User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 9

DYK for Buffalo 461

On July 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buffalo 461, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 02:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson

Article has Henry Rawlinson's place of birth in both Trent Manor, Dorset and Westminster, London, England. I am unable to find any reference to his place of birth at all. From what I gather you are certain it is Westminster. Any help would be appreciated. Submissivesquat (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User Jasepl

Hey Milborne, sorry but I'm quite fed up now of User:Jasepledits. All of them seem to be reverts or removal of information never adds stuff to articles! I have just beguin to edit Air Japan to upgrade and used the routemap on their website to list destinations, but he has came along and reverted saying it is the ANA mainstream, but if Air Japan website states it is flown by them it should be on list?! Could you please have a word with him as he doesn't listen to non-admins! Please! Zaps93 (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1883

Hi Milborne, I have revamped that article by adding sources, esp. the NTSB report, adding the investigation and aftermath sections, and rewriting the lead. I have also added rationale in the AfD's talk page showing how notability is established per WP:AIRCRASH. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Aviation template

I try to create this template for all years in aviation. In my opinion that template it's useful, and you can help me if you want. Please do not delete it. Thank you! TouLouse (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made one for 2008: Template:Aviation incidents and accidents in 2008 -- TouLouse (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK you need to discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Template:Aviation_incidents_and_accidents_in_2009 before you create any more. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deprod 2007 Hukou F-5F crash

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from 2007 Hukou F-5F crash, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Odie5533 (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I have nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Hukou F-5F crash as you suggest. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion

Roger that, I'm kinda new at this. I guess I assumed it would sit in the queue for several days before coming up for SD (I'm using Twinkle, if that matters at all). So the proper procedure is to use the DI tags instead? In that case I guess I'm trying to figure out why the CSD F6 tag exists, when it should be used... and how I can avoid screwups in the future. --RabidDeity (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a troll??

Milb1, per the discussions at Talk:Canadian Forces Air Command#Ugly Article, I've removed the thumbnail pics from the tables on the Canadian Forces Air Command article. I was reverted here, andn I re-reverted. I've no intention to revert the user again. Jim has a tendency to do his own thing on articles, Canadian ones in particular. Anyway, I could use some review and possible intervention, either by you, or by an uninvolved admin, if necessary. - BillCJ (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Point crash

Did you nominate this article for speedy deletion? I can't find the deletion discussion at the AfD forum. I have some reasoning for why it should be kept, so there needs to be a deletion debate on it. Cla68 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to wait for the investigative report to be released and then decide if it was a notable crash or not. But I guess the argument could be made that the article could be recreated after the investigation report is released. I think I'm going to let it be deleted right now. Cla68 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unwarrantd accusations

Milb1, could you take a look at Talk:Boeing 787#Supply chain model revisited? We have an editor a user who thinks anyone who disagreew with his POVs must be working for Boeing. My sarcastic response to him aside, I'm not sure how to deal with him. Help please! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD/TAM Flight 8095

Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAM Flight 8095‎ as updated, it's not just a turbulence event.LeadSongDog come howl 20:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks but the info relates to a different day/flight no/and aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, 4 days apart on the same route with the same model. Gotta make the next guy out wonder...LeadSongDog come howl 21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Probably a bigger story behind all this in the future! MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof of Permission

I dont need to know about these emails you just need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey

Thanks for your note on this article, let me see what I can do! It certainly needs some better photos! - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to take a while to get back at this article - it has been busy here! Anyway I think I am done what I can do, see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lot better thanks for your help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No sweat, thanks for pointing it out - I even dug up a photo of one in the air. - Ahunt (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Revolution Mini-500

Thanks for your note! This company and aircraft are an interesting subjcet - very controversial! I am still tracking down some sources and even found a company logo for the article! - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

69.203.87.198 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic baggage allowance

Why do you insist on removing FACTUAL information about Virgin Atlantic's baggage allowance?

Their allowance is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than other carriers, and people have a right to know.

These details are FACTS, not opinions.

78.129.231.2 (talk)

Thank you for the message, can you please make your comments on the article talk page at Talk:Virgin Atlantic Airways. This allows others to comment and gain a consensus if your information is notable and reliably sourced for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we block this user based on this? - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not straight away - they have been warned by another editor and it is not the same IP that insulted me! although they have appear to have both edited the same comments on this page! I suspect both will be blocked if they are uncivil again but they may not be able to cope with rationale discussion and we must assume they are both just having a bad day (but that really only covers the first uncivil behavior). MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairey Gyrodyne

In researching Heston-related stuff, I happened on the article named "Fairey FB-1 Gyrodyne", that seems to need some work, not least that G-AIKF first flew at Heston (ref AJJ), not White Waltham, so I'm planning a few tweaks. However, I'm tempted to jump in and rename it as just Fairey Gyrodyne, because FB.1 was just the c/n for G-AIKF, with FB.2 the c/n for G-AJJP. If I understand the protocol, renaming should be proposed on the talk page - if that is so, and if no responses, how long before I just go ahead and move the thing?PeterWD (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You should mention on the talk page if you want to move an article, but if it is clearly wrong (as FB-1 is a made up designation) then I would not see a problem with moving it straight away. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

kingfisher red airlines

Jaspel or someone else has done away with Kingfisher Red destinations and merged it into Kingfisher Airlines destinations page without seeking approval, since Kingfisher Red is a seprate company operating with its own IATA code, their destination list should also be seprate, even if the places are the same as Kingfisher Airlines network, in short seprate airline seprate destinations page or section in main airline article.116.71.58.81 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for hijacking your page Milborne! But seriously, whoever 116.71.58.81 is... Stop, and take a deep breath.

1. First thing, they are not separate airlines.
2. Second thing, Red is just a brand of Kingfisher's.
3. Third thing, all flights (Red and Kingfisher) operate under the same IATA code: IT.
4. Fourth thing, they used to be separate, but Kingfisher bought Deccan, renamed it, merged the company into the parent and also merged the sub's operating certificate and IATA code into the parent's.
5. Fifth thing, there was a lot of discussion, involving several users, before this was done - if you couldn't find it, or chose not to bother looking, then that's just too bad.
6. Sixth thing, learn to look and politely ask who you suspect did something before running around pointing fingers.
7. Seventh thing, ever heard the expression "better to keep shut and let people think..."?

And, in future, remember to keep it to half a pill before launching a whine-fest. Who are you anyway? Jasepl (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Jasepl, I think this is really a content dispute and should really be sorted out on the related talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Milborne which comments are you thanking him for? the last two ones were quite rude in my opinion, how dare he address anyone this way. If hes a wannabe wiki admin or editor he should behave himself and learn common courtesy, hes been very rude to other editors and admin in past too, no other editor has behaved like this chap, next time he dare tell anyone to be polite, and stop spying on others. 116.71.54.56 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt thanking him for any particular remark just the fact that he/she has made a comment, it may not be the the most polite but discussion is better than constant edit warring. Jasepl has had comments before about behaviour and I am sure he/she knows not to cross the line of civility and I am happy to give him a formal warning if he attacks other editors. I think at the moment trying to get you guys to talk together (politely) as I am sure if you all work together then they will be benefit to Wikipedia and improvement to the content. We have enough inappopriate edits to articles to fend of so we really need experienced editors to keep an eye on the airline articles and support each other. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Airways destinations

Zaps93 insists on adding irrelevant information to this articles terminated destinations section, deviating from standard format instead of just listing country and city, hes adding former country or city names and airport names, where as standard format only requires continent/country/city with current names, regardless of how many airports serve one city, there is no need to list any even the ones served by the airline. There has been too much leniency in the past related to articles, and fromat rule should now be strictly enforced.116.71.58.81 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, 116.71.58.81, keeps reverting my edits with no explination for the reverts. As Iraqi Airways use to serve Soviet Russia, not Russia as it is today, I put in small text the past country as you allowed in the past. I also noticed that 116.71.58.81 kept getting rid of Athens-Ellinikon International Airport which is an airport they use to serve and not the current Athens International as they serve, if you were to just have

• Greece - Athens

people are going to get confused by Athens being served and the terminated Athens-Ellinikon. My edits are small and keep to the guide lines as stated at WP:AIRLINES and if anything, I do believe no such terminated destinations agreement has been made. So could you please look into it and see what you view is as I am no longer going to revert as an Edit War will be taking place. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I have had a tweak, mainly to use the country names as they were, although we have a format for destination, former destination at the moment just have to look like those at British Airways. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Milborne, I agree with that format, maybe a terminated format needs to be agreed apon. Zaps93 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Current and Terminated format has been agreed upon as standard, in British Airways destinations, there is no need to add airport, but can tolerate that.116.71.54.56 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Only a Current destination format has been agreed upon, there is a dicussion about terminated at the moment. Zaps93 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

my two bits

• There's no need to add JFK after New York when JFK was the only airport that was ever served. They dropped the whole city, not just the airport within the city. It's not as if they stopped JFK but still fly to LaGuardia. Same thing for Rio, London, Paris etc.
  • Listing Ellinikon in terminated is just simply incorrect. The airport closed down and everyone moved to the new one, Eleftherios. Does this mean we list Ellinikon as a terminated "destination" for every single airline that still flies to Athens?
  • Country names: either pick the name at the time it was served, or use current terminology. I see Soviet Union - that doesn't exist today, but presumably is listed as such because that's what it was called when Iraqi Air last flew there. But then I also see Mumbai - that city was called Bombay when Iraqi Airways last flew to BOM. My vote is for using current names (Czech Republic, Russia, etc etc - its a list of destinations, not a history lesson). In any event, pick one or the other, old or current. But consistency is required.
• The broader point is that we're talking about destination lists, in that London is the destination, not Heathrow. The airport is almost incidental in this regard; an additional bit of information, if you will.
• Whatever the consensus, I do hope Zaps/Joey, that you and others involved follow through with it across the board, and do not stop at the Iraqi article. Consistency is essential here, so, if, for example, you insist on saying "Paris-Charles de Gaulle" in the terminated destination list for Iraqi Airways, then please go ahead and fix the lists of all airlines that have stopped flying to CDG, as well for London, New York, Washington, Chicago, Montreal, Buenos Aires, Shanghai, Toronto, Milan, Belfast, Moscow, Osaka.... And also please ensure that you add Ellinikon to the terminated list of all airlines that ever flew to Athens, even if they still fly there. Add Kai Tak to the terminated list of all airlines that ever flew to Hong Kong, Don Muang for all airlines that ever served Bangkok, Stapleton for everyone that ever flew to Denver....
• Oh and my understanding is that the BA list is the consensus format for current and terminated destinations. I remember explaining this to Zaps a couple of times already.

Jasepl (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Jasepl you have never explained "terminated", I know the current format is BA list but there isn't a terminated as of the last time I checked, and as for Athens, they don't serve it any more, from what I last read they ended Athens and now only use it as a fuel stop. As for New York just being listed that is plain wrong, if someone was to read New York trying to find out which airport they served they won't be able to because it just states New York, so JFK and CDG etc is useful and in my opinion needed information. Zaps93 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't understand what I wrote:

1. If you want to list New York-JFK under terminated (when no other airport in that city was ever served), so be it. But then make that change for all airline destination lists.
2. If Eleftherios is only a fuel stop now, then why is it in the current list? It is not a destination and shouldn't be there.
3. This is from your own talk page:

Can you please identify where you are getting your logic/justification/whatever from... Not that there are any hard and fast rules, but editors should adhere to existing guidelines. If you want them changed, or think they something should be done differently, then by all means discuss it. But please don't go assume that just because every little thing is not clearly spelled out, that you won't face resistance (from me and from other editors) when you go about trying to establish your own standard, of your own volition.

This is the current 'guideline' for the destination lists: [[1]] - and it applies equally to current as well as terminated destinations. There is no exception or different set of norms for one or the other anywhere.

Also, see here for further clarification of the above: [[2]]

As for the smaller destination lists, I'm not sure where you're getting the "if more than five then it's a table" and "flags are okay in tables". I don't recall ever seeing any consensus on either of those (just the opposite for flags). So, like I already said before, if you know where these matters were discussed and a consensus reached, then please point to it.

I'm sorry, but if you think that just because you think you put a lot of effort into something that will automatically give you free license to do what you feel like, well, then there's little I can say.

Jasepl (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jasepl (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The agreed format for current destinations is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content but the terminated destinations is not listed as it was not really agreed upon apart from using the BA version. Perhaps we need to discuss the terminated destination format and come to some agreement my talkpage is not the best place! can I suggest you make your points at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Destinations. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree; see [[3]]. There's been lots more discussion around the topis, at both the Airlines Page Content page and the Airlines Destinations page, with input from many people over a period of time. And it seems to me the majority view is to keep the termination list as concise as possible without needless historical information. Only one real dissenting opinion, that of Zaps, who wanted to make things bright, lively, nice and other similar adjectives. Jasepl (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK good point about the previos discussion but we still need to nail this down and get whatever we need added to the page content guideline, then we can all get on with improving the articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Milborne, I have tried to put my view across before now, but it seems the view went across un-noticed. Zaps93 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For once I agree 100% with every point and statement made by Jaspel, he has literally spoken my mind, logic at its best, by the way I'm 116. whos always posting anti him. I also agree that only current country and city name should be used, there are other airlines who used to fly to countries under their former names and it can get confusing, Air India is one example, where you can list Uzbekistan as USSR and Russia as itself, because it was served even after the fall of Soviet Union115.42.64.18 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We still seem to be getting nowhere here. Please can this be sorted once and for all at the dicussion for Terminated Format so we can finally have a format to work on to improve articles?! Zaps93 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Format is fine it does need any changes, I hope it never goes back to all the unecessary information that made it clash with the main article. Actually there is no need for a terminated destinations section since most destinations do not have proper references or none at all.116.71.36.47 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right that all terminated destination should be referenced or they can be removed after tagging with a fact label. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please prevent Zaps93 from owning Iraqi Airways article.115.42.67.216 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had it up to here with you... Just because you live in Pakistan and are nearer Iraqi Airways you think you own it... I don't own it. I simply tried out a new appearance which I asked to be discussed in Talk page but you returned reverting it without commenting or reading! Zaps93 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• • No its we who have had it with you Joey Boeing 777, and dont try to twist the situation around you imposter, imagine accusing me of what you have doing all along.116.71.45.49 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you both stop using my talk page to score points, I am happy to intervene on the article talk pages when needed but you really need to go to WP:AIRLINES and sort out an agreed layout by consensus (not reverting each other). Also I note that Joey Boeing 777 has not edited for a few months and Zaps has denied any connection, we have to assume good faith here guys. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dont insult your intelligence, Joey Boeing 777 could easily have created the Zaps93 username with another email account.118.103.238.26 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think that there has been an inappropriate use of alternative accounts then you are welcome to raise it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Put it quite simply. I know who Joey Boeing 777 as I have told you in the past, they are a family friend who use to edit from my home on their, but they recently emigrated to Canada and therefor stopped editing, I have no idea though about the account information/password or anything else so I still stick to the what I said before... I have never edited under Joey Boeing 777. Only Zaps93. Zaps93 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not in a position to judge if Zaps and Joey are connected but if users think they are then as I have suggested they should take their evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations but they would have to prove inappropriate use not just I think they are the same user. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• How quaint, finally Zaps93's guilty conscience has made him spill the beans himself, no need for futher investigation.115.42.64.92 (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Harrier - revert

1. you removed the roundels, why? that was a hell of a job to add them...
2. Your additions lack references, I've put them on the talk page--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Refer article talk page, thank you. MilborneOne (talk)

Proposed guidelines for aviation accidents

As you seem to be an active member of the Task Force, how do you think we could improve Aviation accident guidelines|the proposed guidelines for aviation accidents in order to help avoid the confusion I have recently observed at the AF447 and Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 articles? I'm quite happy to contact the members listed as active. Regards AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Alexandr Dmitri / Александр Дмитрий 22:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote the guideline I am perhaps a bit bias in that it doesnt need changing! (although it was built on best practice at that time) the main problem is the WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the need for contributers to list very person on the flight. So I am happy to discuss any points on the related talk page and gain a new or enforce the currect consensus. Perhaps if you have any other observations you can list them on the related talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just done some hefty edits, you may want to have another look and see if they're any improvement. LeadSongDog come howl 16:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK no problem some areas a lot better than my attempt! MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Continental Airlines

I have reverted back your removal of the incident of frisking, with the edit summary. It is not a 'non-story' by any stretch of imagination, you may like to check the news results in the link below. http://news.google.co.in/news?um=1&ned=in&hl=en&q=continental+airlines+kalam trakesht (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Still doesnt appear to be very notable to me a bit like a storm in a tea cup. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The political bits aside, it does raise the interesting question: Why is an airline running passenger security ops? LeadSongDog come howl 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point I though it might be a contract local staff but the articles (I didnt read them all!) are not very clear on the point. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Crawley photo request

I found out that WesternGeco is headquartered in Crawley. http://www.westerngeco.com/about/contact/regions.aspx lists its address as "WesternGeco, Schlumberger House, Buckingham Gate, Gatwick Airport, West Sussex RH6 0NZ, United Kingdom" - Would it be convenient for you to photograph the Schlumberger House? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Asia

Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey listed as partly in Europe, meaning they are largely Asian countries yet Jaspel is moving them into Europe, just a few weeks ago he was arguing with others that countries should be listed geographically and not based on political affiliations or aspirations or grouping, with this he also started moving Cyprus to Asia. Is there something wrong with him? why is picking up issues all the time, checking his contribution section its seems like hes on wikipedia 24/7 with nothing else in his life, and hes desperately trying to find something to keep him occupied and wikipedia seems to be it.116.71.53.123 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The countries should be as listed as in the related country articles, we shouldnt make things up. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 116.71.53.123 (who are you anyway?), I do have a LOT of time on my hands these days. That's one plus from having cancer... plenty of free time!

And, for the 35th time, look at an atlas, see the wikipedia articles. whilst the borders of Europe have always been somewhat capricious, a general rule has been that Europe is west of the Urals and north of the Caucasus. You will see that:

1. Armenia and Cyprus are physically located in Asia
2. Azerbaijan and Georgia are physically located in Europe
3. Egypt is an African country - even though a part of its territory (Sinai) is considered by some to be in Asia
4. Russia and Turkey - though the majority of their territory lies in Asia - have always been considered European. I don't know why, and I don't care either. It is what it is.
5. Conversely, Kazakhstan, with a big chunk of its territory physically in Europe, is typically considered Asian. Once again, I don;t know why, and I don't care either. It is what it is.

• The Wikipedia Europe article, including the main map may enlighten you
• Also see this template, unchanged for a long time, with zero edits by me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Countries_of_Europe - see the notations under each country listed. See what it says for Cyprus?
• Oh and Mulhouse is in France, regardless of what you might believe - you will also discover that upon glancing at a map. Unless, of course, Switzerland just annexed the Haut-Rhin!

And certainly I was insistent that it is physical location that counts - at least in destination lists. Tomorrow East Timor may choose to join the North Sea La La Union. If we apply your logic, the should we list Timor as a European country?

Jasepl (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jaspel I am really very sorry to hear about your health, you will not believe this but a long time before posting my comment, I used to wonder why you are constantly on wikipedia, I hadnt even checked you contributions then, it just crossed my mind that maybe something is wrong with you, like I picked up some vibe or maybe I am a bit psychic, and I didnt post angry things I wanted to say to you earlier, and now this happens, please accept my sincere appology, I pray that you have full recovery, Amen. By the way try avoiding the computer, it may be harming your condition even more, Electro magnetic rays or whatever can also cause this, I have been having weird health issues since I started using the computer, I cannot even describe what all I have felt while using it, I had one very odd experience by God's grace I recovered from it, and as soon as I went back to using the computer or watching TV those symptoms started appearing again, but suffering from depression I always come back to it. Many people are experiencing this some have bought projectors others are using binoculors while sitting ten feet or more away from the screen. You can edit or revert as you please now, agitation is not a good thing for any of us. Sorry about the past, Take care and God bless you.116.71.35.39 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Michelle Bentley

Would you please look at Michelle's recent edits. I removed a section about Iran's ageing aircraft fleet from the article which she added. I also posted a reason on the talk page and gave her a uw-npov1. She then added a section headed Cause which again repeated the stuff about Iran's ageing fleet and poor maintenance. She also did this to the Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 article. Maybe a bit of friendly guidance from an admin will have more effect. If it is shown that poor maintenance did cause the accident I'm quite happy for it to be stated in the article. At the moment, the cause is unknown. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

She's added the info again. I'm not getting into an edit war over it but will raise the issue with the WP. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks keeping a watch on it,I have removed it again with a request to gain consensus, although without a cause it is not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please add this to the front page?

* - FBI andIRS agents arrests 44 people, including five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, and three mayors in Operation Bid Rig.

If the latest example of the all to frequent air-crashes in Iran are worthy of inclusion on the front page, so this should be. Naturally.Michelle Bentley (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your view, but you really need to suggest front page articles at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Help requested for major deletions in military history articles

Could some experts take a look at the following articles: USS Maine (ACR-1) (I know, it's not an aircraft...), F-104 Starfighter and Erich Hartmann which have been subject to major deletions, based on an editor's interpretation of relevance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

Had a look at F-104, dont understand USS Maine it appears somebody is using what looks like a wikipedia mirror as a source! MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Super Light Jets

Thanks for taking care of links to this article - you mostly beat me to it! I have redirected the article to Very light jet from its last version. In reading it it looked entirely like a made-up category of aircraft and a careful search revealed no reliable refs that I could find. - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem I hadnt hear of Super Light Jet. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

notes section in airline fleet tables

Someone is going around removing notes section from fleet tables of some airlines, the note section is important as it carries information on leases, storage, exit/induction dates for aircraft etc. see Emirates Airline and Emirates SkyCargo articles as well as PIA.115.42.67.209 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I will go and have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

new articles

Thanks for the pointer, I shall try to remember when I create an article, unfortunately I have started so many I forget which.Petebutt (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just helps if you remember, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit of Ryanair

Hi MilborneOne, I noticed you removed the information I added on Ryanair webpage concerning incidents, why? This is public information (I will add sources) and quite notable, especially when a plane drops 8000 feet and oxygen masks don't work correctly. I will put back my edit, and add sources. Let me know if you have any other reasons not to add my information. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.170.204.86 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it as it doesnt appear to be notable, being sourced still does not make it notable - really need to discuss this on the article talk page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fighter aircraft article

Hi, I've made some revisions to the fighter aircraft article and I don't think other editors will let them stay, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and give your opinion on the talk page. Thanks! Hj108 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your show of support! Appreciate it. Hj108 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

List of xxxxx survivors cleanup

I find these articles very hard to read in their current format, and consequently difficult to edit or to identify notable wikilinks. I feel that tabulation is the answer which, together with the sort table function, should make them easier for readers. Do you have any opinions/advice on the matter? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The project did agree a tabulated format in the past, a bit like A-26 Invader survivors but we did have WP:OWN issues with the survivors list. I dont like the stunted fanboy presentation which in my mind is not encyclopedic and prefer a more narrative presentation which is easier for the those not in the warbird movement to understand. So I would support a better presentation standard and would not object to a table. MilborneOne (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IAF Jaguar reengining

Milb1, could you take a look at this diff? An dynamic IP uesr notorious for his pro-India bias, inabilty to cite RSs, and an aversion to discussing his edits had added the Jaguar to the Honeywell F125 page as an application. I searched the web, and could only find reports on offers from Honeywell to re-engine India's Jaguars, but no confirmtion of its selection. Perhaps something has been relaead in the Indian papers today that is not yeat in the searches, but without sources I reverted it. There's nothing on this either in the Jaguar article. Have you heard anyhitng on this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Bill the Indians have not yet decided to go for the Honeywell F125IN or a RR Adour Mk 821 for the Jaguar update. This BAE press release is only a few days old http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/INDIA072809.xml&headline=Rolls-Royce%20Eyes%20Business%20In%20India and stil talks of an open competition. I will have a look in at the Honeywell F125 later when I finish work. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That's what I wanted to know. - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Flighthawk

Can I ask you to delete this article? It has been PRODed for seven days and is now eligible and you were not involved in editing or PRODing it! - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Airways control freak

Zaps93 is a control freak at Iraqi Airways article, he just removed some destinations I had added, with official references as being "started soon" but he has removed them because no dates were announced, what is his problem?115.42.67.29 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We normally need a date before adding it to destination sections or pages, although it could be added as cited text in the main article. Problem is that sometimes these things dont happen. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Milborne you are correct to why I did that, I removed the destinations as you stated above, due to the fact 'starting soon' is not reliable enough information for the article, I therefor removed clearly stating in the Edit summary that I had removed due to the fact there is no date listed and that they can be re-added once a date was given. Whilst I am here, I was wondering where you got the information from for Gatwick? I'm all confused by them going back to London now. Hehe. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• try not to kiss ass zaps93, anyways the rule is stupid it should be more flexible, the destinatins can be added since they have official references from the website, rather than just listed as NEWS, why the etched in stone ruling.115.42.67.213 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, 115.42.67.213, I'm not kiss a**ing, and secondly, grow up, I was simply agreeing with MilborneOne, and yet you reply like that?! Anyways, MilborneOne could you please show me the reference to Gatwick as I would like to see. Thanks. Zaps93 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? asking admin for reference, how dare you, are you owner of Iraqi Airways article? LGW said to have started today with Tor Air 737-400, according to jetphotos aviation forum.116.71.44.158 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol, what?! and thanks for showing the ref, even if you are trying to annoy me. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaps93 (talk • contribs)

User:Rgvis

Do you mind helping with this new guy? Take a look at the discussion page (check the edit history for Rgvis' SPAM) of BillCat and mine and also on the page of General Electric CF34 for more details, obnoxious and disruptive behaviour displayed by the abovementioned editor as well as refusal to heed advice to slow down his SPAMMING. Thanks! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem Dave, left him/her a note on their page and will keep an eye on things. MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Roger that, kind of annoying to notice such peeps trying their luck to goon bait other peeps, his behaviour is no different whatsoever from that of a troll. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

Please see WT:AATF#2009 Hudson River mid-air collision for discussion on the removal of the accident from the aircarft articles while the accident article remains on WP unchallenged. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1951 Ringway Dakota accident

Thanks for your help mate. As a new member I can but try and it is a little offputting when established editors jump down my throat without as much as a little help and pointing the right direction. Simply reverting does no-one any favours.

So once again, thank you. --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem I have added a note to your talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have lost the 'Contents' box on the article and for the life of me I cannot find the code to add it. Can you help? --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The contents box only appears if you have more than three section headers, at the moment it has only three headers.MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help yet again and for the edits to the article. I will get there in the end no-doubt!! --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Major Hampton E. Boggs

I have been trying to build-up biographical detail for a Wiki article for Major Hampton E.Boggs a former CO for 459th Fighter Squadron and also described as "the best pilot" in the USAF at the time. I think something that is notable for the listing after crashing in bad weather on final approach to Truax Field on 31 January 1953. I see that Richard Bong is listed although not notable to the accident which also applies to many other incidents and listings. Agljones (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I appeciate your efforts but he really needs to have an aticle of his own to get a mention in what is a summary of accidents. As Wikipedia is not a memorial list of non-notable persons, those killed or just injured should not really be mentioned. I have started to tidy up different years but it is not a quick operation. I have no problem adding Major Boggs when he gets his own article. If not we may need to take it to a project to adjudicate. I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#List_of_accidents_involving_military_aircraft. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In the circumstances I would not describe Hampton E.Boggs a non-notable person as former 2nd ranking ace with the 459th Fighter Squadron and former CO, serving as a pilot during the Korean War and described as "the best pilot" in the USAF at the time. After being promoted to Major in 1945, a normal career progression would suggest that he would have been perhaps promoted to Colonel by 1953. The number of USAF accident reports for January 1953 exceeds +50. For 31 January 1953 the 432 Fighter Squadron lost 4 aircraft in a single day all F-86F Sabre's from Truax Field an unusual occurrence for a one day non-combat loss and (Major) Hampton Boggs would have been the most senior and most experienced pilot. In the pages listing accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, there are numerous non-notable persons listed not relevant (without there own pages) to the incident, combat losses, at least one civilian registered aircraft listed as a military loss and excessive erroneous detail. In considering editorial policy, an over-riding factor is providing encyclopedic value and perhaps pilot(s) names should be considered part of this and regard to recent ISAF losses in Afghanistan (either non-combat or combat and routine flights resulting in losses) it might be disrespectful not to include names. I think at any point the nature of Wikipedia should not be under-estimated and perhaps that all times that the opportunity should be given to contributors to add information provided corrections or create new pages to highlight information in a listing. In respect to (Major) Boggs this appears to be an unusual loss of a senior and experience pilot on the 31 January 1953. Agljones (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

After getting a second opinion I am happy to accept that Boggs would be notable enough for an article. In most cases the actual aircrew names are not really notable and in some instances goes against the guideline that wikipedia is not a memorial. This is a list of military aircraft accidents and not a memorial to lost aircrew. MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Slingsby Kirby Cadet

I don't know what happened there i checked for an article with the list of gliders which re-directed to the Slingsby article, so I assumed there was no article (having forgotten I had written it, I now save all articles when I post them). The new one I wrote is abit long-winded and covers too much I think so good call thanksPetebutt (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Piper PA-40 Arapaho

Nice article rescue! - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - just need some specs! MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you are right, I was a bit hasty! I added some refs and a bit of text as well - TCDS are always good refs! - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply

I didn't get to read your Email to me until today because I had accidentally archived the whole lot (in the region of hundred-ish!) without checking through every one of them... my bad! Will keep a sharp look out for you and Bil, thanks! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Airline nav boxes

-Sorry for the duplication-it wasn't my intention. Having the templates categorized under a Template Group called "Links..." isn't real evident to the templates already being on the page. Personally, I don't care for the template group, but that's just my opinion. Scoty6776 (talk)

Flights

Air India's Flights to New York City travelon the following Route:-
AI 101 - Kolkata-Delhi-New York City
AI 141 - Hyderabad-Mumbai-New York City
Flights to Newark:-
AI 191 - Chennai-Mumbai-Frankfurt-Newark
Flights to Chicago:-
AI 127 - Hyderabad-Delhi-Frankfurt-Chicago
Flights to London:-
AI 111 - Kolkata-Delhi-London
AI 131 - Ahmedabad-Mumbai-London
Even the Hyderabad Airport website mentions Chicago and New York City on their Arrival and Departure schedule.
Ok i can understand the above start points are code-shares,
but see this
Northwest Airlines Flights to Mumbai from Amsterdam take the route Mumbai-Amsterdam-Detroit. Here there is just a change in the wide-body aircraft i.e. A330-200 to A330-300, the Flight number is same, how come its not mentioned in the list of destinations on CSIA article? Its not even a code-share flight like the AI ones.

Jet Airways and Air India flights stopover at Brussels and Frankfurt respectively, suppose they take a different aircraft of the same type but different registration in their continuing flights to Newark/Chicago then will u cancel the continuing flight destination and write that the flights terminate at brussels/frankfrut? The theories and philosophies preached by Jasepl are really Stupid and Worthless. ... (Druid.raul (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks but you may be better bringing it up at WP:AIRLINES. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture question

Hi Milborne, just got a quick question about uploading a picture. I was recently browsing pictures of First Choice aircraft on airliners.net when I found a good picture of a Boeing 767-300ER departing Manchester Airport. I mailed the photographer to see wether I could add it to wikipedia to improve the First Choice article and he said I could, so my question is, how would I upload the picture with his information? I know it's possible but I don't know how! Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You basically have to email a copy of their email giving permission to wikipedia, have a read of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You need to make sure they release the image for any purpose not just for use on wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Milborne, I shall get a copy of the email! Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

40K

Congratulations! You came up as #487 on the "greatest hits" list on 1 July! You are probably ahead of that now! - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Must get a hobby! MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia is a hobby? - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Check against Gunston or Nemecek?

Got a couple more Soviet prototype articles to check if you have the time: Ilyushin Il-22 (1947), Ilyushin Il-6, Ilyushin Il-20 (1948) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem I have checked them against Nemecek and amended or made notes on the talk pages as appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Here a couple more: Ilyushin Il-30, Tupolev DB-1 if you're up to it.

British European Airways article

I am puzzled by your comment - I realise now that the section was repeated (so I understand that bit), but the information about the 7" single isn't mentioned in the article from what I can see, which why I originally added it (I have a copy of this single which I obtained not long ago).

Obviously, removing the duplicated section makes sense (and I was kind of blind to it, looking at the copy which included the text I put in about the single - I ignore the rest of the article, as I was not changing it - when I added that bit originally, I hadn't seen any mention elsewhere to the single)- and not having the references to the 'falsified' registration also makes sense - but is there any particular reason why the mention of the single shouldn't be in the article at all?

As we can see from the edits figures (and the fact that you are a sysop!), you are a much more experienced editor - so was I wrong to enter this single in the "Other facts of interest" section? Any help/advice would be most welcome - I am continually learning how to be a good editor, and all advice is helpful with this continuing education!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Phantomsteve. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I will post a note on the article's talk page, and see where it goes. To be honest, I'm not too fussed if it's there or not, but I just came across the single, and thought I'd add it! Thanks once again for you reply -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

P-51 Mustang

Simply because it has less optical distortion. It may not be apparent on you monitor, but it is on mine. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Theeyes77

It looks like this user has come back to continue his vandalism. I have given him a fourth and last warning. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Although we must assume good faith he/she appears to be in their own world so another vandalism edit want be far away. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems (in good faith or at least a slow learning curve!) that he/she came back for one last edit and blanked the page at General Motors, resulting in a permanent block by User:Edgar181. Ed even replaced his rambling and incoherent user page with a block notice. He won't be missed! Story over. - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job, I presume the user didnt really understood wikipedia was not part of his/hers invented universe. MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Either that or he/she was skipping medication - you can never tell! - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he was just a kid having fun, but what he did is vandlaism. Hopefully he won't discover dynamic IP editing! - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd edits

Milb1, you reverted a user on the P-51 page today. He also mad some odd edits on the Seafire page, including something about "Land-based Weatherproof Fighter", and its supposed use in the USN! Could you take a look, and see if I am correct to revert his changes here? Overall, his edits seems to be nonsense in detail. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes strange, but I have left the user a welcome note. Although we must assume good faith the user appears to have an interest in video games and like the user above may have a wrong reality problem! MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire photos

Thanks for your help with these; I haven't had much time to myself for quite a while. I scanned Finlay's Spitfire II from a photograpic monograph on the B of B printed in (I believe) Australia c 1969-1971. Unfortunately the cover and relevant publishing details disappeared years ago. I have contacted the owner of the Spitfire Site to ask his permission to use the link you have provided. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

email back from Martin Waligorski; the photo of Finlay's Spitfire II is crown copyright, originally from RAF mod.co.uk, and he has no problems with Wiki using the link as a source. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulcan Ventures

Would you consider redirecting this article to Avro Vulcan right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.

In the alternative, would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete it from main space completely.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework the article and maybe wikipedia will get a longterm dedicated editor. Ikip (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

From user:ikip:

Thanks for the message, I dont have a problem with a re-direct but would think Vulcan To The Sky Trust would better target. Not sure about userfying because of the COI issues as the two editors involved appear to be the author and the illustrator of the books. MilborneOne (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if the article has had editors vote keep/delete already. BRB. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

another editor voted delete already, which means he has to agree first. I will message him and ask him to post here an answer. Thanks for your response. Ikip (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Theweakwilled. Grr. One more delete. I am throwing in the towel. Real shame, it is a nicely done article, problem of course is one minor detail: it lacks any kind of sources. Ikip (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Garuda Indonesia

Hi MilborneOne, could I ask a favour? There is 1 or 2 I.P editing Garuda Indonesia's fleet section. 124.180.223.114, 124.180.223.114 and 121.7.56.175 keep editing the section either by changing the A330-200 orders without reference or adding registrations, I revert their edits clearly explaining why in the Edit summary but they continue to re-add the information I removed. So could you help me keep an eye on it? Maybe they will listen if it comes from an administrator. Cheers, Zaps93 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I keep an eye on it I have added it to my watchlist, your last edits have not been reverted yet! MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Milborne, they don't revert though! They just re-add it. You'll see eventually, probably later today or tomorrow. Zaps93 (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Delta

Milb1, I've finally created the History of Delta Air Lines article. The text is there, but I'm not certain what cats, links, etc shou;d be there. Also, can you delete Talk:Delta Air Lines/DL-NW Merger? I've moved it to the history page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Airplane name

MilborneOne, thank you, I had consulted about the name but haven't gotten an answer, so your touch was quite timely. Greetings, --Bobjgalindo (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

UAA needs help

It's beginning to pile up at UAA, I wonder where all the admins went? =p --Dave1185 (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hawker Hurricane Survivors

Already a Hawker Hurricane Survivor page in the works -

User:Davegnz/Hawker_Hurricane_Survivors

A lot more detail,information and is by manufacture and not a hog-pog list by country (which does not tell you anything about when or where the aircraft was built) Davegnz (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Shame about all youre hard work but I see nothing wrong with List of surviving Hawker Hurricanes. As I presume you are creating material for some fan site I am not sure that is an appropriate use of wikipedia user space. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 in aviation

Re your comment, it may be that all the other (year) in aviation articles need changing. I believe that all incidents mentioned are of sufficient notablility of justify the mention. Quite a few of them could sustain an individual article. The use of flags instantly makes it clear which country the item is about. Compare any of the lists of shipwrecks (2009) or lists of rail accidents. What individual entries do you think should be culled? Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I am of the view that flags just look naf and are not really needed, the country of the incident/acccident is not really relevant as part of a worldwide summary. Some that dont look notable:

• 4 Jan Citation
• 5 Jan BT-67
• 9 Jan - needs more info to judge notability
• 13 Jan - AN-24 - minor accident
• 27 Jan - Citation

None of these looks particularly notable, only looked at Jan. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• 4 Jan - aircraft substantially damaged.
• 5 Jan - aircraft damaged beyond economic repair. Comparable in size to many current feederliners.
• 9 Jan - damaged beyond repair, possible borderline.
• 13 Jan - damage may have been more than "minor". Other similar accidents resulted in substantial damage.
• 27 Jan - Aircraft sustained substantial damage.

Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft really need to be fatal or hull losses to be really notable as has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability. Not sure any of these meet the criteria. They were 28 fatal accidents just in the United States in the same time period, although their was a PA-42 (1 died), PC-12 (2 died), Gulfstream Commander (3 died) and a Sikorsky S-76 with 8 fatalities all more notable then the Citation accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Damaged beyond (economic) repair = hull loss n'est ce pas? Generally staying clear of GA accidents for reasons already stated. Inclusion in such articles in (year) in aviation lists may help clear a few of the lesser articles via AfD debates too as there would be somewhere suitable to list them. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to brought up at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability discussion as an avenue for including some accidents. I would argue that the Citation accidents are general aviation! MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, will do so. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

History move

Milb1, could you move Grumman X-47B to Northrop Grumman X-47B? This is a bit odd since both pages are now redirects. However, at some point in the future the Northrop Grumman X-47 article will be split, and I'd like to have the original history of the X-47B article (misnamed tho it was) for continuity. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. you may need to temporary redirect the new Grumman X-47B so it isnt a double redirect. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, talk about efficiency! =) --Dave1185 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahwaz Airport

Can you sort out the mess I made of the move per my note at WT:AVIATION? Or shall I wait until Monday and sort it out myself? <g> Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I did have a look at this but was confused as it appears they may be a Ahvaz and Ashwaz Airport and it wasnt very clear which was which! Had not noticed Monday might be better to wait and see! MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahwaz International Airport, ICAO code OIAW per Jacdec Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem - moved. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be able to correct those type of errors myself soon! Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

I've discovered that yesterdays Il-76 crash was the result of a mid-air collision, and that the Il-76 was Iran's only AWACS equipped aircraft. question is, what is the naming convention for the article title? "2009 Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force mid-air collision" or "2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision"? The former would appear to better fit naming conventions but the latter is much more to the point. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Little bit of flexibility allowed it should be year/place/event but I dont see why it cant be 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision, as long as we dont have another iranian mid-air this year! MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Article created, Not a lot to go on but you don't expect much in the English language media coming from that part of the world. Maybe there are better sources available in Arabic (which I can't read). Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the deleting of the Albanian Armed Forces pictures and on the fake info still present in the page

Dear friend. Below you find a copy/paste letter I wrotte to Skier Dude (and his answer) trying invain to recall his attention. Due to the fact that you took joint decisions on the AAF page, it is better to adress to you as well and see if there is any opportunity to restore the RIGHT INFO or find a common approach. Thank you.

---

The VERY first time I got through the AAF page at Wikipedia I was just... voiceless.. There was nothing in there a part from a fake picture of an AA battery of Hawk - a missile that the AAF never possessed. Even at the time I am writing somebody from you - administrators/smart guys living like 6000 miles away from this small and forgotten country, deliberately release (or make possible the publishing) of fake information on the page about weaponry/technologies the AAF never had. That stupid information is still in that page just because you are not able to differ between serious people and charlatans. And what upsets me more in this sad history is that YOU ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT INFORMATION BROUGHT TO THE WORLD BY SOME HONEST PEOPLE!. So, as someone who never was in here, ever worked with some military forces? - hardly heard before the poor little Albanians had an army - CONGRATULATIONS!! It is so pathetic reading through the exchange of opinions between the brothehood of W i k i administrators - I think there are so many cameras used..aha..uhmm..yes.. may be.. of course delete... What a joke. My moto was and remains DO NOT DISTORT ANY REALITY. EVER. This small country has had (oh.. still has by the way) enough wanderer historians and has been dealing painfully with all kind of history and facts manipulators. Well, that's not my kind dear overseas friend. Keep in mind: There are already many Albanians hanging around the web, who will easily write all kind of rubbish just for satisfying some sick nationalism pride - I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE!

About the pictures.

Most part of the pictures is taken through my cameras. I do posses 2 of them. A personal one and an office one. My colleges (the other advisors) have their own. Sometimes we have been using their ones. When I wasn't carrying any with me I was happy to use my mobile phone camera just to not let the moment fly away. And it is more than three years I have access to AAF military units, take part in meetings, exercises, training, and conferences - not because I want to take beautiful pictures or write soldier fairy tales on the Wikipedia - I guess THIS IS NOT MY JOB but because I am a NATO advisor focused, I believe, in something much more important than that.

Many of the Albanian military personnel have willingly helped me with pictures they have had the possibility to shoot. This country is not the USA. A normal Albanian does not care too much if he is going to earn any stupid cent from a picture that (may be) only a few nationals are more than happy to see published. Nor do I. This is why the pictures are released to public domain. Life is already difficult in here without that contour. Only a few of them - depicting some old Albanian Navy were published under a specified license - just to protect the fact that they were so unique and to estimate the passion of the gentlemen - former navy officer who gave those to me and was more than happy to see his work published.

And most important: I didn't start all this to earn any thing. It took valuable time from me, it took hours.. Do not forget: I am not a professional user of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the meaning of my life – but still I am a big fan of it, who loves transparency and the right to access the RIGHT information. This is why I mainly focused on AAF. That is and remains for the moment my field of expertise. AND I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO RESPECT YOUR RULES.

This is all folk. The rest is up to you.

---

Once again, You MUST bring this up to WP:Deletion review - not my talk page, not Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 August 30. This is not a sole admin. decision, but is done by consensus at WP:Deletion review. Skier Dude (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

PRODding and AfD-ing

Re your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#Comment, I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposal. I think it's an excellent idea to prohibit the PRODding or AfD-ing of an article withing 48hrs of creation. Of course, this would not prevent CSD from applying to an article. Your comments would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Flash Aviation and 195.241.240.219 (talk)

Please note that a large number of spam entries have originated from these sources. Can you deal with it yourself? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin-Baker

Another series of edits from Martinbakeraircraft (talk) that were blatant copy/violations have started again. The user has ignored warnings on his/her talk page. FWiW, sorry to be a "nudge" here but some of these issues just need a sledgehammer touch rather than the rapier-like wit I employ. Bzuk (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

OK I have added it to my watch list in case you need a bigger stick. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

1974 Pawnee / Phantom collision

You might find tthis useful. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that I will probably draft out an article in the next few days. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now released as 1974 Norfolk mid-air collision. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MHL/Admin

As you're an admin and a member of Milhist, you may wish to add your name here. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AVIMOS and NATO Reporting Names

I noticed that you were the editor who made this edit to WP:AVIMOS back in July, adding a suggested format for NATO reporting names in articles about Soviet/Russian military aircraft. Would you mind having a group conversation on the topic on the WP:AVIMOS talk page? There's been no discussion at all on the talk page about this particular aspect of the Aviation articles MOS, and the articles themselves are wildly different. I personally argue that we should standardize WP:AVIMOS to match WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS as they pertain to Soviet/Russian military systems with NATO designations. For example, there are a vast number of excellent articles on the subs and missiles of the former Soviet Union, and they all feature the same format: NATO name secondarily bolded in the lede to aid in recognition for the overwhelmingly US/UK readership of English Wikipedia, most of whom simply will not recognize the internal Russian designation. Thoughts? Bullzeye ^contribs 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, please check my my talk page for discussion with another user on the topic. Cheers. Bullzeye ^contribs 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Post War Military Jets, Safe Life and Airframe Materials

I'm in need of some help as I'm new to the rather perplexing WIKI markup.

I want to write an article that covers this topic. I've already made some changes to the Vickers Valiant article and in the discussion page for that article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vickers_Valiant

My father died in a Valiant as a result (I think) of the problems with design strategy and material choice. Therefore it is possible that what I write will be less objective as a result. I can source and cite all the material for an article.

For example George Peddar of Stirling University has written a book that contains a quote from a memo sent by Macmillan to Eden (1956) in which he states

"When the story of the aeroplanes finally comes out, it will be the greatest tragedy if not scandal in our history",

I also have some statistics from the time that quite clearly show the extent of this 'tragedy'.

Can you help in any way? thanks

Everything you know is wrong (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi XD864, the best way is to create an article in a sandbox connected to your user page - User:XD864/Sandbox. I would be happy to have a look at it and help with the code and I understand that you may be bias about the subject but thanks for asking for help first. We have some very knowledgable people in the WP:AIRCRAFT project and it may help to invite other editors to look at your draft article, you can leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. If you are not sure then please write up a draft at User:XD864/Sandbox and I will get some help. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll go play in the sand box! Everything you know is wrong (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Airways destinations edits without now references

Hi Milborne, I'm bet you're fed up with Iraqi destinations problems but now there is one which is truely stupid. There are 2 ip's, 116.71.61.42 and 118.103.238.184 who have recently been removing JFK from the terminated destinations section saying that there is no reference but in the edit summary they list 'http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3686424/?threadid=3686424&searchid=3686916&s=iraqi+ai' which I believe shouldn't be used as a reference. The reason this is a problem is after the first time JFK was removed I re-added with a reference to a PDF format that shows the destination and some of IA's history. The I.P has been doing so many reverts I believe me and him/she may be in an edit war so I am not reverting again, that is why I am wondering wether you could look into it? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

References seem to agree with you Zaps (also http://www.iraqiairways.co.uk/en/history01.htm), just take care on the number of reverts you do. Not sure that one blog entry IQ never flew scheduled services to JFK or SCL. is a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks Milborne. That's the reason I informed you, if this IP keeps doing so could you maybe protect the page ofr a period of time? Also I noticed after reading the whole blog, there is another person who disagrees and says they did serve NYC for a short period and there is an image of a 747 classic at JFK (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iraqi-Airways/Boeing-747-270C-SCD/0291509/L/&sid=8864050320c884b3b5b1f92e07c40734). So if you could help me keep an eye on it? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Aeronca

It took me a little while to make the connection between the Aeronca LNR-1 and the rugby ting, but I finally found the connection!

I was checking out the links in the Aeronca navbox, and found the Aeronca L-16 page. It is supposed to be about the mil variant, yet the page primarily ocvers the Model 7 Champion. As such, it seems to be redundant to the Aeronca Champion page. Rlandmann created the L-16 page, but here it was expanded to be more of a Model 7 page. Do you think we should try to retool it for only the L-16, or merge it to Aeronca Champion? - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find - If you take out the Model 7 stuff it doesnt look like a lot to support an L-16 only page. Perhaps we should remove the civil stuff from the L-16 page and see if anybody has any more L-16 data or information. If not I think a redirect back to Aeronca Champion might be needed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:BilCat asked my to drop into this debate! Having looked at both articles I would say that the best course of action would be to merge the Aeronca L-16 page into the Aeronca Champion page. It is almost all overlap and there isn't that much on the L-16 available out there that would overwhelm the Aeronca Champion page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with Michael's suggestion first, removing the civil stuff, and seeing what else can be found on the L-16, including pics. I do have an entry on it in a book on US Army aircraft, so I'll try to add what I can. We can always merge it at a later date if it does not grow beyond where it is. - -BilCat (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at what you did there - looks good. I agree if it doesn't get any "fatter" then it can be merged in later! - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi! I could use some help with this particular guy who keeps hounding me, my guess is that he is doing this to me after I had templated him for his potential 3RR on the article of MATADOR (weapon). Also, take a note of the warnings for his pattern of disruptive editing by several other editors on his talk page and this latest comment by him on the article talk page of EADS CASA isn't helping either. I really hate to report such things unless I really have to, so if I may ask you here... is there any way you can help me here or should I still report it to ANI? Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the the notice on your talk page and was just having a look at EADS CASA, I will also have a look at Matador. ANI can be a bit harsh if we can sooth things out by other means. I will certainly have a word about the personal attacks on you and BilCat. Let me catch up with what is going on and can have a word, but it may have wait till this evening UK time. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly speaking, his command/comprehension of English is really "private limited" as he had admitted to being Spanish. While both Bill and I had assumed him to be good faith editor, his editing pattern of late is becoming more and more like that of disruptive editing, which is evidently at our door step now. Initially, I had provided him with a Welcome template but he ignored it and just deleted, refusing to learn about the editing guidelines and policies! I'm going to take a break now, take your time handling him. Thanks! --Dave1185 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I have protected the EADS CASA page from editing so we can come to a consensus and stop the disruption to the page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• You might wanna take a look at his discussion page on Spanish Wikipedia (translated by Google), in it he says "he is editing EADS-CASA on English Wikipedia because it is a matter of pride for him" but if he had really done so, this would have grossly violated WP's policy on Conflict of Inetrest. So I'm pondering now, what is the best way to tell him off without hurting his pride for conducting such edits (thinking that we are all Americans and we are jealous of Spain or EADS-CASA) in future since he obviously lacks the kind of understanding as a mature adult, as I really doubt his claim that he has been working in his field for over twenty years but yet he cannot list the history part of EADS-CASA in its chronological order in the very first place. Thoughts? --Dave1185 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• ¡Coño! Parece que cuando nos interesa, ¡si que leemos en Español! ...Very good persons, Only When they have interest in something, they learn to read in Spanish. It´s not.. how you wrote? .."Incomprenshito" ..Very curious!..I will reply later when I have more time. ..and ..Beware of Internet translators are pretty bad, and can change the meaning of a sentence. Thank you for reading this to here.Bielasko (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not forgoten the article just letting thinks calm down for a bit then I will look at the statements made. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Added reply, see User_talk:Kirachinmoku. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 13:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Joey Boeing/Zaps93 undoing valid edits

I edited Air France fleet article with new information and valid references added and the imposter undid it, can you please warn or have him banned for a while.115.42.66.208 (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok now hes having some other editor undo my work and issue warnings to me, can you believe it.115.42.66.208 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I simply undid it in good faith, if you look back at the history and you're edit summarys I would apologise if it says anywhere that you added new references, but it simply said '(→Fleet) (undo) (Tag: references removed)' so you can't say you added new references. I also see that you undid Mjroots edit and yet only picked on me? Also if you have any problem with me take it up on my discussion page in the near future, thank you. Zaps93 (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The first edit that was made by 208 had no edit summary and was bot tagged as references removed so it would seem reasonable to revert it as Zaps93 did as two of the three sections you removed referenced text. You changed it again and it was reverted by Admin Mjroots who you reverted again. It would have been a good idea at this stage to explain on the talk page what was going on as you added a reference for only one section. So please do not attack Zaps and assume good faith. As Mjroots is dealing with the 3RR problem I will not intervene at this time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The edit was a good one from what I can see, so I'm prepared to overlook the 3RR breach this once. I understand why Zaps93 reverted though. I've left a message on the IPs talk page so that they know how to deal with the situation in future. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please control him at Saudi Arabian Airlines fleet section, thanks.115.42.67.101 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do my best to keep that page clean and easy to read, but 115.42.67.101 has been removing and changing the format to much more difficult format to understand/read. Zaps93 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep kissing each others asses, I see even jaspel has joined your brigade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.32.43 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

I have suggested to User:Gerd 72 that a ticket be initiated through our OTRS, to confidentially confirm his or her account that he or she worked in a job that provided opportunities to take photos of Albanian military equipment and installations. Personally, I find their account of themselves credible, and I think it is regretable that an experienced wikipedia contributor didn't suggest OTRS confirmation earlier. Geo Swan (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know we have to assume good faith and I have no doubt that Gerd 72 has some connection with the Albanian military but it really needs to be proven why so many images have been taken with such a variety of cameras. He/She has made the statement that they have at least two cameras (home and work) and a camera phone but also that he/she had used the cameras of colleges (other advisors). I presume that if Gerd 72 has used cameras from work or associates then these would be copyrighted by their employer NATO. I would be happy if Gerd 72 can prove that they have taken all the images themselves and that they own the copyright to each of them but this may have to be proven on an image by image basis. I also note that some of the images have been scans of older images which would not have been taken by Gerd 72. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that dozens of images, when taken over the course of several years, does not merit the level of suspicion directed at this contributor. User:CambridgeBayWeather has also been in the position to upload a large number of very fine pictures, over the course of several years. I saw over-zealous quality control volunteers challenge whether their images really belonged to them, because they seemed of professional quality.

Amateur photographers capable of taking professional quality pictures do contribute to the wikipedia.

Yes, I saw that some of Gerd 72's images seemed to be scans of older, previously published archive images. I know some people think that they own the rights to scans of public domain images. I don't agree. But a new contributor who holds this view is not illustrating bad faith.

I think Gerd 72 meant "colleagues", not "colleges". Yes, if Gerd 72 didn't have their camera with them, and they asked a colleague to take a snapshot, the colleague owns the intellectual property rights, and, technically, the colleague would need to write to the OTRS team. However, if Gerd 72 said to a colleague, "I left my camera in the car, let me borrow yours to take a couple of snapshots," is it your position that the owner of the camera owns the intellectual property rights -- not the photographer?

As to whether NATO owns the copyright to these images... I doubt whether any employer, be it NATO, the KGB, or the any agency of the US Federal Government, could claim they owned pictures taken on the employees personal camera, when the employee could say: "I took that snapshot on my coffee break".

I am not sure I fully understood what you meant when you wrote: "I would be happy if Gerd 72 can prove that they have taken all the images themselves and that they own the copyright to each of them but this may have to be proven on an image by image basis." -- Are you suggesting that Gerd 72 should be required to open a separate OTRS ticket for each image? What kind of proof do you propose?

WRT to the challenge that too many cameras were used to take these images, are you suggesting that Gerd 72 be forced to prove the cameras are their personal property, or the personal property of their colleagues? Do you want them to scan in a receipt? Presuming they kept the receipts are you capable of reading a receipt written in Albanian? I am not.

I suggest that, once Gerd 72 esttablishes they hold or held a job that provided access to Albanian military installations and equipment, we assume all recent images they uploaded were taken by them, on their camera, or cell phone, or one of their colleagues cameras, unless there is a strong reason to doubt their provenance.

Are you suggesting someone go through the exif data for all the deleted images Gerd 72 uploaded, and do some kind of statistical analysis of which cameras the image data says they were taken by? You realize only someone with access to deleted images can do that. Can I assume you aren't volunteering to do this analysis yourself? How many cameras are we talking about? Over a half dozen?

I am really disappointed to find myself the first contributor to offer to help Gerd 72 use the OTRS mechanism. Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept that you are dissapointed but we have a role to protect the encyclopedia from copyright violation. Holding a job with the Albanian military (he/she actually says they work for NATO) still doesnt prove copyright. Other than to say I did go through all the camera data before raising the issue I will leave the rest to due process. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WRT respecting copyright -- I don't believe anyone has suggested we stop respecting intellectual property rights. If that is how you read my comment you have misunderstood me. And I haven't seen any sign that Gerd 72 has suggested we stop respecting intellectual property rights.

WRT to proof of copyright -- I have uploaded a couple of dozen photos I have taken and a couple of hundred maps I created. No one has required I prove I created those photos or maps. If I understand your meaning correctly, you think that Gerd 72 should go through the extraordinary step of proving images he or she said she took he or she actually took. You haven't said what kind of proof you think is necessary. I am frankly at a loss to imagine what kind of proof you would accept. Are you suggesting he or she would need a friend to photograph them taking these pictures?

A point of clarification -- are you saying you did go through the exif data yourself? And you, personally, found the images were taken with a surprising number of multiple cameras? Since you haven't said how many cameras I am going to assume you no longer recall if Gerd 72 used half a dozen cameras, or several dozen.

WRT "due process" -- what do you regard the next step to be? And at what point in the "due process" do you think a more experienced contributor should have explained the steps through which a good faith contributor could use OTRS to verify their bona fides? Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example of the thirty images still on commons only 16 have camera data (a few of the others are scans or have no data) and of those sixteen ten different cameras have been used, Coolpix L2 (1), Canon PowerShot A60 (3), Canon PowerShot A400 (1), Fuji FinePix A345 (2), Kodax CX6330 (3), Sony Cybershot (1), Sony DSC-P73 (1), Kodak Easyshare C643(2), Nikon E5600 (1), Olympus S820 (1). From what I remember this was the same sort of range of cameras on the removed images as well. Although it is accepted that over a number of years an individual may have access to a number of different cameras, it was this large range of cameras which raised the doubts. The user had been pointed in the direction of Wikipedia:Deletion review but I understand they did not take up that offer. I have no further comment at this time. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have said, here and on Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_User:Gerd_72 that you regard the use of ten cameras as such a profound proof of bad faith that there is no possibility you made a mistake. I responded by pointing out that in your review of the exif data you seemed to have overlooked that the earliest images Gerd 72 uploaded bore exif dates of 2003-01-01. You wrote above that you had no further comments. Unless you offer clarification I am going to assume you still think you can justify denying Gerd 72 your assumption of good faith over the use of ten cameras over six and a half years. Geo Swan (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You should not assume anything about what I think, your judgement is that ten different cameras on only 16 images (including two different cameras on the same day) is a reasonable indication that Gerd72 took them all and owns the copyright. I think their is an element of doubt that he/she took them all and owns the copyright to them all. You have the right to you own opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of order -- your assertion that the exif data shows that Gerd 72 is claiming he or she took two photos, on the same day, with different cameras, is not supported by the exif data I reviewed. Geo Swan (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have ignored the personal attacks here and at commons but adding point of order is also adding harrasment to this list. You fail to assume good faith on my behalf when I nominated the images for review. The images were released into the public domain I had reasonable grounds to raise it as a concern. Nobody raised any objections to the concerns so they were duly deleted. I did not really want to go into the details but as you fail to accept that I nominated them in good faith I need to explain. As an admin I tend to look out for troublesome images and raise any concerns as appropriate. User:Gerd 72 had uploaded 167 images only 73 had camera EXIF data. Some of the others had no data and a number had data from a number of image software packages and were clearly scans. Of the 73 that had camera data 18 different cameras were used, now I would accept that an uploader may have one or more cameras over time 18 appears to be suspicious. Also the subjects which were mainly albanian military would have required the uploader to have access to the Albanian military from Helicopters, Submarines and special forces. This was grounds enough to raise it as a concern at WP:PUI. The uploader was not amused and stated that the reason for the high number of cameras is that he has two of his own (home and work) but also borrowed the cameras of his colleagues. I would note that if he had mainly used two cameras then they would show up in the number of images uploaded by each but that doesnt appear to be the case. Also if he was on duty as a NATO military advisor then it is probable that some of the images taken by him or with his colleagues cameras were not his to pass into the public domain. He was advised to take the matter to Deletion Review but for some reason he did not.

Just a comment on the point of order you were quick to make if you look at File:Albanian Minesweeper M-111.JPG and File:R-117 Patrol Boat PCC Class.jpg they were according to the EXIF data taken on the same day 15 May 2007. The first with a Nikon Coolpix L2 at 10:49 and the other with a Canon PowerShot A60 at 11:02. Times may not be reliable but they both have the same day.

Just for your information as you wish to continue this debate please find a list of cameras found in the EXIF data:

• CEC DC-2320 9 images
• Canon EOS 400D 1 image
• Canon EOS 350D 6 images
• Canon Powershot A60 1 image
• Canon PowerShot A400 3 images
• Fuji FinePix A345 2 images
• KODAK CX6330 18 images
• KODAK DC240 ZOOM 1 image
• KODAK EASYSHARE C643 5 images
• Nikon Coolpix L2 4 images
• NIKON D2X 7 images
• NIKON E3200 1 image
• NIKON E5600 2 images
• OLYMPUS C4100Z, C4000Z 2 images
• OLYMPUS U820,S820 6 images
• SONY CYBERSHOT 3 images
• SONY DSC-F828 1 image
• SONY DSC-P73 1 image

You keep asking what sort of evidence is needed, I dont need any evidence but Wikipedia and Commons requires some evidence that the images uploaded were taken by the uploader and that he holds the copyright to those images. Perhaps an explanation of why the 18 cameras and why Master Cpl David Singleton-Browne, a Canadian Forces combat photographer allowed Gerd 72 to use his camera and for Gerd 72 to uploaded them into the public domain as his own, despite images being labelled as Canadian DND/Crown Copyright? MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked at the times but the Seven Crown Copyright images were taken on three different dates so the professional combat photographer must have lent Gerd 72 the camera on more than one occasion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Google found five images for me that were taken by Singleton-Browne: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Is there a match between any of these five and deleted images Gerd 72 uploaded that contained Singleton-Browne's name in the exif data? Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No the seven were all taken with a Nikon D2X:

• File:LongBow Lancer.jpg - 19 October 2007 - identified in EXIF as COLW-506
• File:RRB COY.jpg - 19 October 2007 - identified in EXIF as COLW-506

• File:Experience exchange.JPG - 23 October 2007 - identified in EXIF as COLW-507
• File:Exercise Longbow Lancer.JPG - 23 October 2007 - identified in EXIF as COLW-510
• File:Joint Exercises.JPG - 23 October 2007 - identified in EXIF as COLW-510

• File:BO-105.JPG - 29 October 2007 - identified in EXIF as COLW-515
• File:US AL MEDEVAC.JPG - 29 October 2007 - identified in EXIF as COLW-515

I suspect the original file names may have been longer, File:RRB COY.jpg also says it was changed with Photoshop CS2 on the 19 October and File:US AL MEDEVAC.JPG says it was changed with Photoshop CS2 on the 29 October. None of the others mention photoshop. I dont have the times handy at the moment but if you give me time I will dig out more exif data for you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that my review of the sixteen remaining images with exif data did not include two images, from the same day, using two different cameras. My table contained a typo. I was mistaken. My apologies. Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, accepted. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Royal Air Force Museum split?

Hi Milb, thanks very much for the award, much appreciated. I am glad that it is over but we still need to keep a close eye on the article. I proposed in early August that the Royal Air Force Museum be split into the two sites now, another editor has just supported this suggestion. I am wondering how best to do it, we obviously need two new articles Royal Air Force Museum Cosford and Royal Air Force Museum London (which is I think how they call themselves, no commas) which would leave the original article Royal Air Force Museum, not sure what to do with that, DAB page or redirect? Not sure how to deal with the revision histories either. Hoping that you can help with this, does it need to be mentioned at project level? I don't think that it is a controversial move. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was bold - Done. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, my head is not quite straight after the Merlin push, will have a leisurely look at them now, I did get some exterior photos from recent visits that could be used for infoboxes. There are an awful lot of articles that have piped links because of the lack of individual articles, can fix them in time as well. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Iliria PB.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Iliria PB.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines (HELP!)

When you get a chance, can you take a look at the American Airlines article? It has been disputing whether or not LaGuardia Airport should be listed as a hub. It has been taken to the talk page...by looking by the number of destinations at LGA for AA. It only has 4 non-hub destinations which barely makes it a hub. I am guessing it was this IP (68.52.42.38) who started the dispute a while back and he is probably causing the same disruption under this username (Editor800). There is a discussion on this...i'd appreciate your comments! Cheers! Snoozlepet (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the same user. I'm also pretty sure user:Editor800 and user:AirTran660 are socks of the most prolific recent vandal for these articles: user:AirTran371 - who was banned yesterday. Ugh! Jasepl (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we had this problem before and the page was locked as a discussion took place and was decided apon, but obviously it has been brought back up from the past. Hopefully you shall be able to help. Zaps93 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I have been offline but it looks like another Admin has protected the article. I will still keep an eye on the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks....There is a discussion on the talk page and id appreciate your comments. Also, a third opinion was added...can you take a look. I would watch the AA article for a while. Cheers! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ANEC I article

G'day from Oz. I have just made some changes to the ANEC I article and have tagged your original info with references to A.J. Jackson's book. Could you have a look at it and perhaps add a specific page number, and also check that I haven't done anything dumb? Cheers. YSSYguy (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Guilty

Yeah, this 206.15.235.10 guy is guilty of vandalizing several pages. I know you guys have done this in the past, but please toast him. WATCHER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.141.108 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Narita a United focus city???

A user added Narita International Airport to the United Airlines infobox and indicated NRT as a "seasonal" focus city. I was wondering if this is true or not. It is either a focus city or a hub...and there is no such thing as a "seasonal" hub or focus city. A discussion was started at WP:AIRLINES. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanstead

I was unaware you created a separate page for the history. My error and apologies Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Teledyne

Thanks for fixing the navbox! I just copy and pasted that from the Williams F107 article. However, I did notice that the Teledyne navbox doesn't list any turbofan engines (Like the F106)... would it be possible to add a turbofan section to that? I'd do it myself, but I'm not very confident in my ability to edit the navbox without destroying it. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem - done. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

when

sorry, I should have been clearer here, I was trying to ask for the year.PDBailey (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I should have realised. MilborneOne (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RAF West Malling

Thanks for adding the squadron table to this article - very useful. In the table, you mention No. 29 Sqn, as being at the base at various times between 1944 and 1950, but the text above (which I added some time ago) suggests they were first there in 1941. I can't recall my source at present, but could you confirm which is correct?

Many thanks, Lynbarn (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry I missed that out - now added. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

re-start of EADS-CASA actualization

I am re-starting, slowly the actualization of the EADS-CASA, Little by little I'll be adding things, but I do not have time to do it properly and with reference, in once. I wish you were watching it in case someone turns to attack again. If you do not like something I've written, tell me and I will modify. Thank you for your attention Bielasko (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if you could take a look at this image File:Alberto A. Nido jpg..jpg of Brigadier General Alberto A. Nido. Notice the badge. Now, during World War II he served at one time or another in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the British Royal Air Force. I was wondering if you know anything about the badge and if we have a proper image of the same in Wikipedia (please let me know in my "talk page"). Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Allow me please... since Brig Gen Alberto Nido was able to fly aircraft for both the RAF and RCAF, surely he must have been qualified by someone within those two air forces to do so, right? So, my guess is that that badge is most like a "RAF Pilot wings", and a simple search on google should yield lots of hits. Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not 100% sure it is a British or Canadian pilots wings, it should have a crown on the top which is not clear on the image. Also it would be worn on the left side. As Dave1185 suggested a quick google might find the badge. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RAF Pilot Wings

• For RAF personnel, it is to be worn on the left but he is an American, and he already has a USAF pilot wing on the left so that leaves only his right side for the RAF pilot wing badge. Basically, the RAF pilot wings hasn't change much since WW2 (although the RCAF version was modelled after the RAF version and it was in use until RCAF merge with the other armed services of Canada), take a look for yourself. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to thank all of you, DocYako, MilborneOne and Brian Crawford for your imput. Yes, it is custom that an American military officer, who prior to his service, served for another country place the military decorations of said country on his right side and the U.S. ones on the left, as long as said military decorations are permitted to be worn. His lapel covers a small portion of the crown above the wings, but I agree that it is hard to determine if the badge is an RAF or RCAF pilot's wings. That is the only known photo of Nido, however, I would be inclined to believe that the wings were RAF, since he participated in various missions as a member of such. It is a tough call. Thank you all once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, before the start of the cold war, there is an unspoken commonality amongst the Commonwealth Air Forces (RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF & Royal Rhodesia Air Force) to be subordinated to the Royal Air Force (Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Rodney Park was one prime example), the same can also be said for the special relationship between the Royal Navy and RAN, RCN and RNZN. Therefore, BG Alberto was seen wearing only one RAF-styled pilot wing above his right chest pocket, since the Canadian version was indeed based on that of RAF version. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with Garuda Indonesia destinations

Hey Milborne, I'm just trying to keep Dubai off the destinations table until we find a confirmed reference that it will be served as a destinations (not just a stop). I have been reverting edits made by several I.P. one of whom provided a link to airliners.net which if I belive can't be used? As forums can't be used as a reference? So anyway I undid one of the I.P's edits and they replied saying 'Undid revision 320834616 by Zaps93 (talk) funny a fraud giving himslef importence' which is insultive. Can you help protect the article or something until it has been dicussed or a reference provided, and have a word with the I.P please? Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I have reverted the IP and left him/her a message. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd inform you before a EW began. Cheers! Zaps93 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Gatwick

Thanks for putting me right on the owners of Gatwick Airport, apologies I misread the article.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Roberts Dunstan DYK nom

Hi MilborneOne. I just thought I would let you know that I have nominated your article on Roberts Dunstan to appear in the Did you know ...? column on the mainpage. The nomination is here if you would like to view or tweak it. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I have seen a few mentions of him around before, and he does seem a most interesting character. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

`

aegn3 on external links

Thanks for the feedback about the ATR-42 page; I had a better look at the restrictions regarding external links so I know what to do now Aegn3 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerfaut

Evening MilborneOne: I've just been looking at the useful Flight article that someone has added to this page. It seems to say the 1402A and B were the same aircraft fitted with different wings (both are marked H in the photos). The Gerfaut II, which is not pictured in the Flight article (it first flew 4 days after the copy date) was different and appears in JAWA 1956-7 marked E. Does your source insist that 1402 a & B were different aircraft? JAWA is ambiguous on the point.

I'll check the specs to make sure they are all from either A or B. The latest ed (though it usefully fills a gap) may have muddled this.TSRL (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Illustrated Encycopedia of Aircraft doesnt mention them being the same aircraft. It says the 1402A first flew 15 Jan 54 with an Atar 101C and then mentions the 1402B first flew 9 Feb 1955 and it had larger wings and a Atat 101D1 and other improvements. The fact that both were marked H could mean them were the same and flight would be more contempary with events. The images at http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/nord1402.html all show H but with two different arrangements at the base of the fin but these could have been modified between A and B. Clear as mud then! MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the tail base fairing seemed to change a lot: first brake para only, then brake + anti spin; then, with the bigger wing, no anti spin; then a big fairing. Flight's story is that the intention was to fly with the big, more forgiving wing first, and then fit the faster, smaller one, but they built the little one faster so went with it first. Oblique, but suggests one machine only. From what you say, this is compatible with, though certainly not positively supported by, the Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Aircraft.TSRL (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)