No apology no explanation. You have the decency to explain things to me. Look I’ve made mistakes but his comment is disrespectful towards me. Saying that in public? Not only that but he’s making me look like I’m incompetent at doing edits on here. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have left him a message. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks, my password is apparently inccorect, it then gave me a temporary password and now i have to wait 5 minutes until i can log in. 194.207.74.71 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Aerosucre accident December 2016
Hey Milborne, I wanted to upload an image of the 727 overrunning the runway. But I am incredibly lost at who the copyright holder of the video is as there are a few reuploads of the video in two angles. Here it is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sPMZ6whzip8

I’ve taken a screenshot of the aircraft overrunning the runway which will be used to replace the photo already on its Infobox. I won’t do that yet as i don’t know if the use of the video is public. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Probably not allowed to use it as there is no information on who holds the copyright to the video. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if those users didn’t have copyright approval would the video be down? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how youtube works, but you cant presume it is free just because it is on youtube. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay then, I need some help regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_409 as well, CRM is noted in the final report but Jetsreamer is getting up my backside about it. It cites CRM here: '2- The flight crew failure to abide by CRM principles of mutual support and calling deviations hindered any timely intervention and correction.' OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific the arugment was about Pilto error, I still believe the accident was a cause by the pilots mismagament of varies things, monitor airspeed, altitude etc. But I added CRM instead of PE as well CRM is noted in A) Final report, and its better to have at least something on the summary. But andrew again getting on my nerves with his comments, he states I am being disruptive when I didnt put Pilot error, I put CRM as it was cited in the final report. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Formal complaint
Milborne I know I’ve been messaging you a lot, as I come to you for guidance and support. But I am really upset. I have had enough of Andrew giving me crap on a daily basis. I’m sorry but his messages are rude, insulting and I howblsty feel like he is stalking my edits. I have made mistakes yes I have no denying it. But I am still learning things here, I know I’ve been a pain at times but I have seriously have had enough of him getting on my backside over the smallest of things. Look I feel so unmotivated to be here because of him undoing whole edits of mine which not removed the section he whines about but necessary bits such as ‘occupants’. I cannot take him seriously with his messages about him trying to give me guidance, after the insulting comment he made to me I don’t even want to be near him. Please try understand that autism is different in so many ways and for yes I do struggle, but for hi to directly ask me to leave and such isn’t his job to do so. I do not feel like he has the right to say the rude comments he has. When I get upset I make less sense and get upset because I thought I’d be around clever, intelligent and friendly people. I love being here but when he gets on my backside about stuff he makes it so open and makes me look like an incompetent editor with a disability that makes him unable to edit. You’ve been incredibly nice to me and I really really appreciate it. I really would like you to help with this situation please. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am busy with real life today but just a few points OE, I am pretty sure that User:Andrewgprout has not set out to upset or insult you but he is possibly agravated by your editing. Dont take such criticisms to heart and what ever you do dont stop using the talk page or asking for help. You are making mistakes but we are all trying to help and point you in the right direction. A normal release if you are not feeling happy with your editing experience is to find a backwater in wikipedia, a subject little visited that you know about and edit that or get involved with some maintenance tasks away from accident articles for a few days. I am sure that User:Andrewgprout will be following this discussion and might want to assure you that he is just trying to do what is best for the encyclopedia, so please dont take it to heart. Take care, I will back on later. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. When you are next free we can sort out the fallout with Ethiopian air 409. Thanks man OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard
Milborne I really don’t have time to explain this but Sam is stating that he is planning on putting me on this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Look I’ll send you a copy of what I’ve said to them as I can’t be bothered to re explain their complaints as I feel like something should change.

You all dislike the way I edit on Wikipedia, when it comes to the way I’ve done summaries, dates and rewording stuff. Look I do not ignore you, I say some now, yes I did just say some of the advice you give me is were I disagree, I always stood by reliability, I always have, yes I keep summaries short and I tend to try and make them in order whenever possible, but I’d like to open a discussion about my recommendations as I feel like A) the wording of some stuff does not sound right when you say it out loud. B) the way captions are done on images, I think they should be done as: registration, aircraft involved / similar and then month and year. C) summaries should not be very vague saying Crahsed on landing for example. It doesn’t state why it happened or what caused it. As with just about every accident you have a reason on what caused said accident. I love being here don’t get me wrong, but I was a huge user before I joined as my courses at college relied on your references and info. And countless times there are things that are worded correctly, I find this frustrating as yes it should be in clear English, but there are the same pages made in a different language. Look my autism is not making a mess, as I am very observant when something is out of order, why don’t I voice my opinion on the talk page? Because all I get is it’s always be like that and I would like to hold some kind of big discussion, it might seem impossible but I can’t keep my mind off some the things that sound incorrect. Please understand I am not here to be a pain or make you all think I’m taking the crap. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

FFA P-16 revert
Hi Milb, you may have noticed that, less than 4 hours after I removed an unverified addition by FFA P-16, I was reverted an IP from Switzerland. Coincidence? I thisnk not, and reverted as a sock. We'll see what happens next. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems strange that we have "other" editors and IPs from Switzerland that are interested in exactly the same articles as P-16. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Hardy at 2019
Well, whilst Matt shouldn't be edit-warring over this, there wasn't actually a discussion. I said that I thought Hardy was notable for the article (having found at least three international obituaries), and Deb disagreed and then removed him... Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually there were 6 or 7 of them. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Black Kite, my error we didnt establish a clear consensus, perhaps it needs to be raised again as the earlier discussion wasnt the most orderly we have had. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no problem, we're discussing it at Matt's talkpage now. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are familiar with the TV show "Pointless". Jeremy Hardy was actually one of the answers on tonight's programme - and it was a pointless answer (i.e. none of the 100 British people in the poll could name him). Deb (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with anything? Matt Campbell (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It demonstrates that he is not widely known in the UK, obviously. Deb (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well you saying "none of the 100 British people in the poll could name him", from a TV show doesn't seem to meet the criteria on this discussion. Matt Campbell (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also not a good excuse for you to say that he isn't known in his own country either. Matt Campbell (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am English and never heard of him either. MilborneOne (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are currently nine Brits in the 2019 deaths that I've never heard of either ... but more seriously, Cadet (rapper) or Michael Green (theologian) and not Jeremy Hardy? Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree we seem to be picking up some niche personalities that just happened to appear in the international press, probably more to do with the way the media uses the wire services to fill up space. MilborneOne (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, to be honest I think 2019 needs a good clearout, I can see at least a dozen entries that shouldn't really be there. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How many do you see and who? Matt Campbell (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I have another idea. How about from now on nobody can add names unless they can find articles from countries, depending on the person. Matt Campbell (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you guys agree maybe we can have this discussion on my talk page, thanks. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair Deb, on Pointless anything that's not completely mainstream gets practically no points. Tonight, when asked to name an AC/DC album tonight someone said "For Those About To Rock..." and it got 1 point.  I do actually sometimes wonder who on earth they actually ask these questions to. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect more people watch Pointless than listened to Hardy on Radio 4. MilborneOne (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that just shows he wasn't mainstream. And to address your other point, I'd be more than happy to see Cadet (rapper) and Michael Green (theologian) removed. We have way too many births and deaths on these pages and they are crowding out the material that's of greatest interest - the events. Deb (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need to move or copy this discussion to Talk:2019 now. Deb (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of people on the that none of us have heard of that have died in 2019. Matt Campbell (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, he was the only one. If you're not familiar with the show, you won't understand. But I trust that you wouldn't add an American to a year article if you could ask 100 Americans and none of them would have heard of him. Deb (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Manchester Airport.
Virgin Atlantic only operate at 3 airports in the uk, those airports are also there hubs/ bases. Thomas cook operates most of its routes from Manchester included New York JFK. It's also were the headquarters are. --Slindsell15 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thomas Cook and Virgin dont operate a hub system anywhere, having aircraft based doesnt mean they operate a hub system. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A Hub is were an airline concentrates the air traffic to one or more airports like, British Airways with Gatwick and Heathrow. Virgin Atlantic dose this with Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester airport as I'm sure you know.

Thomas Cook also concentrates it's air traffic to and from Manchester. For example, on the Thomas Cook website you would have the same holiday but flying from different airports. Usually Manchester airport is the cheapest airport to fly from with Thomas Cook as the airline/ Tour operator want's to concentrate air traffic to that one airport. I know this partly because I've booked holidays in the past with Thomas Cook and it's been up to £2,000 cheaper to fly out from Manchester. That's why Thomas Cook do this and it's because of this that Thomas Cook offer a large range of routes there. PLUS Thomas Cook is headquartered at Manchester Airport. --Slindsell15 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you need to look up what a Hub is. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Al ready have as I explained. --Slindsell15 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing you said above describes an airline Hub operation, in fact as Thomas Cook is an all charter operation it clearly doesnt even need a hub operation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok then, what about Virgin Atlantic? --Slindsell15 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Virgin Atlantic dont operate a Hub system, for one they dont have that sort of network. You would not use Virgin to fly from Atlanta to New York via Ringway for example. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not a very good example. You wouldn't want to fly from USA to UK then back to USA, there would be no point. Plus that sounds like a connected service with is not a hub Manchester like many in the UK fly direct to the destinations. --Slindsell15 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * True not a good example but is shows that Manchester is not operating as a Hub as any interconnections would be of little use, in fact none of the Virgin operations work that way. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok so what's your definition of a hub. It's my understanding that a hub is where an airline's main base is and where the airline promotes flight's to and from because it wants passengers to use that airport say for example you have flagship airlines and I know this doesn't exist but a flagship airport.

A focus city is like a secondary hub where an airline is handling most of the airports flight's like Belfast International which is used by mostly easyJet. That's my definition. --Slindsell15 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Remember you are not a reliable source, if you still have problem with what a Hub is then please raise it at the Airport project or the airport talk page for further clarification, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport
Again See above comment. --Slindsell15 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * See above comment and Airline hub. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Image change
Hey, say could you leave a comment on the image change on the CRJ-700. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK MilborneOne (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Chengdu J-20
About the chengdu j-20, I'm not interested in a edit war, and I don't want to be involved in one, but Aren't you using wikipedia troo? You stated that wikipedia is not a reliable source, but you are using it. I am not making fun of you, but just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatphatguy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at another wiki page is one thing, but actually citing another wiki page in an article is prohibited per WP:USERG (User-generated content). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * See also WP:CIRCULAR. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Eyes needed on SEPECAT Jaguar
Admin attention (and possibly protection) is needed on the Jaguar page - {User|Wikijnan}} and now an IP is edit warring to insert text copied from .Nigel Ish (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Strange but I have just semi-protected the article, probably doesnt need full protection as it more likely that the user will get blocked if they continue. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversion to Piper PA-28 Cherokee
Hi MilborneOne. Let's talk about the reversions you made to Piper PA-28 Cherokee, removing the paragraph I added about a crash that was traced to inflight breakup owing to a manufacturing issue. Inflight breakups of airplanes are (and ought to be) very rare things, and structural issues for popular mass-market craft are surely of deep concern. So, I believe this incident is as noteworthy as some of the other incidents listed? Are there criteria of which I'm not aware that encourage limits to the number of items on a list such as this? Sharkford (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Sharkford You need to raise why you think it should be added to the article on the Cherokee talk page so it can be discussed and we can get a consensus or otherwise from other users, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi I'd like you block this user here for vandalising a link on the 2019 Saha Boeing 707 crash please, please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Saha_Airlines_Boeing_707_crash&diff=883348752&oldid=879805251

The users page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2607:FEA8:98DF:EF70:B061:CEC6:168E:C116&action=edit&redlink=1

Thanks OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * They only made one edit in February 2019 so the risk of further harm to the encyclopedia is very low so not worth any action at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks, say i've re-updated the infobox image, don't worry it's the nose the 747 this time. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Terzi articles and possible COI
Hi Milb1, Special:Contributions/2.229.154.38 has been adding "Dr. Ing." back to the Terzi T-9 Stiletto and Terzi T30 Katana articles again. Also, the IP locates to Milan, Italy, where the company is located, so I'm concerned we may be dealing with a COI here. Any thoughts? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You are possibly right, at least somebody who doesnt understand that we dont use the title and that having a doctorate in engineering is not really important addition to the name. MilborneOne (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I notice the articles use "T-9" but "T30". The designer's website uses "T9" and "T30". Any idea which style is more common in reliable sources? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Had a look around and you can find T-9 on the company website, that said the aircraft has T9 painted on it! Perhaps we should be consistent with T9/T30. MilborneOne (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My edits on the Aeroflot air accidents
Hi haven’t got much time to talk but Sam is undoing my edits on the Aeroflot accidents which has taken me ages to fix. Could you help me? He’s starting that the edits are ‘disruptive’ and ‘unconstructive’. I don’t know what his problem is. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I know I’ve been a pain, but he’s refusing to dicuss the reasons into why he’s sent me two darned unconstructive templates, which on his part is quite rude because the templates last words read and I quote If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I wanted to dicuss it with him to see why I’m being unconstructive. Genuinely I want to have a discussion nothing more. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As this is at ANI I will refrain from comment for the moment, except to say I reverted your date format change in the infobox as they have to be the same as in the article. We dont normally change the format (unless the country has strong ties to the format) or have different formats in the same article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Scheibe SF-23 Sperling
I've tagged some of the cites for this as they refer to "Taylor 1991" when there isn't a book (or other) with written by Taylor in 1991 listed.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, no problem I will have a look, probably my mistake. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, sorry about that my typo. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's surprising that no-one's spotted it before. I suppose all this specification template nonsense is at least good for something in that it may get people to look at some of the less popular pages for a change.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary! ♥
 Wishing MilborneOne a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Cof fee sweet  (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Thank you for everything you do!


 * Thanks I had not realised it was ten years with the mop. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Congrats also, and keep up the good work! - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a lot of swabbing the decks! - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Swabing the decks
Sorry to bring new work for you.

In airport articles, there is consensus to not kowtow to airline corporate interests when it conflicts with the truth. For example, in the destination table of airports, the regional airline brand is listed. For example, United Express, not United Airlines, or Aer Lingus Regional, not Aer Lingus (see Manchester Airport article).

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Potential_Major_Change_to_WP:Airports:_Removing_Regional_Carrier_Listings_from_Airport_Articles

There is a combative editor named Bruce who is constantly changing the Paine Field airport article destination chart to "Alaska Airlines" even though the airline does not operate at the airport at all nor does it operate Embraer 175 aircraft at all. It's regional brand, AlaskaHorizon, which is solely operated by Horizon Air flies the aircraft.

I feel like giving up to this bully. Can you help me understand if my logic is flawed. I am sure my logic follows the consensus from the Wikiproject Airports link. My request to you is not about this bully but to confirm that my understanding of the Wikiproject discussion is correct. Then I will let this bully have his way and destroy Wikipedia to satisfy his whims. I don't want to fight. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Aerostar3 there have been a number of discussions about this over the years and as far as I know the link you provided does not show an agreement, that said the status quo should change. User:RickyCourtney summary on the Alaska talk page is a reasonable summary. Remember that wikipedia is not a travel guide and all we are trying to show is the scale and scope of destinations from a particularly airport. You could raise it at project level for a wider audience but I dont see we are having any conflicts on other pages that use the status quo. Also you need to remember that calling people a "bully" is not the sort of the language we like around here, by all means you can complain about another users conduct but you need to be carefull about the language you use and not to make personal attacks. We also let others know when we are talking about them so they have a right of reply if needed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert of edit on Augusta AW109
Hi there. I can see that you reverted my recent edit on Augusta AW109. Would you be willing to confirm that the Nigerian Airforce recently added two of the gunship to its fleet thereby making it a primary user too? Thank you.  Sidewinder  message me!  07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We limit the number of users in the infobox and normally this is by the size of the fleet operated, so an operator with just two is fairly low down the pecking order so unlikely to be included. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Mass deletions
appears to deleting the operational history sections of all modern military aircraft, in what appears to be some pointy retaliation for edits of the MiG-21 article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, they are trying to make a point because I removed some minor comments about India in the Mig-21 article. I might be considered involved because of that so perhaps we need to find another Admin to give them a warning not to be so disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted them all and issued a warning.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Acroterion or anybody that can help - The user is now edit warring on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

REPLY It's not irrelevant. Tell me a single reason why we should keep every detail about what the AA-1 F-35 prototype did but we cannot really see two very rare occurrences of air to air combat which became quite rare in the last 25 years.

OK, uninvolved admin here. Acroterion's final warning has been blanked, so has been read and understood. Ping me if any further mass deletions occur and I will take administrative action. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had to go out for an errand, I've blocked for disruptive editing. The restoration of petulantly-removed content isn't a justification any more than were your comments justification for removing operational histories elsewhere. Petulance isn't a basis for editing. .  Acroterion   (talk)   20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edit to Boeing 737 MAX groundings
You recently made a disruptive edit and removed extremely reliable information you claimed was "speculation". You did not even look at the source or the proof provided and made the change completely without evaluation.

This information was verified by a Boeing engineer of 38 years who is an expert in the field of aircraft controls and designed the controls of several of the most successful Boeing airliners.

The engineer confirmed changes to the controls of the 737 MAX with proof, as well as evaluated the black box information on how the controls had been used during the 737 MAX crashes.

His statement is not speculation. It is fact and he provides evidence including diagrams, pictures, sections of manuals, and black box recording information. If this level of proof is considered speculation then ALL information is considered speculation.


 * Unsigned, you need to go to the article talk page and make a case, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You took down my anonymous pilot report even though it is cited, why? Is the quartz like the onion or something?

How is this different from anonymous “whistle blower reports”? Do you really need to know that John Smith was the Southwest pilot? :—) Shencypeter (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to discuss this on the article talk page. You may need to explain "quartz like the onion" I have no idea what that means. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

MAX Groundings, new switch config
Milborne, the IP restored the paragraph after you deleted it, and put it in both the lede and body (under its own heading). I took it out of the lede and moved it into the MCAS section. I read the cited Seattle Times article, and story seems quite legit and reasonable for inclusion. (I may be contradicting my own previously stated opinion that not every latest newspaper-style speculation should be added to the article, but this seems worthwhile.) DonFB (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Reddit
May be of interest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Snooganssnoogans in reality it is typical "my mate in the pub says" type stuff and is just not needed but some editors just cant wait for the final report so they are adding speculation and opinion from everybody they can find to fill the vacuum - not a way to run an encyclopedia. Oh and it was clearly not an admin action but dont let the truth spoil a good story. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup. It's always hilarious to see people who go to moderated sites like Reddit to complain that Wikipedia is too moderated! Even the OP got deleted! I am disappointed I wasn't named, though. On the other hand, I am one of the editors enforcing the Bangalore-Bengaluru common-name thing, so I guess I have to be satisfied with that. ;) - BilCat (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, that IP is a disruptive IP hopper from Bedminster, New Jersey. I've had several run-ins with them in the past week. They are very quick to call out editors for "lying" in their edit summaries, etc. We may have to look into a range block. - BilCat (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted article
Hi. I'm not sure why you reverted my edits on List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. I assume you are referring to the inclusion criteria in your edit summary where you say "above the edit box", but I don't know which part of the criteria I violated. Would you mind expounding a bit so I don't repeat my mistake? Thanks. Hadron137 (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Hadron137 Probably the fact the article doesnt exist. Also sure somebody else reverted your addition but I support the removal. MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What we have here is a case of WP:IDNHT. This editor was just over at my talk page asking for an explanation. You had already gave it to them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Heathen100
Hi Milb1, just in case you missed it, see Sockpuppet investigations/Legende Legende Legende. I expect will see another sock show up sometime soon on Xi'an Y-20, Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation, and other similar articles. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill, not surprised and agree need to keep an eye on Y-20 and others. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Quack....Quack
I suspect Ryan K is back. Check out Myanmar National Airlines Flight 103. 'Myanmar National Airlines had landed the nose' Also all the edits of this User are aviation related....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks probably worth giving them a bit of WP:ROPE to see where they go next. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * MO, this editor also created Jeju Air Flight 502 and this initial edit looks alot like Ryan.

Possible block evasion
Looks like User:OrbitalEnd48401 is back. Please see[] - Samf4u (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Samf4u, blocked for a month per WP:DUCK. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Japan Airlines Flight 115
That's because it is the same aircraft. I've reverted the changes and made it look less confusing. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A new Sock?
Hey Milborne, I think Sock User:HMAS_onslow had another account under the radar. similar tag lines (HMAS_onslow's page) - (Xabier_62Z's page). Similar article creation(s) Comoros Air Force & Comoros_Military_Aviation_Command - Not sure where to start the investigation process. - FOX 52 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks likely, need to raise a new report at WP:SPI and note that the sockmaster is User:ARA SANTA FE. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Generation Orbit X-60
Hi Milb1, I had created Draft:Generation Orbit X-60 several months ago, but forgot to work on it further. As such, it was speedily deleted as an abandoned draft before I even had a chance to look at it. Would you mind taking a look at it to see how much work it needs? If it doesn't need much, could you restore the draft? I'm trying to stay retired, so I really don't want to spend too much time getting it ready. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BilCat restored as a draft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

T-33 vs. CT-133
Good catch with file that I mistakenly uploaded as a T-33. I searched the tail number and found it registered as a CT-133, but mistakenly assumed that just meant it was a T-33 that had been used in the RCAF. Thanks for keeping me honest! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

F-35
Hey guy. I would like to mention that recently Polish media have often spoken about the purchase of the F-35A aircraft for the Polish army. According to Polish sources, Poland plans had to purchase 32 or 64 F-35 aircraft, although it is possible that the information may not be completely accurate. So, whether Poland can be counted as a potential F-35 operator ? 91.231.101.103 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to raise it on the article talk page, "operators" is for users that have actually ordered or operate the aircraft not one that might in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth L. Gardner
valereee (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Air Canada
thanks for your edit ~ can you tell me why this is noteworthy ~ 10 January 2008 Air Canada Flight 190 was a scheduled flight from Victoria International Airport ~ by the way nice to meet you ~mitch~ (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not either - I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not caring to read update content carefully and authoritative tone.
Hi, you rejected a Ryanair page edit of mine today,revision 906095685, with a comment "most of this is already mentioned - we need to consider WP: WEIGHT etc this is an overview of Ryanair and not a complaint  blog." Two parts in your comment - first, that "most of this is already mentioned." This is absolutely not true, in fact none of the Ryanair controversial ADs and advertising campaigns I added with my edit was in the article at that point. You need to care to read updates carefully. Only thing I updated and not added was the "provocative schoolgirl" advert paragraph which I only edited and not duplicated or recited existing sources. You undermine the validity of your claim over the content of my edit by not bothering to actually read it. Second part, "complaint blog". It doesn't really help to talk down new editors here on Wiki and use authoritative language. I would have been much more willing to agree with the WP:weight argument and eager to happily modify my edit had you simply pointed out in two words what is it that would have made it read more unbiased from your perspective, instead of calling it a complaint blog. My only goal is to learn to make quality wiki articles. I hate to be saying all this on Wiki, but I got quite taken aback by your reply to be honest. I expected polite and productive cooperation from more experienced editors. So I kindly ask you to refrain from authoritative language. Arman.mchitaryan (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Arman.mchitaryan - Thanks for the comment but problems with Ryanair advertising is already mentioned we dont need to pile on more of the same, again the complaint blog is related to the "pile on" when users add every trivial mention of an issue. This is in overview of the airline and criticism is OK it needs not to be undue or takes over the article (which is refered to in WP:WEIGHT). Clearly dont like to upset anybody but I fail to see anything "authoritative" in my edit summary. MilborneOne (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply, it shed more light on your point than the comment. I see what you mean and I do agree that undue, one-sided criticism shouldn't make it to wiki articles, but I also don't see how a petition signed by 11 000 people to ban an AD can be considered a trivial issue. I'll try my best to put that plus the last calendar edit together in a short, brief and humanly unbiased edit to discuss on the talk page for consensus as you proposed with your last feedback. Thanks. Arman.mchitaryan (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Hope you're doing well. I recently checked the Ryanair talk page and it looks as if we were halfway through finding a consensus over updating the Misleading advertising section adding a mentioning of some of the controversial ads we have been discussing on the page, under: Proposing_to_add_new_content_to_3.5.1_Controversial_Advertising_concerning_flight_attendants You proposed a solution to which I agreed with a slight modification but you never came back. Can I please ask you to review it again and reply to it? Thanks, Arman.mchitaryan (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating new templates from existing ones
Basic question: Am I allowed to create new template using the existing code a templates to make a similar template, or am I required to create the new one from scratch? If yes, anything I should be familiar with/policies I should look over?

Background: I'm looking to restore a article that was 'redirected' a few years ago, HAZMAT Class 1 Explosives, to fix an oddity which is we have pages about other hazmat classifications, except 'Explosives'. In 2007, went through and created a series of templates for the other 8 articles showing 'compatibility' (To summarize: what hazmats must be kept away each other in transport/storage), but didn't create one for explosives. hasn't edited since 2017 (Last year they made more than 10 edits in a year was 2010.)--The Navigators (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:The Navigators - Not really my area but I dont see why you cant copy an exisiting template, if you are concerned you can add to the template talk page "Copied from Template x which see for attribution" to cover any copyright issues. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the assistance and suggestion (Go figure, I went to start this and discovered the template had existed, but it'd been deleted back in 2013, so I'm putting in a reverse deletion request first.) Sorry for troubling you. Good to know for the future.--The Navigators (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Davidsmith2014
I strongly disagree with your removal of my recent addition to the KC-10 Extender page. On the contrary, I think the information is relevant. Very disappointed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmith2014 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are wwlcome to take it to the article talk page MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

IP hopping aero engine editor
Hi Milb not sure if you have noticed what is going on in the aero engine articles recently but it is becoming tiresome. A range of Indonesian IPs (such as this one) are linking common units such as inches and centimeters in the specification sections and also overlinking terms (up to three identical links on the same line). Initially I provided guideline short cuts in my edit summaries but now I'm just undoing (sometimes manually). Even odder, these IPs come back and delink units, can only assume that it is some kind of game.

I believe there is a range blocking procedure for cases like this, I can provide all the IP adresses. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  15:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have noticed it and it is not just aero engine articles they have been overlinking in aircraft articles, as you say they regularly change IPs so are difficult to talk to. Range blocks are not something I have much experience in so perhaps we may need to find another admin who can do it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a category for admins with range blocking experience at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. I assume this behaviour would warrant a block? I must not be watching the aircraft articles that this is happening in. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  15:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Otto Kauba
Would you by any chance feel able to check out Draft:Otto Kauba? It has been awaiting review since 7 May and I am fed up with getting no feedback. It seems to need Admin privilege to move it live over the current redirect at Otto Kauba, or I would be tempted to do it myself. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Guy as an experienced editor I cant see a reason why you just cant create the article yourself in main space, you dont need to use the AfC process. The AfC process does give you an opinion that your article is noteworthy but if you go direct you then risk it being proposed for deletion which in this case seem unlikely. As the draft is your own work you can just copy your draft over the redirect. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, I'll do that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Gandhi
FYI, the Ghandi spelling is considered offensive (re your post on Talk:India). --regentspark (comment) 13:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:RegentsPark sorry about that it was a typo I had no idea that my mistake could upset people it was not the intent. MilborneOne (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I know that wasn't your intent and thought I'd let you know. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Clunn
Thanks for your edits but you added no sources to support any of them? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will do in a few minutes due to RL distractions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 2033
Maybe you want to take care of this article that I nominated for speedy deletion. It was deleted at AFD over five years ago....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the current article looks nothing like the deleted version so in theory cant be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would like to refuse the CSD then? It could still go to AfD, if judged necessary. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Ninoy Aquino International Airport
May I request unprotection of Ninoy Aquino International Airport. According to logs, the page has been semi-protected for more than seven years. The protection log is too short to warrant indefinite semi-protection. —Jencie Nasino (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Protection removed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

disruptive IP
Hi Milborne can you possibly place a block on IP 91.144.106.222 - they are constantly changing sourced data in the Hungarian Air Force page. Regards FOX 52 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the article to encourage talk page discussion, and blocked the IP for disruptive editing. MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
Hey Milborne ~ can you glance here please ~ thanks  ~mitch~ (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem I will have a look later today when I am not so busy. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oneworld flag removal
I did not add the those flags purely as decorations. I was only putting it up to the same standards that the other airline alliance pages have. If you look at Star Alliance and SkyTeam pages you will notice they are both in the format i put the Oneworld page in. No one is saying those are for the purpose of decoration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristian the Captain (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * But they are so we need to remove them from the other articles as well, there is a guideline somewhere about this. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you remove them from the Star Alliance and SkyTeam pages if you are so intent on following this guideline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristian the Captain (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ~ Being done as we speak ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia
You seem to be knowledgeable of the Thomas Cook Group and its counterparts. For someone who has flown with all these airlines, I can confirm that Condor's logo is used in the airport for Thomas Cook flights with the logo I have used on the pages. I have sources to prove this and if you need to see these feel free to ask. (Airline7375 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC))


 * Looks like a bit of original research no indication at https://se.thomascookairlines.dk/ that they use "Condor". MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Harold Clunn
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook Retail
I have realised that Thomas Cook Groups UK subsidiary’s Thomas Cook UK keeps being merged with Thomas Cook Group when they are two separate companies one owned by the other. If this is the case why isn’t TUI UK merged with TUI Group? (Airline7375 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC))


 * User:Airline7375 Not sure that Thomas Cook UK is noteworthy it is just a holding company with about 1200 employees, the subsidary is "Thomas Cook UK Travel" which appears to be an "employee contractor" and not much more, Unless we have any evidence they do anymore than shuffling money between the group and subsidaries and holding employee contracts, I dont see an article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook Retail
The company is Thomas Cook Tour Operations LTD and are the Tour Operator for all UK package holidays. (Airline7375 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC))


 * OK but you did say "Thomas Cook UK Limited" which is not the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook
The way Thomas Cook works in the UK is confusing. Basically their travel agents operate as Thomas Cook Retail Limited and are the acting agent for Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited, who are owned by the Thomas Cook Group. Are you able to make sure that Thomas Cook (UK Travel Agency) isn’t merged in to Thomas Cook group as it is incorrect. Many thanks (Airline7375 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC))

Saab 210 - Removal of addition
Well it is not a text dump, it is to a degree an extent translated from the Swedish Wikipedia.

I am the son of Einar Bergström (one of the main designers of the Saab 35) and have this summer digitalising his photo archive and with it some interesting aeronautical historical documents, mainly a document by Erik Bratt the construction manager of the Saab 35 Draken.
 * The thing is that Saab 35 was one of the first supersonic and one of the first Delta-wing air fighetrs, of international historical interest

This document actually describes what they were doing with the Saab 210 (Saab 35 prototype) and why the converted the entire front and air intake. It also states the research effort of my father Einar Bergström of supersonic flows in such aircrafts.
 * In fact the additions to the article are referenced with the statement of Erik Bratt.
 * Because I am the son of my father I can tell what he told they were doing, now when Erik Bratt is backing the story in a document refernce?

I think you should redo my additions.

Many of the aeronautical articles in Wikipedia are poor and don't tell any story about the objects.

The additions is making sense to the article that as been before says nothing and as I amended it makes a good idea of why the prototype was made. --Zzalpha (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OK but I didnt really see any reliable references used or attribution to swedish wikipedia. As you have a bit of conflict on the subject perhaps you need to explain and present you material on the talk page so it can be checked and added if it improves the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can translate Bratts document to English? I have also adocument (also in Swedish) to my fathers CV (written by the senion manager of Bratt, Tore Gullstrand) after he left Saab 1962 to work for the Swedish National Aeronautical Research Institute. It describes his contributions in general in detail. Also meaning
 * One of the major issues is that the people that stayed at Saab were very domestic in mind, the others went for tree times better pay for Boing or Lockheed in US in those days. The guys behind the Saab 35 are just not in the English Wiki but certainly in the Swedish. If you run their Swedish articles in Google translate, you will get the picture. If you google people like Erik Bratt you massive responses in Swedish. Tore Gullstrand ended up as a top manager of the main Saab compnay, are not in the English Wikipedia. Olof Ljungström is the only one because he became professor at Stanford in teh 1970s.


 * Do you think I could load up pictures like this if I did not cointrol his photo libray (as his son). The labrary has been in boxes for 23 years and I decided to scann it this summer.


 * Or a very interna Sabb photo like this ?
 * Please tell me what to do?
 * My idea was to translate the personal pages of these cold war air fighter constructors in Sweden to Englisg Wiki. But I will not if them being scratched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

--Zzalpha (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am sure we can do something to improve these articles in English, did your father take the images or just collect them, if they belong to others there may be copyright issues. There is a license you can use on commons if you inherit pictures that he took (Template:PD-heirs).I will have a look at Swedish wiki although I will need to use google translate to make sense of them. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The pictures of the the Saab 401 are from 1960 and most likly taken by him (or Olof Ljungström, they were in a good bye-pal Saab-folder from Ljungström when my father left (even though they would continue working). It is full proof. The one with my father on a FFA Typ 1 Hovercraft is most likly taken by himself, a selfie with camera timer, I see that on his face. I own the rights now.
 * The background chapter of the Saab 210 is very accurate and concentraded in plain language, all facts are safe and true (proven by Bratts letter and the actual pictures of the craft before and after front reconstruction). If you limit yourself in just smoothen the English it is fine.
 * I can translate Bratts statement, if it feel better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bratt letter is in Swedish:
 * Motorluftintag, fpl 35 Draken
 * Detta planerades ursprungligen som ett nosluftintag. Förprototypen fpl 210, som flög första gången vintern 1951-52 var därför försedd med ett sådant. Vid denna tid verkade emellertid konstruktionschefen för flygplanet civilingenjör Erik Bratt för att få till stånd ett sidointag. De viktigaste skälen för detta var önskan att uppnå bättre sikt och lägre vikt,. Ansvariga aerodynamiker framförde mycket stor tvekan beträffande sidointag vid överljudsfart och rekommenderade ett nosluftintag. Vid den tiden fanns på Saab inga erfarenheter tillgängliga utifrån beträffande sidointag vid överljudsfart.
 * Det speciella sidointagsutförande, som flygplanet kom att utrustas med möjliggjordes genom medverkan av den vid nämnda tid nyanställde aerodynamikern civilingenjören Einar Bergström. På kort tid påvisade han genom experimentell verksamhet luftintagets goda funktion. Från första flygning genom hela utprovningen fungerade det sedan utan anmärkning så att de efterföljande serieflygplanen J35 kunde produceras med ett från första flygningen i stort sett oförändrat sidoliggande luftintag.
 * Ovanstående uppgifter bestyrkes Linköping december 1968
 * Erik Bratt
 * Translated to English it will be:
 * Engine air intake, fpl 35 Draken
 * This was originally planned as a nozzle air intake. The preliminary prototype fpl 210, which flew for the first time in the winter of 1951-52, was therefore equipped with one. At this time, however, the engineering manager of the aircraft, Civil Engineer Erik Bratt, wanted side air intakes. The main reasons for this were the desire to achieve better visibility and lower weight. Responsible aerodynamics expressed great doubts about lateral intake at noise and recommended a nozzle intake. At that time, there was no experience available at Saab on the basis of side intake in supersonic condistions.
 * The special side intake design, which the aircraft came to be equipped with, was made possible by the participation of the newly employed aerodynamic engineer civil engineer Einar Bergström. In a short time, he demonstrated through the experimental activities the good function of the air intake. From the first flight through the entire test, it then worked with no remarks so that the subsequent series aircraft J35 could be produced with a substantially unaltered side air intakes from the first flight.
 * The above information is confirmed by Linköping in December 1968
 * Erik Bratt
 * Regarding Erik Bratts position as chef designer of the Saab 210 and Saab 35 I can only refer to the Swedish Wikipedia. If you google him yoiu will find pictures of the Saab 35. Erik Bratt was a piblich person "Mr Draken" in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIRPORTS
Hi! MilborneOne ~ I included you in a conversation with Blissfield101 here if I was improper please let me know ~ nice to see you again. ~mitch~ (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Aero L-39NG and User:Carramba66
You probably should be aware of this discussion at ANI about the behaviour of at the Aero L-39NG, which has escalated to page blanking and a possible legal threat.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nigel Ish I had not seen it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fairey Long-range Monoplane
I'm not entirely sure that linking the word 'pyramid' actually clarifies what a pyramidal system of bracing is. However, I found a copy of the Putnam book on Fairey aircraft at the knockdown price of eight quid, and it casts a bit more light on the subject, I'll be adding to the article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC) ...further furtling about found this:, featuring a nice cutaway of a Tipsy two seater using the so-called 'pyramidal' bracing. I've seen quite s few pyramids, and I don't see the resemblance, simply looks like a Warren truss to me.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The note on Condor's fleet page
Hello there, I was brave an readded the bottom note on Condor's fleet chart you removed a few days ago. The note that Condor frequently leases in other aircraft in peak seasons is there as some people keep adding them to the chart without stating sources or updating the figures. This severely damaged our work at this chart in the last years. Since the note was there, it got much better. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.127.202 (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK but it is not particularly noteworthy and if it is an editing note it should be hidden. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The PC-9 is built as a trainer aircraft but has the functionality of being equipped with machine guns and rockets.
Maybe it isn't used as such in the Swiss Luftwaffe but in the Irish Air Corps they can. It you don't want to add it for the fact the Swiss don't build it for that reason, I'll overturn my pressing. SyncKo (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You need take it to the article talk page, clearly not a primary role but might be worth adding in article if you have a reliable source, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

crew access ladder on the KC-46
If you recall on talk:Boeing KC-46 back in January, we discussed if a ladder existed for rapid crew ingress, and could not find much evidence to support it. Well, the NHANG recently showed off one of their 2 new aircraft to the press and this is a result. In the second photo, an officer shows a ladder behind the nose gear and there is mention in the text of the ladder: "There’s also a compartment on the belly of the plane, which can be opened so crew can pull down a ladder, climb up, and quickly be inside the plane. "If you need to get inside faster you can climb up this ladder, step on a platform, climb up another ladder and end up in the floor of the plane,” Zubricki said."  Interesting that there has been so little mention of this until now.  --rogerd (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rogerd for finding that, no wonder the aircraft is expensive, I have seen an image of a similar door/ladder on a Boeing 777 so not that unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it is more suitable for alert duty if they don't have air stairs sitting next to it. Similar to the way the KC-135 had a crew ladder.  The KC-10 I guess doesn't have a quick ingress method that I know of, do you?  --rogerd (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fortaleza Airport
Dear Milborne One, I kindly ask you to protect Fortaleza Airport for edition only by autopatrolled/autoconfirmed wikipedians because I do not have this authority. I and Epistulae ad Familiares are trying to maintain accurate and sourced information according to Wikipedia rules but an user without a profile called Seasoul keeps reverting them. This could go on forever. Apparently the problem is not new. In 2012 I had a similar problem with Zona da Mata Regional Airport and your 5-month protection solved the problem. I thank for your usual help. (Brunoptsem (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Thank you for protecting th article, Milbourne One. I have stated my rationale in the talk page. (Brunoptsem (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC))

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Request regarding an issue at Hewarnorra International Airport
Hey there, would you have a look at Hewarnorra International Airport where an IP seems to claim ownership of the article and insulting other users, reverting edits to a state which ignores several guidelines, e. g. splits between scheduled and charter routes, removes tags, restores images that he/she likes and so on. A protection might be in order? Best regards!


 * Semi-protected for a few weeks to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.122.192 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 7
Since I've run into you on aviation articles in the past and you've made some recent corrections to the Pan Am Flight 7 article, I think it's safe to assume you've taken a look or two at it recently, so I'd like to ask a favor if you felt so inclined. This happens to be my favorite article that I've worked on so far, and am planning to run it through the FAC gauntlet sometime soon. If you're interested in taking it on, I'd be thrilled to get your perspective of the article from the viewpoint of a potential FA reviewer that I am likely to encounter, and instead of the somewhat lenient GA criteria that the article has received so far, review it using the "brilliant prose" standard that once defined a featured article around here, plus any other issues you think I'd run into at FAC. You can post comments at the article, here, or on my talkpage; I of course have all of them watchlisted. I'm happy to reciprocate. Thanks - RecycledPixels (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook Airlines
There are two ways of history in Thomas Cook Airlines Limited. Formerly being MyTravel Airways Limted and Thomas Cook Airlines UK Limited before merger. Technically speaking one was established in 2000 as JMC Air Services Limited and one in 1986 as Trans-European Airways. So is it correct to put both on the template? (Airline7375 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC))


 * The Thomas Cook Airlines that existed until a few weeks ago is the company that used to be My Travel, The original JMC/Thomas Cook Airlines was made dormant and eventually closed down in 2013. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook Group Airlines
Thomas Cook Group Airlines is not an airline, it was a division/segment of the Thomas Cook Group that controlled the airlines of it, can you confirm? (Airline7375 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC))


 * Yes 7375 it was never an airline, the company was a holding company that didnt trade but held shares in other companies like Condor Luftransport on behalf of the group. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

TCGA
There is a user in the Thomas Cook Group Airlines page making edits to say Thomas Cook airlines Canada was part of the group airline. The group airline wasn’t established when that airline became defunct and it was a flight agreement meaning Thomas Cook airlines Canada we’re operated by another airline. I have removed the fake info but keeps being re-added. (Airline7375 (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC))


 * Thomas Cook Canada was never an "airline" just a brand and it was sold well before TCGA was formed as you say. I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fortaleza Airport II
Dear Milbourne One, I apologize to bring up this issue again. The article Fortaleza Airport was open for editing today after two weeks closed and for this reason I took the opportunity to do two minor editions. I was not surprised to notice that Seasoul reverted major edits including the ones you had placed back in the article, particularly the official name of the facility and the June 8, 1982 accident. No reason was given to revert these sourced information. These and other issues were open for discussion on the talk page under the paragraph Protected Article but SeaSoul never said a word. It seems that the article is held hostage of this unknown person, since even though there is a name, the red colour makes clear that no profile exists. In my 12 years and 24.000 editions mostly of aviation articles (I like this field because I am a Transportation Engineer), I have never seen such a situation. Perhaps it is better not to loose energy engaging myself on an editing battle as seemingly it happened in the past with other editors. However, I find it unfair that the article about one of the most important airports in Brazil remains innacurate. I am not an administrator and therefore I am limited in what I can do to solve the issue. For this reason again I come to ask for your help. Thank you. Bruno (Brunoptsem (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC))
 * I have noticed that Seasoul first acted on 29JUL19, but there were problems before with similar accounts such as Mateusportuga (see below Citation Needed on Brazilian Airports) and CGB17. The latter has been blocked. I suspect that it is the same person and periodically changes the account. The person seems to be able to override the display of the IP by giving a false name so that cannot be located. But because it is a name and not just a number, he/she bypasses protected articles. (Brunoptsem (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC))
 * Dear Milbourne One, I am reinstating the VP168 accident in the article but Seasoul continuously deletes it. No reason is given, neither is an explanation given on the talkpage. There are two reliable references and the accident is according to WikiProject Airports. I kindly ask for your intervention. Thanks. (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC))
 * Dear Milbourne One, Seasoul decided to leave the accident though with some editing in the text. I have further edited wit an effort to compromise with his idea. Thanks (Brunoptsem (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC))

Update on Hewanorra International Airport
Our vandalizing user at Hewanorra International Airport got himself an account and sadly undid all the cleanup again. Would you have a look and restore the revised version which is in accordance with our guidelines and looked much better? He also is engaged in an edit war at George F. L. Charles Airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.113.117 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed on Brazilian Airports
Dear MilbourneOne, I also call your attention to Mateusportuga. Again this is an unregistered user who, because he edits with a name and not an IP, he is able to by-pass most controls. Mateusportuga is specialized in adding content without sources, particularly new flights and destinations. He started his work on 15JUN19 and at first the name Mateusportuga was in blue colour and not it is in red. In his talk page, more than one moth ago both I and our colleague Jetstreamer have warned him to add reliable sources but he simply ignores it. One good example is Brasília International Airport: he added new LA flights to ASU, LIM and SCL. Though correct, he never gives sources and I constantly have been placing "citation needed". Is there anything we can do? Thanking for your advice. (Brunoptsem (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC))


 * Brunoptsem I have left a note on their talk page, we will have to see if they take notice. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear MilbourneOne, each day I discover a new case. This time was Hercílio Luz International Airport. Exactly the same problem but the account, also red, is Supermarioso. I left a note on his talk page even though I doubt there will be any change. (Brunoptsem (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC))

Louisville Muhammed Ali Intl Airport (SDF) data discrepancy
Hello and good day. I believe in January you made a change to the acreage of SDF Airport. In the lede and facilities section, was 1500 acres, you changed it to 1200 acres, was changed back again to 1500, I changed it to 1200 and several months later was changed back to 1500 acres. If you click the citation (Reference#1), it goes to FAA form 5010, which is very reliable which says 1200 acres. The editor changing this data is using the airport website, which is unreliable. Any way to change the acreage to 1200 and permanantly protect it somehow?
 * Also in your Aircraft articles created, #38, Gregg Air, I cant find anything about it. Maybe deleted by an editor? I corrected a few of your redirects, Gregg Air is the only article I couldn't find anything about. Excellent articles you have written about aviation! Thank you for your time.2601:581:8000:BDC0:95F:1CF0:A2B:50F4 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks 2601, I believe that Gregg Air was probably deleted along the way. I will have a look at SDF airport later when I have more time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I corrected SDF Airport to 1,200 acres, which is the correct data. Hope it sticks. Have a good day.2601:581:8000:BDC0:ED0D:73CF:7C9A:2B4E (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Y-20 article
Hello Admin MilborneOne.

There has been some speculated accusation on the Xian Y-20's development page. BilCat has already pointed out that it is just speculation from books.

I removed those contents from the article. If in the future disruptive edits comes up. I will let you know.

Thank you.

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:A951:4781:5A41:7CB5 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Y-20 page disruptive editing begin.
Hello Admin MilborneOne. Could you please do something about this.

There is this 82.34.69.170 user.

He is doing the same thing on the page again.

He keeps using the outdated source which BilCat rebuked over one year ago and now he is using a source from UK which did not mention Y-20 what so ever. This clearly violate Wikipedia reliable source rule.

Xi'an Y-20

Please stop him.

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:28F8:9F96:D0A1:9BA2 (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible time-out
Hey Milborne could you possibly put on a temp block, user has been unresponsive, uncooperative, and has quite the list of uploaded copyrighted images. - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They have been discussed a twice at WP:ANI without a result, dont particularly want to barge in when other admins appear to be watching the case but it clear they are a bit of a pain and fails to communicate. I will still keep an eye on the RTAF article to see if they cause more problems. MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)