Jump to content

User talk:MilborneOne: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Celina, Ohio: time to move on
→‎Celina, Ohio: One comment and that's it
Line 342: Line 342:
'''I''' was the one who initiated [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tagfest|the ANI in question]], not WilliamJE. (I have a dynamic IP.) It was initiated on the basis of a series of specious tags by TRM. As you can plainly see, the closing admin did '''not''' indicate that "that no admin action was required", nor did he note "that the articles need substantial help". The latter assertion was made by TRM himself. Just wanted to set the record straight. [[Special:Contributions/71.139.153.14|71.139.153.14]] ([[User talk:71.139.153.14|talk]]) 14:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
'''I''' was the one who initiated [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tagfest|the ANI in question]], not WilliamJE. (I have a dynamic IP.) It was initiated on the basis of a series of specious tags by TRM. As you can plainly see, the closing admin did '''not''' indicate that "that no admin action was required", nor did he note "that the articles need substantial help". The latter assertion was made by TRM himself. Just wanted to set the record straight. [[Special:Contributions/71.139.153.14|71.139.153.14]] ([[User talk:71.139.153.14|talk]]) 14:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
:Try reading properly. Where did I indicate the closing admin said anything? You just set the record wonkier. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
:Try reading properly. Where did I indicate the closing admin said anything? You just set the record wonkier. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
::I'll just point out that the statement "It was noted at AN/I that the articles need substantial help" implies that somebody other than yourself did. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 16:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:08, 8 August 2013

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)


Thanks for removing those photos from the articles. I agree that the ownership and ability to release them under free licenses is questionable. I know who this editor is in real life but am precluded from mentioning by wiki policies. They seem to have been detailed to fix up all the Cirrus related articles and make them read and look better as sales tools. The aircraft photos are from one of the companies off-line press kits as far as I can tell and were issued in that regard as "all rights reserved". This one also worries me: File:Cirrus_Aircraft_Logo.jpg as she uploaded the company logo as used on the Cirrus Aircraft page under two free licences. I am not sure she really can do that, or understands what the implications of that move are. For instance Cirrus competitors can now legally use that logo in their ads. Oddly enough the logo image metadata says "Copyright status Public domain". If that is true then it can't be released under those licenses, but it is probably a metadata error. I know you understand copyright rules better than I, should perhaps those files on Commons be sent for deletion? - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of images...

I just uploaded this fair use image File:Technam Astore.jpg of an aircraft that only exists in prototype form and so there are no free images yet. As you see it immediately got tagged for deletion. This seems to happen a lot lately. Any thoughts on this? I am wrong in my assumptions and arguments on this? - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK understand your logic but if the aircraft exists it can probably be photographed by somebody hence the deletion request. The fact that nobody has taken an over the fence image doesnt mean it cant be done! MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that explanation. - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the blocked Pinoy

Thanks for the note, probably will not make a difference as I am sure the duck patrol can spot them when they surface, lets wait and see they normally get fed up before we do (apart from Ryan). MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie copyrights issue again?

Sorry to but in, i noticed his post when looking for some advice MilborneOne gave me in the past. Anyway i put the image through a reverse look-up on google and found it on this site. I have listed the image for speedy deletion. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been busy with some real life stuff so thanks to JetBlast for that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have used the third image, only because the others look a bit iffy, although I have no evidence they looked like crops from web pages or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UH-72 or EC145

Hey Michael I came across this, and was wondering should we put it under the EC145 article, or the Lakota article thoughts - FOX 52 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<Delurking> It's already listed on the UH-72 page, which looks to be where it belongs. It appears these are standard Lakotas being bought through Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Note that it's not a sale yet, just a notification of the proposal. - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bill you are right it looks like a Foreign Military Sale of production UH-72s from EADS North America, so standard US Army UH-72A helicopters sold from the production line. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's where thought there might be confusion to, which line it came from - Many thanks you guys FOX 52 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALQ-144

G'day from Oz, I just came across ALQ-144, whch has a redirect from AN/ALQ-144; all of the other WP articles dealing with items in these equipment series seem to be named "AN/ABC-nnn". Could you please take a look at it, and if you agree with my assessment, move it over the redirect? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JETGO Edit

I see you edited the JETGO page.

Although it does not worry me but the callsign "JETGO" was issued by AirServices Australia not ICAO. And our aircraft are operating not only all over Australia but also internationally on the AirServices issued "JETGO" call sign.

Cheers Paul Bredereck, Managing Director Airlines, JETGO Australia.

Swiss Air Force

Obviously you have absolutly now knowleg about the Swiss Air Force, so stop deleting informations. Simulators like the Superpuma /Cougar Simulator have no Imatriculation, but the Instruction Airframe F/A-18C has the Imatriculation X-5099 and is listet on the Aircraft inventary list of the Swiss Air Force this is what count.This airframe can also be used for training groundcrew taxi handling. The Swiss air force is not very big, so the insert of the imatriculations is not a blow up, it shows the systemathic of it and the roll the aircrafts are used in the Swiss Air Force. Also change the list of outpassed aircrafts into alphabetic order is no imporovement to the list in a timeline (Falcon 50 past out 2013 on the top). So PLEASE stop deleting here araound without having any konwoleg about the Swiss Air Force. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what a really good example of a personal attack. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add P-16 I have left a couple of warnings on your talk page, one for this and the previous attack on the Swiss Air Force talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)~[reply]


This was not an attack to you as person, I only want made clear my point about your actions on the Swiss Air Force page. Speak against your changes on the page is not critize you as person. I said that it is obviously that you have no knowing about the Swiss Air Force. But I didn't say that you have no knowleg in any other topic, or so. May this sounds hard and not friendly but as you had deletet the text about the Hornet Display Team (who exist for more than 10 years and took every year part in several air shows in europe) and deleting the text about the Axalp (the Axalpshow who took place nearly every year sinc decades and is the only puplic life fiering show in europe)[1] this are well known topics about the Swiss Air Force and not such less well-known topics like the FLORAKO or so one and let me come to the conclusion that you don't know much about the Swiss Air Force and ask you don't to delet on the page until you know more about it. I did not say you should never again delet something on the SAF page. I realy don't attack you as person. I didn't understand why you say the tailnumbers and sqadron emblems are too much for wikipedia and too deep into details, wikipedia should give just a overall view, and on the other hand we can found pages who goo so deep in a quite simelar topic (for eg.[[2]]). How ever I work on a solution with the sqadron insgineas who you might can agree with it. About the Tailnumbers I have to say that they show the use of the aircraft, and are in a sytem who made it possible to identfy the type of aircraft, also you can finde the X-5099 nearly on the end (down)of this (german) pdf [3]. I think change the list of outpassed aircft's to the page History of the SAF is good, but in what do you see the advantage of listen it in alphabetic order to the timeline order? The pdf with the tailnumbers should help you to understand the using of them in the SAF. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Please have a look at the pages with the programm of the Teams of the swiss air Force in the past, [4] , Superpuma Display Team [5], this year [6], please notice that there are not much shows of the F/A-18 solodisplay because problems with the 2013 Solodisplay pilot). The Swiss air force has all this Teams lisdtend as "Kunstflugteams" [7]. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sorry i din't saw that you createt the Display aircraft section. But i am still in doupt if the F/A-18 solodisplay not belong to the Aerobatic teams, Usulaly the F/A-18 solodisplay is flown by the same pilot a few years, and if possible he uses the aircraft who belongs to his Sqadron (if the Pilot is from Sqd 11 he uses the J-5011, if he is from Sqd 17 J-5017, and if he is from Sqd 18 J-50189 this 3 F/A18 are the only F/A-18 in the swiss air Force with a special paint (O.K. there are roumors about J-5014 because of the 100years Swiss air Force Show Air14 in 2014). FFA P-16 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One aircraft cant really be an aerobatic team which is why I moved it and the helicopters to "display teams" perhaps we just have a problem with the common English terms. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot

Hello there, MilborneOne. Please check this out. I'm sick of this.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the video - it adds nothing and is very poor quality. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see the user has now been blocked for being a pain elsewhere in wikiland so we should have seen the last of the poor quality video. MilborneOne (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

Hi. I see you "prod"ed this (it's been removed), I was wondering where you could point me to a place where we collect all the worst aviation incidents in one article, as that seems to be what you're suggesting? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not in one placce but we also have

we also have some military and private aircraft lists refer to Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have made some suggestions and comments on the list talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, those lists which are fundamentally unreferenced and specific to "by location" and "involving commercial aircraft"? You'd prefer to keep those and delete a list with over 400 references? Curious. Also, you say "it is full of abbreviations and jargon but that hasnt stopped lists being featured and then used an "good examples".", could you do me a favour and point me to those "lists" which are "featured and then used an "good examples" (sic)"? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really should be discussing this on the AfD or article talk pages, where in fact I have made some suggestions and observations to improve the article if the AfD fails, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, really already started responding to your concerns and then, all of a sudden, the article was up for deletion. So your some of your comments have been responded to on the article talk page. It would be useful if you could respond there, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to stop by and introduce myself. It's obvious that you don't really have any intention of improving this new list, just cannibalizing the parts you want for another list or article. I get the fact that you're an admin, and it's never a good idea to piss-off people in a position of power. The motives behind the AfD nomination seems a bit fuzzy to me. It's too bad that things had to start off this way, I really enjoyed working on the aviation article and, had there been even the smallest degree of civility, I would have been encouraged to continue. As an editor and administrator, do you truly believe that this new list should be deleted so that the two comparison lists continue to thrive? There's some quote about the triumph of mediocrity that probably belongs here...--Godot13 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said elsewhere I didnt take the article to AfD but after your comments following the prod removal raised my concerns on the article talk page, not sure why I would do that if I had no intention of helping improve the list or finding a solution. I believe that the material you have created could be used to replace the List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation, it just needs a bit of discussion and consensus on some of bits. Certainly I belive that some of the talk about trends and stats belongs on the Aviation accidents and incidents page and not in the list. I will not comment on the AfD while I think we could make some progress on the talk page. Please dont be scared of by the aviation project, some editors have worked hard and long on creating articles and gaining a consensus on the way forward. Despite what others say we are here to improve the coverage of aviation in wikipedia, if you go back only a few years you would be suprised at what was not covered including a large number of really notable accidents (and even some really notable aircraft). So talk to us on the relevant project pages we are open to new ideas and have a good team of editors that will help with any projects or ideas that somebody has. MilborneOne (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It's difficult to parse things out when a group of editors engage in what feels like a Shock and awe campaign without attempting to make any kind of contact or attempt at discussion first. The reception the list has had among the aviation project community has not been collaborative.
This list was written to be a stand alone list. The statistics wouldn't work in other articles because they are specifically based on the criteria and sample used in the list. List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation is a very rudimentary list and, for the record, I did actually make an attempt to assist them a few months ago. I have enjoyed the research that has gone into this list and would like to continue making more. I would be happy to help develop a "less than 50" companion list that may be more in-line with what you envision. This list, given the nature of the criteria, will not require significant upkeep or maintenance.
I approached this project with the goal being Feature List. I wanted it to be far better and more comprehensive than its peers. In the process, I even started writing short crash articles (3 of them now, all B-Class). I would really like to continue, and work with the Aviation Project, but I really would like this list to remain intact, and become a Featured List. When I was familiarizing myself with Wikipedia I told myself I would only write Lists that would meet or exceed the standards to be featured. When I started this list I knew nothing about aviation accidents. I can work with you or move on to another topic. I'd rather do more with aviation, but I need support (within Aviation) for this list. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and I'm not trying to be pushy, just speaking my mind.--Godot13 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support on the FLC. I'm glad we were able to work together and resolve the outstanding issues. I added a comments resolved header in the FLC review area for housekeeping purposes. If there is any problem with that please let me know. As I explore options for additional Aviation lists, I will seek out your input.--Godot13 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the resolved collapse, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MilbourneOne- I have had two editors in FLC comment that they question the removal of the Fatality Ratio statistic. You and I reached a compromise regarding its removal so I would not simply add it back. If you are still opposed to its inclusion in the list I will propose it on the talk page for discussion. This is not an attempt to circumvent our compromise but rather an effort to balance as many reviewers' concerns as possible, simultaneously. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood I will have a look at the talk and comment if required. MilborneOne (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of some of my comments

Hi. Your removal of some of my comments on the Talk:Three surface aircraft page are not helpful if you are not going to investigate the reasons behind the comments. The comments were made solely in a effort to improve this article and several others. How did you become aware of the edits? The answer is likely important to the case in question. (Sorry about multiple edits of this message.) Stodieck (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were not relevant to improving the article and were removed, if you have issues behind the comments then you need to let me know so I can look at them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have endorsed a personal attack on me as an editor:

[[8]] [[9]]

If that was not the intent, let me suggest that your the appearance of your authority being twisted to the purpose of someone else. Let me suggest that the editor in question does this routinely and this is the reason for the comment on confabulation. Further the entire chain evidence against my credibility and other editors is similarly constructed and the sequences can be documented by wiki histories. The chains of 'evidence' for any general statements he enforces in the articles are similarly constructed by this person and also documented by the wiki.

Far from being a disruptive editor I created the Three surface aircraft article and there would not be anything to discuss here if I had not done that. The editor in question is actually 'taking possession' of new territory on the Wikipedia and needs to discredit and disappear anyone who understands what is going on. This was the motivation for post on narcissistic personalities. (This should have been tightly edited but was posted as a citation.) Unfortunately Larry Sanger did not implement an objective voting and commenting mechanism in the Wiki, so chaos reigns.

Since you seem to know something about aircraft I suggest that drop in on stability (aircraft) and see the result of years of control of this article by the same individual. Stodieck (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look but can I remind you that nobody controls any article on wikipedia everything is done by consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OBE

He was only a Knight Commander, not a Knight Grand Cross. Interesting use of the word "only"! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at YSSYguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages LOT, CSA and Lockheed Electra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor redirect

Thanks for the notification! Usually I don't challenge them since there is no independent notability. For what you found I won't challenge the deletion WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks they are a few more in the same category created a while ago that need to be look at later as well. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E V Thomson

Hi!

I see you reverted my edit of the British author to read he was an 'English' author because "he was still English as well as British". While that is correct to a point, you could also say he was still a Londoner. Just as you could say he was European. To add all of the possible levels of identity (Londoner AND English AND British AND European) would be exhausting and not helpful. I suggest the correct level depends on the perspective. While English, Scottish, Welsh may be appropriate references for discussion within the United Kingdom, outside of that isn't 'British' the correct term?

Wikipedia is an international medium. When referring to someone from Britain within that context, isn't it correct to say they are British? It says 'Nationality British' on passports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

It seems clear that David Cameron would be considered British. He is the British Prime Minister. In an international context would it be more appropriate to refer to 'British' armed forces even though some units might come from Cardiff, Wales? British athletes at the Olympics? British scientists?

So, given the above, shouldn't E V Thomson, as a British person and an author whose works go beyond the United Kingdom be referred to as 'British?

Best wishes Robata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly British and English so to describe him as one or the other are both correct, dont think we have a rule that says that the lead has to show nationality and he is clearly an English author. Certainly it is accepted to use the home countries within the United Kingdom as descriptions and in categories, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfstream G650 images

You reverted my edit replacing the main photo and adding one more to this article. Your explanation was that it was "not the best image".

Could you please explain a bit further what you mean with that and what the reason was for your revert? The previous image was backlit, low in quality and resolution and a part of the aircraft is cut off. Apart from that, it shows an unpainted and therefore unfinished aircraft. The photos I added show the aircraft in official livery and presentation at Paris Air Show, with good light and in far higher quality.

Apart from mine and the ones in the article, there are no further photos of the aircraft available on Commons.

Thanks. --Julian H. (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks stretched and distorted and clearly not an improvement. Perhaps raise it on the talk page to gain other views, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. --Julian H. (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Airways International

Hi, the user Do do doggy keeps putting junk into the fleet table on Thai Airways International. He then threatened to block me (not sure how) on my talk page. I explained the reasons why it should be removed but refuses to accept this. Can you have a word please? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also told me on my talk its original research. --JetBlast (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK JetBlast I have reverted the change and left them a message. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pal! --JetBlast (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me again, I assume you have noticed he has ignored you and undone your changes. --JetBlast (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just seen but somebody else has reverted them, I have left them another note about using sources, not sure why they can add them to your talk page but not the article! MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

I don't suppose you can have a look at Talk:No. 144 Squadron RAF/Temp - the original article appeared to be a copyvio from [10] (archived here), tagged and blanked per the instructions on WP:CP and rewrote it to avoid the copyvio on a temporary subpage (again as per instructions). Unfortunately, the draft rewrite has been sitting on the temp page waiting for someone to look at it and let it go back live for well over too months now as it appears that the backlog at the copyright pages is insane. It is quite dispiriting to put the effort in to sort out a problem and see it go to waste.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay had a day at RAF Fairford yesterday watching aircraft for a change, I will have a look in a minute and see what can be done. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Express

Hi, I have posted a message on the Optical Express talk page re POV editors breaching previous agreement around consensus and direct edits. I would appreciate if you could visit and comment. Thanks. --Hardlygone (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin User:HJ Mitchell is active at the moment on the page so I will leave it to him to sort out for the moment but I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asiana Flight 214 / Criticism of NTSB by ALPA

Please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Criticism_of_NTSB_by_ALPA to discuss encyclopedic value of criticism from ALPA based on questions designed to raise doubts about the real cause of the crash or divert blame from the pilots. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Few

Hi MilborneOne, Thanks for your attention to the page The Few. The connection between "The Few" and "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" is that they both refer to military men as "The Few". This may be of interest to people who wonder if the names have a common history (in fact they don't, as described in the article The Few). Also, this may be of interest to people who are aware of one group but not the other. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." After reading The Few, I wanted to read The Few, The Proud, The Marines, and I believe that enough other people would too that it's worth having the articles linked in the 'See also' section. The Manual of Style says that "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." It's not clear cut whether or not the link to The Few, The Proud, The Marines should or shouldn't be in the article. Perhaps British and U.S. readers prefer to only read about their own "Few", and other readers don't care either way. But my sense is that enough people will be interested in the two "Few" articles that it is worth linking them. Throughme (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but being English the Few only relates to the Battle of Britain, I have never heard of the Marines being called the Few which is why I removed it as readers would not I believe think that a connection exists. If you feel strong about it then I will not oppose you adding it back. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was still working on that!

Did you happen to see the talk page? I did not really like the placement of the image either but I was in the middle of adding more ref. to the article when you deleted my image. the talk page states that the image (previous), was "not" Army One because it was not being used to fly a president.Housewifehader (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has edited the talk page since January so I didnt see any mention of an image added today, the old discussion was from four years ago about an image that has not been in the article for a long time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated and replaced the image. What I meant about the talk page is that there was a dispute and correction about the page's image. (which I agree). The photo of the helicopter restored at the Nixon Library simply could not be named "Army One", or "Marine One", because it was not in service to a US President at the time, (airborne)-it would be identified by it's tail #, unless there were some special designation given which is not said anywhere.Housewifehader (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image under discussion File:Nixon-depart.png has has not been in the article since early in 2012 so pretty difficult to replace, nobody as far as I know had a problem with the museum image as the related source mentions Army One so is representative. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE- OK so as of this moment, the direct page link to the source image is working. When I uploaded it, I was getting an error page. That is why at the time and when I added again, I left-out the exact page-because I thought that it was going to return an error. Here is the info. from the file in case it disappears again: I don't know if there is any way to be sure if that flight specifically was a Marine or Army pilot but it was in the time period when most of the flights were done as "Army One"AFAIK.Housewifehader (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DDRS Record Details for Record Accession Number "N1D0068954" Accession Number N1D0068954 Document Number DPI-1058-PHOTO Alternate Document Number DPI-1058-PHOTO Title Description PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT TO RICHLAND, WASHINGTON Number of Pages 1 Key Word(s) PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT,PROOFS Author(s) Company(s) Document Date 26-Sep-1971 Public Availability Date 29-Sep-2002

also, maybe you can help answer that question? This photo here, http://www5.hanford.gov/ddrs/common/findpage.cfm?AKey=N1D0068929 Has more details. I am not up on uniforms etc. very well, so maybe that could answer the Army or Marine question? Thank-you for your helpHousewifehader (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the title:The Picture Cannot Be "Army One on the article talk page, not the content of that sub-section. What I meant was that the image that was currently attached to the article, was "also" (The Picture Cannot Be "Army One)---because it was out of service at that point, not flying a President.Housewifehader (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim psycho

Need help in monitoring this lunatic - Surtsicna, the claim on names and royal styles from birth is clearly pointless and senseless, all because we heard news that William was named after a week and Charles was named after a month, who knows when Elizabeth or George VI was named. If you look at the articles of Elizabeth and George, they are featured articles, and have passed wikipedia standards. I know you get my point and we share the same sentiments Pseud 14 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted but the user is on a bit of a mission as he has flagged a lot of European Royalty with the same dubious tag, he/she is clearly edit warring and possibly now being disruptive to make a point. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way that he/she can be barred from editing those? Or be flagged from being disruptive, I don't mind reverting from all the mess the user makes, but its going to be a challenge. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a disruptive editing warning for keep adding the tags might help, but I am possibly to involved to do anything, just take care not to be involved in any edit war/reverting yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Louise Windsor, Viscount Severn, danish and swedish princes, all of those being tagged, all for the same reasons, I really don't get the point, trying to get consensus so this can be stopped. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps raise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility or the more localised Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty to come to some consensus on the matter. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash‎

Good morning Michael. I have an AfD question for you. This AfD which I started, was scheduled to be closed six days ago, but has not been actioned. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 17 it seems to be the only article from that date that has not been closed or re-listed, so I think it has been overlooked. I did post a note about this at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#More_unclosed_AfDs but that doesn't seem to have attracted any admin attention either. I recognize that the debate on this AfD is a complex one and that a closing admin cannot just quickly count votes and close it, but that the arguments made need to be carefully weighed, and this may have put off some admins from closing it. Are there any other steps that can be taken to have an admin read it over, weigh the arguments and then close it? - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like a no consensus to delete from my first read through the points, I will have another read through later. Not sure about getting somebody to close it but I have not commented in the actual debate so I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oneworld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Cambridge Style

Hi, i have reviewed catherine middleton's page and someone has been reverting her current sytle. As I understand that HRH The duchess of cambridge is her addressed style, a user has been reverting it to HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. Althought in point it is her complete and full style, but it has been discussed in the lead section of styles section. I have reverted it back from when you have corrected it, but it has been reverted by the same user again Pseud 14 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it has been corrected again by another used, I have it on my watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powerfin

Hi Micheal: Unfortunately this article about the US propeller manufacturer was tagged for CSD and deleted before I could even act on improving it. Can you possibly "userfy" it for me so I can find some more complete sources? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin offered to do it, so this is handled! - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not quick enough trying to do real life stuff at the same time as keeping an eye on here! MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same problem - I was sleeping when it got tagged and deleted! No time for sleeping on Wikipedia. I have expanded the article to address the reason for the CSD and the article is back. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F3D Skyknight

I'm giving up on this article and unwatching it, as any attempt to edit it or even try to discuss the changes on the talk page is met with a stream of attacks. Good luck if you attempt to reason with Pheasantpete, but I want nothing more to do with him.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks the user clearly has no idea how wikipedia works, I think it will probably end with an NPA block the rate they are going. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See this section in the article: "After successful trials, the Skyknight test pilots enjoyed some good times at the Southern California legendary Happy Bottom Riding Club. The world record airspeed breaking aviatrix, stunt pilot and Lockheed test pilot Pancho Barnes and proprietor did not offer them the customary free steak dinner for breaking the sound barrier as the F3D Skyknight never received the much powerful Westinghouse J46 engines that likely would have made this possible if only in a dive. This was the tradition the legendary Florence "Pancho Barnes began with her good friend Chuck Yeager for Muroc Army Airfield test pilots of this small yet extraordinary era of those who flew faster than the speed of sound." I have temporarily moved it into a "Note to readers" but it really doesn't belong at all. I think this needs an admin (hint, hint) to make an executive decision here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this once and so has Nigel but evidently this is vandalism and the originator has resorted to personal attacks, as they have not really a clue I have left a few messages on the users talk page but I dont think he understands how wikipedia works. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it's absolute textbook WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celina, Ohio

We have an editor[11] who keeps reverting at this page. Me and another editor have said his notable person edits are unnecessary. 3RR might be in play. Can you check it out? Editor was also warned[12] yesterday for violating WP:CIVIL in regards to posts towards me. In this edit summary[13] he told me to stop being disruptive. His NP person edits adding CN tags are what might be disruptive. He selectively chooses articles for them to make a point....William 11:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this article and many like them as it's clear to me that there are problems common to many of them, with regard to dead references, unreferenced sections, lists without clearly defined inclusion criteria, and lists of people, many of whom have no references in their respective articles that relate to their "notable residence" of such locations. Sadly these problems are massively widespread amongst the poor US town and village articles. It was noted at AN/I that the articles need substantial help, it appears that some editors just don't want to help that process. It was also noted at AN/I that no admin action was required following the correct tagging of such articles. This request seems like a shopping request to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TRM fails to note several things.
1- The persons in the NP are all clearly from Celina. A person with a article is considered notable.
2- The NP section of Celina was created by me. And another editor had no problem with criteria. Its not a simple case of me vs. TRM.
3- TRM's recent edit history as pointed out here[14], showed over 25 consecutive edits to articles NP sections where I was either the last or next to last editor to work on. I asked if this constituted if this constituted a case of wikihounding.
4- TRM's 'seems like a case of forum shopping' fails to note I wasn't a part of that ANI[15]. It was however started by a IP editor who TRM has alleged or insinuated on multiple occasions is me. That led to his being warned as I noted above, not once but twice, that he further violations of WP:CIVIl can result in his getting blocked. His thinking I'm forum shopping may or may not cross that line. I've told him on multiple occasions to take me and the IP to SPI. The proof of the matter is- I'm from Florida and the IP is from Connecticut. Which are separated by over 1,000 miles.
The Bushranger just reminded[16] TRM about edit warring and 3RR....William 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, following an email request from..... The "persons" not clearly from Celina unless verifiable evidence is produced to back that up. That's what I've been asking for. You various AN/I threads have been closed, no action. The one yesterday was closed, no action. Not sure why the forum shopping should continue - it's time to get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's getting to be about the time for a block being placed on you. You have been multiple times to stop saying I'm socking or editing via IP to escape scrutiny or make other personal attacks towards me. You are clearly doing that again with the forum shopping accusations. I didn't start yesterday's ANI....William 14:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the various admins you've got involved here, after both of your previous AN/Is have been declined. Nothing else. Simple. And no, I never said you were socking, I just noted how much of a coincidence the IP popping up everywhere you were was. That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash. You're clearly forgetting this edit[17] and its summary. The summary includes 'third strike time?' Something you used in referring to me. And this edit was removal of a thread involving yesterday's ANI. In it you refer to the editor as 'Billy'. Why would you do that unless you thought the IP was me? Also the IP never used the name Bill or Billy....William 14:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Third strike? Because your continuing threats and AN/Is are becoming disruptive. Billy? That's what I called my dog. So, back to basics, I didn't accuse you of socking, I stated that there were several coincidences. Even funnier was that your IP friend then accused me, GiantSnowman and Lukeno94 of being socks. Amazing! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who initiated the ANI in question, not WilliamJE. (I have a dynamic IP.) It was initiated on the basis of a series of specious tags by TRM. As you can plainly see, the closing admin did not indicate that "that no admin action was required", nor did he note "that the articles need substantial help". The latter assertion was made by TRM himself. Just wanted to set the record straight. 71.139.153.14 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading properly. Where did I indicate the closing admin said anything? You just set the record wonkier. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that the statement "It was noted at AN/I that the articles need substantial help" implies that somebody other than yourself did. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilborneOne&oldid=567696550"