MilborneOne

The format of this table is messed up. I think it was one of your edits, but I'm just not seeing what is broken (the extra column at the right edge). Maybe you can find it? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sorry it was me, should be OK now. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Having come acros all those pictures of the wreckage, I was thinking of doing this, but you've beaten me to the punch. I'm surprised you havn't made use of the article in Flight, but if you can make any sense of their description of the ship's keel you're a better man than I.TheLongTone (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I hadnt look at Flight as I had run out of time due to real life activities, but now it is live I am sure it will get tweaked and improved on. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you improve the grammar/style of the text, please? (specially in sections "Accident"-last paragraph and "Airport and weather conditions"). There should be some errors in my text.
Tanks!PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Airport Alternative Name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk • contribs) 00:49 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, please sign you posts, I have nothing to add further to my statement made in December 2013 at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/iloilo international airport. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. ... Per discussion at the arbitration page, the source for Santa Barbara Airport is not reliable and not sufficient. The term boils down into original research. ::This had been mentioned in the talk page before, and since it is the topic now at the arbitration page, I have opened a new section at the article talk page for discussion. Thanks again. Best Regards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#Original_Research

Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

Since I have started the topic on the non "hub and spoke" carrier/focus cities, I modified the title because the issue is that do the term "focus city" refer to all carriers or only the airlines that operate a hub and spoke system. Rzxz1980 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The arbitration request (Airport Alternative Name) involving you has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Comments noted, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, do you have a clear source for VH-92 being a DOD designation? Sikorsky used "VH-92" back duing the original competition against the US101/Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel and later, as shown here in a report from 2010. To my knowledge, it's not an official DOD designation, even though it looks like one. It's certainly out of sequence, as the next number should be -73. The DOD has used manufacturer numbers in the past, as with the KC-10, but as far as I know hasn't made a announcement of an official designation and name yet, and probably won't for a couple of years at least. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Bill you are right, it was my error I didnt read the source article properly and the contract announcement uses the term "Presidential Helicopter Replacement" http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5280 MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

No worries. US DOD designations are often non-logical or just plain confusing! - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

They once made sense (mostly: putting drones in the missile series pre-dates Mac), but ever since Strange decided that since he couldn't understand why the Navy and Air Force's different designation systems didn't mean they were ordering different aircraft with identical specifications, it's been all downhill from there (F-35...HULK SMASH). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've reverted twice my request for an image of an Argentine Air Force Twin Otter in the list-article for that Aircraft. Your rationale is that the image is not needed, and I think otherwise because of its pivotal role in supporting Antarctic bases. I think that both of us have some degree of reason... and little time to waste in editing/reversing. Where do you suggest I need to raise this type of request, to make it visible to editors that may contribute? Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps adding the request to the talk page of List of aircraft of the Argentine Air Force may be a better place, it is badly in need of some good images. MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, thanks. As you may have noticed I'm working on expanding that list; first I'm focusing on adding the missing entries and after that I'll add images already available in "Commons". Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good work, I have added some refs when I can. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks a lot for your additions to List of aircraft of the Argentine Air Force; it complements nicely the work I'm doing in expanding it. I noticed that you're using a different source ("Andrade, 1982") which helps in supporting the article contents; can you please add the complete details of that book in "Bibliography"? Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oops sorry I will add it as soon as I can. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, it was probably because I didnt know that template protected was anything more than a turn of phrase! MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• No biggie, I hope you sit back and have a few laughs at the RfC I've started to settle the issue, at least for a while... lol — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed you've tidied up the article and I just wanted to say thanks. I was keen to get the content added and intended to tidy up the sources later, but I see you've sorted it out in the meantime; although I know the article's not mine, it's nice to see people editing one I've created and helping to improve it, so thank you! Noswall59 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC).Reply

Hi MilborneOne - I've undone the reversion (reversion? why not an undo?) of my addition to the Order of the British Empire article - the changes I made were highly relevant to the article, as explained at Talk:Order of the British Empire. If you feel that the information I added was not relevant, please let's discuss it on the talk page. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 00:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have put out a weighing notice a long time ago and received user talk comments for this, but you haven't given any reply yet. Could you please look into this matter? Moresonic (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough point about the aircraft name but there was an error with date format and my edit to that was correct, undoing my edit just because half of it was incorrect and then not fixing the correct part part is just lazy. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I tried but I dont have one of the funny dashes on my keyboard and it is not that important that it cant wait for a bot or keen editor to change it again later. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you keep a weather eye on the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down article please? There's a bit of a row about its existence, and I've already had to warn Lihaas about deliberately introducing material that lowers the quality of the article, which he is opposed to. I appreciate that it could be of better quality, but we are limited by what is being reported - currently no tail number known for example. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Understood, added to watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne, I have yet again reverted the unreferenced edits from IP user 86.156.53.27. This is the third time they have added the same edits without giving any reason and have also added further unsourced edits. I have left a personal warning on their Talk page, but fear this is going to carry on, unless a block is imposed. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since writing the above the IP user has again inserted the same unreferenced edit for the fourth time and ignored my contribution on their Talk page. I think the time is fast approaching for positive action to stop this. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since writing the above, Dennis Brown has stepped-in and put a temporary block on the IP editor. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I have been offline, thanks for letting me know. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the all the stuff on Dr Cunnington. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC))Reply

Found User:Privatejetgroup, which rang a bell. I did a search, and found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private Jet Group. Given that the user hasn't edited the page since it was created nearly 3 years ago, I can't see that it would qualify as a user draft. I've tagged the user page with {{db-advert}}, but it might not be the correct tag. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Gone already! MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, good :) - BilCat (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seems that our old friend RK has been at work. Can I ask you to delete the Olsberg mid-air collision article and reinstate the 2014 Olsberg mid-air collision article, per WP:BAN. If only I could spot these socks! *sigh* Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y changed the original into a redirect to the 2014 version. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, could you semi-protect Covert Affairs for a few days? It's been the target of vandalism by a series of IPs from Sicily for the past day or so. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y semi for a week, may be worth opening a talk page discussion to see if the IPs take the hint. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I was requesting a semi as you were doing this. The editor is on a floating IP, so communication so far has been impossible. The other two reverting editors aren't using edit summaries and are templating someone who doesn't appear to speak much English, which isn't helping either. I left a message on the talk page for the IP that was blocked, but he/she has moved on to a new one. I'll open a discussion if BilCat doesn't, but I'm not sure anything but a series of semi's is going to help. --Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Understood Drmargi but we still have to make an attempt to communicate to give them an opportunity to explain rather than just slam the door closed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not suggesting that, just updating you on the state of things. I'm the only one who IS attempting to communicate with her. Thusfar, BilCat has made no effort to open the discussion on the talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I honestly doubt that would help. A similar series of IPs has made the same edits to the Italian Covert Affairs article, so I doubt English competancy is the key factor here. This edit - which Drmargi reverted - only confuses the motive. Interestingly, both Perabo and Blunt are in Loopers, which the IP cited to prove Blunt was in Covert Affairs in an edit summary. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Regardless, as Milborne notes, the effort should have been made. Moreover, the templating will have no effect. English competency isn't the issue where the edit is concerned; the IP clearly has confused Blunt and Perabo, probably from Loopers. But English competency is an issue when you're trying to communicate with the IP, and slamming templates on their talk page, then ignoring the article talk page pretty much assures they won't get the message. I've added hidden notes to the first two appearances of Perabo's name in the Covert Affairs article, and have updated the discussion on the talk page, all including the link tot he USA Network cast page identifying Perabo as Annie. That will get us a lot further than templates. I don't expect much response, but maybe they'll follow the link and see their error. --Drmargi (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The "effort" was made, by you, to no effect, and you could have posted on the article's talk page at any point before today, but you didn't. So I don't appreciate the lecturing. Again, once they added Lexa Doig, I stopped assuming good faith with the vandal. I primarily warn users, particularly IPs, in order to have a "paper trail" for relevant admin action. Michael didn't condemn warning either, by the way. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The vandal is back, by the way. Welcome to WP, the world's largest whack-a-mole game. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Protected again. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, could you look at semi-protecting McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11 for a few weeks? They are currently the targets of an IP-hopping vandal, who has harrassed the article in the past with the same sort of nonsense. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar article is being vandalized with the same anti-DC-10 nonsense. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

There has been some dispute on Air India's status in the alliance. The airline was approved for membership on June 24, 2014 but It will not join until July 11, 2014. The airline has been listed as a current member of the alliance. Can you take a look? Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see you have protected the article. I have already made a note on the talk page saying that Air India should not be listed in the current members section until it officially joins on the 11th of July 2014. The user deleted the message from his talk page. It has been removed once by previous editors according to the edit summary. Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk)

The Star Alliance article needs an edit for when Avianca Brazil is joining. In a classic case of systemic bias, someone from the Northern Hemisphere has incorrectly interpreted the source information of the "second quarter" of 2014 as "Summer 2014". April May and June 2014 is NOT summer in Brazil.203.161.10.6 (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

MB1: Can you please review this discussion. We have been having problems with a new editor making repeated personal attacks, edit warring, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Left a little warning at User talk:BLZebubba. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've had to disengage from the discussion in order to keep my sanity. The lack of good faith by the user is appalling and frustrating, including accusations of lying and vandalism. Worse are the accusations that we have a professional interest in keeping bad info from the article. BilCat (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for leaving the warning. The editor is very low experience (300 edits) and seems to not understand how consensus is achieved. He seems to prefer threats, insults, intimidation and bullying instead in pushing a POV. Hopefully he will learn how to collaborate with more experienced editors quickly and not require blocking. - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! I don't know what I did, but I certainly didn't mean to do it. Thanks for pointing it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

gidonb (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I've given Alphacatmarnie a week off. Despite the lack of warnings showing on their talk page, examination of the history shows that this editor isn't really here to improve things. The comment whatever dickbrain the last time the talk page was blanked is more than enough evidence of this IMHO.

Clearly doesnt understand how we work. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

What exactly are you trying to do? I wrote an article and I want to be recorded as the author. Call it vanity but I want it. I asked for deletion of the redirect and it was denied. I created an article under another name. You turned it into a redirect and put the contents into someone else's article with YOUR name in the history. Care to explain? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article needed to be moved to the correct title but as we cant loose the original history it needs to be copied and attributed back we cant delete the original article, all you needed to do is just create the article at the original name. You are recorded as the author in the page history you did not need to start a new article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm NOT recorded as even a contributor except somewhere on the talk page where my name is not even mentioned. If you wanted it done "properly" (as you see it), why not FIRST talk to me and explain and MAYBE ask for an opinion? Now you've started an edit war, you reported me to aviation portal like some kind of vandal and you expect cooperation and understanding? I don't think so. You want to retain your page history, I want to retain my authorship and my work. I planned to write quite a few articles on all those red links in Soviet aviation templates but I don't want to do it just to see it stolen by some admin. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

MilborneOne is quite right, Le Grand Bleu. You do not own any article outside your user space, see WP:OWN. If you feel that possessive about your authorship and work, Wikipedia with it's open copyright license and "anyone can edit" policy is definitely not the right place for you. MilborneOne is a highly experienced editor and knows what needs doing, which is to say, building an encyclopedia and not egos. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am a bit confused why you did a cut and paste move instead of just merging the histories (which I just did). Hope I didn't break anything for you by that. —Kusma (t·c) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem Kusma with edits by only one user it seemed the easier option to attribute back as I am not that handy with history merges, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Air India is officialy a member now. http://www.staralliance.com/en/about/airlines/air-india/#

It is still not the 11 July yet in wikiland refer to talk page, MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Check this out- it seems to have a massive copy-viol involved (and from a "Master Editor" no less??!) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Known problem - have a read of the large number of articles listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Saw your edits on the page, what strikes me as odd is this is a page created by Sparx0, Accidentalflyer, users that have for the most part only edited that page. I agree that it is more then notable, but once we remove the self promotional (press releases) and press release driven ref's the "Services" section is overly promotional, it sounds like its right out of a company flyer, remove the self sourced reference and it just seems too promotional. JetSuite is the main competitor for the company and the wikipage on them is properly sourced and the wording is clear and unbiased, while XOJET sounds biased. talk→ WPPilot  16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agree, I had a start but it needs more work to remove the promotional stuff and find some reliable sources. I hadnt looked at JetSuite but I will have a read soon. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should strip the press release ref's first. Google has little that is not self sourced about this company. Took the picture at KSNA yesterday and I see it's planes all the time, just don't know where to find better ref's. talk→ WPPilot  18:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The press releases can be used to support basic facts but as you say we need to find some better sources. Perhaps we need to look at Flight or Aviation Week. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't get it. First I spotted a copyright violation and attempted to re-do a film article only to find it was blanked at Desperate Journey, with the note that the article could be recreated at Talk:Desperate Journey/Temp which I did, using new references and rewriting the text. Then it was again blanked and this time I was templated for a copy violation as if I was the one who had created the mess. I was again asked to recreate the article, this time at Talk:Desperate Journey/Temp/Temp. What gives? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bit of a mess - probably because they did not release that the "new" article was all your work and not copied. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

...and it still continues [1], now the same editor who blanked my work, has indicated that the screenshot I created is to be deleted because it is orphaned (100px). Can't this wait until the article is re-instated and then the images won't be orphaned anymore. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Strange stuff, I dont believe that Stefan2 is an admin. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you not add a Template:Non-free use rationale film screenshot to the image and point to your temp/temp article? MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It does have that template already but a pointer to the article is a good idea. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Too late– both this image and the infobox image have already been deleted. This is extremely frustrating as all I was trying to do was to re-write the article without infringing on copyright issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

File:Screen_shot_Desperate_Journey.png still exists. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Welch aircraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I keep blanking my talk page since I have read all the messages there but an IP keeps accusing me of edit warring on my talk page. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have left a message on 66.87.119.122 talk page, if they change your talk page again let me know.MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne. Is there any posibility that you protect the article? Unsourced edits are aplenty regarding the letter of intent for the acquisition of Airbus aircraft and IPs mistake this for a firm order. I've left a message at the article's talk and also a hidden note but nothing seems to work. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y semi-protection for three days to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Malindo Air is listed as having 2 parent companies (the National Aeronautics... with 51% of shares of the airline and Lion Air which has 49%). However, Lion Air has only 49% shares in Malindo Air. I have removed it but a user reinstated it. Can you take a look? What percentage of stake should the company hold for the airline in order to be considered a parent? Most people say 50%. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi MilborneOne,

I noticed that you removed the bold and italics from the yearly aviation accident templates (e.g. Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014). However, it looks like you didn't remove the captions at the bottom of the templates ("Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics" and "Deadliest incident shown in Bold SmallCaps"). You can see an example here: Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2012. I think my preference is to keep the bold and italics since they help readers particularly significant incidents, but if we're going to remove them I'd like to also remove the caption, which can be found at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents. Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I did remove the comments but another user reverted it and all the templates rather than discuss it because they did not agree with the conclusion we came to. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, could you look at A330 (disambiguation), and see why it was deleted? The hatnote section on Airbus A330 is getting long, and I was going to create a DAB page, and noticed it had ben deleted. Can it be restored and expanded? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was deleted because it only had two links, one to A330 road (Great Britain) and one to Airbus A330. Probably quicker to recreate it but it would need a few more links to survive (and 3+1 from the hatnore should be OK. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK,thanks. I'll try to recreate it later today. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think this qualifies for a snow delete....William 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne. Can you please take a look at the last thread in Talk:Air Algérie. I've started a thread at WP:ANI regardring the matter but nobody seems to be interested in getting involved. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have left a note on 186s talk page to encourage them to use the article talk page and warn them about disruptive editing, we just need to see if the IP responds on the article talk page (also left a note at ANI). MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Please note that the IP last edits have been reverted [2] by Ahunt.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The disruptive behaviour continues. Please note this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to offer my thanks for your assistance. I've also started a discussion about the list on the Aviation Accident project talk page, you may wish to make input there as well.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why do you want to delet this page? It is offical named by the Swiss Air Force " Super Puma Display Team". As it took part on air shows inside and outside switzerland since years. I was thinking it ift to the category. Well if ther is no place for teams who show the display in a single aircraft, well. But this is still no reason to delet it. It fit still to the category Swiss Air Force (the air Force see this as equal to the Patrouille Suisse, PC-7 Team..) I have put down my opinien and ideas on the deleting discusion. I would feel sad if this realy has to be deletet withou a chanche to stay in the swiss Air Force Category). FFA P-16 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because it is just not notable, nothing to do with the swiss air force just single display aircraft are rarely notable and if you get to somewhere like RIAT the place is full of them. Wikipedia is not a place for describing everything that exists. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well it has to do with the Swiss Air Force, it is one of the official Display Teams for the Swiss Air Force. It's a differend if an Air Force just shows a aircraft on an airshow with flying a few rounds or if ther is shown a whol programm from pilots. please have a look at the links i put in by the discusion (BTW also with the picture search you see this exist since a long time,and is an Importent part of the Swiss Air Force [3] So it should at least still exist in the Swiss air Force category] FFA P-16 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you missed the point a lot of aircraft at displays and I used RIAT as an example are official "Solo Display Aircraft" from different air forces and just like the Swiss Puma not notable. Comments should really be at the deletion discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have a question. Why does in your opinien the Hornet Display and the Super Puma Display have to be deletet and this one Solo Türk not? Well I don't want to have the solo Türk deletet, its more why can this exist but the other ones not? FFA P-16 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I hadnt seen that, I have proposed that for deletion as well. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK. thanks, that looks fair to me. (But don't be angry if i will made the proposal against deleting, because I belive ther is the interest of a few people to finde in wikipedia also some informations about single ac teams /proposal of a single aircraft team category). Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to have your own opinion on these articles it will be up to others to look at the arguments and come to a conclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw you delete the galery of Pilatus aircraft. i knew that all pictures can be seen in the commons. My Idea was to put on ONE ppicture of each type woh was build by Pilatus (and at least a picture exist) on the Main Page of Pilatus Aircraft so that a reader has a visual overwive about it can see the differend types without cliccking at each subpage or go to commons and search ther for every type. This was the reasn why I had done this. Just listing up the types looks a bit "steril" to me. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You need to take it to the article talk page, it is not normal to use a gallery when a commons link is available. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have took it to the talk page. Sorry didn't know that this is not normal, hope you can see what my idea was. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi MilborneOne, I was recently caught in the discussion about Air Serbia - Jat Airways relations. Please, if you are willing so, read my whole expose about this issue here: [4], and give your opinion on it, so we can move forward from this stalemate. Thanks! --AirWolf ^talk 15:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Update: We have opened a merge discussion here: [5]. If you are willing to give your opinion, you are welcome.. And in case you are not, thanks for your time, I appreciate it.--AirWolf ^talk 21:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

what are the requirements to make an Aviation article A-class? thanks in advance. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not something I get to involved in but we have a guide page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/A-Class. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne. Can you please take a look at the article? An IP keeps making modifications that are not supported by sources already in the page. There's an ongoing discussion at WT:AIRLINE if you want more information on this. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK I have semi-protected the article for a while to encourage the IP to discuss on the talk page so you can come to some consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why have you reverted for a second time a recent addition by another editor (not myself) of properly sourced information relating to the US Dollar equivalent then (1934) and now for passenger fares for transatlantic travel on the German airship "Graf Zeppelin" that has been supported by at least two other editors (the original poster and myself) as offering a modern basis upon which readers can understand how expensive it was to travel on the Graf? As the borders, government(s), and financial systems in Germany have changed several times since the 1930s and WWII while there has been continuity and stability in the US Government, financial system, and its monetary denominations, the US Dollar, as the world's leading international exchange/accounting currency (the "Euro" did not exist until January 1, 1999), is by far the best unit of exchange existing in both 1934 and today to help readers understand the relative cost of travel on the Graf from Germany to Brazil. Instead of unilaterally reverting such well sourced material, please discuss it first in the Graf's talk page. Centpacrr (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You appear to have missed that I have already raised it on the talk page at Talk:LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin#Non-relevant Dollars following my second challenge to the addition. MilborneOne (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input and proposed deletion of the above article that I authored. While I tend to agree with your general statement that "military accidents are rarely notable", this accident may fall under the exceptions to that rule. For starters, the accident took place at a civilian airport unlike most military accidents. Furthermore, the cargo of the aircraft is noteworthy as it demonstrates Ethiopia's participation in the supply chain to AMISOM/Somali military forces prior to the formal acknowledgement/inclusion of Ethiopian troops into AMISOM in January 2014. When the Somali conflict eventually ends and its history is finally written, this accident may actually be seen as one of the catalysts that drove Ethiopia to formally join the AMISOM command structure.

I believe that the accident meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as it has received "significant coverage" from "reliable sources". Furthermore, as described above, it is likely to have "enduring historical significance" internationally, and unquestionably "widespread national impact" in Somalia and Ethiopia. Furthermore, as a fatal accident that occurred at a civilian airport, its inclusion in the various tables of aviation accidents helps contribute significantly to Wikipedia's value as a data resource.

SM105 (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The reference from the archived version of her official website states her birth place as Norwich.

92.8.30.213 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Raise it at the article talk page please. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why? I'm not the person who's removed the reference. Perhaps if editors actually looked at references and didn't blindly revert edits. Again - YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NOW AGAIN REMOVED THE REFERENCE.

92.8.30.213 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Article talk page please. MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

LOL. Enter into more dialogue to try and persuade some idiot to re-instate a reference that shouldn't have been removed. Sure. None of you editors have actually contributed to the article, so why would you be checking the talk page to it?

You're the expert here apparently, so presumably you have an interest in article having correct information with references so you sort it. Bye.

92.8.30.213 (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Last time I looked this wasnt the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you take a look at this page? There is a slight dispute regarding the sources for American Airlines's seasonal service to DUS (the airline is suspending the service to DUS from 26 October 2014 to 15 April 2015). However, the IP insists that this service require two sources (the wording is exactly the same and the user called my edit and another IP's as "vandalism"). Also, does the references go before or after the destination? (most seasonal flights that are sourced have the reference after the destination. Can you help? Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Rzxz1980 I was not around to help, if it is a reliable sources and it is not contentious you dont need more than one source. I will keep any eye out if the IP returns. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

thanks. Jetstreamer already took care of it! Both references are archived for right now. Rzxz1980 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, MilborneOne. Can you please take a look at the article? A user keeps removing a number of aircraft the airline has on option (supported by references) by claiming that they are not included in the manufacturer's order book. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Jetstreamer as far as I can see from the references, like the Qatar press release, they are purchase rights not options. MilborneOne (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I mistook the purchase rights for options. My fault. I apologised to the user at my talk. Thanks for your time!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you wiki editors need to asses your co-editor Jetstreamers attitude, he recently undid my Malaysia airlines fleet edit saying the 747 was not mentioned in either of the two refs linked to the table, taking him for his word I added ch-aviation as ref to it, only to find out that ch-aviation and planespotters are a;ready used as refs for fleet and both show one passenger 747 still flying for the airline, why did he lie? if he deleted a fleet type just because there was no ref for the note that the aircraft is being used as a sub for the A380s than thats really pathetic. This guy usually sticks to his own edited articles but have noticed whenever he bears a grudge against someone he starts hounding their accounts or IP to revert their edits if they lack reference or for some trivial issue, again double standards on his part i.e he normally ignores edits on other articles even if its vandalism, like I said if you bring to his notice that both refs show MH flying a single 747 he will argue that they dont mention it subbing for the A380 so thats why he reverted it, is that really valid? couldnt he have just removed the note only? bet he will pop in to add his two cents worth since he is tracking my IP after the flynas edit issue. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK but you need to assume good faith, I know User:Jetstreamer sometimes like us all makes mistakes so I dont think he would intentionally lie. From what I have seen it is to cover for the loss of MH17 so not just being used as an A380 sub (it also hasnt appeared in the tracking sites since 25 July 2014 and it was used that week to take relatives to Ukraine/Amsterdam). In these situations it may be better to raise it on the talk page or if that doesnt work you can raise it here for me to look at. He may have been looking at your edits to see if you are have added dubious information elsewhere or you have a good track record but it may be he has a lot of articles on his watchlist, we dont know what he watches. I am sure he will read this and take note of what you have said but I dont see any major issues in his work here and sometimes he is the first to deal with vandalism and issues on airline articles. That said if you are still concerned with his attitude then come back and I can have a word with him. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to know where do the references provided say that these 747-400s are "Used only as substitute for A380 when required" as the IP claimed in one of their last edits to the page [6]. More specifically, the verifiability policy states that ″All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material″. I've already discussed this at WT:AIRLINE regarding Flynas in a thread started by this very IP. We're having a serious misunderstanding of the policy here that is evidenced in a number of articles, not just in the MH's one. In particular, the diff I provided is original research.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the above, please also note this where another admin also acknowledged the IP edits as problematic.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link, the only thing I can find about the 747 is that it was used to take MH17 relatives to Kiev and Amsterdam and not much since. MilborneOne (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, you semi-protected AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo for a month in May 2013, as the article was being hit by several IP sock-/meat-puppets who insisted on adding flags to the infobox, and changing the usages of Taiwan and ROC in the article. In the past 2 days, a similar slew of IPs has begun making the same types of edits to the article, and some of the IPs are making similar edits to other China-/Taiwan-related articles. I reverted these changes to follow the MOS, and then spent some time removing some unsourced info from the article. Two of these IPs have reverted me without giving reasonable explanations. Could you look at the article and consider semi-protecting it again? Thanks. (Note: I am being ware of 3RR.) - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

We're having persistent problems with an IP at this page. Can you please protect it?...William 10:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just because they claim I'm disruptive?

I've asked them to provide their proofs on numerous occasions to dis-prove my edit and all I get is reversion. And then they hammer and accuse me of disruption and vandalism?

How about they follow the rules also instead of 3RRing me? How bout they provide their proofs? I have proof, the DVDs sitting right in front of me.... they are annotating to websites that are less accurate that the wiki and those sites are known opinion sites have no more proof than they do...

I thought this was a fair forum and provable accuracy was the point? if it isn't it?, then I will instruct my students to avoid wiki as a source of info and I will also introduce this example in the next conference of educators here (two weeks away) as a strong reason to counsel away from wiki as an educational tool....

I can't believe it! inaccuracy is valued more over provable fact!

Astounding!

Edit: Adding a link to accurate info for illustrative purposes.

www.cineflixproductions.com Mayday premieres on Discovery Wednesday September 3 at 1 pm

Clearly shows one factual error out of many on the page in question.

Thank you

Please sign your posts, the reason for protecting the article was to encourage discussion on the article talk page, I suggest that is the best place for this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) then I will instruct my students to avoid wiki as a source of info Good. That's what you need to be doing anyway - students should not be using Wikipeida as a source for their classes. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

A list of all PC-7 Team members of the last25 years, or all aircraft and ac tailnumbers used by the team in this time would be too much. But just listen up the current team is not. Please stop to put down always pages about the swiss air force, its not nice from you.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Emily Blunt vandal is back at Covert Affairs. Can you semi-protect it again,and possibly block the IP? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem I would have been quicker if I had not been outside to see a "Dreamlifter" go past at 36,000 feet! MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool!! - BilCat (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Palermo IP is back, now genuinely vandalizing the article. --Drmargi (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected again (for a bit longer) and I have left a note on the IPs talk page to discuss the change. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

That should take care of it. Up to now, I've been convinced they were genuinely confusing the two actors, given some of their (sparse) edit summaries. This is just vandalism, plain and simple. I don't see discussion happening, but you never know. --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The IP appeared again but as a different one. I think the IPs are similar (they are inappropriately calling edits as "vandalism"). A user already explained this at the talk page regarding AA seasonal service. The route was originally launched as a year round service but it has been converted to a seasonal service. The problem is that where does the source saying seasonal conversion go (after the seasonal note or after the destination?) Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The IP hasnt come back yet today I will keep an eye open for them, I think the reference(s) should come after the destination but that is just my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Time to head off an edit/revert war. See: [7] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

As this is my talk page I just want to indulge myself:

It looked good but sounded even better, just to thank our Canadian friends for bringing Vera over to the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for shooting those pix! I have already been linking to your photos. We'll send her over there any time! - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please protect Braniff International Airways page for same reason as Boeing 314 which is having repeated massive unexplained deletions being made to it by the same anon user using multiple anon IPs (70.90.163.138, 173.164.133.26, 75.16.27.73, and 50.161.85.102) as the Boeing 314 page you just protected. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I request the same. This page has been under attack from the multiple IP addresses but all from the Berkley, California, Library. The person doing this has responded to my requests for them to stop with rudeness. Thanks so much.Mmb777e (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Note: The above user is identified on his user page as both an airline pilot and Founder/President of the Braniff Preservation Group, LLC, in Dallas, Texas with over 40 years of experience in preserving the history of this carrier. As such, there is probably no other editor on WP who is better qualified to edit and build this article. Centpacrr (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected for a couple of weeks to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

How do I create a disambigution page for the query EOTS so it shows also as "Electro-Optical Targeting System"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EOTS&redirect=no

thanks. Dark Liberty (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the redirect to a disambiguation page for you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm doing a bit of work on the Farman III article which you started, & while googling around came across this, published 2013. Description of the Farman seems to be a simple copypaste from the wiki article. Not sure whether to be shocked or amused, but certainly anybody shelling out 35 quid is not getting much of a deal.TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Problem with we have in the future is the copyright guys will think it was copied into wikipedia not from it! MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. The Wikipage is older than the book...and now has more information.TheLongTone (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, could you look into locking down the Airbus A340 for a day or two? This revert war is getting old! One editor in particular seems to be insisting on having his way in spite of an apparent consensus against his edits. I'm not taking sides as to who is right, but perhaps some blocks are in order also. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Protected for a few days to stop the edit warring and allow them to come to some agreement/consensus. Will not block anybody yet so they get a chance to discuss but certainly signs of disruptive editing going on. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The same behavior by User:Jackson Riley is occurring here on the A350 page. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks,I will keep an eye on it but if they continue to edit war rather than discuss it will not end nicely. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, I had uploaded File:CH53K valley 535.jpg as fair use in 2008. A free photo of the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion is now in the article. What do I need to do to have the photo removed? Is there a tag for that? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have removed it from two other articles (where it should not have been) and tagged it as orphaned for deletion, I wont delete it myself as I removed the rationale and made it an orphan but it should go soon. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. I didn't think to check where else it was used. - BilCat (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good morning MilborneOne, just picked up the subject of Stratotanker vs Stratofreighter. Your edit on the respective Talk page is only just as young as of 12:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

I inserted a "citation needed" template into the article itself concerning the name and quoted some sources on the Talk page which IMHO appear to support your original suspicion "that Stratotanker is wrong". If you should have some spare time (??) you might take a look at the subject.

By the way: It is interesting - though sad - to note that in en:WP there are isolated people who are fighting unbelievable edit wars against the entire rest of the world. Unfortunately, we have the same problem in the German WP with a few contributors, which is very time consuming and a waste of productivity. Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for picking that up from a 2010 comment, I will have another look, they may also be some stalkers around here who have better references then me. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne. I would like to "complain". Like you knew I was not the same opinion when you had nominated the Swiss F/A-18 solodisplay for deleting. In my eyes I would have prefered it at last in the category Swiss air force, Or a new Category for single aircraft Teams. Well I lost with this and the Swiss air Force F/A-18 Solodisplay team was deletet because you said single aircraft teams have no place in the english wikipedia. But why is the Swiss F/A-18 solodisplay not important enough but the turkish and the greek F-16 solodisplay can stay in the english wikipedia? Same ruls for all? Well to say you straight I am against deleting them (I would vote keep it). i am talking bout this 2 Solo Türk and F-16 Demo Team bye FFA P-16 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

If you recall, you challenged my edit for the Incidents section at Flydubai. Before I go on, I would like to apologize for the inconvenience. I'm a new member and getting to know Wikipedia.

I need your help challenging an edit. In the firm orders list at List of Boeing 737 MAX orders, Ryanair's order for the 737 MAX 8 200 keeps getting added when I remove it stating that it is a commitment. It seems that people do not know the difference between a firm order and a commitment. I have reverted the page to my previous edit, and if it is reverted back, I will not take any action because I want to avoid getting involved in an edit war. The link to the story is provided below, and you will see in the beginning that it states Ryanair is committed to ordering the MAX 8 200, not making a firm order. Would you mind challenging the edit for me? I would truly appreciate it.

Story http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-09-08-Boeing-Launches-737-MAX-200-with-Ryanair

Regards, --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would agree it looks like they have not actually placed an order yet just committed to do so, probably so Boeing could launch the sub-type. I will keep an eye on the article but so far nobody has reverted your change. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good morning

You kindly reviewed an article I wrote about Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Leycester Haymes. Unfortunately the article has been nominated for deletion and I wondered if you would lend a hand to the retention of the article in the encyclopedia. I have added references to Haymes's World War I record (from the VC and DSO - Volume II) and a collection of his photographs held at the Imperial War Museum.

Many thanks.

Kind regards MJT21 (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, could you move AEREON to Aereon? As far as I can tell, it's not an acronym. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne, Can you have a look at the section Display Team on the Swiss Air Force page? I know that I am often put in too much informations ( and I think you will delet out some of it) But In my opinien The Banner is deleting too much out. How ever before I give up this "fight" it would be nice if a few more persons can have a look at it, and look what has to be deleted and what can be standing there. I think for eg the Hornet Display Team shold at last have more than just 3-4 sentens on the Swiss Air Force page, if the Solo Türk and the Greek F-16 Zeus have theyr own page. I know you will delet out some of what i have written , but I think this is the easyer way, deleting out need not much time. Thanks.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK I will have a look later, we have to make sure that it doesnt take up to much room in what is an overview of the whole air force but still explains what the team is and does. MilborneOne (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I know you will delet out some parts (But I think placeing in all my Ideas at once and then you can delet it out is much easyer as when I put in one pice after the other and you or some one other has to chek again and again). ahunt had a look at it, but acording to the time stamps of wikipedia he had the look AFTER TheBanner had deletet out all informations out i had add (so please check that you see what I have added). Thank you. FFA P-16 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This adds value to the page while not cluttering it up or confusing things. It takes the reader directly to the relevant Commons page, rather than just to the generic museum aircraft page. "Not standard practice" is not a reason for not allowing it. It can become standard practice unless there's a reason not to. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I cant see the value in adding what could be thirty of forty or more links to each page to show an image. MilborneOne (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Inline links to individual aircraft in commons. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, could you look into moving Claudius Dornier to Claude Dornier? Claude appears to be the more-common name, and the German wiki article is also at de:Claude Dornier. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that was fast! - BilCat (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, could you look at moving SNCASE SE-212 Durandal to SNCASE SE.212 Durandal? The dot is usually correct for SNCASE aircraft from this era, and matches French WP at fr:SNCASE SE.212 Durandal. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please page protect this article? We're having bad problems with IP editors....William 19:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Y need to start a talk page discussion to encourage the IP to explain, or at least give them a chance to explain. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

There have been page discussions herewiki/Talk:List_of_Mayday_episodes#Speculated_Season_14_Episode_List and here[8] on this. In the latter discussion, the IP editor whose number was strikingly similar to today, was Ryan P. Nobody has voiced a dissenting view to that new episodes being listed need a WP reliable source and that IMDB, Linkedin, and Youtube entries(Just someone putting up a list where he said in the comments section below that his list came from sources which included among others Wikipedia!) don't qualify....William 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The IP is threatening more vandalism[9] and the protection on the article comes off tomorrow....William 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

About an hour after your last page protection expired, the IP editor was back again and has so far been reverted twice. This page needs protection for a longer period of time if not permanently....William 13:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Royal Malaysian Air Force, you may be blocked from editing.Elias T. Walker (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the evidence you have now been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Addinqaisara. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Facepalm What some people will do to get attention! - BilCat (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi There, MilborneOne. Can you please take a look at the article? A new editor has been adding unnotable aircraft incidents, plus the fleet table has been altered as if the article was a travel guide. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_TABA_Fairchild_FH-227_accident

I just had a question for clarification. The referenced page lists 4 passengers and 40 crew in the summary box. Are these the other way around perhaps? That is 40 passengers and 4 crew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.233.111 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, yes you are right it was my mistake when I started the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks MilborneOne for taking time to help me. I understand now why this may not be notable enough. While reading the " Shorts 360 " article I came across the incident, did some digging and found more info and public domain photos. If the article I wrote is deleted can I add a little more info and a photo to the " Shorts 360 " page? Samf4u 14:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samf4u (talk • contribs)

Doesn't a film that originated in French retain its French name, i.e. Les Invasions barbares? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, MilborneOne. Can you please comment on the latest thread at Talk:Aeroflot? Scalhotrod and me are in a dispute on whether to consider the Russian government as the airline's parent company. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Air Wisconsin Flight 965 looks like his work if you study the original copy of the article. The editor's history also quacks IMHO....William 14:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Certainly ticks a few boxes, certainly has the same grammar skill and interest in disasters. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Clearly you have put a lot of work into this today and I don't want to appear ungrateful for that. However, I fear that you may have precipitated an exodus, because I don't see your truncated version finding favour with those I know to be part of the readership. What I really don't understand, though, is this: Why didn't the four people who made 24 deletions in the space of 20 hours discuss it first? The words Autocratic and Arrogant come to mind.... 255 Historian (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, regarding your protection for the RMAF, is it a permanant/long term block? If that's the case it'll be rather sad for good faith editors like me.. Or perhaps there's another way to edit that I dont know of?? — Junchuann   02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didnt intend it to be for very long, just long enough for the user that keep vandalising it to get bored and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for expanding this! What was the source of your information? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was his obituary in the London Times, I was distracted by real world stuff so forgot to add it as a source, I will go back and add it to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Morning Milb, could you move Category:Clêrget aircraft engines back to Clerget aircraft engines. Recent moves have left a mess behind which I've mostly tidied but I can't fix this one. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just moved the articles and swopped the redirect which should work. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Great,thanks. Not quite sure what has happened to the history there as I created the category some time ago (my contribs don't appear), not overly fussed. The defunct cat is the right one I think and would have been in the cat when it was created. I will recheck all the articles as this 'new' category was being added to them. Joy!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, MilborneOne. Please note this. I've reverted again, as no sources were provided for the change.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Added it to my watchlist, also left a note at the IP talk page about name calling. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good Afternoon,

Should Volunteer Gliding Squadrons have their own articles on Wikipedia?

Gavbadger (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would not have thought they were notable enough to have individual articles (although 614 VGS has one!) and we do have an overview article on them at Volunteer Gliding Squadron. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also can you please delete Navigation Training School since it redirects to a un-related Indian Air Force version. Gavbadger (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Need to provide some different content rather than just deleting it, the RAF Navigation Training School only lasted a few months in from 1939 to 1940 in Egypt. Perhaps need to create a more generalised article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm trying to do something about Template:RAF Training since the "Other training establishments" section is way too big. Gavbadger (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, would you look into semi-protecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation? Banned User:Russavia keeps being disruptive there. Also, Russ is failry active at Commons, and keeps comimg onto English WP, sometimes to be disruptive. Do you you anything about how to pursue a global ban, or if it's possible? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! That was fast! - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right or not a banned user cant edit but he does appear to have turned into a serial socker, you will also notice lots aircraft images changes by IPs or new accounts with very similar style which are probably connected. Not sure how a good editor upsets the system and goes rouge all we can do it note it as evidence. Perhaps it needs to be raised as AN but I am not sure if it will help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I noticed this one the other day. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now he's posting on my talk page. Could I get a semi-p on that too? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I hold on that for the moment unless he comes back. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sigh MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also see [10] - sadly Russavia is a Commons admin, and as Commons likes to show contempt for en:wiki, there isn't a lot that can be done about it (other than withdraw from commons).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've made a requested move. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne. Can you please take a look at the article? There's been a lot of sockpuppet activity there. The sock master is User:Jajadelera, who has been indefinitely blocked.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks like another admin has already semi-protected the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello MilborneOne. Can you please take a look at the articles? An IP keeps adding unsourced content into both of them and ignoring the messages left at their talk page. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The different IPs (although they look like the same person) has tried to give a source in the edit summary, cant vouch if it is correct. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've added a {{fact}} tag at Henri Coandă International Airport. A closer look at the "Airlines and destinations" section shows all start/end dates there are unsourced. Not a new issue, but completely against basic policies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mil, calling upon you , Obi Wan Kinobi, again as I have a follower who seems to want to remove imagery from films that I edit under the same basis even though I do not pick out frivolous or fluff images to illustrate key section of the film articles that I work up. As you may know, I am a former filmmaker, and have an interest in particular areas of film production, so I do not create trivial commentary or provide useless imagery. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned at the absolutely subjective "edit" (deletion) you made to the information I added regarding the section on JAL Flight 123. You claimed that you deleted my addition because it was, in your opinion, “to [sic] much detail and a bit what if for a summary.” The information I added is specifically relevant to a key reason (unique to this accident) for the number of casualties that occurred directly due to the crash and the number who died in the hours after the crash and before ANY Japanese rescuers arrived. Not only was that information verifiable from multiple sources, but the JAL123 subsection was placed in descending order with regard to the number of casualties, justifying the detail (presented with sufficient brevity) that I added.

As far as your opinion that it was “a bit what if” — as I mentioned before, the information is verifiable from multiple sources, has no basis for an opposing viewpoint, and contains information, not opinion. I would also make the argument that the status of being an EDITOR is not, in any way the same thing as being an EXPERT in any field.

I therefore request that you return the information that I added (re-phrase it if you need to) OR provide something more than just your opinion as the justification for its removal. I am not going to get into a contest regarding who knows more about aircraft, aviation, or the like. This is not about ego, but censorship and the outcome will directly impact any donation I was prepared to make, and my recommendation to educational facilities regarding not just how they should allow citations from Wikipedia, but IF they should allow such citations in the first place; It should also go without saying that I strongly believe that the reasons cited for deleting/censoring my contribution represent a dangerous combination of micromanagement, subjective reasoning, and abuse of authority in the worst sense. If Wikipedia chooses to throw out valid, relevant information for the reasons you stated, then I would put it to you that Wikipedia is not based on an open collaborative effort, but rather the encyclopaedic equivalent of a country which claims to be a democracy, but in fact is ruled by an oligarchy which has the final say on defining what is and what is not factual. Ascrib (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I dont have the foggiest idea what all that is about and it would help if you provided a link to the change you are discussing. Have a cup of tea, calm down and take it to the talk page of Aviation accidents and incidents, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for neglecting to include a link to the page indicating the revision you made on 19 Oct 2014 which I have provided here. Since you mentioned it, I took your advice regarding the cuppa to relax, though I almost always have about 3-4 cups daily regardless. Not that it’s exactly relevant, but I generally prefer a good Twinings (1706 blend, Assam, or Traditional Afternoon). I just wanted to see if giving you the link to your edit might help bring back some memories. (I also apologise if my tone was inappropriate for the forum). If you do still find it necessary, feel free to move this to a different talk page, I just hoped that since the edit was minor, but still directly relevant, it could just be reverted so as to contain the relevant details I added. Thanks. Ascrib (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the addition you made "although there was a United Stated military base close to the crash site which offered assistance, their offer was rejected (no reason given), and" and "(hours after the US rescue could have)" as per my original edit summary which was to much detail and a bit what if for a summary. Aviation accidents and incidents is an overview article and not a place for detailed commentary even more so for detail that is a bit of speculation, in the original article JAL Flight 123 it is tagged as needed a citation so it is unreferenced speculation as well. Even if reliable it doesnt add anything to what is meant to be a brief summary, if the reader wants more information they can follow the link to the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, a series if IP user have been making non-consensual changes to the Dassault Mirage III article, and have been reverted by multiple editors. Can you look into semi-protecting the article? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

semi-protected for a month to encourage discussion.MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also see Malaysian Army where the same IP editor is making similar unsourced and unhelpful edits against consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added it to my Watchlist, appreciate it may need protecting if they come back. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for both actions. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

(Talk page stalker) I believe the user is the same person. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz/Archive and on this user talkpage. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 21:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that info Muffin Wizard. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, I found an incorrect redirect at Rhein Flugzeugbau GmbH, which oddly redirects to an aircraft article, Rhein Flugzeugbau RW 3 Multoplan, thus preventing a redlink. Worse, the aircraft article contains a circular link to the company link. Sigh. Could you look at deleting the redirect? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Created a new article as a target Rhein Flugzeugbau but still looking for references, if any talk page stalkers have anything it would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I was going to go ahead and do that myself later this afternoon, along with a navbox. I'll check Gunston's book on aircraft manufacturers to see if it's listed there, and add a cite if it is. - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Gunston book has it, with the hyphen, btw. I've seen both Rhein-Flugzeugbau and Rhein Flugzeugbau in sources, so it may just be an issue of style. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Category:People from Talke, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William 01:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Michael, User:124.13.234.53 has removed my post from Talk:Dassault Rafale, and removed the warning also. He's quickly becoming a nuisance, though I think he has editied from other IPs too. Are you too invovled to intervene administrativly? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agree about the nusiance although it is probable a competence (or lack of it) issue, I suspect he may be related to the disruption at other Malaysian military articles so really trying the rope trick, that said they are not that far of winning a holiday from wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, definitely an English competence problem, and a lack of understanding about sources. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Guys,Don't worry.I Know you angre me. I was too dificult to know.how Malaysia Reject the Rafale but.All of them said Malaysia didn't Reject.So I knew it what's happen.Can you cheak the view History.thanks.124.13.234.53 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but your English is unintelligible to me. Perhaps someone else can understand it, but I can't. - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think that is a major problem I dont think he or she understands English enough to edit here and clearly doesnt understand why there change is being challenged, perhaps they may be better of at ms:Dassault Rafale. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for Updated MIG-29s.For Pictures,It's so difficult to find The SMTs.I will Give you a Different Picture.  and 170px

Some one was Delete the SMTs124.13.234.53 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply