User talk:MilborneOne: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 196: Line 196:


:I did find a bit about some British diving support from Malta at the recovery operation as it did take a bit of time, it was in the London Times but didnt really give much detail. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne#top|talk]]) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:I did find a bit about some British diving support from Malta at the recovery operation as it did take a bit of time, it was in the London Times but didnt really give much detail. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne#top|talk]]) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

==RfC notice: [[Superpower]] article==
I have opened an RfC at the articles talk page entitled [[Talk:Superpower#RFC: Superpower article revision, no POV]]. I would appreciate it if you could express your opinions there. Thank you. [[User:Antiochus the Great|Antiochus the Great]] ([[User talk:Antiochus the Great|talk]]) 21:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 17 January 2014

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


Restore rollback rights

Michael, could you please restore my rollback rights? I've implemented (I think!) the instructions at WP:RBK#Accidental use of rollback. Hopefully this will solve the main issue I had with rollbacks, which was accidental use on my watchlist page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That was fast!! I just tested it, and it works. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting multiple-edit vandalism is FUN again! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One article I didnt have one my 14,000 article watchlist! MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP Airports in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airports for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worst aviation accident in Singapore

What would I name a Wikipedia article on this crash[1]? Thank you for the help....William 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would put the location per the guideline that says use <<year>> <<airline>> <<aircraft>> <<event>>, so rather than 1954 BOAC Constellation crash perhaps 1954 Singapore BOAC Constellation accident. I always think crash is a bit tabloid! MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:AthelhamptonHouse.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Textron Scorpion pic

Milb1, could you look at this photo? There's no copyright info posted, but I doubt it's a free image, as it's from the Textron AirLand site. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged now for copyvio. I just wanted another set of eyes to verify my interpretation, and that's been done now. It should be deleted soon. Since the Scorpion is flying now, I don't think we can justify fair use, as a photo could be attained. - BilCat (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been busy so missed it but you are right the aircraft exists and flys so a free image is possible. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The pic is gone now. It is too bad though, as it is a beautiful image. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1954 BOAC Constellation crash

Thanks for your work expanding this requested article. I've taken the liberty of nominating it for DYK, and have named you as one of the authors. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor just moved this article. The new name is wrong. I alerted TRM but if you get online first, could you please move the article back. That editor has also created other problems that need fixing aka either the articles returned to their original names or the yearly templates all changed so the links aren't redirects.
1954 South African Airways DH Comet1 Flight 201 needs to be returned to South African Airways Flight 201
1954 BOAC DH Comet1 Flight 781 needs to be returned to BOAC Flight 781
1943 BOAC Douglas DC-3 Flight 777 needs to be returned to BOAC Flight 777
1956 BOAC Canadair C4 Argonaut accident needs to be returned to 1956 BOAC Argonaut accident
That's a start. Here's that editor's contributions list[2]. Can you move all the rest back that haven't been moved already?...William 12:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has been busy, most have been put back but we need to check if any have been missed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user has also been doing some wierd stuff in changing cat sorts. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. This editor has you so unnerved you made two typos above.
Only joking around but here's some more articles that need being moved back.
1954 BOAC Boeing 377 Prestwick air disaster
1958 BOAC Bristol Britannia 312 crash
Best thing to do is just go down this editor's contribution list and see what pages need to be moved back. Funny, but almost all are UK related. Kind of makes you think of some other editor except this isn't our friend's style....William 14:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange I know but 1958 BOAC Bristol Britannia 312 crash is probably OK per <<year>> <<airline>> <<aircraft>> <<event>>. MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air

I've just given Dreamliner 2012 and FonEengIneeR7 a 24 hour block for edit warring over the Iran Air article. Although neither were warned they've been around long enough to know the rules. Would appreciate it if you would let me know if you think my decision to block was wrong. Only gave 24h as I want it to be a short sharp shock and get the pair of them discussing the issues. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air wasnt actually on my watchlist! they were certainly edit warring and they didnt have to actually break ther 3RR to be edit warring, perhaps 24 hours may have been a bit long as we really want to encourage them to discuss it, it is four hours now perhaps consider lifting the block and have a word about making a case on the talk page. I think they also need some words so they understand they should get help from others by raising the issues on the talk page and at the airline project to seek other views and get help. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked them both. I don't like having to block people if it can be avoided, and these two don't seem to be intent on destruction. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1954 BOAC Lockheed Constellation crash

Orlady (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
For our collaboration on 1954 BOAC Lockheed Constellation crash ...William 12:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good work by everybody. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Brothers Signed Checks

Hi MilbourneOne- In your opinion, is there any place for these images in a specific aviation article?
WRIGHT, Orville (signed check) and/or WRIGHT, Wilbur (signed check). Many thanks-Godot13 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I cant see any relevance to aviation in them, not sure if they would have any relevance elsewhere other than a source for the signatures. I notice that Wright brothers already has signatures in the infobox, although entwined in history it is also a bit strange that the brothers dont have individual articles! MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The software won't let me thank you for deletions

So thanks for the speedy keeping my userspace clean. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sector Command radio names

Hey Milborne, would you happen to have a source that lists the radio call names of the various Sector Controls during the Battle of Britain? We have an article that lists the commands, and the radio names of the squadrons, but not the sectors, groups, etc. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have not found anything yet User:Maury Markowitz you would have thought somebody would have published them! MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 13 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westland Wessex

Hey Milborne I'm concerned about your entries into the operators section on the Westland Wessex article. You've added the Bangladesh Air Force and Oman's Air Force as user's of the type, with references. However I did some searching for an on-line source, and found nothing. Oman 1974, 1987, and 1994 - Bangladesh (purportedly rec'd in 1973) although in 1974 no sign of them, as well in 1976 and in 87. Perhaps they were used for mechanical training, or something else other than actual use. Could you double check your sources - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem first Bangaldesh where I have found another one from "Fleet Air Arm Helicopter since 1943":
  • XT452 Struck-off charge by the Royal Navy on 10 August 1972 and refurbished by Westlands for Bangladesh government and first flown as a Mk 5A on 22 February 1973 as "WA274". Delivered to RNAS Yeovilton for onward delivery to Bangladesh 23 February 1973.
  • XT478 Struck-off charge by the Royal Navy on 10 November 1972, First flown as "WA300" and donated to the Bangladesh government 27 February 1973. To Yeovilton for onward delivery 28 February 1973.

I suspect they were air freighted out to Bangaldesh. Not so reliable http://www.helis.com/database/modelorg/91/ says they were operated until 1994. Far more reliable http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1975/jan/15/bangladesh#S5CV0884P0_19750115_CWA_195 The aircraft were handed over in March 1973 and 12 months' supply of spares was provided. In the autumn of 1973 specialist advice was given on the spot to the Bangladesh Air Force on the control, storage and issue of spares, and a further list of items required was identified and subsequently ordered. One aircraft has been grounded since January 1974 for lack of a calibrated torque transducer unit which proved extremely difficult to replace. A twelve months' supervisory and training consultancy paid for by Britain ended in April 1974. At the end of July 1974 the Bangladesh authorities, then having other helicopters available, decided that they had no further use for the British helicopters and asked us to help find a prospective buyer. This search is now going on. In view of their decision, most available outstanding spares were sent to Bangladesh at the end of August, the rest being sent in October. Altogether spares cost about £190,000. The supply of these helicopters has to be seen as only a small part of our total aid effort to Bangladesh. MilborneOne (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for SOAF I have added an RAF Museum reference which has a lot of detail about the loan to SOAF. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I guess they were an "under the radar type of acquisitions". Anyhow just wanted to make sure they (sources) were on the up and up - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident

Hi MilborneOne, thanks for your work on the above. I've nominated it at DYK and made you a co-nominator. Hope you're good with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting quite a taste for these, mind you I wrote my first one quite a way back (1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash started in September 2007!), was wondering if you or the AVIATION guys had any others that were crying out for articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we have a lot missing! I dont think we actually have a plan were slowly working through the more obvious accidents that are missing as we come across them, we can get some good results if we work as a team as you can see different users bring slightly different angles and experience to each article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should try and clear the ones in List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan, I should have thought of that myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of an image

Hello MilborneOne, I found an image of the prototype A400M you did at the page Airbus A400M Atlas and I want to ask you if you can give me the honour of considering this image suitable for mass copying or for sale (I want to display a little version of this image in a website), I request the courtesy of advance notice through my Wikimedia Talk page. Thank you.

The second prototype A400M, Grizzly 2, at the 2010 Farnborough Airshow

The image detail : File:A400M-1969.jpg Leticiazm (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the licence information is available on the commons page if you click on the image. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your quick answer. I studied the Commons License Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) [3] but I thought if it were possible, I would prefer to ask you for an authorisation/permission of use to confirm the information. I have another question, if you don't mind : Can I put you as an author and mention the Commons License as a watermark in the photo? I wanted to use the original photo and put the credits as "By MilborneOne. Source: Wikipedia.org. License: Creative Commons - CC BY-SA 3.0". Do you think that it's correct? Did you want more information in the credits? Thank you for your support. Leticiazm (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with that Leticiazm, as long as it is clear to your readers/viewers that it is my image and shows the approporiate CC licence. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thank you very much for the information. Leticiazm (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1971 RAF Hercules crash

Hey, thanks for helping expand this one. I couldn't quite believe it when I saw the Italian Wikipedia article and realise we didn't even have an article of our own. Looks like the possibilities of expansion are many! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you mind if I nominated this at DYK? I think there's more to add, but as usual, there's a time limit on new articles at DYK, so we'd only have a couple more days... What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the DYK it could always do with more work but it has filled out nicely so far. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the biggest issue is the time limitation, we've got three more days I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a question, it looks like (from the Italian article), a search was conducted by air using a "AB-205", this redirects to Bell Iroquois on this Wikipedia but has no mention of AB-205. Firstly is that an omission from the Huey article, and secondly, should we add this into the article linking the the Iroquois? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Agusta-Bell 205 is mentioned in both the Bell UH-1 Iroquois and in the Bell 204/205 article, it gets a bit confusing as it was decided to list all the military models under the American military designation which is not technically correct sometimes but it is probably a factor of our American/Military-centric bias! MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, AB-205, I'm with it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a bit about some British diving support from Malta at the recovery operation as it did take a bit of time, it was in the London Times but didnt really give much detail. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice: Superpower article

I have opened an RfC at the articles talk page entitled Talk:Superpower#RFC: Superpower article revision, no POV. I would appreciate it if you could express your opinions there. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilborneOne&oldid=591178175"