User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 8

Fiat cr. 42 vs. Hurricanes in Battle of Britain?

 * Hello, here is Gian Piero, from Rome... are you talking about the two big fights between Cr 42 and Hurricanes, right? :) I think is important as they were the only two clashes between the fighters of the Cai and those of the Fighter command, and it showed some interesting caracteristics... where the Fiat could out turn the Hurrican with just one half roll, the Hurricanes had the speed and the armament...in no other teather there has been such a clash with entirely formed Gruppi of Biplanes and of the British monoplanes... so it shows the differences between the two types of aircraft.... and is is very interesting because of the very different claims of the two parts... no losses for the Raf, 9 victories claimed by Regia Aeronautica, more than 10 Falcos shot down for the RAF only two losses for the Italians, plus a plane that lost the way and landed on orford ness....

I have manu charateristics about Hurricanes... do I put them on the variants sections? regards, gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a better place to discuss the CR42 v Hurricane would be in the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain article where other comparisions have been made on other aircraft type. The Hurricane article is just an overview of the type and not a description of every combat or comparision to every other aircraft type. If you have any new facts about the Hurricane then please add them with a related reference but you need to consider the balance between subjects as not to give undue weight to different areas. MilborneOne (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-written articles on Italian World War II combat aircraft
A new editor has been active in systematically changing all articles that pertain to Italian aircraft in World War II, see Fiat CR.42 Falco, Macchi C.200 Saetta,Macchi C.202 Folgore and Fiat G.50 Freccia as examples which I do not see as a problem. However, the same editor has also re-edited the Curtiss P-40, Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane articles inserting contentious claims of superiority of Italian types. Each statement. albeit always referenced, refers to individual actions. There could possibly be a situation where an Italian biplane actually downed a more modern fighter but that does not really does not address the issue that the editor stated to me, i.e. in redressing the current view of Italian World War II combat aircraft as being inferior. He implicitly stated that a forty-year history of historians who saw Italian aviation in that light have to be challenged. I am sensing an intervention here... (LOL) FWiW, can some of the more experienced hands here take a look at the contributions of this editor Bzuk (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Etihad Airways
Hi MilborneOne! can you please handle this user (user: GS350). This person is ruining the Etihad article. Its like he is the owner of that page. What ever edit he does, he does not even cite any references. he is arguing that Etihad has firm orders for 11 777-300ERs but i have shown him my reference (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=777&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=777&ViewReportF=View+Report) that Etihad has 10 firm orders for 777-300ERs. he is not ready to believe. he writes anything without any references or sources (i have told him many times that if his info is correct then atleast he should show sources and references, BUT he just simply edits). Now it has become simply Annoying. Thanks (Druid.raul (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Cyprus Turkish Airlines
Why do you keep deleting the history of KTHY. It might not be interesting to you but for people who want to learn about KTHY its interesting and educational.


 * Not really a matter of interesting most of it was non-notable trivia - pease refer to related talk page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Airline destinations articles
Hi MilborneOne! I have noticed two common types of destination pages, e.g British Airways destinations and Aer Lingus destinations both have different formats. My question is, is there any rules on how destination pages are to be presented? Also, is it a policy to not have flags on the pages? Best Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I still dont think we have an agreed format, I have just changed the project example to point to the British Airways version and brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines although I dont have a view on which is best. One thing that has been agreed is no flags. MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:KTHY 737-800(new livery).jpg
Earlier I uploaded this photo and you have deleted it regarding copyright problems. I have the email allowing me by the author to use it on wikipedia. Who should I forward this email to? Thanks robertwilliams2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams2009 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Category query
Evening MilbourneOne. You know I've added a page on the Vickers Vellore and included in it a bit about the Vellox. I've redirected the latter to the new page and would like to add both types to the category:Vickers aircraft. "Category:Vickers aircraft|Vellore" sorts the first one, but when I add "Category:Vickers aircraft|Vellox" below, nothing further happens. I can see why this might be but have not yet found a work-around. Any thoughts? It must be a common problem (and have simple solution?). Cheers, TSRL (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello TSRL you cant have two cats the same, the only way of doing it is to add the category to the redirect page - which I have done - it is the only way to get Vellox into the cat page. MilborneOne (talk)


 * Thanks for a helpful and fast response.TSRL (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

London City Airport
You remember this topic? You were quick to remove the section on Opposition to the London City Airport. Even though Heathrow, Standstead all had a section dedicated to residents who were objecting to the airport.

I complained and you made addedd a tiny mention. So where did these lines go now?. You were quick to revert any mention of objections to the airport. But the one line that you yourself put in has been removed! Even a link to the campaign site does not exist. Nope Nothing!!!. So why were you not quick to revert their edits??

As mentioned this pages is controlled by pro-aviation people that don't give a toss about residents who have to live in misery and can't even open windows to enjoy a summer breaze.... If it is not the flights from the London City Airport, it is the 4.30am flights to Heathrow.....

I can't sell my home due the credit crunch....

You think any decision about expansion was made in honesty and integrity? Just look at the corrupt politicians and their expense claims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.47.229 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will have a look and see what happened - I watch over 4000 articles I dont always notice all the changes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the original text back in, the same IP editor (who has not made any other edits) removed the link to the campaign website and replaced the text with different text saying the local community would benefit from the scheme. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin
Just been looking at your latest: good to see it logged. Couple of points: (minor) you have the 1973 ed of AJJ and quote p.392; whereas in my copy, still 2nd ed but "with corrections" (probably by his son) the Dolphin is on p.382. Dare I ask you to double check, as the numbers are so similar? More interesting is to look in AJJ's dH book (Putnam), published in 1978. In the 5 years he has got hold of two photos, rather tight ones of engine + undercarriage (showing that initially it had trousered fixed gear before the retractable). He also has got some drawings that show the span to be 50' 6", not the 53' 7" he quoted earlier, which he attributes to a contemporary press release. Finally he notes Geoffrey deH Jnr's log book as showing it only flew one more time. I'm happy to make these updates, which also include a length, but I thought you would be interested in the history of his discoveries. Since all sources are AJJ there is no clash of authors.TSRL (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Timm N2T
Hi, Milborne!

I follow your explanation, but the situation is less than satisfactory! When I looked up Timm in the "T" detailed aircraft manufacturers listing - "there it wasn't" ! I would have thought most people would look a type up under its manufacturer - "Avro Vulcan", "Douglas DC-3" etc etc !

My own planned new articles, US included, will continue to start with the makers name! I "got away" with that with the article on the Columbia JL - the JL is its US Navy designation. I now await retribution in due course from "over the water" ! RuthAS (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just re-read the guidance notes. B-52, C141, F-15 may well work fine - but very few would know of N2T. That addition of "Tutor" (stolen from Avro!) doesnt really change its obscurity level! . . . . I'll just plough on in my own idiosyncratic way, trying to maintain clarity and ease-of-use for Wikipedia users! RuthAS (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

HELP!! DATA LOSS!
I saved an edit for the 14 - 19 victory section of List of World War I flying aces and the entire section disappeared. Much diligent work up the flue into never-never land.

Is it retrievable?

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem I just undid your last edit! MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wish I knew what I did wrong and/or different that time.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to my paucity of tech skills, you shall have to imagine the Great Catch Award:

A firemen's net surrounded by eager volunteers catching falling data headed for a smash. You, of course, are the volunteer wearing the Captain's hat.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here to help and appreciate your hard work on the article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Archives
Hey, want to sort my discussion page so I got archives as it gotten to large, how do I do it like yours? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks MilborneOne for the archive. Best Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Hi, it was (User:Zaps93) who started the thing by calling me Selfish etc etc. i told him that we don't need so much info on Terminated destinations as its just making the article go unnecesarily long. Plus there were refercences for just 14 Terminated destinations out of the 90+ terminated destinations. It was he who started reverting endlessly. That "Racism" comment was not for him at all, He said that he had seen my talk page and told me that i had a lot of complaints. I said this "I have complaints only from some White Users because i made them Taste their own medicine of Racsim" because it was true, "White users means some european editors and NOT this Zaps93". This European user started the racsim thing with me related to Airbus A350 orders and deliveries long back so i had retaliated. Thats It. I swear i won't do it again with any one except User talk:Jasepl. This is the only "Thing" i want to attack because this Jasepl does not edit, he just reverts. After reverting other users edits every day and increasing his contributions by doing this, he shows himself as a Important Editor on Wikipedia. Look at his contributions page and you will find only Reverts and nothing else, Hardly any proper info he has given to any article except Reverting other people's edits who search the net trying to find information to update the article. Its really annoying sometimes. (Druid.raul (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Saro P.531
Evening Milbourne. I've just been looking at your latest and comparing the article in London's Saro (Putnam) book. I'm still trying to untangle his type numbers etc, but two points for now, both about the specs. I think these are for the first machine, G-APNU, judging by the weights and if so I can add a little more detail. But did you mean de Havilland Gnome. In the description you have derated Turmo in agreement with London. Suspect 1000 hp would have wrecked the transmission! The two images are of the same aircraft, G-APNV incidentally.TSRL (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New! Pakistani military history task force
&emsp;&emsp;

I am contacting you because I see you have contributed to articles about the military history of Pakistan or its armed forces. To help improve Wikipedia's coverage of this important topic, and to provide support and coordination of individual editors, the Military history WikiProject has now set up a newPakistani military history task force.

If you would like to join up, as a founder member of this important new initiative, please add your name to the Participants' List. Thank you for your time. I hope you can help. Roger Davies talk 06:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Cardiff
Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FlyDubai destinations
A minor war is going on between me and an editor Zaps93 who previously edited under the username Joey Boeing 777, your reversals of his edits and instructions not to add flags may have led him to create this new identity under which by the way he had again stared adding flags to destinations lists of some airlines. Regarding FlyDubai the destination layout I'm doing will eventually look better since more destinations in various regions will be added and the list willl grow, the same style can be seen at Oman Air, the format of Zaps93 will start looking shabby since this style of listing isn't suited to a main article and only looks good in a seperate destinations page.116.71.54.240 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I just comment! CRAP! I am not edit warring as you have told me already about that, that was my last revert... AND Joey Boeing 777, never heard of before! UTTER RUBBISH! STOP MAKING ACCUSATION THAT ARE NOT TRUE! So tell ya what.... Go learn before making these assumptions... And MilborneOne, just for the count... I've never heard of Joey Boeing 777. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I have changed the destinations on FlyDubai to the standard format - please dont change it without comment on the related talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now moved to a separate article. Just a suggestion rather than reverting each other I am sure you all want to improve wikipedia. Perhaps you can take your ideas to the project pages and we can have a discussion about format and come to an agreed one we can all work to and move to help each other improve the articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to do to many things at once I changed Air Arabia instead !! sorry. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard format does not suit main article listed destinations, that is the point I am trying to make, the whole article looks bad in this style, elaborate layouts like that should only be in a seprate page.116.71.54.240 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I understand your point, but it really needs to be discussed at WikiProject Airlines/Destinations. I dont have a problem with different formats for main and destination articles but it really needs to be discussed and agreed at the project level. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for creating a seprate page for Air Arabia.116.71.54.240 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Airlines/Destinations
Hey Milborne, just to let you know I put down my idea of how to present destinations on WikiProject Airlines/Destinations as you requested, please read what I have proposed. Best regards, Zaps93 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Zaps I will go an have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

EL#10 and official pages
Hi! I noticed you removed the link to Air France's twitter as per WP:EL Normally to be avoided #10.

However there is a caveat. The section clarifies: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" - Therefore if this is Air France's official twitter, it would be allowed as per WP:EL - See Wikipedia:EL WhisperToMe (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic headquarters
Are you near Virgin Atlantic's headquarters? If so, would you like to photograph the headquarters and upload the photo to the Wikimedia commons? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am, see what I can do. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hawker P.1127
Hi Milbourne. Noticed your tweak to the infobox image. I was in touch with BillC and suggested to him it must be XP984 as it seems to me to have a swept wing. Maybe it's the angle, but the first prototype XP831 had a straight trailing edge. Double check?TSRL (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may well be correct my info came from http://www.flickr.com/photos/publicresourceorg/493996173/ SI Neg. 2003-4821. Date: na...Three-quarter right front view from below of Hawker P.1127 (s/n XP831) in hovering flight; England, 1962. Original NASA caption: 'VTOL-NASA test pilot from Ames Research Center, Fred Drinkwater demonstrates VTOL plane in hovering flight. Invited by the British to come to England, Fred took the opportunity and evaluated this British developed P-1127 VTOL. Fred said, 'It is a fantastic airplane.' This is the only operational VTOL in the World.'..Credit: Unknown. (Smithsonian Institution) . Certainly has XP under the right wing, perhaps we need a little more digging around. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm wrong.  I downloaded it and did a bit of gamma enhancing, and the serial is clearly XP831 (well the 1 is not quite so clear but the rest is), not XP984.  Thanks for the link. Caption stands!TSRL (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Westland Wizard
Can you have a look at Westland Wizard? A peer review has been requested for the article, and on looking at it, the three photos appeared to be suspect (which I have tagged as possibly unfree) and large chunks of the text seems suspiciously similar to This article in Fight. This may need the attention of an admin to check on any copyvio issues.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure it was published in the UK more than 70 years ago with an unknown author so the text and images may be in the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reduced LAN Airlines fleet by more than 20 planes?
Hello MilborneOne, please could you source, how you reduced the LAN Airlines fleet by arround 20 planes? I follow the evolution of the LAN fleet for years know, and even I admit I cannot tell you exactly the size of the fleet, I am quite sure they have not reduced their fleet that dramatically as you indicated (58 planes). Could you source a valid and reliable source, and if not, undo it to the old value. Thanks in advance. --81.210.144.26 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on article talk page, source used was added to article at edit time. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bushmaster-acr-brochure.jpg fair use
I have no problem replacing the whole brochure with a smaller image. If one can be found, with a suitable license.

I've been looking. So far nobody (including Bushmaster or Magpul) has released a PD or CC or GFDL image of the current rifle that I can find, despite them showing it off at SHOT shows and test ranges and so forth.

It's replaceable, but should be held on to as is until a replacement is actually available. And I'm looking. Trust me, I've been looking. The brochure's images aren't very good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Article in trouble
I have been trying to build a consensus on development of Forward Air Control. There is a Gordian knot of military terms that needs untangling: Forward air control (airborne); Forward air control (ground), a.k.a Joint Terminal Attack Controller; Air Liaison Officer. There is also a rush by writers with differing viewpoints (self included) to build the article, each to their own design. The result is becoming the classic definition of a camel; a horse designed by committee.

I do not wish to get into an edit war or some other kind of spitting contest. I do want this article to be clear, informative, and focused.

I believe a senior Wikipedist's intervention is needed, for the good of the work. Please intervene.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your reaction posted on Forward air control talk page. Georgejdorner (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit protection. Maybe we can all cool down and quit working at cross purposes.

I have posted a suggestion for developing the article on the talk page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure of how to work under edit protection. However, I have developed a replacement for the Vietnam War history section on my user page; it is a better fuller piece than that which I previously posted. I invite your comments on it.

Now, as to how I could post it...do I invite the others working on the article to read and/or critique it first? Or can I just ask you to post it?

I will note that it contradicts the present lead about the subject of FACs and air interdiction. However, I can't change history.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So I posted the replacement article, and it was promptly reverted back out, with a snarky little comment on the talk page.

I'm getting pretty disgusted with the incivility on that talk page, whether it's NetherSarum being condescending to Cyclopaedic, or THMPin making a wisecrack about my writing a monograph on my own war experiences. If the Wikipedia rules on civility aren't being violated there, the spirit sure is.

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Milbone,

I was re-reading your suggestion that Forward air control become part of Close air support.

The problem with that approach is that close air support is often (but not always) guided by forward air control, so they are not truly congruent. The other problem is that forward air control has been used to direct air interdiction missions (as against the Ho Chi Minh Trail), or even strategic bombing (re: World War II Pathfinders).

That having been said, I realize your suggestion illustrates the lack of distinction in the forward air control article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

B-2 Spirit
Please direct your content discussion to A question of external links. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Images posted by By78
If you have a look at File:PLAN-kj2000-inflight.jpeg, you can see that it was only uploaded in the last couple of days. Yet this website has not been updated since January. This provides further evidence in my view that the user is using other people's works and pretending they're his own.

When will you start deleting images if he doesn't provide evidence that they're his? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - Still not sure what process allows me to delete all the images without actually tagging them! if you know I would appreciate any hints! MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought that you had already started the discussion process or something. Given he's been online and ignored your message I suggest you start mass-tagging them for deletion. Use the standard deletion process. I find it works best for images as people look at that page regularly. Plus you can list lots of images easily.
 * I'd do it myself but you clearly seem to know more about this than I do. But if you do list them let me know and I'd be happy to chip in. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Auster AOP.9
Thanks for adding the info on the AOP.9M. I was thinking about production numbers (the Simpson/Airlife number is 182 and the old Wiki number 145. Do you think www.worldairforces.com is citable?  It has 2 x SA machines (from 1957-67), 4 x Hong Kong (65-71) and 35 Indian (55-81).  A possible interpretation, given that the AOP.9 was out of production by 1965 is that the HK aircraft were second hand, making overseas sales 37.  If the UK had 145, then the total production would be 182.  This is just speculation until we have a reliable source; any thoughts?  Wikipedia agrees with worldairforces numbers and dates for HK but cites no source!TSRL (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hong Kong aircraft were former AAC aircraft. The RAF/AAC AOP9s were in the following batches:


 * 56 against Contract 6/Acft/5920 (WZ662 to WZ679, WZ694 to WZ731) (I dont have any MSNs)
 * 25 against Contract 6/Aircraft/11436/CB5(c) (XK274 to XK382, XK406 to XK421) (msn 100 to 124)
 * 15 against Contract KC/N/034/CB5(c) (XN407 to XN412, XN435 to XN443) (msn 125 to 139)
 * 33 againt Contract KC/N/047/CB5(c) (XP232 to XP254, XP277 to XP286) (msn 140 to 172) (XP254 off contract and retained as AOP11 prototype)
 * 16 against Contract KC/N/058/CB5(c) (XR236 to XR246, XR267 to XR271) (msn 173 to 188)
 * 1 replacement for XP254 against Contract KC/N/047 (XS238) (msn ?)

So the highest known msn is 188 but I ma not sure that indicated how many were built! but that is 145 AOP9 and 1 AOP11 for the RAF/AAC. Strange I cant find anything on the Indian or South African machines and I am not sure how reliable worldairforces is but that would give 145+35+2 = 182 but if XR271 was msn 188 ? Clear as mud I think. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I'd hoped the Auster site http://www.auster.ukf.net/production.htm would help, but it is not complete and has some worrying features: no mention of XS238 and an assignment of frame no. 10/1 to WZ662, aka G-BKVK, which the CAA have registered as 10/2. Taking their early msn as right, there is a 43 place gap between 56 and 100 (or a 42 place gap if we have to add 1 to get WZ662 right), so there is room to fit the overseas sales in; starting the second RAF/AAC block at 100 has an artificial look about it, maybe Auster turning a page and leaving a few numbers for further o/s sales.  As you say, it seems hard to get info on the Indian and SA machines.TSRL (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Having searched the Auster site for IN- serials, I've found two blocks: IN-755 to -64 and IN-1659 to -83 making 35 in all.  No msn.  Fr.Wiki says the same and that the first block was IAF and the second the Army.  No-one gives sources.TSRL (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange that a British aircraft has such a vague early history! MilborneOne (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Jefford cites on Squadrons are useful: does he have anything on their use with 653 Squadron (at present dependent on a personal recollection ref; hard to disbelieve) or any support for the assertions about the Malayan ops of 656?TSRL (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It says 653 operated the Auster V between July 44 and Sep 45, disbanded at Hoya 16 September 1945. Nothing after this date.
 * It has a lot more on 656, reformed at Sembawang 29 June 48 from 1914 flight with the Auster AOP5 (operated until May 51).


 * 15 July 1948 1902, 1903 and 1907 Flights added detachments were Taiping (1902 Flt) Seremban (1903 Flt) Kai Tak (1903 Flt) Kuala Lumper (1407 Flt) Kluang (1914).


 * 17 August 1948 to Changi detachments at Taiping (1902), Kuala Lumper (1907), Kluan (1914).


 * 12 April 1950 to Kuala Lumper dets at Taiping (1902, 1907 and 1914), Changi (1902, 1911), Benta (1902, 1907, 1911, 1914), Sembawang (1902, 1907, 1911), Ipoh (1902), Johore Bahru (1907), Kluang (1907, 1911), Seremban (1907, 1911), Temerloh (1911, 1914), Port Dickson (1914)


 * July 1950 Auster AOP6 (-Apr 1956)
 * September 1955 Auster AOP9 (-Sep 57)
 * 1 September 1957 transfered to Army Air Corps as 2, 7, 11 and 14 Flights. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.TSRL (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Astraeus (airline)
Hey MilborneOne, just to let you know there is edits taking place on Astraeus' fleet, other users state there is 2 Boeing 737-300's on lease to Seagle Air but I keep changing it to show that there isn't, due to the fact, CAA states there is no -300 aircraft. Any suggestions about this? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zaps93 I will keep an eye on it, problem is the two -300s are dry-leased to Seagle Air and OM- regd so dont appear on CAA. Really need a reliable source that they are leased by Astraeus and not the aircraft leasing company. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Emirates Airline
Hi MilborneOne, i have been thinking of spltting the Emirates airline article into 4 or 5 smaller more specific articles, so that the article doesn't get too long. At the moment the size is about 106 kilobytes. I'd like to bring this down to 70 - 80 kilobytes without deleting or losing any information. Recently someone did make try to make the article smaller but removed more than 30 kilobytes and really degraded the quality of the article. What do you think? (MoHasanie (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).


 * Seems a reasonable idea, just make it clear on the talk page before you do anything then other editors can comment. If you need any help then ask. If you create a child article you do need to make it clear in the edit summary that the content was copied from the main article because of GFDL licensing issues. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

PIA destinations
Sorry, but this guy is becoming a pest and he dosent even have a profile how can you call him editor? he should let others decide how they want to maintain their respective national airlines related articles, as long as it conforms to wikipedia standards and does not constitue blatant vandalism. There is no rule in wikipedia stating which destinations can be listed and which cant as long as they have a reference.116.71.39.150 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that nobody owns any article. In this case they were removing non-direct destinations which have not been allowed in the past. Although we really need to get some agreement and consensus at WP:AIRLINES on format and content then we can all work to the same guideline and concentrate on improving wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems to be owning all articvels and setting him to his preference, why am I not being able to edit PIA article now? 116.71.39.150 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody owns any article, you need to be more specific as your IP address has not edited the PIA article. It may be better to get yourself a user name. If you have anything more specific about PIA then please let me know. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel all all former destinations shopuld be allowed in the list regradless of their status as tech stop or seasonal or just one month service as long as they are referenced, or do away with the terminated destinations section completely because many airlines articles do not have any references for these. As for concensus on articles it seems only me, you and Zaps93 are interested in discussing this.119.155.11.226 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Emirates Airline
Hi MilborneOne. I agree we do not need the same fleet table on the main article, but there should be one. Because it is much more simple and easier to follow. Those who would lile to see more detials world go to the main article. Many airlines have this. Malysia airline, Singapore airlines, they all keep a much more simple table in the main article, and have a much more detailed one in the seperate fleet article. So, i say bring back the fleet table, but have it more simple. In fact, the one i had used, summarised the routes section, and i removed 3 columns.

(MoHasanie (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).


 * OK I understand, just need to be carefull of content creep, in that editors will try and expand it, you are welcome to put it back in. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, i don't uderstand why the article has a C - Class rating. I mean all the refrences are provided for almost evrything, and 95% of it is accurate. (MoHasanie (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).


 * Not an area I deal with, but if you leave a message at WikiProject_Aviation/Assessment I am sure somebody will come and have a look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

MilborneOne i don't understand why no one has looked at the Emirates article. Is it that bad, because i think its quite good, atleast a B class, and possibly an A or FL class. What do you think of the article? Please give me some advice on imrpoving the article.

I beleive though the article is complete. Everything is sourced, their links to media files, lots of images which have no copyright issues, and its easy to naviagte through. It also has quite a good introduction. Should i nominate it as a Featured article candidate.(MoHasanie (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).


 * Again assessment is not really my area but you have requested an assessment so we shal see if you get any feedback. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifications and models
Evening MilbourneOne. I've just been looking at the specifications on the Heston Racer page, which I think you originated and sourced from BCA 1974. My ed. of that is 1960, but the figures you quote are the same in it. Since then we have acquired a wing area via Bzuk, which is the same as that given at ref 1, the web page, though there is no ref. Also the hp has been creeping up, from Jackson's "derated" 2300 to 2450 in Bzuk (plausible but uncited). Later Gruntguru (no talk page) briefly put it up to 3000+, before returning to 2450+, though he mentions a figure of 4000 hp in modified text. I've put a cn against the latter and inadvertently removed the + signs before I realised what they meant. I'm worried that the numbers are drifting away from those in the source we are claiming for them: adding numbers that weren't there seems fine so long as they get a separate cite (I've done this often enough), but if the cited source says e.g the span is 33 ft (made up) as part of a set of dimensions, it requires (it seems to me) some good reason for changing it, even with cites let alone without. A footnote (X gives a figure of 33.5 ft) might do. Otherwise we lose integrity.

I guess the question is if to revert (the powers, as the WA was not given originally) to your first numbers. Could chat about this to Bzuk but not to Gruntguru. Like many of my novice queries, this must be old ground!

Final, separate newbie Q: is there policy on photos of models (aircraft, that is)? I can see we might get flooded out and have no intention of doing this, though I guess some might argue that in the absence of a ga diagram and/or photo of the real thing, an image of a good model helps the reader to imagine the aircraft. I ask since I noted a model pic on the Tipsy Junior page; there the model image pre-dates RuthAs's photo.TSRL (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You may a good point about adding cites and changes from the original text. They have really should have a ref tag to show a different source. The WA should have a ref tag and I have added a fact tag to show it needs something. I am not sure we have a policy against models if no other media exists. The photo on the Racer page is the usual one but it is tagged as public domain uk government, not sure of the source but I doubt it is the UK government more likely Heston. Do you have any thoughts that the Napier-Heston name is more popular then just Heston? MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the picture: my 1960 BCA has this labelled (Photo: D.Napier and Son Ltd). On the name: I have no special knowledge, but would have gone for the simpler Heston, following Jackson.  However, I've just taken a straw poll in Flight (query: Heston Rcaer 1938-66) and got (sort of) a draw.  Out of seven red hits, 3 say Heston, 3 say Napier Heston  and one says Nuffield-Napier-Heston.  So maybe that's Napier Heston on penalties.  Or maybe I should search to more modern times.  Incidentally, one of these articles calls the Sabre used in the Racer "Sabre Special", but gives no power.
 * Does the model comment imply that there is a policy disencouraging the co-existence of of model photos with real ones? Just back from Old Warden; lots of very real and smelly aircraft there. An encyclopaedia in which the smeller could find the odour of Castrol R would be a joy ...TSRL (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the confirmation on the image. I think it would be easier to leave the name. I dont think we have a policy or guideline on models, I think images of models may help in some of the rarer aircraft articles, but we may have to take it to the aircraft project for opinions. Dont think we can have smells so I must try and visit Old Warden this year !! MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No. 71 Eagle Squadron - James Harrington - Notable members
I have to draw exception to your omission of James Harrington as a notable member of No. 71 Eagle Squadron/ 334th Fighter Squadron. Harrington's death was noted in the obituaries of Time Magazine the week following his death. He is especially notable now because he happened to be an instrumental figure at a moment of history that directly influenced today's world events: Osama bin Laden's radical behavior is at least in part credited by the bin Laden family to his lack of having a father while growing up. What I did not include, and I know this intimately as a member of his extended family, is that at the time of their deaths Harrington was not actually employed by bin Laden. Harrington was employed by a certain well-known government entity to help ensure bin Laden's safety while in the air. He may not be Lindsey Lohan, but I do not believe it is sufficient to remove him simply because there's "no related article" on Harrington, and I feel his removal is especially insufficient on the grounds that he "doesn't seem notable" to you personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M L M 1950 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A sign of notability is that the individual has a wikipedia article so it is not a personal view. Perhaps as a member of his extended family that I would suggest you read our conflict of interest guideline. Perhaps you should discuss this on the article talk page, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Flight aware link
Can you expand on why you think this link is not encyclopedic? Also before adding a welcoming tag please check the user's talk page. Newbies generally dont archive their talk pages.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I needed to get your attention, I presumed somebody who has been editing only since March was still a newbie. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft for discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Etihad
Hi MilborneOne! can you please see the Etihad article. These new users (User Talk:AdamB4417, Special:Contributions/84.69.100.71) are removing the A330-300 orders from the fleet info as if they themselves have cancelled the order on behalf of Etihad Airways. the airbus website cleary mentions that Etihad has orders for A330-300s. and also (User:GS350) who seldomnly keeps on doing his past stuff again and again. (Druid.raul (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC))


 * OK I have added citations for the Airbus orders, users should not change them without providing a citation. Just be careful of WP:3RR. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaspel
I think this so called editor is now going overboard and is deliberately targetting my work by keeping track of it, kindly tell him to control himself, he's not even a wiki editor like you and others that I should accept his doings, even I can create a username with no profile and start editing like him, that does make me like you and others, in his talk page most people have posted with comments criticising him, unless hes deleted those.116.71.55.13 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to take action or not.116.71.40.97 (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with me now? hes deliberatly provoking me.116.71.40.97 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Try not to keep reverting his/her edits as it only provokes edit wars - I have created a separate destination list for Lufthansa Cargo in the standard format. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But he keeps doing it, so why shouldnt I when I am right? also it was decided that in main articles destinations will be listed regionally for Asia (Central, East, South, Southeast and Southwest) and North America (Caribbean), now hes adding continents there as well messing up appearence of article.116.71.57.31 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Milborne, recently I started a section futher down this page about destination formats, Jasepl has responded to this by insulting me on the Bulgaria Air destination page saying '(exactly what is the problem, child?)'! I have kindly asked him to put his opinion down on the WikiProject Airlines/Destinations page but he just keep reverting! and then on Flydubai he purposly reverted my edits saying 'reminds me of when my cat got sick'. I ask you to please have a word with him.
 * p.s. Is it me or does he live on reverts? I have only seen the odd edit but 99.99% of his edits are reverts. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK now he is going overboard and taking wikipedia rules and admin for granted, I recently updated Air India terminated destinations by adding authentic and official website references to all former stations they served, but he reverted it calling in IP vandal, since when are authentic/official references vandalism on wikipedia? I also removed unreferenced former destinations from Pakistan International Airlines destinations article and he reverted that too again calling it IP vandal, I thought wikipedia requires unreferenced material not be added, and to top it off hes trying to sound like an authentic wiki administartor, maybe to win support from you all, the fraud needs to be dealt with strenly, He is doing all this deliberatley to irritate people, even when reverts are not needed. Why arent you administrators controlling him.116.71.61.251 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 116 you are right the one think we said about terminated destinations is that they should be referenced. I have changed the PIA article as the references used are blogs and forums which are not reliable references. Suggest that perhaps each terminated destination is referenced so others can check that reliable references are used. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Better still to just do away with treminated destinations section, also will you take action against Jaspel, hes now in defiance reverting even correct edits, like bringing back Zaps93s table format destination list in FlyDubai which I have reverted to normal format again, and Syrian Air terminated destinations which were removed due to lack of references. Hes deliberately doing all this please control him, or report to seniors if you cant, thanks. By the way have we reached a concensus on how main airline article destinations are to be listed?118.103.224.168 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He has removed an official Emirates destinations refernce map, showing some former destinations, with the map gone there is no need to retain the terminated destinations section, as it contradicts with this websites demand of citations and refernces for everything.116.71.36.184 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages
User MilborneOne is there a rule about a user erasing his talk page? Because User:Ericthebrainiac‎ erased his talk page. (MoHasanie (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).


 * A user can remove anything from a talk page other than block warning, it is assumed that the user must have read it even though it was removed. I think the details are in WP:TALK. Remember it is still all in the page history so any comments are still available to be read. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because User:Ericthebrainiac‎ erased all his talk page including some block warnings.(MoHasanie (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

WP:BRD
Is it your philosophy to abide by this essay? I'm asking because you didn't in the Cathay Pacific article. ShondaLear (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you will find an invitation to discuss is part of any dispute resolution. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you didn't exactly answer the question. Your bold edit was the deletion of the engine information.  I reverted your deletion.  You then reverted me.  The second reversion is not part of the "D".  So, I'll ask again.  ShondaLear (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BRD is not a policy or guideline if you had restored it I would not have removed it again without discussion - You are welcome to comment at the non-standard listing of engine information at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly, I was already aware that WP:BRD is neither a policy nor a guideline. That is why I referred to it as an "essay".  But it is a civilized way of editing on Wikipedia that I hope an administrator would follow.  As for your other comment, I did restore the engine information and then you removed it a second time.  So, I do not understand your comment.  ShondaLear (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the information on the belief it was against consensus, you (a very new editor of only a few weeks) reverted the change so I removed it again as most new editors do not normally understand the reasons behind some of the behaviour on wikipedia, but when I removed it the second time I invited you to discuss the change so I could explain the reasons why. Just to make sure I brought it up at the related project WP:AIRLINES to check my understanding of the current consensus was correct and that you may have a point which needed testing. Which is where we are now. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The engine information was added on 19 May 2009, and the article has been edited many times since then. Perhaps if there ever were a consensus about excluding the information, the consensus has changed.  Consensus can be formed through editing (not merely through discussion), and silence equals consent.  ShondaLear (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR concerning Air France Flight 447
Are you aware that you are on the verge of violating WP:3RR concerning this article? You already have made three reversions there during the last 24 hours. ShondaLear (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern but none of my reversions were related to edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You should re-read the policy: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material...." ShondaLear (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Milb1 is an admin - I think he's well aware of the policies, and how to interpret and abide by them. - BillCJ (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and apparently not. ShondaLear (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If users are really interested in my reversions then I would also suggest they read the reverted text in the context they were made and the section in WP:3RR on exculsions. If anybody then requires any further explanation for any edit I made then I am more than pleased to explain. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the fuss all about? Nothing wrong with MilborneOne's edits on AF447... Thanks/wangi (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the previous section, this is beginning to look like sour grapes over a previous edit conflict. It's time to move on, Shonda. No one else is going to think reverting a subsitution of the airliner photo for one of Pauly Shore is part of a revert war! - BillCJ (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you study WP:AGF. Seems to be an ongoing problem with your edits, doesn't it?  ShondaLear (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? I'm not the issue here. You're increasing harassment of Milb1 is. - BillCJ (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, the issue is 3RR. You;ve raised it, 3 editors have sadi no. So move on, or take it up at ANI. Or I can take it up there for you if you prefer. - BillCJ (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Be my guest. And thanks in advance!  ShondaLear (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I want this picture!
I have found a photo of World War I ace Georges Madon at http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/H18059. I lack the tech skills to use it in his article. If you could move it over there...and maybe to Wiki commons...it would further the Wikipedia cause.

It is a pretty nice informal shot, in contrast to the posed PR shot presently atop the article.

Thank you, sir. Georgejdorner (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * as requested - File:GeorgesMadonH18059.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried dubbing in this graphic with no success; I can't figure out how to do it. If you show me how to do it, then in the future... you know, don't slap a guy in the face with a trout, teach him how to fish. Please.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I had fiddled with the code and almost had that format. Guess I set the hook wrong, lol.

I moved the graphic to a point in the text that refers to Madon assuming command of a squadron of Spads because the graphic shows him leaning on the wing of his Spad. A caption stating such would work so nicely, and once again, I am unknowing. But educable.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Template
Thanks for your note! I just went for the shortest template title that wasn't already in use, just to make it quicker to type. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft on display
Like the section header; should be encouraged. Think many articles, in Survivors sections blur the (important, in my view) difference between the flying and the dead.TSRL (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an agreed alternate (or addition) to Survivors particularly when loads of flyers still exist (refer WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content). MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 747
Hey, thanks for adding the reference for the 37 years sentence. I was going to look for one, but you beat me to it. :) Keep up the good work. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockwell Ranger 2000
Nice entry on the Rockwell Ranger 2000. Btw, have you run across any info on the Cessna 526 CitationJet JPATS entry? It was unique in being a wholly US design, and I'd love to see us get an article on it. - BillCJ (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody has just given me a 1996 Brassey's World Aircraft Directory, and it has a section on the 526! I will have a look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Drat, you just beat me to it.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that it was BillCJ's fault he did ask!! - Appreciate any improvements you can make from your sandbox Nigel. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues of Self Promotion etc
Hello - thanks for the note about this issue.

I've looked over the guidelines again and continue to believe my contributions comply. I agree with the principles behind these guidelines dealing with financial gain etc.

The web site to which the referenced articles link carry no adverts and show only pro-bono work. All commissioned work is carried on an entirely separate web site. For example I undertake work free of any charge whatsoever providing families living abroad images of graves and inscriptions. Additionally a couple of my web pages are cited as educational resources. There is no pecuniary advantage - in fact there is an unmet cost in undertaking and maintaining this work. In these respects I share and behave several of the tenets of Wiki itself. My contributions also include a number of images placed directly in Wiki. I guess what I'm asking is who makes and how are judgements given about notions of self-promotion and self-interest. In the absence of any financial gain (and although its not productive to do so) how do you assess the motives of any contributor to Wiki whose contributions are anything more than anonymous? In respect of my web site links to which you refer it seems to me the strength of self promotion and self interest is no stronger than in the case of contributors to Wiki who post photographs requiring attribution. I have seen many images on the web and occasionally in other media carrying images displaying the wiki source and contributors name. You yourself have an extraordinary collection of aircraft images posted for which naturally you wish your contribution recognised and which you make clear in absolute terms.

Look forward to your thoughts and response to the questions posed. Best wishes, WyrdLight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdlight (talk • contribs) 09:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: hello again MilborneOne - a follow up question. I've just undertaken a very cursory trawl of internet aircraft sites. It is possible to generate over 7 pages full of references to sites, articles and pages using the images for which you require attribution. I'd be interested to hear how you put this in the context of "self promotion"?

This is a genuine question which goes to the heart of Wiki. A majority of users whose work on Wiki I have considered do exactly this. I see nothing wrong or inappropriate in this behaviour myself.

However a purist view (not mine)could be that this level of self-advertising is inappropriate and could lead to contact with you by air industry specialists looking for specific images or information. If this has already happened or at that point are you then acting in contravention of the Wiki policy you've quoted? This may not involve any payment, but it would be clear that such contact and indeed the degree of usage of your images and the resulting self-promotion has arisen only through Wiki.

Clearly there is a balance to be struck here as it seems rather onerous to expect every image uploaded by contributors to be considered for acceptance through the talk page. The usual mechanisms of rabid public scrutiny seem sufficient!

But that brings me to the issue of uninformed intervention. For example - your note about my link concerning the Brookwood Military Cemetery states there is no need to have a link to all / another cemetery. You couldn't have examined the site for as now stated on the talk page this cemetery is something of a microcosm of participating allied forces and shows something of the contribution of ethnic minorities and muslims to that war effort.

Look forward to your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdlight (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for the response to part 1. Although I make image submissions to Wiki directly the issue arose about a link to a significant body of work some of which is not in any case replicable on Wiki. This is not an issue about a single image (and see above the grey line Wiki paints) but a link to several hundreds of images organised in a body of work.

Although I don't profit from submissions to Wiki there is also an inherent hypocrisy (these are not comments about you, but about Wiki) about a policy which seemingly portrays concerns about "self promotion" while requiring that works provided free are available for commercial exploitation without regard to the labour involved in their creation. One signs up on the basis of providing works accordingly (the free encyclopedia) but pursuit of such a policy where there are no obvious advantages (adverts onward links etc etc) seems contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdlight (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

re-naming
Not re-naming as such, moving which is the proper way so that history etc. goes with it. I stumbled on The Avro list of aircraft which were not in any standard format for article titles. I have attempted to rectify this, i think successfully. I didn't feel that there was any need for discussion as i was only adding relevant info into the title and/or tidying up messy re-directs and the like. If you don't like what I have done then revert it, or do you feel the need for discussion?Petebutt (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started reverting but it really needs to be discussed, it is not normal to move a lot of articles against consensus without somekind of discusion. Perhaps it might be better to explain at the aircraft project the reasons why. Can I ask you to stop for the time being. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a right mess of re-directs before i got there, and I have just tried to put them all in the same format as per the naming conventionsPetebutt (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They all appear to meet the naming convention before you changed! them but can you please bring up your points at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Avro 638 Club Cadet?!! Never heard of it but I have heard of the Avro Club Cadet. Also Roe Type F and G? Can you change these back? FWiW, lots of other changes to be considered, as well. Some very unusual title moves such as "Harrier Jump Jet"?!!! Bzuk (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Lockheed Aircraft Names
I'm not into joining project groups or long discussions with other editors, because other (archiving) projects often take my attention away from WP. However, I am often very teed orf about incorrect naming. For example, as far as I know, the T-33 is not, nor ever has been named the Shooting Star (see T-33 talk page). Today, I found that perhaps the majority of Lockheed articles are incorrectly named. None of the names beginning L. or L- are correct, except for the L-1011 series and the L-100 'marketing' numbers for Hercules. Obviously, a big article renaming exercise would be needed if a consensus can be reached. Can you help push the subject forward? MTIA.PeterWD (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you asked the question about the T-33 before and the DoD document http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l.pdf says Shooting Star, you need to find evidence that the DoD document is wrong although I suspect you are right. As for the L- numbers I have to agree I think it is because it is easier for people to put L- before the basic model numbers as shorthand. The Lockheed L-18 Lodestar for example should be Lockheed 18 Lodestar or even Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar. I will bring it up. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just added some info from JAWA1956 to the T-33 discussion page, supporting the use of the Shooting Star name. I did not mention it there, but there is also a photo on P.307 titled Lockheed T-33A Shooting Star Two Seat Trainer.TSRL (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks TSRL for that, I have brought up the Lockheed designations at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. Certainly my Putnam Lockheed Aircraft since 1913 supports PeterWDs case. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have always heard the T-33 referred to both as “Shooting Star” (officially) and “T-Bird” (unofficial nickname), but it might bear further research among early sources. It should be remembered that the T-33 was originally designated TP-80C and then TF-80C, so it would not be unreasonable for the Shooting Star moniker to transfer along with it.  (BTW, it is my experience that the DTIC document is not always trustworthy.)  Askari Mark (Talk) 21:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

re-Red Links
Oh, sorry, won't do it again then TEA14 (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost
An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminated Destinations format
Hi MilborneOne! User:Jasepl has recently began changing destination pages to his favored choices, especially Terminated, now I'm not pointing finger here but I believe his edits live on reverts. He has recently began changing my hard worked edits on Bulgaria Air destinations/terminated destinations section. Now this has really annoyed me so I have decided to take futher action and am asking you for your help and opinions as you are a wiki administrator. Please go to the Terminated/Former Destinations and have a look at what I have suggested. Hope you can help! Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

More problems
See this diff, associated article edits, and the restoration of comments I deleted on my own talk page here. Any suggestions on further action would be welcome, in private if necessary. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the guy Bill mentioned above keeps tagging the 3RR template onto Bill's talk page and I was beginning to wonder what is his real agenda here. Despite this, my recent attempt to highlight this matter (WP:DTTR) to him has gone on being... and I quote him "Ridiculousness", which borders between being a dick and incivility. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

800 Naval Air Squadron & 801 Naval Air Squadron
Thanks for your Edit, while I bow to your superior experience, but I’m still a little mystified as to why you’ve taken important data out, leaving a much less valuable item. I will of course leave the edit as it is, but I’m more than a little puzzled & confused as to your reasons.


 * I understand your concern and have asked for other opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_aviation_task_force. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You have changed 801 but not 800, this is very inconsistent this seems a bit personal


 * Nothing personal (not sure why editing one and not the other would be personal!) but I did edit 800, I removed the list of pilots that supplemented the squadon as they were not really notable. The real world gets in the way sometimes and I had 800 on my list to re-visit, I will also wait to see if anybody comments Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_aviation_task_force before I edit again. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the context of the history of the Squadron the Names are Not notable, but in the Context of the Falklands war they are & if you compare the two listings you will (hopefully) see what i mean.

The Falklands war is the subject of much study because of its compactness & names bring this home.

I've seen the topic, my own view is that if nobody comments I put it back...

Heston Phoenix
Point taken, but I must express my objection to such a draconian step. There were only 6 Phoenix built, and the text and photo already mention some of them in a very sloppy and unhelpful way. In this case, details can only help clarify a small piece of history.PeterWD (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks a reasonable compromise. I'll go back late tomorrow and re-assess the overall result.PeterWD (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons Anzani image
Evening MilborneOne: I was thinking about a new engine article on the W- and Y-type 3 cylinder Anzanis, as used by Bleriot cross-channel. This started life as a motorbike engine, as nicely shows, with Alessandro a bonus. However the Commons commentary says this image should not be used until reviewed: how does one encourage such a review?TSRL (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You should be able to use it now. (I just pushed the check now link and checked the original data had been tansferred) MilborneOne (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ThanksTSRL (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Harkness Roses
No problem with your declining. I saw the first sentence (leading rose grower) and thought it might have been put up by someone with a COI as an advert. I see from your references that they are indeed notable. I should have checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem the first line was a bit over the top, but it is more of an article that just needs more work.MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Boeing 737 operators
Hey MilborneOne! I read what you said about your revert on -800 operators but I'm confused, what do you mean merge the two? Please reply! Thank You. Zaps93 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes sorry Zaps I was just looking at a way to combine the list of operators with the list of variants operated. The variants list is not complete and I thought it was easier to combine the info into just one table. I was just going to drop a line on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks! Good Idea! I guess that's why your a good admin! I've started to help by doing Zimbabwe and Yemen at the moment... Do you want me to help more? Zaps93 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem Zaps any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)