User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 19

Olympic Aviation or Olympic Aviation

I'm asking because of this crash[1] in ASN's database says Olympic Aviation whereas this news article[2] says Olympic Airways. Which is it?

The reason I'm asking is because this is the deadliest Shorts 330 crash(There's only one other with double digit dead) and I was thinking of doing an article on it. The article would be only a stub because this is little info on it. I'd appreciate if you'd give me some input. Thanks....William 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can remember Olympic Aviation was the "domestic" airline owned by Olympic Airways but I will double check later when I am at home. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes we have an article at Olympic Aviation the main Olympic Airways of the time didnt operate commuter aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you....William 20:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

NASA Hyper III picture

Can you add other resolutions to the picture in the NASA Hyper III article? The source url is http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/HyperIII/HTML/ECN-2304.html, I'd do it myself but am unschooled in the ways of adding images to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.112.182 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cant see whats wrong with the one image we already have, we provide a link to the source if anybody really wants to see a higher resolution copy of the same image. If your really think they are needed then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard has any easy to use upload wizzard. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

Re this edit, those names were in the article when it achieved GA status. I accept that possibly the passengers killed could be omitted, but the loss of the others detracts from the article IMHO. Katz was an Israeli Ambassador to the Soviet Union, and is clearly notable enough to sustain an article. Mark Wynter already has an article. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not normal practice GA or not to list survivors or victims unless they are notable, and as Katz doesnt have an article on wikipedia we cant just list some maybe notable people either. MilborneOne (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree about Katz. He is clearly notable enough to sustain an article. I've offered a bribe at WT:ISRAEL if someone is able to create an article. A redlink is in accordance with the relevant guideline. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem we can wait and see what turns up. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:RAF Needs Oar Point

Hello MilborneOne

Can you please stop using the Military Structure infobox for any bases that have had runways in the past. The correct infobox is the airport infobox like the one on the RAF Leconfield article, also can you please stop using the word "station" within any airport infobox and as i and many other users have been told to remove them from article we have edited.

Thank you (P.S, Nice article) Gavbadger (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK understood about the infobox but cant agree about station, certainly never airbase as used RAF Leconfield. Like to know who told you remove station as it is clearly wrong all RAF stations are stations which is why they are called RAF stations and never RAF airfield or RAF anything else, although I dont have a major problem with it being removed from the infobox title it is the formal name of such establishments, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, i have checked with the person who told me the bit about "station" within the infobox and they said it was within the milhist group talk but myself and him checked the archive and cannot find it so i would say carry on using it unless someone official from the group says otherwise.

(P.s sorry about the link for RAF Leconfield when i read it over i was focusing on the infobox and not the obvious mistake, thanks for changing it) Gavbadger (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem keep up the good work. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

More finger trouble

Evening MilborneOne: I've just inadvertently started /Hirth Hi-25 Kria. Since then I started what I meant to do, Hirth Hi-25 Kria OK, and blanked the boob. Could you delete the duff title please? Sorry to bother. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry wasnt here and it looks like somebody has already removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, if they are in!TSRL (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

USAF photo public domain?

• Hey, MB1... I've got a question to ask you, if I wanted to upload a number of photo for reuse on Wikipedia and they were sourced originally from National Museum of the United States Air Force, who had in turn sourced them from USAF but without any author/photographer details other than "USAF photo" being mentioned. That said, I need help as to how and what should I tag the photos with after I have uploaded them here? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you upload to commons then can be tagged as PD-USGov-Military-Air Force and you will need the USAFM source that says "USAF photo". Once it is on commons it can be used here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks heap, cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Asian Spirit Flight 321

I just nominated this article for deletion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_Spirit_Flight_321_%283rd_nomination%29] In fact a 2009 AFD resulted in deletion[3] but an editor came along and recreated it. Can this be a speedy delete and even SALTED to prevent being recreated again?...William 15:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated it for CSD under G4. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

and it is gone. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Conair

Hello ! I noticed that You didn't approve of some of my edits on the "Boeing 720" article. Okay "special handeling" wasn't an optional headline. But i fail to see the error of mention things that is true about the aircraft, even if some of them may apply also to other early jet airliners. I'm sorry if I in some way intruded in some kind of a special project conc. accidents. My intention was only to give a summary of all registrated events. (And correcting the number of deaths in one case) I may be wrong about Maersk (Mærsk)being an original customer, but not all aircraft are accounted for. And a google on "OY-APZ", "OY-APU" etc. describes these as the first registration number. But I now realize that I may have missinterpreted the order of the reg.numbers. True is though that all five Maersk 720-051Bs were sold to Conair in 1981. I've never ever stated that Maersk Air or Conair were american companies though. Both were danish charter airline companies with their base at Copenhagen Kastrup, EKCH/CPH. (A third charter airline company was Sterling, known for maintaining Caravelle IIIs into the early 1990s) Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I didnt do anything to the special handling bit it was removed by another user, but you have to remember that we cant mention everything about a subject and some of what you added is not really notable or worth a mentioning and sometimes not specific to the Boeing 720. I am sure all the original operators are already mentioned and none as far as I know where delivered to Denmark. The Conair entry was listed under the United States hence my comment about it not being American. We dont normally list registrations or detailed histories of each aircraft. If you think that some information should be included then you need to raise the issue on the Boeing 720 talk page and see what other editors think. Thanks for your efforts. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Your reply. Sorry for assuming You for all changes. Have though reintroduced the lack of autothrottle and corrected the way engines usually was started up. If the crew only wants help with one engine dispite ground crew available. A second check-list must be red, checked and set. Starting all angines with ground crew was faster. I'll be using the talk page in the future. But some talk pages clearly states that "this is not the place of discussion what's corret or wrong". Only suggestions that will "improve" the article is wanted. If finding errors is in those articles, a direct editing seems sometimes to be a better way forwards. Hope You see my point, although this doesn't apply to the Boeing 720 article. Best reguards once more 83.249.42.164 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry,my auto login jumps out when cleaning cookies Boeing720 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Gird your loins

I have made a potentially contentious WP:Bold action on the English Electric Lightning article where a recent large "text dump" was moved to the talk page. I started to revise and edit the submission based on a WP:AGF when I noted this was an example of a roughly-translated and very magaziney-type edit. I have had "dealings" with the editor in question before, and although there is probably some good gen here, the sheer volume of the submission is daunting for a revision. The question is, however, what the reaction will be, as my Italian compatriot is often very adamant in advocating for the inclusion of his edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, watching and making a big sigh. The user has been told before to make small edits rather than these big text dumps but appears not to want to listen to advice of any kind. When others try to help clear up the bad english (probably the result of turning english into italian and then back to english) and sometimes removing the non relevant stuff they get no thanks. Clearly a competence or language issue in deaing with others, although I am sometimes confused when some of text is good english which doesnt appear in the talk page comments. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I too smell WP:COMPETENCE, with a side dish of WP:IDHT... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It was interesting to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli again, all the points are still valid five years later and at that time it earned them a one year ban. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice that Stefano is now demanding that his content be added. He also seems to have no concept of how bad his writing actually is, or of how to work within the existing structure of the articles. I know we are meant to assume good faith, but dealing with someone who continues to repeat exactly the same behaviour as that which lead to his blocking by Arbcom will exhaust anyone's patience.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The article, through Nigel and Kyteto's fine work, has been substantially changed and incorporates nearly all of the information that was originally found in the large "text dump" (not to be obstreperous, but I don't know what else to call it ...). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

I must admit, the adhoc mini-'overhauling' of the EE Lightning has been a pretty positive outcome from the whole affair (though I doubt Stefano is quite finished his say on the matter); I had actually considered the Lightning to be considerably below the quality line for some time, and had for over a year been considering calling a monthly overhaul on the subject - that seems a lot less needed now with the back-breaking restructuring work and an Operational History now fit for purpose - people have worked hard to make it a far better article, and being apart of that joint effort was marvellous. Kyteto (talk)

It appears that Stefano has now decided to ignore the consensus and advice of other editors, and shoved his edit in-full back into the article. He appears to not notice or care that other editors have pointed out it is a vague and needless repetition of the paragraph above; he's too busy insisting on doing everything entirely his own way I'd imagine. This attitude of his doesn't seem to be blunting in the slightest. Kyteto (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also, the fact that his utter incompetency in the English language (aka Language difficulty) isn't stopping him at all in the area of text dumping. Talk about someone not afraid of being girded~! Facepalm... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It will not be long before we need to go to RFC or back to arbitration as his conduct and competence have not changed since his previous enforced break. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reaction to Flight 213 crash

Hey MilborneOne. Saw you undid my undo, just curious because your edit summary was "sorry not obvious you need to explain why somebody with no connection gets a mention in the article". Isn't that the case with every single "Reaction(s)" section? I think it's not unusual for neighbouring countries to issue "condolences" and it's particularly notable given the relationship between India and Pakistan. Anyway, I won't continue to war this one out, it's not that big a deal to me but it feels like a very big deal that the PM of India immediately and publicly expressed regrets. Cheers, bon weekend. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, not going to get into a bun fight about it but a lot of countries send condolences when big accidents happen and are normally not notable. If Indians dont normally do this sort of thing then perhaps it may be worth noting in one of the many Pakistan/India relations type articles, sorry I just couldnt see the relevance to the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. A lot of people get heated over any kind of "reaction" section in any case. I just thought it was "a good thing" but it's my POV. I'll leave it alone. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

RFPP request

Hello, there's currently an uprotection request for List of active Indian military aircraft at RFPP here. Since you protected it, could you take a look? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Bhoja Air

Hey Milborne! I don't know if you remember me but I used to edit quite a lot a while ago. I took a break due to work and other commitments but I'm trying to get back involved now. I do apologise about my Former aircraft edit in the Bhoja Air article, I didn't realise that was the case. Sorry! Zaps93 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem Zaps your edit was in good faith but the list is for aircraft types and the 737-200 cant be listed as current and retired! MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. I didn't think that at the time. Aha. Zaps93 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Humberside Airport link

Hi

Hope i`m doing the right thing here. I understand you deleted the link I added to the Frank Morgan School of Flying from the Humberside Airport page.

My reason for adding the link was for information which is included in the page under the History section.

i.e. Humberside airport has a very high[quantify] amount of general aviation activity, with 5 resident flying clubs and organisations.

Is it possible for this change to be undone?

Regards

Paddysplace (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)Sorry, but no - I'm pretty sure those links fall under WP:ELNO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Flying clubs located at an airport can't have their webpages linked as external links. They could be used as references, I suppose, but just ELs? Unfortunatly not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Thanks for the clarification. So if I was to add the website to the references section that would be allowed? or perhaps adding a new subsection titled General Aviation and having a little about the flying club? Sorry, extremely new to editing wikipedia, trying to help my small local club here as well. - Paddysplace (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is that perhaps a section about General Aviaiton with a "Flying Club Foo was founded in X and has Y aircraft currently", with the flying club's "about us" page as a reference, might be OK - can't say for 100% nobody would object, but I, at least, would consider it appropriate for the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and work on a little write up about the club and dip my toe into the Wikipedia waters another day. Many thanks for your guidance. Very much appreciated - Paddysplace (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Bushranger, it may not be notable but we can discuss that on the relevant talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Royal Air Force stations in Warwickshire

Hey,

I have been looking through "Category:Royal Air Force stations in Warwickshire" and noticed a few articles i'm not to sure should be there like:

RAF Elmdon / Birmingham Airport and Castle Bromwich Aerodrome

Do you know if these airfields used to be in Warwickshire at some point or were the adding into the category a mistake?

Thanks

Gavbadger (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They both used to be in Warwickshire until the counties were re-organised in 1974. 14:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gavbadger (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Commonality page deletion ?

Hi,

I've seen that this page was on the point to be deleted, but I objected to this deletion. Since I don't know exactly how all this works, despite what I've read aboiut the deletion process (for example, where can I read informations or discussions about that "Commonality" page deletion ?)

I hope I did not mistake. I wrote a few words on the Talk page of the page. I've not the time to go very much further today (to complement the page), but I'll try the next days.

Thanks, ProjMngt (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You have done the correct thing, removing the proposed deletion tag and commenting on the talk page, it is up to me or another editor to nominate it for deletion if we think it is still not worth keeping. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

List of active Indian military aircraft

Hi! You fully-protected the article List of active Indian military aircraft on 7 Jan 2012. Over four months have passed. I requested for the unprotection of the article on project page. But the admins asked me to consult you first!

Article like this needs to be regularly updated. I think a period of four months is enough. So I request you to un-protect the article or reduce its protection level to semi-protection, so that contributions can be made.

Regards SQ SubQuad (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

F-35 procurement articles

Welcome back!

I know when we created the F-35 procurement articles we had a discussion and decided by consensus that they should each be at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II COUNTRY procurement. Without any discussion User:The ed17 just moved Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement to Procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement to Canadian procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II with the edit summary grammar. He didn't move Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement. Naturally the info boxes and such are now a real mess. Since I can't move these back can you please consider reversing these since it is against consensus? - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved them back, you may want to start a talk page discussion on articles about the title at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement, ed17 did start a discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement although nobody replied, but it was more of an obsservation than a move request. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your action there. I missed that note he left. It doesn't really read like a proposal to move the page though and he didn't leave it for consultation for long. I have left a more obvious note on both those talk pages. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Operational Training Units

Hello

While look for information regarding OTU's i came across one of your "sandbox" pages User:MilborneOne/WIP which has information about OTU's, May i ask what you are doing regarding this article as there isn't even a list of OTU's that i could find on wikipedia and i think the list is important as it has informaton about the role of OTU's in the military?

Thanks

Gavbadger (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I forgot about that, I need to finish it of and move it into main space, I created similar articles but they were trashed by another editor who made a right mess so I lost interest in it for a while. But leave it with me I will have a look and see if I can finish it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Good luck. If you give up place it within main space and i will try finish to finish it off for you. Gavbadger (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It needs more work but FWIW List of Royal Air Force Operational Training Units. 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks it looks good, I just created No. 1 (Coastal) Operational Training Unit RAF. Does the book you used have a single page reference for No. 1 OTU? If yes do you mind if i use for the article?

Page 198. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

List of active US aircraft

You deleted the link I put in to Air Force Magazine 2012 Gallery. That section has the newest (and most accurate) list of aircraft numbers. I was about to use it to update the list but ran into troubles in the middle, right when you got rid of the link. If you would like to use it and update the list yourself, here it is. 2012 Gallery of USAF Weapons (America789 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

No thanks, you added it as an external link not as a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RQ-20 Puma

There have been recent advancements with the RQ-20 Puma UAV. Right now, there is no Wikipedia article on it. Would you start it? Links for info: AeroVironment, Defenseindustrydaily, sUASNews (America789 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC))

AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (America789 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC))

Increasing concerns at the RAF Jurby article - Admin eyeball requested

I don’t know if you have a watch on the RAF Jurby article but I am increasingly uncomfortable with developments there since 21 April. An editor, Harvey Milligan and (I think) his IP 178.16.2.72 have made hundreds of additions that have expanded the article from 4,300 bytes to over 50,000 bytes with almost no inline references.

The text that has been added has an authentic ring to it but is couched in prose and phrasing that sounds like it is straight out of a book, rather than in an encyclopedic style. My strong suspicion is that if there is not a bulk amount of copyvio involved, then original research is playing a large part. It is possible that quotes and paragraphs of Kniverton's "Manx Aviation in War and Peace” may be being employed, but I do not have access to a copy to check this.

The same editor has also vastly expanded the RAF Andreas and Hall Caine Airport entries, possibly from the same written sources. The editor has so far failed to respond to queries on the Jurby talkpage and his own talkpage, despite efforts by myself and Gavbadger to engage him in dialogue. I have held off large scale deletions of his additions for several weeks in the hope he would start adding some meaningful inline references … but I think it is now time for an experienced aviation interested administrator to cast his eyes over developments and become involved. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could find somebody to check the references used, some of the sections are not referenced so we could start by tagging them. It has the feel of a magazine or book entry rather than the normal wikipedia encyclopedic style, one of the signs is adding images which illustrate but are not actually of the subject, and long explanations for stuff that is covered in other articles - some things we dont normally do. A lot of badges and the images are just decoration so they can probably go as they are not really relevant. I have added it to my watchlist and if I have time later I will have a closer look at. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, the article is close to book-size? someone trying out the page before publishing?? FWiW, not unheard of for authors/researchers to use Wikipedia editors for proof-reading/expansion ... Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

The book is from a few years ago and looks like the editor of the article just copied out big chunks of the book, but no-one seems to own a copy so it is quite hard to double check. Gavbadger (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Need adm help with airline AD and airport IZA

Dear MilborneOne, someone with IP only and who insists on writing summaries in Portuguese in the English wikipedia, has been constantly making incorrect changes to Azul Brazilian Airlines destination table and Zona da Mata Regional Airport. The airport is located in a small municipality called Goianá but serves the much larger metropolitan area of Juiz de Fora. The latter is the main destination point but the IP insists in placing Goianá or even more incorrect Rio Novo as destination. Furthermore, the National Civil Aviation of Brazil, recognizes Goianá as the municipality where the airport is located, not Rio Novo. Just to give you an idea of the ridiculous situation, it is like someone insisting to place as an airline as having destination Roissy-en-France and not Paris, just because the airport is located in the small village of Roissy, and placing all the information concerning CDG as related to Roissy-en-France and not Paris. I therefore come to ask if it is possible to semi-protect both articles. I guess a month would be enough. I thank you a lot for your help. (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

I have semi-protected them both for a month to encourage discussion, appreciate if you could explain as above on the relevant talk pages to give the IP a chance to respond (in English would help). MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, MilborneOne. I have written a note on the talk page. Bruno (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

James Hudson (diplomat)

Many thanks for the sectioning and biog temp on this one - appreciated. Acabashi (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Curtiss-Wright C-46 Commando?

It is the Curtiss C-46 Commando, not the Curtiss-Wright C-46 Commando? n'est-ce pas?? FWiW, need an admin to make the change. Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC).  Done MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Sukhoi Superjet 100

Probably because of the notoriety engendered by the recent crash, this article is now heavily besieged by vandals. Take a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

I will keep an eye on it, if it gets to much then I will protect it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for ten days as the IPs cant help themselves, that said some IPs are also helping fight the vandals but sorry the system cant tell the difference. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary Player

Can his article get protected and something done about an IP editor who insists on making a wrong edit?(Something like 10 times in the last 3 days). I brought this to an adminstrator's noticeboard[4] but nobody is doing anything about it....William 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for ten days to encourage discussion MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but the attempts at discussion have been fruitless. The IP editor has ignored posts to the talk page. GKLipsco (talk · contribs). Like the IP, he is totally fixated on Gary Player, but he has responded at the talk page....William 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

RfD of Daniela Montoya

Hi, I wanted to bring it to your attention that you never listed Daniela Montoya in your bundled RfD nomination after tagging it. I figure you will want to nominate it, but in the meantime, I have removed the RfD tag until you get a chance to. Monty₈₄₅ 18:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that I must have missed it, I will nominate it soon. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New Indonesia Airport Vandal

Hi! I've never seen one so active for so many days over so many IPs. Is there a way to range block this guy? See these IPs for details. HkCaGu (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like to large range of numbers being used although I am not an expert on range blocks. Still trying to work out why Indonesian IPs are adding extra destinations to Chinese articles I cant see any clear logic behind the edits. Are they adding them at random are trying to raise the prominence of some favourite destinations. It might be that we have to protect the airport articles but I will add them to my watchlist for now. Let me know if you see anything more from them. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This guy seems to focus on secondary cities such as Osaka and Hangzhou and on Asian airports with occasional extensions to Europe and America (for consistency). Anyone in the know would realize Japanese carriers are in no financial position to duplicate Tokyo flights from Osaka, and Hangzhou isn't suddenly getting a lot more flights in a short period of time. HkCaGu (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, so it looks like somebody trying to add favourite places to everything just for fun. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you take care of 182.7.188.116? He vandalized after my 4im but is now inactive too long for AIV. HkCaGu (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask your help in arbitration for an editing dispute concerning the Superjet crash article

Hello. As you are an experienced aviation editor, I would like you to help resolve an editing dispute that arose concerning the characterization of Russian aviation industry's reputation and activity, as cited from a Reuters source in Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash. Please see my talk page under "Superjet" as well as User talk:C1010. Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Commented on article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Su-30MKI

Hi! I am planning to start a RfC whether to add the comparable aircraft again.It looks bad when all the other aircraft have the comparable aircraft while this one doesn't.Maybe we should reach a consensus this time. Thanks! StrikeEagle ^✈ 05:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it may be worth mentioning it at WP:AIRCRAFT, the current consensus would be that it is removed from all the other aircraft. Nothing special about the Su-30, some other fighter articles dont have comparable lists either. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would even support the second option to remove the list for all aircraft.No website or reliable source mentions about the comparable aircraft. StrikeEagle ^✈ 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with an image

the image in question

Hi MB1. I know that you do a lot of work with images and I am having a problem with one on Commons that is affecting an article over here on English Wikipedia. The image, as seen on the right here, is a graph I created that tracks inter-election polling and is used in 42nd Canadian federal election. Because new polls are always being released the graph gets regularly updated and a new version uploaded as you can see in the file history. A couple of iterations ago the new versions stopped being displayed in the 800X382 px version, although the newest version does show up in every other version, such as the full-sized version, 320X153 px version and the 640X306 px version. This doesn't seem to be a server lag issue as it has been going on for several days. Unfortunately the article displays the thumbnail and the click-though both show the 800X382 px version, which is now quite out of date. Any ideas how to get it to display the newest version? - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally if you select Purge from the pull down menu it sorts this out, although I did try it just now and I cant see any change! It might be easier to upload each changed version with a slight different name, perhaps add the month to the name. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this. I tried purge as well and it didn't seem to do anything either. I'll try a new upload with a new file name and see if that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried a new upload with a new file name and that didn't sort it out either. It seems to be an issue in the MediaWiki software, but I am not sure how to proceed now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know: strangely this issue seems to have resolved itself. Perhaps they did a coding update over at Commons? Regardless thank you for your assistance! - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow...

You're fast! How did you find Hopwood so quickly? (I'm a quasi-newbi) Thanks for the rapid injects. JMOprof (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem nice article, I just happened to be looking at the new articles Special:NewPages. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, as a Yank, I hope I did him justice. ....best, JMOprof (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Nile

Accidently saved this before I had got all the lumps out, thanks for your good offices!TheLongTone (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem some good work . MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Air Training Corp squadrons.

I am not sure what you are talking about in your message to me. I have not even visited that page let alone edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.160.221 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The message was from over two years ago so it was aimed at whover was using your British Telecom IP address at that time. If it was not you then dont worry about as these addresses get re-allocated, it may help to avoid confusion in the future if you had your own username. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of Googlebooks for publication references - To do or NOT to do

Dear Milborne, I hate to bother you after so long, but is it against Wikipedia Policy to use googlebooks and post a link to a facimilie page of an old publication for a reference? I found this one on the 1950s Hawker Sea Hawk naval fighter "Rocket Motor Doubles Power of Jet Aircraft." Popular Mechanics, February 1952, p. 116. About the fitting of a liquid fuel rocket to one Sea Hawk experimentally. The reason I am asking I got one of these Popular Mechanics references reversed with the statement google was no acceptable per Wiki policy. FYI, I am going to "let the revert stand". That is my personal policy. I don't engage in edit wars and when someone reverts my edits I just move on. It is just to tiresome to argue with a Wiki Fanatic. I am just curious as to why. But if I can't use or should not have use googlebooks I am going to cry. I have hundreds of references on Popular Science and Popular Mechanics on Wikipedia pages I will have to go back and take out -- ie plus quite a few articles on weapons I have wrote. And please. PLEASE don't tell me you can't use the FLIGHT internet database for references. Then I might have a massive heart problem. And Bzuk ain't going to be happy -- ie he follows me and cleans up my edits and references on aviation articles.<GRIN> Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dont think you should use Googlebooks as the primary reference but I am not sure where that it written down, what you can do however is cite the original book or magazine, in this case Popular Mechanics using the Template:Cite journal. It may be better with Flight as well so you should use the Cite journal and reference the original magazine details rather than a Cite web. In both cases adding the googlebooks or flight url as far as I know perfectly acceptable. But also note as long as the source is reliable it doesnt have to be on the web. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Milborne, Sorry I did not catch you in time. The problem was solved. Thanks for your reply. I will try to be more detailed in my references. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

.

Trans Australia Airlines Flight 454

This was a crash article that already went through the deletion process[5] and someone has recreated. Can you give it the deep six and possibly salt it?...William 10:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

The creator of both versions of the article went to another administrator looking for a copy and seemed not to understand why it was deleted. I gently gave him an explanation and emailed him a link to google's cached copy of it....William 13:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Line Drawing Removal for RQ-7B and RQ-7B (IE)

I saw that you recently deleted the wikimedia commons jpg's for these aircraft. What was the reason? I uploaded them a couple of weeks ago for the RQ-7 article and just want to make sure I followed the necessary protocols.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I didnt actually delete it one of the admins at commons did, I did tag it as a problem because as far as I can remember you did not give a source for the image. You just need to say where the image came from so that the license you used can be proved. MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, when I re-upload the drawings I'll make sure to properly cite them. Thanks!The Famous Adventurer (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dana Air

Why don't you engage on the TP instead of just reverting. Just because there are fatalities does not make it an accident as is clearly explained on the article's TP. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood which is why I called it an accident or incident, commented. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I already tried explaining[6] to Harry what the definition of aviation accident is. He also replied[7] to what I wrote....William 17:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Still dont understand why the standard header of incidents and accidents is not good enough when it covers all eventualities. Like all these sort of discussions in the end we have time and can sort out it out later while we just get on with other stuff, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review coordinator

Greetings sir, and thanks for your help with past aviation A-Class reviews. Do you think you could look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 757 and determine whether the review is ready to be closed? Any guidance would be appreciated. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I will look at soon when I have more time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Y Closed as passed, thanks to you and other project members for the hard work. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the A-Class administrative tasks! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Asking for some advice

I've come across two small Nebraska towns(Bassett and Newport), the only towns in Rock County Nebraska, that both have a 'People from' category. The whole County is about 1,500 people and there is exactly one person in each People from Category. Naturally, the People from Rock County, Nebraska is empty except for links to the subcategories.

These town categories are likely to be slow or never growing. What do you think about them being nominated for deletion, and if you think that's a good idea, what would be the argument aka WP categories criteria would I use? Please write back and thank you....William 20:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That'd be WP:SMALLCAT; one could argue it fits the exemption, but the general consensus is that by-city categories shouldn't be split off from the county unless there's at least 3-4 entries per category. (It'd be nomination for upmerge, not deletion, btw.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help....William 23:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Manx 2 Flight 7100

I've granted all IPs a break from editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

RAF Maintenance Units

Thank you for improving the list, where are you getting the information from? Gavbadger (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ray Sturtivant's Flying Training and Support Units since 1912 by Air-Britain, a bit of a bible for non-flying units. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RAF Acaster Malbis

Good Afternoon

I am currently attempting to get the RAF Acaster Malbis article up to B class quality but i feel the number of references is nowhere good enough at the moment, however the following units are mentioned and i was wondering if you could check your Sturtivant book and see if any of the units and the airfield are mentioned together and if so my i have the page numbers please?

The units:

• No. 21 Group Flying Training Command
• No. 15 (Pilot) Advanced Flying Unit
• No. 7 (Training) Group Bomber Command
• No. 4 Aircrew School

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Added some stuff with refs for you, hope it helps. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help it is greatly appreciated! Gavbadger (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RAF Catfoss

Good Evening

RAF Acaster Malbis passed the B quality assessment and i just wanted to say Thank You for all the help.

I have moved on to the RAF Catfoss article and i have moved the article around but i need your help to find out where two references are related to.

They are:

1. 7 Sturtivant, R. RAF Flying Training and Support Units since 1912. Air Britain, 2007. ISBN 0-85130-365-X.
2. 8 Delve, K. The Military Airfields of Britain - Northern England. The Crowood Press, 2006. ISBN 1-86126-809-2.

These are currently at the bottom of the history section with the page numbers intact i just do not know what information they are supposed to be placed with.

Can you please pop over and put them where they go please?

Thank You. Gavbadger (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dana Air Flight 992

A certain editor[8] is going around and changing articles to reflect the death toll for the crash as 222, a number reported the first day after the crash but the number has come down. I'm not sure what the total is now, but that 9 day old article isn't a RS for changing a half dozen articles. Don't know if what this editor is doing would be considered vandalism, but I thought I'd ask....William 00:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Moth redirect

Just spotted an editor posting on the Gipsy Moth talk page, the article redirects to de Havilland DH.60 Moth. Not come across this before, I thought redirecting an article also redirected its talk page (perhaps I'm thinking of moving an article?). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Only moving redirects the talk page; just creating a redirect leaves the talk page as-is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've redirected the talk page now, must have a word with the idiot who redirected the article! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

RAF Driffield

Hello

I was looking at the RAF Driffield article and the language which is used looks like a copyright issue.

Do you own or do you know any editor who may have this book?

Halpenny, Bruce. Action Stations: Military Airfields of Yorkshire v. 4.Patrick Stephens Ltd, 1982. ISBN 978-0850595321.

Gavbadger (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not one that I own. Perhaps try one of the project talk pages (aviation or mil history). MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

DC-3

Whether the C-47 has its own page or not does not determine whether it is a substantitally different aircraft. It is nearly the same aircraft, simply used for military transpot of personnel instead of civilian air travel. For instance, see Boeing's website article on the C-47 here: http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/skytrain.htm

It says: "A reinforced fuselage floor and the addition of a large cargo door were the only major modifications. Other changes [to the DC-3] included the fitting of cargo hooks beneath the center wing section and the removal of the tail cone to mount a hook for towing gliders." PatrickCarbone (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• These are changes to the design not to actual aircraft that were built as DC-3s or C-47s. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "India". Thank you. --114.143.116.232 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly dispute resolution stuff but thanks for letting me know. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic Numeracy 101

Hello MilborneOne please explain the following or act:

3 aircraft @ 23.9 yrs old 4 aircraft @ 21.3 yrs old 7 aircraft @ 16 yrs old Gives a grand aircraft age total of 14.2???

...To get the average age first we multiply the number of aircraft by the respective average age:

71.7 85.2 112

Then we divide by the total number of aircraft

14

Which gives a figure of 19.2

Please buy a new calculator to confirm that the average is 19.2 Years and re-instate my edit for Monarch Airlines fleet age. You have overwritten my correction several times and it is beginning to feel like victimisation... Thank you Very Much... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.72.47 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Care to explain why you shouldn't be blocked for vandalism for these edits to the aforementioned article? (And please mind WP:CIVIL too...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(another) (talk page stalker); If you actually look at the source cited, (i.e. [9]) then the size and age of the various types differ from those that you appear to be using - the average age works out, as the cited source states as 15 years - of course, whether airfleets.net is a reliable source is a different question.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your encouragement to a new editor. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Irondome, appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Esenboğa International Airport attack

Just dropping you a heads up. Sometime you made this edit[10] but recently another restored it[11]. I agree however with what you did and reverted[12]. Don't know if a content dispute is about to break out, but just thought I'd let you know about it....William 20:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Air Safrais GAF Nomad N.24A ZK-NMG.jpg

Regarding the use of the photo I thought the owners are ok with it being used as they wrote under the picture http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ and on there it says: You are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work is that not enough for it to be used on Wiki? (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)).

No the nc bit says it cant be used for commercial purposes and the nd says you make derivative copies both make it unusable on wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The only CC licenses acceptable for Wikipedia are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, for the record. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How to do things?

You wrote 'not notable to the aircraft take to the talk page' as an edit summary on Airbus CC-150 Polaris about the inclusion of the Canadian Psycho in the article. Your edit was to remove it.

I seek to understand the way to do things in Wikipedia, not to discuss with you about the airplane.

I thought the proper way was to remove the sentence and discuss it in the talk page. It was my impression that if you remove it and simply ask others to discuss it on the talk page, this might lead to hard feelings and edit wars.

In contrast, you just removed it and did not discuss it at all in the talk page.

Help me understand Wikipedia. Is my idea of doing things, described above, the preferred and less confrontational way? Or is your way the correct way? To avoid a conflict of interest in this discussion, I will not edit the Airbus CC-150 article, at least, not for 1-2 weeks, maybe never. That way, you can discuss with me the proper way to act in Wikipedia without having to feel like you have to defend your Airbus CC-150 edit.

Thank you in advance for your advice as an administrator and Wikipedia expert. Auchansa (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If an addition to an article is challenged, normally by reverting it is normally up to the editor who wants to make the change to raise it on the talk page and try to gain a consensus. Normally if the editor wanting to make the change doesnt comment, either because he accepts the comments of the challengers in the edit summary or has changed his/her mind nothing else will happen. Sometime the challenging editor may raise it on the talk page but they dont have to. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This would encourage article to stay the same, not become improved. Of course, that may be life. Thank you for your observations. Auchansa (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The default position is normally the article stays as it was unless you get a consensus to change it, not every editor may agree that a change improves the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Douglas World Cruiser Merge

Hi, can you take a look at merge proposal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC).

Protect MDW

Hi, can you fully protect Chicago Midway International Airport. There is a user that keeps vandalizing and it is currently a GA. Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kairportflier and Tim Zukas just discuss the dispute? If they want to ask me, I can give them an unbiased opinion. I purposely did not read the Midway article beyond a 2 second glance. Auchansa (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Airbus A400M

Hi Milborne,
re: This, isn't Flight Global a reliable ref? Perhaps "A400M ATLAS naming ceremony at RIAT", direct from Airbus Military is better? Regards, 220 of ^Borg 21:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you are right that the other countries have accepted the RAF name, sorry about that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries! :D, but the first ref did say "... formally named the Atlas by its European customer nations ..." ;-). Agree on the 'redundant' "offically" though. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 21:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Edmonton air crash

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Gulf Aviation

Hi, you've removed a lot of information about aircraft types operated from the Gulf Aviation article. The table 'as is' after your edits is now inaccurate. As a newbie, could you explain the rationale(s) for your edits so I can review them and then decide if they are appropriate? Thanks. Simon Woodhead (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I tidied up the table to better follow similar articles and added information on dates and numbers the only thing I removed was a list of registrations which are not really encyclopedic. You will need to explain on the related talk page why you think it is "inaccurate", other than it needs reliable references. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the citation needed tags and a bit of table formatting. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Files deletion on commons

• MB1, since commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zulhelpme is closed, can I trouble you to take up another file for deletion? → File:Kmpk.jpg ← Thanks! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kmpk.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protection of Chicago-Midway

Hello, I recently noticed that you protected the Chicago-Midway International Airport with your admin rights. I saw that there was some kind of edit war, but how long will this protection status last? I only ask because right around August is when the NTSB releases their annual report on airport safety and the FAA releases official statistics for each airport. Given that (IATA:MDW) had an increased air traffic flow for the past year, I would imagine this would be a good contribution/statistic for the article. Have a good day! Keystoneridin (speak) 17:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We still have a risk that the two parties will edit war but I am happy to remove the protection after a few weeks, just give it a little bit longer. If I forget you can still make a request on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. I appreciate it.Keystoneridin (speak) 20:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there is a change in AirTran's new schedule that needs to be shown. Can you either remove the protection or I can tell you what to change, Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the protection on the assumption that an edit war will not break out again, please take care. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Forum thread?

Hi, I popped over to Bristol Centaurus as I saw a post about NNPOV on the talk page. I was concerned that there was a problem with the article but then I realised the discussion relates to an article from another site (linked in the thread). It's misleading, the (WP) article itself seems to be fairly neutral with just a couple of uncited claims. Just wondering if that thread can be deleted, checked WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM but couldn't see the clear authority to do it myself. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have collapsed it for now to discourage people joining in on a very old and not related to article discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, useful trick. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 1340

There is an AFD for this incident and its been agreed between me and the article creator to make it a redirect. Can you please close the AFD?...William 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Should let it run a bit longer to see if anybody else comments, also it doesnt mention where it should be redirected to! MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be here[13]. I have already added the accident to the list. Now I'll make note of it at the AFD....William 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to The Bushranger for closing it down. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sup?

	Good Morning!
	Good Morning MilbourneOne! I apologize for all the disruptive edits. Anyway, here's a Veyron! Enjoy! Jayemd (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Garuda Indonesia article

Hello MilborneOne,

I've just recently been an active wikipedian as I too admire aviation and am proud of my country's flag carrier, Garuda Indonesia. I've noticed that the said article was outdated a few weeks ago, especially the 'Fleet' section, so I've decided to update it with information from here, here, and here. However, someone kept on adding the Boeing 737-400 into the list, despite the sources above saying that they've all been stored or sold to other airlines. Garuda Indoensia itself have taken the 737-400 seats configuration off their website. The IP address suggested that the edits were done by different people but the edited content are always almost exactly the same, down to the sentence structure and words. I've reported this to JetBlast (talk) through his talk page and he told me that chances are, it was done by the same person. He reverted the post, since there were no source included that could tell us whether Garuda still operates the 734 despite other sources saying it was phased out, and also warned all the IPs through their talk pages (Although I have my doubts whether he/she/they read them). However, earlier this day, someone with a different IP address added the same exact thing again. I reported this to JetBlast (talk) once more and he told me to bring your attention towards this matter. Here's what he said: "I would basically say that different IP's keep adding this single aircraft with no source to back it up. After reverting the different IP's keep adding it back. Then tell them all IP's have had warnings about this on the talk pages. He might edit protect the page to stop it from happening. Thanks"

If possible and convinient, would you please take a look at my conversation with JetBlast (talk) and the recent history of the Garuda Indonesia article, and evaluate if there are any actions necessary as the misleading edits could confuse people who reads them.

As for the actions I've taken, I've reverted the said 'edits' a few times while also cross-checking the information from the sources above with news articles, pictures taken and posted into sites like this and this, and also reading through forums (mainly this forum. It's considered to be the A-net of Indonesia). I've also posted the question of whether Garuda still operates 734s in that said forum (here) and so far, the answers are contradicting with this said 'edits'.

I'll be looking forward to your reply. If there are anything that you would need to clarify with me in regards of my writing above, please ask me anytime. If it's more convenient for you to email me instead of replying to this here, feel free to do so anytime. Special:EmailUser/Vandreadstriker

Thank You. -Vandreadstriker (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK Vanreaderstriker give me a few hours, just doing some stuff in the garden while the sun is out, and I will have a look later. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a while to encourage discussion by the IPs. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear :). Thank you very much for your time and attention MilborneOne! Cheers! -Vandreadstriker (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I just wanted to thank you for your help answering my question at the reference desk, re: William Bowen. Your research jump-started mine and turned a potential stub into a much better article. I really appreciate your taking the time and effort. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem glad to help. MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909

Now that the TfD has closed, see this thread. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Interlanguage wikipedia link within artile discussion

Some Chinese Wikipedian told me, English Wikipedia is a improper place to discuss this issue. I closed the discussion and moved to meta. Please continue the discussion in meta.--王小朋友 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)