User talk:MilborneOne

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

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2 (June 2007-December 2007)
• /Archive 3 (January 2008-March 2008)

London City Airport

The way you have made it sound is that "Fight the Flights" is some sort of climate change group. There is not even a mention about residents protest group. Go look at heathrow and stanstead - both have a section on "opposition" and their respective campaign groups are mentioned. The Heathrow one is a bit nuts e.g. peak oil theory.

I tried to put a balanced view for London City and was trying to list the groups "why" residents opposite by referecing the Planning Officer's Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.188.151 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

BMI British Photo Database

Hello,

You removed a link that has been in place for 18 months now on the BMI Airlines page. Please refer to the previous version before I edited it. I did not add spam, I simply updated the path to the existing images. They are now hosted on a larger more searchable database.

Kind regards,

Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotonegroup (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Air India Image.

Hello, I dont know how to add images to that section, (new user sorry) but I certainly want to have a picture or two of the Air India Boeing 747 to the main article. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapnils2106 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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) 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support comment on the UH-1 Iroquois article! Thanks also for wading into the debate about galleries on the project talk page.

The HH-1N photo is actually a good example in a way. The user who originally put it on the UH-1 Iroquois page deleted a photo that I had put there to illustrate the UH-1N section. I think his photo was a poorer one to show the differences between the single and twin-engined Hueys. It was too distant to be useful in that application, but obviously he wants to post his photo and will not be happy if it is deleted, even though he deleted mine to put his there.

I have thousands of UH-1N photos (I flew them for almost 20 years and took tons of photos!) so I picked that one because it showed the nose and engine differences when compared to the similar angle UH-1H photos above. In the end I moved his photo to the UH-1N Twin Huey page as a compromise, as you may have noted.

I am not saying that having a more "liberal" gallery policy would have convinced him to put his photo in a gallery instead of deleting the existing photo, but I would really like to get everyone out the the "default mindset" of deleting photos. Invariably they think their photos are great, take out better ones and put in poorer ones and the overall article quality is lost! - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CL41 Image

Copyedit from my talk page: "Just a question on the Image:CL41G.jpg you uploaded in February. You have tagged it as Public Domain Canadian Government but the source is given as a Malaysian website with no clear connection to the Canadian Government. I was going to question it on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but thought it better to ask you about it first. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)"

Hi MilborneOne. I have found this photo in many publications, and in Pickler and Milberry's Canadair: The First 50 Years (1995), the photo is definitively identified as a Canadian government photograph via Canadair Ltd. The photo portrays the CL-41G prototype on a test flight over Canada not Malaysia. The Malaysian website obviously copied the photo and instead of my scanning the original image, I used a readily available copy that was on the 'Net. Canadair actually painted the export versions of the CL-41G in full camouflage and markings at the factory. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

I have added a brief note about the source on the image file. BTW, it's actually a "muddy" copy of the original. It may make sense sometime to replace it with a better image. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manchester Airport. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Woody (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I dont do 3RR as is my normal practice I only revert twice and on the second occassion request a discussion on the talk page or request help from the relevant project. On this occassion the user had added the same statement five times (which has been reverted by other users) and refuses to discuss and vandalises the talk page. YOur help on this matter is appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to, the thing that got me involved was seeing the other user say he refused to discuss it. I gave out 3RR warnings to everyone involved for impartiality reasons. I will see what I can do. Woody (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Airlines

I don't really mind all those non-notable incidents/accidents being removed, however I would like you to realize the Wikipedia Airlines is only a template that is preffered to be used... remember it is not a requirement to follow by. If others have an opinion about things being removed in that big of a "chunk", it should be discussed prior to the removal on that airlines discussion page. Many times, useful information is removed due to either vandalism or opinion.--Golich17 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Russavia tends to be "malicious" with his/her edits, so I tend to ignore many things he does.--Golich17 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

707 Conways

The AirCan request is spelled out in the Conway history in Turbojet, History and Development 1930-1960. I can get a page number if you want. Does this really need a ref?! Maury (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to add PilotOutlook Airport API link to us-airport template

Hi MilborneOne,

I saw your name on the top contributor list for Wiki project Airport, so I wanted to send you a note and request if the following is possible and useful to Wikipedia community.

I have 27K US airports (combined IATA+ICAO) and another 15K international airports in my database, which can be accessed using Airport API - http://www.pilotoutlook.com/api/introduction. e.g. http://www.pilotoutlook.com/xml/AirportLookup?IATA_CODE=KBFI&AccessKeyId=28b878cacfb84cff92f7c56b22eceddab919534d

Would it be possible to add API link to us-airport template?

Note - I haven't lit up international airports yet on the site but they will be there soon. I am sourcing data through various international organizations. Disclaimer - I own PilotOutlook but it as a free service.

I look forward to hear from you. Rajatgarg79 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message although you have put a lot of effort into your website it does not add any extra value to wikipedia (none of the information is unique or notable) and would be considered spam if you add it to any of the aviation articles. It could also be considered a Conflict of Interest if you added the links yourself. Sorry not to be more helpful but wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Best of luck with your website. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. As I keep working on it, I will make it more of a main stream site with additional data that will be useful to wikipedia community. Looks like Airport API is not enough :-) Given that you are already aware of PilotOutlook.com, I am sure you will check it in future and consider it for addition. I just hope that time comes sooner than later. Just wanted to mention, I don't intend to add my site to us-airports or other templates myself.

Rajatgarg79 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi MilborneOne - I'm very pleased to be able to ask you to go here to indicate you acceptance or not of your RfA, and if you answer in the affirmative, to go here to see what to do next. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question added to your RFA. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd124 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA

I just wanted to let you know that I voted in support of your RFA and I posted my reasons. I would say good luck but it looks like you got in the bag.--Kumioko (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see followup question to your RFA. I have faith in you that you will do the right thing and answer the most wise way. See additional question in your RFA. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd124 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 12:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations - I look forward to continuing to work with you! - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Well done. Rudget 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all those that supported me during my recent RfA with a succesful 73/2/2 result. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clap clap clap clap clap.... You deserved it! And great to see such support from the general community :D --Rlandmann (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Sorry I didn't find out about it until too late, or I would have participated. - BillCJ (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations MO, a very worthy accolade for a dedicated and respected contributor. SempreVolando (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Rotabuggy

Hi, I was wondering if you might be able to get a photo of the Rotabuggy replica at the Museum of Flying sometime, seeing as how are you are not that far away from it. I found one on Airliners.net but I've contacted that photographer before with no success. Please don't go out of your way, but if you were planning a trip there for any reason, I was thinking you might keep the rotabuggy in mind. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No plans to visit it at the moment but I will note your request if I do go. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

F-16 cleanup

This should really be an FA article and it's languished far too long. I'm going to be out of town on business travel this week, but when I return I'm going to propose a collaborative clean-up of this article at WP:AIR and WP:MILAIR. I hope you'll contribute to the effort. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting Avro Vulcan XH558

Thanks for doing that split - it looks good! - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do we keep flag icons in headquaters, in the infoboxes of airline? - EZ1234 (talk) 2 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what has the group decided? EZ1234 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you about the flags icons, I too want the airlines articles to feel similar but it is probably impossible to make all airline articles the same since some have different fleet tables and destination articles or tables. Thanks EZ1234 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Air Alpes

Hello

ALPLINER is the call sign of the company Alpiner Switzerland AG, which has nothing to do with the French company Air Alps at the time (1961/1981) the call sign Air Alpes was AIRALPES

Alain ex.operations officer Air Alpes

DH Hornet

Thanks for the heads-up. For the moment, I've just re-added the standard categories to the article itself. I'd support deletion of the category, but it would have to go through CfD. The more urgent issue is, as you pointed out, the copyright status of the images. I've listed these at WP:PUI (although at least one of them looks like a speedy candidate) to give the uploader an opportunity to prove the Crown Copyright status that he has claimed for them. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to confuse the issue a bit more - the lead image - which is under a fair use tag, states that it is credited "British Official" - which would probably make it a pd-gov-uk image - i.e. free.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SIOUX

Before I deleted it I did some surfing to see if it is really a callsign for UND, and couldn't find anything. Thanks for correcting my mistake!CubBC (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

On your successful RfA! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin help requested

Milb1, if you're around, could you tak a look at this edit? Besides being a serious case of incivility, he's removinggood info without properly sourceing wahtever his point is. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted his/her edit again and left him a polite note on his/her talk page, he/she has a history of disruptive behaviour so we see how they react to some guidance. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of references

Recently, an editor has been removing reference notes in the bibliography section of Polikarpov I-180, with the edit notes that the additions were made by a non-contributing editor. The main contention was that the reference source had not appeared in the "notes" section and therefore was automatically suspect. Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make this distinction although I do know that a number of editors firmly believe that if a reference source was not used in a citation then it should be eliminated, or failing that, put in a "for further reading" section. Bibliographies are intended to be a listing of all reference sources that were used in formulating an article, and therefore, an editor who "fact checked" by finding a corollary source or who read material from that source in order to better understand the topic, can list that source as useful. The particular deletions of reference sources added by a very experienced editor, and a reputable researcher and contributor to the aviation project group, is also problematic. What do you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

According to Footnotes An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". so they do not have to be used as sources in the writing to be added to Bibliography just that the might be of interest to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's how I read this as well, but there are some strict interpreters who have insisted on only bibliographic records that are mentioned in citations. The problem with the I-180 article is that removing the bibliography entries was predicated on this concept. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

Flickr Image: Nossa Senhora da Rocha

I note that the image is really not licenced for "commercial use" so you were quite right to delete it. I have, however, contacted the photographer direct and he has agreed to post the image under his own name with the correct licence. This will be done next week. The other one on the page is in the same category, and it will be fixed too. This is the first time I used Flickr and misunderstood the use-notice. Live and learn. Cheers Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport

Thank you! for your help with my airplane gallery pictures on commons. It is so much better to have what they are rather than just airplane. Kind Regards.SriMesh | talk 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TCX

Thanks WL (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

BA038

A new Special Bulletin was issued by the AAIB yesterday. BBC news are reporting that fuel temperature (& therefore physical state) is looking to be a likely cause. I've posted a link on the article to access the bulletin, but as it's a PDF document I can't access it myself. Would you like to take a look? Electronic interference from the PM's motorcade has now been ruled out. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines request for formal mediation

Hi, as the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. As you have been involved in editing this article in direct relation to the various disputed issues and/or have been active in discussion regarding these issues on WP:AIRLINES, previous dispute resolution attempts, or on the talk pages, if you believe that you are involved, then please take a look at the MedCom request, and add yourself and any issues as you see fit. Thanks --Россавиа ^Диалог 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Spirit

Mil, need some help here or I will have to resort to spirits myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

similar aircraft (Eurofighter)

No apology necessary - in hindsight I should have provided the link in the hidden comment at the time.

At the discussion Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon/Archive_2#Proposal there was a suggestion by me and another user that the Rafale should be listed, it is perhaps the comparable aircraft to the Typhoon. Do you think we should discuss it at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon or do you think it would just open the floodgates to the Gripen et. al, which as I said at the archived link above is far from comparable? Mark83 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

I saw your edit summary re the notability of the list of people. The only one I've got a doubt about is Tyler. Tyler took the photo used on the front cover of the book (and presumably in the investigation of the accident). There are two major sources of info which haven't been used yet. The AAIB report into the accident, and the book.

Looks like NOTMEMORIAL won't apply. That states "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered". The only departed is Barbara Jane Harrison, who clearly is notable. I don't see why the aircrew shouldn't be recognised, even it it is 40 years since the event. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin help

Milb1, would you mind looking into the User:RaptorR3d? Per this diff, he needs to throttle back a bit. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left him a note about WP:CIVIL and I will add the article to my watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

travelcity direct

hi, thats what i thought but if you go on their website its selling tickets and it says the airline operator is travelcity direct. they operated last year but the route is seasonal. so it looks like there starting it up. we'll wait to see till the end of may if anything comes of itDanfearn77 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note but if you look at the small print on www.travelcitydirect.com it is clear they are just a travel operator and Travel City Direct is a trading name of The Really Great Holiday Company ABTA V7600 ATOL 3827. They are certainly not a licenced airline as they use other operators aircraft so should not really be in the operators list. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

thats fine but its just with them having aircraft under that name and the fact they said the flights were being operated by travelcity. ive flown through sanford airport in orlando and they have check in areas and everything! Im not sure either way im sure time will tellDanfearn77 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

EVA

Please have a look at my Talk Page for your reply (I did make a mistake) - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tejas Image

Acc to the notes attached to this image, "The image is downloaded from Aeronautical Development Agency, ministry of defence, Government of India. *The Right to Information Act allows all Indian civilians access to works published by the Indian government and can be used under the fai".

I'm an Indian national, and as such I'd think I have the right to use this image when I'm writing a passage specifically on the Tejas. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on both User talk:Marathi mulgaa and Talk:Aircraft of the Indian Navy, image has no fair use rationale and has now beed tagged for CSD I6. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so where and how do I go about providing the rationale for the use of this image? Thanks! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and the explanation - I now get your point. You're saying that there is no rationale for the image to be on Wikipedia at all (I thought you were challenging the use of the image in the Aircraft of the Indian Navy article).

Not being a lawyer, this is Greek to me. What do you advice I do? The image isn't core to this passage but it does add to the illustrative value of the article. Knowing this, would you have deleted it if you were me? Thanks. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pal PI-C771

hi! just made the necessary correction to the copyrighted photo. Care to check if its okay? I will revise the rest if its okay to the copyright guidelines. Sorry I don't have much time to read everything the rules said other than the basic ones. But I do sure make an effort to attribute the copyright owner, as was listed on the summary. I think the discussion forum failed to discover the link by themselves, hence, the contest. I need not post to that discussion. Anyway, thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariel c nunag (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Schweizer SGS 2-33

Thanks for your input on the older TG-4A. The ref I had [1] seems to indicate that the LK-10A was the TG-4A. The more extensive treatment in Said, Bob: 1983 Sailplane Directory, Soaring Magazine, page 28. Soaring Society of America, November 1983. USPS 499-920 seems to agree that it was the "A". I haven't found a ref to indicate that it was the "B". Do you have anything? - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user talk. MilborneOne (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - that ref sounds more detailed that the two I have. I will add it to the article! - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

You changed the location from Speke to Greater Manchester. Most airports pages state their exact location, rather than a general location e.g. Liverpool states Speke as it's location, Stansted states Uttlesford as it's location, even an airport as large as Barcelona states it location as El Prat de Llobregat. Only the London airports seem to give more general location information. Sheliaval (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Manchester Airport. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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) 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kawasaki Ki-48

Can someone have a look at this article from an admin point of view. User:Terrenceflynn posted a very long section about a specific incident during the types service in Burma. The same (or very similar) addition was made by an ip editor and reverted by me as a possible copyvio. The latest edits suggests that it is "Mostly translated from Samurai no Tsubasa, Eiji Suzuki, Kojinsha (c) Hiroyuki Takeuchi 1998" Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ThanksNigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

DayJet

Hi there - I don't know if you are "on" today, but I can use some admin help on this article. I have reveretd teh addition twice (not three times) of a spam link to this article by User:74.175.112.2 and what looks very much like two sockpuppets User:Nhird and User:AAuldridge. They all seem to have been sent to just post this one spam link to Friends of DayJet. I have left warnings on User talk:74.175.112.2 and User talk:Nhird, but don't think that I am getting anywhere. Rather than get into an edit war I thought I would ask to have a look and see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - you may want to keep an eye on that article - the crowd will likely be back soon! - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me that that the IP address matches the company - It looks like the clumsy work of their own PR dept. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

20,000 edits

Congratulations! You must have no life!! - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - No life, no just a resolve to make this a dependable place for accurate info. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too, I just finished writing a series of 18 articles (and expanding three others) that I have wanted to do for the last year. It is nice have the time to dredge up the refs and do it now! - Ahunt (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Specs

Thanks for editing RU-38 Twin Condor! My new article contributions haven't been attracting too much attention (except from User:Poocat9 - but there is a reason for that) and I have been hoping others would pick them up and help improve them! I can drop you a list if you want to have a look!

I have tried using Template:Aerospecs (including on the RU-38) and have just not been able to figure out how to get it to display anything other than as "blank". I know I must be doing something wrong, but can't figure out what. Yes I did specify "met or eng". Template:Aircraft specifications is my back-up, because it actually shows data! - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what it was, but all I got was "blank space" from it - perhaps I found a temperamental quirk! - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer. Actually I just restored the current (identical) version of the RU-38 article at User:Ahunt/Sandbox2 if you would like to give it a try there, please do!

It does work! Thanks for doing that - have a good night! - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fouga Zéphyr

I finished up the Fouga Zéphyr article very late last night, and made a few obvious mistakes/errors in the whole process. Thanks for the clean-up,and the new additions too. - BillCJ (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Phot scans by Kompikos

I added my comments to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 8 on this issue. Please delete them. Sv1xv (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fiat G.2

Sorry, the length sepcification, 3.51 m, I think are incorrect. Can you control that? Thanks :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - my error I have corrected the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Accident data on airport pages?

Hi, I saw you contributed your opinion on this matter on the talk-page. I really hope to continue this subject and try to find (new) concensus IF, when and how to include this data on the airport-page. My response/POV is put here. And I added this link on your talk-page as you might not follow the talk-page in question and my last contribution is a few days ago. Feel free to remove THIS text from your talk-page, no point in keeping a link.. Many thanks, --JanT (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

Sorry to bother you but, should't you switch your medal to a Veteran Editor IV star since you have made over 20,000 contributions? which by the way nice job!

Thanks for the note - I dont think I've been here long enough as there is a time qualification and I am just a few weeks away from 2.5 years which is a Veteran Editor II !! MilborneOne (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PBY Catalina Survivors

Shortly after creating the article with your guidance, it was renamed, and I failed to pursue the issue before some other edits were done. Now, I want to add appropriate categories (I know some of those are changing), but perhaps first the renaming should be reversed to fit with other similar articles, before any images are added ? I'm happy to do it myself, but need confidence that I won't screw it up, having tried to understand the help pages on renaming, but it looks like an ambiguous minefield. MTIA PeterWD (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem moved the article to the more normal PBY Catalina survivors. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that - I'll try to understand the actions and sequence. I don't want to give you more unnecessary work, but I was briefly confused by category Lists of Aircraft, and article List of Aircraft, which has different scope. Perhaps I just have to expect less than ideal standardization. PeterWD (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the idea was to get away from list of ... so the article can be expanded with more information than just a list or table of information. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

CT-134

Good morning (yawn) it is early here still!! Nice to hear from you! I was watching you working on the article - a great improvement. I did jump in and add a nav box there as well as fix the nav box so it goes to the new page. Later on I will dig out my military checklist for the CT-134 and add some more stuff from it, as well as reference it. Gotta get some mileage from hording old military checklists!! - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Aircraft

Hi there. I seem to be dealing with another editor on this article User:Tigerflier who seems to be editing from a WP:COI. I have left him notes on Talk:Tiger Aircraft and also on his talk page but haven't got any response from him. He just keeps deleting content in what appears to be an attempt to shape the information on this company (True Flight Holdings) in the Wikipedia article. This view is reinforced by another test edit he made, which looks like just company PR copy.

I really would like to avoid an edit war over the content here, but he doesn't seem to be communicating. Could you please just have a look and see if you think that this editor appears to be COI editing and if so perhaps you could just watch this page?

If you have a better way to deal with this I would be happy to hear that! - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Had a tidy up of the article - will keep an I on it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for watching it and for the clean-up. Your revision is an improvement - more concise! Articles that have news items added over a period of time often need a fresh eye to consolidate the information there into something more like an encyclopedia article and less like a news chronology. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he certainly came back quickly this time. His edit looks more like vandalism - deletion of sourced content with no edit summary. - Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion and left the user a note about probable vandalism and coi. MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It really looks like a COI problem to me. I have run into these in the past but have always managed to engage the person in a talk page dialog in the past. This guy isn't talking and he is very close to vandalizing in an apparent attempt to control the content of this article.

I have a feeling that information control for this company is going to get worse over the course of 2008 as they are trying to do something very difficult - place in production a 35 year old design during a period of US economic slowdown, very high fuel prices and in an industry that has delivered 28% fewer light aircraft this year than the same period last year. Also the company website is very "content light". As a result I expect more company efforts to "spin" the Wikipedia article. My forecast: sockpuppets next - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how to contct you- I left information on my talk page, I think. Please do not mistake the struggles of a newbie for subterfuge. I just discovered the edit summary ;-) btw, what's a sockpuppet? Thanks Tigerflier (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MilborneOne: You are cordially invited to add to the conversation at User talk:Tigerflier‎. - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. After some off-line communication I think we have enough reason to think that some of the information in the article was not accurate, so I have cut it. Thanks for all your help sorting this out! - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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) 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Short Type 827

If the 830 is anything other than a radial-engined 827, Jane's doesn't make a distinction! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aerospecs - feedback?

Hi MilborneOne. Since you've made extensive use of {{Aerospecs}} over a broad range of aircraft types, I was wondering whether you've noticed anything missing? As in - as you've used this template to document aircraft, are there any fields that have been conspicuously absent when compared to the source data you've used? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Concorde droop nose

Hello MilborneOne. I would like to know why did you consider adding to the "Concorde aircraft histories" article that G|BOAD's droop nose was scrapped-off when hit by a truck "Not really notable?"

I've always believed that Concorde's more recognizable feature is her unique droop nose. Concorde's article itself says so: "Concorde's famous drooping nose was a compromise between the need for a streamlined design to reduce drag and increase aerodynamic efficiency...". Moreover, I would like to add that it was notable enough for the New York Times to write an article on it, or for one of the main Concorde fans website to publish it on its very first page. Thank you-- Jorge Láscar (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)jlascar

I have commented at Talk:Concorde aircraft histories. 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Spirit of St Louis

Nope- not {{Infobox Aircraft}}, just a stray data field introduced by this edit. Fixed now. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Donaldson International Airways

Hello MilborneOne,

the name "Donaldson International Airlines" is wrong. The correct name was: "Donaldson International Airways". My sources:

1. JP airline-markings 1972, (= today known as JP airline fleets international, JP is respected as THE reference of fleet lists)
2. JP airline-markings 1973,
3. JP airline fleets 1974 (all by Bucher and Klee, published in Zurich 1972, 1973, 1974),
4. Leisure Airlines of Europe, by K. Vomhof, published in England 2001, ISBN: 1902236092
5. Boeing 707, by P.R. Smith, UK 1991, ISNB: 1853100870
6. Aero International, Aerospace Publishing Ltd., 1985
7. on airliners.net Donaldson is also listed as .... Airways.

Btw. all Donaldson 707 were ex-Pan Am 707-321 and -321F (N720PA, N724PA, N727PA, N730PA) - there was no B707-317 among them.

Kinds regards from Germany Jewido —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewido (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

C-47 Skytrain

Thank you for correcting my image caption, good to have an expert around. Rror (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Hi, I noticed this. Are you able to explain what purpose making a hidden link to a year in aviation like this serves? Please frame your answer in terms of utility to the general reader, and please have regard to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context when you reply. Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the year in aviation is related to the first flight being listed on that page. It allows the reader to reference the first flights to the contempary scene in avation (other notable events and first flights). I would agree that the use of {{avyear}} template is not necessary outside of the infobox. This is not a personal preference and I would suggest that it be brought up at WT:AIRCRAFT for further discussion. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What you say almost makes sense; but this purpose is thoroughly defeated in my view by the hidden nature of the link. As it is it looks like an easter egg and thus fails the linking policy I referred to in my question. I will raise it at the project talk as you suggest. --John (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologise for repeating the message (edit conflict!) - I have raised it at WT:AIRCRAFT. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

Could you kindly look at this article as it needs attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation

Hi, User:Russavia has recently started another request for mediation in relation to the Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines fleet articles, but have omitted your name from the list. In light of your major contributions to the said article(s), I have added your name to the involved parties list. If you agree to participate, please sign your acceptance on that page. Thank you. --Huaiwei (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Sure - just ask one of these people to check it for you. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Grob Strato 2C photos

On the German wiki page for the Grob Strato 2C [2] there are two phtos which appear to be Copyrighted by released for any use. Is that permission suitable for the Engligh language wiki, and if so, how can I use them?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would question the release is OK the quoted website are commercial photograph suppliers and although I dont read German I would say it would be doubtful they would allow free use of images they sell. The uploader does not provide a link so I would thought you would have problems using it here unless you could prove the copyright permission is valid. Not sure if we have any German speakers on the aircraft project. MilborneOne (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't spot the quoted website. On digging into http://www.alexander-hauk.de/, the photos in question apprear to be on sale for €50. Babelfish translations cetainly seems to suggest that they very much want to retain copyright and there has been no sort of general release. I'm surprised that this happened on the German wiki as I thought that they were even keener on copyright than the english languade one.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your need for a German language translator. User:Cobatfor is German, and uploads photos on many aircraft articles, though he's not a WPAIR or WPAviation member. He's helped translate an article for me also. He might be of help with the translations here. - BillCJ (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you think we should have the total number of aircraft in the fleet table of an airline article?

Aeroflot-Nord Fleet

Aircraft	Total	Passengers (Business*/Economy)	Notes
Antonov An-24RV	5
Antonov An-26B	4
Boeing 737-300	7
Boeing 737-500	9
Tupolev Tu-134 A-3	13
Tupolev Tu-154B-2	2
Total Number of Aircraft	40

Dont have a problem with showing the total - it would be nice if the presentation was standardised on all the airline pages. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, I will continue showing the total for the fleet tables I create on airline pages. Cheers--EZ1234 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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) 02:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod removed for XL Airways Flight 237

I notice that your prod was removed, so I took it to the next step and listed it at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XL Airways Flight 237. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - commented at AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

198 Squadron

Good to see you've started an article on 198 Squadron. I've started adding some further information, including a list of the unit's C/Os and its incorporation into 123 Wing, 84 Group, Second Tactical Air Force. Regards, Minorhistorian (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Minor thank for supplementing and adding detail to my original. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help! To my mind 198 Squadron was one of the more interesting units of the RAF in WW II; in their short life they did a lot of work and, unfortunately, had a high casualty rate, especially after D-Day. Chris Thomas http://www.ospreypublishing.com/authors/chris_thomas/ (Typhoon and Tempest Story and Typhoon and Tempest Aces) has made up a list of Typhoon casualties and it can make for chilling reading. Minorhistorian (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'll leave 195 Squadron alone for now; I'm stretched as it is and have other articles which need finishing. I will, however, continue to help out with 198 Sqn - appreciate your work getting these Typhoon units going. Regards.Minorhistorian (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Me, once again. The record of 198 Sqn's C/Os in 1944 is daunting - 3 KIA in 20 days in June...Minorhistorian (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Fiat G.2

Well :-) Primarially I'm sorry for my poor writing english (it is for this reason that I limit myself to little modifications in the en.wiki pages). As task you will understand, being Italian I have more possibility than to find articles in my language regarding of Italian aircraft production, and I allow myself the times to make of small modifications, and then all we can make an error copying of the data. Since I often translate in Italian your voices I'm happy being able to only contribute also in minimal part. I promise that I will try to always write more (and I try to improve my English) :-) Good fly.--Threecharlie (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact check please?

At the moment, the List of military aircraft of the United States includes a short-lived (1960-62) designation letter of "S" for "sailplane". I haven't been able to verify this anywhere else, but I seem to remember seeing you citing a book on US designations from time to time. If my memory's not playing tricks and you have such a book, could you please see if it mentions anything about these? Our article asserts that two designations (S-1 and S-2) were assigned, both to Schweizer types. Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Because we've now got a 3-or-4-way conversation going, I'll make further responses on my talk page :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pitts Special

Where does Simpson 1991 come from? FWiW, nice work on the article. Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Sorry missed that, I have now added it to references. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

46 Sqn

As things stand, ones where a third party has been identified as a the creator of the image should be treated as PUI; some, however, don't have a creator named, and these should be tagged NSD. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For your reference work on the previously unreferenced Pitts Special article - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - that was for finding the reference!! The article is looking much better than when we started, due to everyone's help. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

Thanks for the help in Media Copyright Questions. Being a new editor, I jumped the gun and made a mess of the request I sent to the website in question. I have since sent them a clarifying email, asking for confirmation in accordance with Wiki standards. Thanks for the guidance, it is much appreciated. \ / (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem happy to help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Ok just done some searching and found [3] which has the same tail logo as Image:European Air Charter.jpg. Now to find the right operators article if it has one. Do you know the airlines full name? Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just did a another search and seems it's right[4](European Air Charter). Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left this message on your talk page but just for the record the aircraft in the picture is a Hifly Airbus A330-322 registered CS-TMT operating trooping flights for the Royal Australian Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic

Hey! Can you help out? I'm stuck in an edit war I don't really want to be in at Virgin Atlantic Airways \ / (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to check his previous edits. It seems he is reverting a lot of your edits. \ / (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - he/she does not want to discuss anything but just keeps on reverting. Not an approach that goes down well at wikipedia and will probably endure some sort of sanction if they keep it up. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why dont' you go delete the Stop Stansted Expansion - while you are at it??

---

> You deleted London City Airport?

So why don't you go delete the Standstead one??

---

Stop Stansted Expansion

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) is a campaign group opposed to unsustainable expansion of Stansted Airport. Its objective is "to contain the development of Stansted Airport within tight limits that are truly sustainable and, in this way, to protect the quality of life of residents over wide areas of Essex, Hertfordshire and Suffolk, to preserve our heritage and to protect the natural environment." The campaign group has over 6,000 individual members and has the support of more than 100 local authorities and other organisations. SSE has been fighting airport expansion by legal means since 2002, when a Department for Transport consultation suggested that Stansted could expand to up to 4 runways. In 2004/2005, SSE mounted a High Court challenge to the government White Paper on aviation transport policy and, although it did not manage to overturn the paper, the judge deemed that the wide-spaced runway option presented as the preferred option in the document was "a bridge too far" and a matter that should be decided through the normal planning procedures.