Jump to content

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 DavidMoyle (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 6 July 2017 (→Tommy the Texan book). 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)


Beechcraft Bonanza et al

Thanks, the adults know why. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify - 2600:1002:B113:C67A:41F0:FED4:113:ED07 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phil M, he can tell you if he wants to. - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but does this indicate the persistent vandalism is actually PhilM540 who is banned anyhow. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was only one edit. Last I checked the dictionary definition of "persistent" is not one edit. 2600:1002:B10E:8A21:5A1:DD50:C41B:855E (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was it? are you sure or was it another block evasion account. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To this article yes2600:1002:B10E:8A21:5A1:DD50:C41B:855E (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP is concerned that they are not a vandalism only account they are welcome to make an unblock case on their talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have blocked the IP for two weeks for vandalism so unlikely to reply unless they block evade with another IP. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What?

An editor probably associated with wikiproject aircraft has accused me of lying, whats most bothersome is that he has done this so blatantly, despite evidence being to the contrary, he has not even bothered to make an effort to go look up any of the list of aircraft operators that need fixing, I may not have mentioned specific aircraft but couldnt he just go look up a few to see if they are flawed? instead he has called my claims dubious just because i did not provide a direct link to any, isnt it his job as well to just go have a look even if not up to dealing with it? We may not agree on much but be fair as far as this editors comment and attitude is concerned, his post is at the aircraft project talk page. In real life this would probably equate to telling the police about something factual and them not bothering to look it up and calling your claims false, can you emphathise with that? this guy did not even bother about what other editors will think of his false accusation, kindly be just and let him know he is wrong and that project editors cannot say such things, no matter to whom, thanks. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of lying. - BilCat (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
139 I think he was just expecting you to provide the evidence, you have to understand other editors may not have the time and inclination to go hunting around looking for problems. They are basically just trying to ask if other lists have issues then point them out and they can be looked at. "Your reluctance to do so leaves your claims in doubt." is more of an expectation that they are looking for you to find other unreferenced lists just to show that it is an issue they needs to be sorted. User:BilCat has seen your comment above and I am sure will understand that you didnt appreciate being called a liar whatever the original intent of the message and he has said it clearly wasnt his intention to call you a liar. We all have limited time and as a project it cant check all 10,000 articles so any help with finding problems would be appreciated but in the end wikipedia policy is that facts should be reliably referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

See here and here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All their edit summaries are questionable. Not likely a new user. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was just looking at that, in the end they thought they were removing vandalism when they were restoring it and you say it and posted the warning. It just needed a few words to explain rather than a rant! MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Cityhopper accident

I saw my edit about the KLM Cityhopper was reverted.

At pages of other airlines, accidents of subsidiaries are metioned. Therefore, I don't understand why this should not be the case for KLM. Take for example the article Lufthansa. In the introduction of "Incidents and accidents", it states "For accidents and incidents on Lufthansa-branded flights which were operated by other airlines, see the respective articles...". Beside this, the article spends lot of attention to the Germanwings crash. And there are no claims for having no fatal accidents since a certain date.

So it seems a bit unfair, that the KLM Cityhopper accident is not mentioned in this article and there is even claimed KLM did not have any fatal accidents since the Tenerife crash.

About the statement that there has never been an fatal accident after the Tenerife-accident: this depends on the definition of KLM. The company KLM did obviously have a an accident as KLM Cityhopper is part of KLM. Therefore, the statement is at least ambiguously and should terefore be removed in my opinion.

Kind regards, Lolsimon (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are separately licensed airlines and have their own articles. 00:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reaction but you didn't answer my question. What is exactly different between the relation of Lufthansa and Germanwings and the relation between KLM and KLM Cityhopper? Also Lufthansa and Germanwings are separately licensed airlines with their own articles... Lolsimon (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Lufthansa article doesn't list accidents of subsidiaries which is the same as KLM. No reason why the Lufthansa article doesn't mention the time since the last fatal accident, perhaps since it was only 13 years nobody though it was worth putting, that said I don't have a problem with the time since the last fatal being removed from the KLM article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing T-X

Milb1, User:Duderocks5539 keeps uploading copyrighted images to Boeing T-X. Can you help explain the seriousness of this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Left a polite note but I suspect they don't really understand. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. They're probably very young, and that tends to hamper understanding. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil M again

See here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Phil's apparent sock/meatpuppet is back per this. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As this is rather childish behaviour it may not be PhilM who is a self-described author, researcher and far more expert than us, if it him then you would have thought he had better stuff to do with his time. ip blocked and article protected. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's unlikely it's actually him, especially as the vandal appears to type much better. :) However, the IP ranges are similar, and Phil has asked about the pages that were blocked, so there seems to be some sort of connection. Perhaps it's a juvenile relative or something. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daher TBM production numbers

Why did you remove my chart??? Skiendog (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt really fit as it was non-standard the information is still included the fancy bars dont really add any value. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin America

It always stings like hell when I'm reverted, but you were 100% correct. Thanks for pointing that out. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hamilton Scobell

The subject's connections with the royal family make the article's deletion without debate to be controversial. Please take the issue to WP:AfD. Sorry about the hassle. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note AfD raised. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks 2

Hello MilborneOne. Can you please take a look at this edit summary [1]? The IP seems to be used to use uncivil language, as in the recent contributions to Austral Líneas Aéreas. I already left them a warning at their talk. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is uncivil is to undo legit, correct, sourced edits, with the false claim of "unsourced". This kind of user doesn't motivate me to continue to contribute here. Unbelievable. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you not to continue if you will continue using words such as "idiot". There are other places in the internet where users insult each other.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, don't undo obvious legit edits and you won't be an idiot. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you keep on insulting...--Jetstreamer Talk 13:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not. First "unsourced" and know this. Stop lying please. 188.61.3.218 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the topic being argued, personal attacks are never appropriate on Wikipedia, see WP:NPA. I have left the IP a warning on this. If he or she persists in personal attacks I am sure that User:MilborneOne would be happy to consider a block. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ahunt for warning the user, 188 please understand that name calling or personal attacks are not allowed whatever the excuse, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chattanooga City Seal.png

Milb1, File:Chattanooga City Seal.png was deleted in 2015, after someone removed in from the Chattanooga, Tennessee article page by mistake, leaving the file an orphan. Can you see if it can be restored? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National origin of Bell 505

Hello. "Bell Helicopter Textron Canada" is just a manufacturing/assembly plant, building/assembling helicopters developed by Bell in Fort Worth, Texas, just like General Motors have manufacturing/assembly plants in Canada and Ford in Mexico, building/assembling vehicles designed by GM/Ford in the US. So claiming that the "National origin" for the Bell 505 is Canada is like claiming that GM's cars are Canadian cars and Ford's light trucks are Mexican light trucks. Or like claiming that the BMW cars built/assembled in Spartanburg, SC, are American cars and not German. And so on. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the same as motorcars, you really need to discuss this on the article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edits to List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases originating in Canada, 1950–59

Hi, MilborneOne, you may have noticed I undid your copy-edits to this list. My reason is that the text in the "Subject" column is taken directly from the formal judgments of the JCPC. There've been some similar edits in one of the other lists, so I opened a discussion on the Talk page for that list: Talk:List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases originating in Canada, 1900–09. Please feel free to participate! (That way all discussion is in one place) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism-only account

Friendly reminder that IPs are not accounts, and shouldn't be blocked as "vandalism-only", see Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account#IP addresses. Best :) — MusikAnimal talk 21:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm familiar with the LTA you are tracking. If you see any related edits get through, please email me. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 22:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided/disruptive IP

Hi MilborneOne, If you have time can you take a look at the revision history of 2002 Tampa airplane crash? Thanks. Samf4u (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Samf4u: I've blocked 107.77.165.0/28 for a month. That range is also responsible for disruptive edits on other articles. --NeilN talk to me 12:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much NeilN. Samf4u (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2017

User:Islandersa just violated your stipulation in regards to Leah Adler. They had no interest in discussing the issue, just being disruptive. I think it's safe to block them. Rusted AutoParts 19:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tipping you off that I removed Adler from the list as she didn't achieve individual notability in the course of a month. Thought I'd let you know if you thought her removal was due to continued bickering over the entry. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rusted AutoParts thanks for letting me know, not a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop assuming and personal attacks.

MilborneOne you quoted it yourself its referring to "your indian nationalstic edits". Its therefore not a personal attack but commenting on the edit. (refer to WP:NPA)

Please retract your accusation above and stop personally attacking me. (refer to WP:NPA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanflycanu (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of advice, but accusing an admin of attacking you for removing a personal attack you made and warning you about it, is probably not a good way to proceed. You may want to edit your comment above to increase the chances of a better outcome to this episode. - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you need english lessons then I cant help you. By the way I have read the WP.NPA.

I state again. You referred to "your indian nationalistic edits". It is not a personal attack but but against the repeated comments and edits by MBLAZE Lightning you decided to attack me instead. How low is that? Please refrain from further wrongful accusations and/or personal attacks against me. You are flouting the WP:NPA by accusing me. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanflycanu (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but it isn't clear whom you are addressing above, me or the owner of this user page. Regardless, your opening remark, "If you need english lessons then I cant help you" is rather insulting and some editors might consider that a renewed personal attack, in light of your recent editing history. Incidentally in English, the word "English" is a proper noun and thus is capitalized. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Marsham

Thanks for adding the stuff you did to Francis Marsham. I've got some sources that I can use to add more detail about his military career, which is where I feel the emphasis should be rather than on the two cricket matches he played. I wondered whether you felt that there's a case for moving to Francis Bullock-Marsham or not? The Bullock was used by others in his family as a name but never, as far as I can tell, with the hyphen other than in references to him. It would seem more sensible to do so to me - happy to do it but I thought I'd gather opinion first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing I found it difficult to find much on him due to the changing surname! Most of the info I could find on his Army career refer to him as Bullock-Marsham but his birth registration in 1883 he was actually registered as both "Francis William Marsham" and "Francis William Bullock-Marsham". When his stepson married in 1939 it calls him Brigadier F Bullock-Marsham. In the 1911 Census he was listed as "Francis Wm. Bullock Marsham" so at different times he is listed as "Bullock-Marsham" or "Bullock Marsham" as far as I can see the London Gazettes uses "Bullock-Marsham" but his entry in the probate index says "MARSHAM Francis William Bullock of Woodside Cottage Salen Isle of Mull died 22 December 1971" Perhaps move it to the hyphenated name due to his Army service but make a note and redirects on his other names! MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - the cricket stuff tends to reference him as Marsham but there's so little of it and that might come as much from the family. I'm tending towards Bullock-Marsham for the article name and then, yes, redirects from Marsham and, maybe, Bullock Marsham. Incidentally, I think the Brigadier bit was temporary as well - substantially a Colonel. And a source I have also has him dying at Maidstone in Kent rather than in Mull - any hint at that in anything you can see? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you summary, I did change the article from Mull to Maidstone, the probate index gave his address as Mull but other sources including the death index say Maidstone. MilborneOne (talk)
Ta - I can source that as well which might help as CricInfo gives it as Mull. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow and Düsseldorf airport seasonal route disagreement with user

Hello, the user Futurepilot1999 keeps listing Eurowings Glasgow Airport to Düsseldorf Airport route as seasonal despite the fact that it only stops for one week in January. This is never normally considered anyway near enough for a route to be considered seasonal. I've had problems with this user before on the Edinburgh Airport page when they kept adding far too many pictures. I would appreciate some help with this as I've stopped undoing their edits as otherwise it would become an edit war. Thanks, VG31 16:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U ser:VG31 Thanks for raising this rather then edit warring, I have blocked both articles for editing for the moment to encourage discussion, I have suggested to Futurepilot1999 to join the discussion you have started at the airport project. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to have to bother you again about this but despite other editors agreeing with me on the airports project talk page that the route is seasonal, Futurepilot1999 has changed it to seasonal again. Also after I undid the edit an IP user agreed with Futurepilot1999 and changed it to seasonal with what was their first and only edit. This seems very likely to be sock puppetry to me. Thanks, VG31 22:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burnett Bullock

You added some interesting material about this cricketer's wartime and hospitality career. I have some other material to add to him, but it'd look a bit odd if I source it when your material (which doesn't contradict anything I know about him) remains unsourced. Perhaps you'd care to return to him to add a reference or two. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to add it, now done. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Johnlp (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air policing

I just stumbled upon Air policing, created by our Swiss "English professor". Take to AfD? - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its already mentioned in Swiss Air Force article and we have the Baltic and Icelandic versions already. Perhaps we need to ask some big boys about it as far as I know the role described as "Air Policing" in English only refers to QRA type activities related to NATO operations. The American-centric Air Defense articles dont really describe the "peacetime" mission. Air defense which you would expect to cover the same ground redirects to Anti-aircraft warfare which is not the same thing. Certainly the main user of the term is NATO so if the article is needed it needs to be de-swissed. Still not sure why every single item related to the Swiss Air Force however trivial has to have an article and subsequent deletion discussion as it is causing a lot of distracting work. MilborneOne (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mess, I redirected it to Police aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...And the creator reverted my redirect. The article is incomprehensible, so please send it to AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a redirect to Air sovereignty but the Air policing article as it stands at the moment is damn near incomprehensible. Irondome (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FFP should not be creating articles in mainspace, as they are all incomprehensible. It's too bad they got rid of RfC/U. From what little I've heard from a.few German WP editors, he's as much a problem there as here in En WP. He reminds me of Stephano, whose was banned on Italian WP, and then cause several years of trouble here before his reign of terror finally ended. - BilCat (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried redirecting to Air sovereignty, but was reverted, as expected. Can someone file an AfD? I can't be civil enough at the moment to do it. - BilCat (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is edit-warring as usual. I have redirected it to Air sovereignty and started a discussion at Talk:Air policing. -Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If other editors would like to join us in discussion at Talk:Air policing that would be helpful. I can't really understand what he is writing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have both cultural and language issues and the inablility to realise that not everything related to the Swiss Air Force is actually encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a go at Air sovereignty to add the NATO and Swiss Air Policing elements, it could do with some more coverage from the rest of the world. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 USAF Blackhawk Crash

This article consists entirely of a navigation box and hasn't one reference to it. I nominated it for speedy deletion. WOuld you like to take care of it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It think it is this accident, but it doesn't look at all notable from that report. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is now at AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry was not around last night to speedy this. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil M again?

Milb, see this and the following diff. Note "theather". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bagged MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello and error

Hello. I see that you are an administrator. On 26 February 2011, you made an edit to the Airbus A318 article stating that the first flight was from Toulouse. This is not true. It was from Hamburg, Germany. See http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/a318-takes-off-on-maiden-flight This error has been in Wikipedia for over 6 years. I have corrected it.

You brought the Airbus A318 article from a redirect back to its own article, possibly taking sections from the Airbus A320 article. That is when the error was done. Prior to the redirect, it was a short article but there was no mention of where the first flight was. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this to your attention not to be critical of you in any way but to let you know that there are many ways for Wikipedia to improve. When I read it, I knew immediately that it was wrong but many readers didn't know. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New blanking sock

A slew of socks has been blanking various USN ship articles, especially the carriers. The latest one is User:Superwikibooster. Could you pull its plug? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic Transport vandal

It looks like the Supersonic Transport vandal is back - Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B102:D6E9:4C52:5B29:BA25:98EF.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breda-Zappata BZ.309

A user redirected an article you created, Breda-Zappata BZ.309, to Filippo Zappata. I've rescued it, but you might want to have some more sources to show notability in case they send it to AfD. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill, most of the stuff on Google are wikipedia mirrors! perhaps I will ask at project if anybody has anything. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Flying Corps

Please consider undoing your recent revision to List of Royal Flying Corps squadrons I know that 57 Sqn & 57 TS were different units, which is why my link directed to a specific paragraph within No. 57 Squadron RAF which is actually about 57 TS RFC If you don't like it, why not take it out of there to create a new "57 Training Squadron RFC" page ? 79.77.96.124 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comac 929

Milb, per this, the IP believes the page has been protected against vandalism. Could you oblige him? Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio image

File:Tai TF-X idef 2017 concept design.jpg in the TAI TFX article appears to be copyrighted. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swissair Flight 316

An editor has twice entered information that is incorrect into the article. Here[2] and here[3]. While doing so he put in a reference to that didn't corroborate what they were adding but gives the misleading impression that it does.

There are articles that say Lakshman Kadirgamar was in a greek plane crash. But it is said to have taken place in the 80's and Swissair Flight 316 crashed in 1979. I gave the editor a warning but maybe you can have a word with them too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have added it to my watchlist, I will have a word if they do it again, not sure why any of the survivors are named as it is not noteworthy to the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user

Milb, could you take a look at these contributions? They, along withb their userpage warnings, should explain it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decided a 36 hours break to read up on some of our policies would help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I hear a duck quacking

The grammar in this edit[4] reminds me of the work of Ryan kirkpatrick. What do you think?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree but we do have others that cant spel and are unable to string together a sentence. Perhaps wait to see what they do with a bit more rope. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 767-611

Milb, could you userfy Boeing 767-611 for me? I'm not sure how I missed it, but I'd like to take a quick look at it, and see if anything is salvageable. I'll tag it for deletion once I'm done. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilCat/temp MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not much at all. Thanks, it can be deleted now. - BilCat (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

Can you please page protect this page again. You have done so in the past[5]. The same problem, IPs adding content there is no consensus. This page is coming off 2 days and 7 days protection and those were totally inadequate. This page has been protected for six months in the past....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Sorry a bit late, I have been busy in RL. MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks. Do you think WP:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Airlines Flight 128 can be closed as a snow?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
Thanks from me also. - BilCat (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?. Mamasanju (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Request for semi-protection

Hi Michael: We are having a lot of IP vandalism over at Aloha 27. I was wondering if you could semi it for a week or two? Thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to my watchlist, tempted to wait and see what they do next rather than semi, if they have real concerns then they should be able to start an AfD (can IPs do AfDs I cant remember) or raise the issues on the talk page, as far as I can see you have cleared the reasons related to the tags. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for watching it. Another editor had an admin semi it for two days. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rare SA 340 Gazelle photo

Milb, there is a nice photo of the original SA 340 Gazelle on Airbus Helicopters' website here. It's unique in that is has a traditional tail rotor instead of the Fenestron of the production SA 341/342 models. Do you think this would be sufficient for a fair-use claim in the Gazelle article? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that prototype used the whole tailboom from an Allouette! - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was later modified but I dont know what happened to it in the end but it may be worth a fair-use claim as being unique and no longer existing in that configuration. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QF94

Hello. I recently made an edit in the A380 page and added the QF94 incident that occurred on 20th May, 2017 when the 380 suffered a major engine failure. Please explain to me that how is this not considered as an incident.

I am not rude here. My sentence framing may look like that. PratyakshM (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • PratyakshM your addition has been challenged by a number of other users who do not consider it is important, you should not keep adding it as if you do it again then you will be blocked as we dont like users edit warring. If you think others are wrong then raise it on the Airbus A380 talk page and explain why you want to add it, if others agree it can be added, if they do not then you cant add it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I am new as a Wikipedia editor so I didn't new about edit warring. Now you have explained this to me. I will no longer commit this mistake. Also my internet was lagging at the time of editing the page so that's why it got edited 2-3 times. Thanks PratyakshM (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Stewart (actress)

Hello! I remember that you were trying to establish a death date for her. Any progress? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Gliding

There is a discussion in the talk page of the article Gliding flight talk page about renaming the featured article, Gliding. Your input would be appreciated. JMcC (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The return of Fonte de Regaz

As you have experience with this user, who is now evading through IP 175.144.63.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), I am hoping you will recognize him and take the appropriate steps. Many thanks in advance for your assistance! Scr★pIronIV 14:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly is the same but blocked for a month for edit warring anyhow. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for handling it. Happy editing! Scr★pIronIV 15:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

Is this something you might be able to take care of AdF Future of the Bangladesh Air Force. I think the dissscussion has run its course -cheers FOX 52 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaman K-MAX

Milb1, there is a dynamic IP edit warring at Kaman K-MAX. He's already reverted at least 3 regular editors, and has been warned twice tonight. Interestingly, the user claims to be a "regular contributor" to that article, but as an IP can't prove it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY a week to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Air Forces.

MilborneObe, Can You Protect Spanish Air Force as That User He/She Always Started To Insulted Me and FOX 52 And He/She Always Thinks That Im a Clone From FOX 52. We Just want To Help the Article and Picture That we Have. If You See His/Her Comment. Please Remove It. Now Excuse Me, I have To Find The Relibile Sources.Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to protect the article at the moment, you really need to discuss any issues on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy the Texan book

Milb1, could you take a look at this and preceding edits and reverts? The new user adding this has the same surname as the book's author, so is a possible COI. I'm too close to 3RR to keep.reverting. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see LauraOC and this discussion on my talk page as it directly relates. Please also see this and the previous edit (this) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your meat puppet revert. Are you going to start a sockpuppet investigation? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I probably dont have time at the moment as I have some real life stuff to do, I will see how things are when I next come online. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. No. Actually, I want the citation there. Put it there for a reason. It's a book about the T6 Texan. Thanks for your concern So far. Not all that impressed with the tattle taliness of this site and my experience with your ridiculous messaging system.

I didn't realize creating a fake name and being less honest would be better. I thought Wikipedia was about facts and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMoyle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Users Talk Page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added: Right. All the major authors don't have staff adding content to Wikipedia for them and being paid. Sorry I didn't pay a staff member to do it. Now I know. We need tattle tales acting like pre school babies instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMoyle (talk • contribs)
(Talk page stalker) David: No actually they don't and if they do it gets removed as WP:SPAM right away and they get blocked. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your book and what you posted was very obvious advertising. nothing subtle there at all. We have policies against that and we enforce them here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So, if you'll excuse my supposed ignorance. I followed YOUR own instructions and found another user who posted it orifginally and even followed your instructions. You were then very insulting to that user. It is only AFTER that exchange that I tried posting it myself. I have a message from you telling me to find another user to post the content if I want it posted and it has been deleted two more times. So, apparently the rules are a moving target. Excuse the "confusion" on my part then. And I find it extremely naive that you think popular movies and books aren't having other people edit content. But, I'll accept your word on that.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilborneOne&oldid=789367988"