User talk:MilborneOne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.228.200.32 (talk) at 16:54, 21 March 2016 (→‎Protection of Metrojet Flight 9268: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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



AgustinusHal

See User:SSPanjit Arun, who claims to be User:AgustinusHal. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, if he's gonna out and out say it...hammertime. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. He's advertised before, IIRC. Too bad they all don't make it that easy. - BilCat (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing, organizations

Category:companies is subcategory of Category:Organizations by legal status SoSivr (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
!! SoSivr (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its also not defining most or a very large percentage of companies are named after founders rather than organisations which tend to have more functional names (although charities are probably an exception). So to categorise companies that are named for the founder/s is not really a helpful thing for the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fonte de regaz again...

Serial sockpuppeteer is back again, this time as IP 118.101.61.104 [1] - Now calling me, and others, ISIS terrorists and such. Can we get some assistance here? Hate to bug you, but you are familiar with him. Thanks! Scr★pIronIV 14:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know you working with ISIS.ISIS Is now working with Israel,UK And USA.We will find you and put you in the jail.14:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No really much more I can say, is there? Scr★pIronIV 14:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, another admin has given them a 31 hour break but we may need to block it for longer when that runs out. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And he's back. - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the blocks, BR. These are socks of User:Fonte de regaz, a Malaysian user with notoriously bad spelling and grammar, even worse than Ryan the aircrash king. The stalking of admin notices is typical also. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And so I have another one to keep an eye out for! *Ow!* - The Bushranger One ping only 09:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, User:Eagle Striker and User:Eagle Striker 2 are also socks of this user[2] - I hadn't reported because they weren't editing, but clearly coming into the open now per that edit. We could use the mop... Cleanup in Aisle 3... seriously, thanks in advance Scr★pIronIV 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Striker has been bagged, 2 has not been active since October. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and blocked Eagle Striker 2 on the grounds of 1. blatantly a sock and 2. preventing them doing the same thing with it as with Eagle Striker (which had been idle for longer). Ounce of prevention and all that. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Goord catch! There's seems to be the same pattern of bad grammar and requests not to hold things against them used in edit summaries as with "fart de rogaine", per this diff. We ought to hear some squawking from its IPs here shortly. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it! I had seen one of these recently, but missed the connection with our dear friend. I must be getting sloppy. Scr★pIronIV 12:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the CU result says that while ES and RS are (unsurprisngly) the same fellow they are not Fonte! "It's treasonmeatpuppetry, then." - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

regulation.org.uk

I edit a website which aims to provide a neutral, non-commercial but helpful introduction to the subject of regulation - now a huge activity in most countries. (I am an ex-civil servant and ex-regulator.) I thought it would be helpful to add four links from Wikipedia - e.g. to a page explaining the background to the current argument about who pays for any third London airport runway. Others were about water/environmental regulation. The links were then deleted. If, after further thought, you decide they would be OK, I will reinstate them. Otherwise let's forget it!

Ukcivilservant (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ukcivilservant Wikipedia doesnt not allow people connected with websites to add them to wikipedia even if you think it is worthy, have a read of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. I am afraid if you continue to add them you may have your account blocked from editing. Note it doesnt stop you adding worthwhile content to wikipedia and if you think your website adds value then you can raise it on the related talk page and if other editors think it adds to the article then somebody else will do it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful - many thanks.

Ukcivilservant (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer display teams

Re: this, I fully expect to be reverted shortly by that user, who almost always re-reverts several times before discussing. Can you try to head him off first? Thanks. Honestly, he is a problem editor with poor English-language skills, and a proven lack of discernment when it comes to judging what is encyclopedic, and is prone to nationalist/manufacturer-ist fanboy contributions, which this one certainly is. Any thoughts about pursuing an RFC-user (if those still exist)? - BilCat (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid RFC-User is no longer used but clearly this user has a competence issues, I will keep an eye on things but I am not sure what the answer is. MilborneOne (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was afraid of about RFCU. He actually has responded on the article's talk page without reverting. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something to watch

See this diff, with the edit summary "rmv opinion/OR template". Hopefully it's a one-time edit. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has made a similar edit here. I smell a storm coming. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but we will be in the wrong again, I think we now have more people correcting code and MOS changes to a perceived right way then actually correcting and adding to articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Ai yi yi. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"captain sparkles"

Troll/vandal calling itself "captain sparkles" has shown up again. Also doing BLP vios. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger has given s/he a little break from editing but I suspect from the comments they have a mission so they will be back. MilborneOne (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd one, occasionally putting useful contributions, but interspersed with significant misbehavior. They actually improved the Wolfgang disambiguation page. I never will understand the mind of vandals. Then again, many don't understand mine... Scr★pIronIV 13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael and BR. Yes, Scrap, it's an odd one, probably quite young and bright, which can be a bad combination when added to anonymity. The comments on the actor's talk page were of the proverbial "Have you stopped beating your wife" line of questioning, and certainly not appropriate. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday Episode airdates

Stop changing the airdate for S15E02 Terror in San Francisco to TBA. See http://natgeotv.com/uk/air-crash-investigation/about

Also Fatal Transmission aired 1/6/16 at http://www.natgeotv.com.au/tvguide/?day=2016-01-06 Tntad (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is about I dont normally go anywere near the page except to stop the fans arguing. MilborneOne (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Proposed demerger[edit][reply]

Hal Amca

Hello I am the same person from the reference section who done edits from january to april and I propose a potential demerger between Hal amca and Amca programme as in the start part of development section it crates confusion, I purpose that a potential de merger between the above two parts will help to reduce confusion, as the previous design section should kept as it helps to understand the development of the programme but in different article of Amca programme totally separate from Hal Amca which would indeed help to reduce confusion between the article and help to grow in proper direction for both proposed different article,I have posted same on the Hal Amca talk page. I would like your opinion on the proposed demarge. 1.39.10.180 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so Hal Amca is part of Amca programme which just not includes the aircraft but also includes many other aspects like engine radar avonics previous design were not just developed step by step but also at same time competing with each other so the previous design are not same but different design computing each other for the finalized design. 1.39.10.180 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amca programme is comprable to JSF and ATF programme which included two prototypes similar to current Amca plan and Amca Technology Demonstrator will have major difference over production aircraft. Amca programme evolved out of MCA programme which initially started to developed 4.5 generation aircraft later evolved to 5 generation and after some time evolved into Amca programme.

1.39.10.32 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil M again

Michael, looks like Phil M is back at Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BushRanger has blocked and tagged. Thanks, BR! - BilCat (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess his range blocks ran out again, or he's bored. - BilCat (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Airlines (2014)

Thanks for updating the incorrect callsign, didn't thinking to check the FAA for it's correctness. Anzmibu (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Michael: We're having persistent IP vandalism on Meredith effect. Can we please get it "semi-protected" for 30 days or so? - Ahunt (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody else has already dealt with it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They locked it for two weeks. I guess we'll see if that does it or not. In the past this vandal has come back more persistently than that. I did get him to breifly engage on teh talk page, but he isn't making a convincing case there and just goes back to removing cited content. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added it to by watchlist, perhaps a stronger link to Meredith may help, but that is not a reason just to remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping keep an eye on it. As you can see on the talk page there was no consensus to remove it after a discussion. The editing consensus from now four editors is to retain it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Username

This one appears to be a vandal-only account, and their only edit so far bears that out. Does it even need to be reported first, or can it be blocked outright? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would really need more than one edit for a vandalism only block but with the use of two profanties in the username they dont appear to be on a mission to improve the article, so a not here block has been given. MilborneOne (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured that with the meaning of the username and the vandalism edit, that would also indicate a vandal only account, but whichever way works. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarabjit Roy

Good morning, could you please delete and SALT Sarabjit Roy. User recreated this to bypass a previous SALT on the correct spelling. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I contest the speedy deletion and explained and provided many refrences that name "Sarabjit" Roy is common name also for Roy, so you are wrong to delete my hard works, and what is SALT ? also I would like the copy of all the deleted materials for future improvment for this story. So I'm asking you give me all versions of this artcile and all the edits I made plus I want the artcile talk comments also.

Unsigned you need to raise this it Wikipedia:Deletion review if you are not happy, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell what code like A6 or G7 was used for speed Delete. I need it to appeal. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYYadav (talk • contribs)

Didnt actually use a code but G4 is probably appropriate and a bit of WP:IAR. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta

Hi, Since your semi-protect expired, Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta has been constantly warred over by an IP editor. Would you mind taking a look at the history to see if it needs further protection? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK extended the protection, perhaps you could comment on talk page to see if we can get the IP to listen, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running amok

Hi MilborneOne, If you have time could you take a look at this editors recent additions? I've reverted his edits and warned him twice but he won't reply. Thanks Samf4u (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cant see anything wrong with his additions at List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location, he perhaps needs to slow down, I can see the warnings about copyright and unsourced additions so I will keep an eye on it for the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Samf4u (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Flying Corps airfields

Evening,

Don't forget the bottom of the table has a number of un-alphabeticalized airfields that an IP editor has added previously. Gavbadger (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I missed that! I will have a tidy up latter. MilborneOne (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MilborneOne.

Those Canada and Other ones were moved from the Royal Flying Corps page, as there is a comment there that says: ""

So, I moved them. Also I notice you have removed links to RAF Squadron pages and removed citations to www.raf.mod.uk for the (Night) Training Sqns. If the dates and locations match your book, and as the RAF website says on each Squadron History page 'formed as a Night Training Sqn'(which they all do) was it fair to remove them with the comments "remove link - no connection" and 'dont appear to be mentioned in reference provided' ?

I'm glad to have piqued your (and GavBadger's) interest in this page and other pages I have been working on. As I have no intention of creating and account and apparently have a dynamic IP address that changes at least daily, I'll leave up it to you as you won't be able to contact me. Didn't want to start an edit war !

92.30.138.142 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see there is no connection between the night training squadrons and the "real" squadrons", not a problem if you want to use an IP as long as your improving the encyclopedia, if your IP is not stable you can comment on the related talk page, that said if you create a login it allows others to connect your edits and you can build up a history of good contributions which helps to build a reputation and credibility. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First flight on Amca[edit]

HAL Amca first flight

Hello I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page. First flights section in the info box recently had been effected by edit war as the user Aryan Indian tried to put entry date around 2030 that looks like uncronstive, he is trying helping editing any helping Amca article but need guidance and look like he is not fimilar with the wikipedia rule. It's better to leave the flight reference out of info box, but should be in other part of article with reference as it helps to understand programme development, But it be kept out of infobox as it look like speculative as Bilcat has already mentioned.

1.39.10.42 (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, it may need some protection if they come back, I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville International Airport

Hi MilborneOne,

Currently there is an ongoing issue at Nashville International Airport regarding persistent IP vandalism and unexplained removal of content. Since you are one of the few admins that edits aviation/airport related articles, I thought it'd be best to let you know about the situation so it could be handled properly.

Current discussions about the IP vandals:

[WT:Airports] [WP:AIV]

Thanks! Nodayrt (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nodayrt but it looks like another admin has already protected the page, I have added it to my watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's already been taken care of... :-) Nodayrt (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 1502

That was probably one of those unexpected dives that 707s and KC-135s were prone to, in addition to control problems at low speeds on landing. There were several training accidents where 707 crews lost control in the late 50s and early 60s. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I still need to find the accident report to add more to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the details in the pre-CVR and FDR era are going to be hard to find, it's mostly speculation I've seen in forums. They were two common threads in 707 accidents in the decade or so after they were introduced. After all, Boeing was still figuring out how to control swept-wing aircraft, the B-47 was of course notorious for control issues. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE Questions

Michael, could you (or another admin) look at User talk:Mike V#IPBE Questions? This admin has taken it upon himself to remove IP Block Exemptions from a slew of users, apparently without any discussion beforehand with any of the users involved. I'm not sure how best to handle the situation, but I've not done anything to warrant the IPBE removal. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His explanation at removal was "Removing IPBE, no longer affected by blocks", but how does he know that? Odd. - BilCat (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P-51 POV warrior

North American P-51 Mustang and talk page being hit by a single-issue POV warrior bent on proving that the Mustang was British. We've had people pushing this POV on the talk page before, and it may even be the same person. Semi-protection on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the FA-50 in the Philippine Air Force article.

I noticed you reverted my image of the FA-50 in the article. The newer image is posted by the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines saying shows the planes in action (escorting the President's plane). The old image is an image from the Korean Air Force in Flickr saying that its a test flight of the aircraft. Are you sure the individual plane (of the older picture) are meant for the Philippine Air Force and not the Republic of Korea Air Force? Sure the old image is better aesthetically but the newer image definitely shows individual aircraft owned by the Philippine Air Force.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK User:Hariboneagle927 you make a good point although the image is not so good at showing the aircraft it is as you say a Philippine Air Force aircraft, I have reverted my reversion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AgustaWestland AW139

Michael, for several days, a number of IPs have been making the same annoying edits to AgustaWestland AW139, despite being reverted by several editors. Not sure it's worth the trouble of semi-protection, but not sure what else to do here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this IP range a has a long history of POV and edit warring. See User talk:Murry1975/IP.86. for some of the history. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure those are the same people. The AW139 guy traces on whois to ISP of BT-Central-Plus in the UK, whereas the User talk:Murry1975/IP.86. guy traces to ISP of Eircom in Ireland. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While you might be right, people can travel/move. There is some article and editing style overlap, and they don't seem to discuss their edits. Either way, the current IP needs watching. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Watching would be good in both cases! - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has continued edit warring on the AW139 page, and several other articles, especially Template:Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft. Can you look into semi-protection for these pages, and/or blocking the user? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this has been dealt with, sorry I was not around due to RL issues. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, RL happens. Sorry I forgot to update it here that he'd been blocked. - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viggen Operators

Hi MilborneOne. I've been doing a lot of work over on the Saab 37 Viggen article, and it feels like a lot of progress has been made with the overhaul. I was wondering if you would happen to have any good material for the Operators section? You seem to have been good for sourcing this kind of information in the past, but I'm running dry on this now. Anyhow, thanks for reading. Kyteto (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Metrojet Flight 9268

Please set an expiration date. Protecting an article indefinitely is never a good idea. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilborneOne&oldid=711227731"