User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 13

Problem again

• Yo Big Kahuna, your presence is greatly required → here ←, many thanks and may peace (or was it the force?) be with you. Out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page - not sure if it will help! MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• As always, your presence brings peace and clarity to any page that's on fire. Thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Afternoon MilborneOne, Could you delete Latécoère 3, please? I created it accidentally (typo) whilst redirecting some stuff. It's empty. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,TSRL (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Law Library

Thanks very much indeed for adding the image. I must learn how to do this myself as I have a large number of architectural photos I'd like to add to various articles I've worked on but unfortunately the instructions seem beyond me. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you just need to look at the code used if the guide is a bit over the top. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Heavens. By copying the code as you suggest, I have managed to upload my first picture. Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Sorry, absolute novice at this. It's all I can do to write text. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK just ask if you have any problems. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

May I ask why your removing the external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Because external links dont normally belong in the body of an article refer Wikipedia:External links. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to British aerospace industry article

Hi, I see that you have deleted the link to the British aerospace industry article which I added in the See also section in Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. I've no really strong feelings on your edit (although I still feel that the link which I added was relevant and that it could be useful to some readers) but would be very grateful for your help in adding links to British aerospace industry elsewhere, since I see that you are an extremely active and knowledgeable editor on Wikipedia aircraft-related articles.

British aerospace industry is a good quality article which seems to have suffered badly from having virtually no links to it and therefore virtually no readers. I have attempted to add some links today but the number is still small. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a particuarly good article and really adds no value to aircraft articles, I could see that it should be linked from aerospace companies but not products but the article really needs a makeover to make it relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way, in any event it is an important article and the only overview of the British aerospace industry on Wikipedia, which is, as the article itself says, the second-largest aerospace industry in the world (and a hugely important one to the UK) and also one which has been responsible for many technological breakthroughs. I have already made some edits to the article and will try to improve it further but it isn't an area of expertise for me. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look soon and make some comments on the article talk page perhaps it needs some sort of project peer review. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

kerning problem at French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (R97)

Can you help me out at French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (R97) with a type display problem. The words do not seem to be spacing properly and are kerning. See example below Jeanne d'Arcin... -- should display as Jeanne d'Arc in... mark up is ... She was renamed Jeanne d'Arc in 1964. I have tried looking at the article in a different browser and I see it is doing the same thing in both.

This is a copy and paste of the displayed type in the article, you will note several instances of this kerning problem.
The Jeanne d'Arc (R97) was a helicopter cruiser of the French Navy. She was the third vessel of the French Navy named after Joan of Arc ("Jeanne d'Arc", in French), a national heroine of France and saint of the Catholic Church who repelled the Englishinvasion during the Hundred Years' War. In peace time, the Jeanne d'Arcwas used for teaching and training purposes; however, in case of emergency or crisis, she was to have become a fully capable helicopter cruiser. This idea is now dropped because of the increasing size and weight of helicopters. The Jeanne d'Arc was built as La Résolue, as her predecessor, the Jeanne d'Arcof 1930, was still in service. She was renamed Jeanne d'Arcin 1964. The ship was retired in May 2010 and decommissioned in September 2010.

I am finding this rather puzzling. Do you understand it? If so please enlighten me. Thanks Felix505 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is to do with spaces - I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Something in one of the infoboxes is causing it - still looking. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - one of the edits had removed the end code from the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, now of course I am wondering why I could not see that for myself. I gather from your edits that it was |}. Weird outcome that it effected the kerning like that. Felix505 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Eileen S. Naughton and Lincoln Almond Images

I think it was you who flagged the images of Eileen S. Naughton and Lincoln Almond for deletion. Both Representative Naughton and Governor Almond have been contacted about sending for a second time permission to use their images that they have released for creative commons and they have told me that an email was sent to permissions. Governor Almond's image was deleted and Rep, Naughton's still carries a speedy deletion notation. Shall I upload Governor Almond's image again if it is lost? Innapoy (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Another admin has extended the waiting time for deletion as you have said a new mail has been sent, it shouldnt take long to process but you may need to ask a WP:OTRS volunteer about progress. I dont see why you cant upload the Almond image again just make sure it has the OTRS pending tag and as much info as possible. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Viberti Musca 1

I note that you indicate this aircraft was powered by a Continental A85. We have no article on the engine and I can't find out anything about this engine, although net searches turn up some claims of aircraft powered by one. The FAA Type certificate Data Sheets have the A-80, but no 85! Was this a non-certified engine perhaps? Any clues? - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The source I used does say A85, but I found this http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/Continental1.html which says it should be C-85! MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The "A" and "C" series often get confused, but C85 makes sense. The clincher for me is that there is no type certificate for the A85. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

There's an edot war starting to gain steam on Channel Tunnel. The issue is being discussed on the talk page, but the "corect" version keeps being restored. I've issued one 3RR warning to the worst offender, User:621PWC, and mentioned stoping revert warring on the talk page. Could tyou take a look when you can, and see if any more needs to be domne here? thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All quiet at the moment - I will keep an eye on it. Although I might be biased as I have used the channel tunnel a number of times! MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

CFM International CFM56

Michael, could you keep an eye on CFM International CFM56, today's FA? Lot's ove IP nonsense, but I don't know if it warrants a semi-protect as yet. Is pending changes still available to be used? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Understand the problem but I am sure it says somewhere that the featured article should not be protected - as it is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, even nutters. Only up for a few more hours if it uses UTC. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we must feature all of WP in FAs, even the vandalism! :) - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick Kieth Money.jpg

@Millborn1: Why did you delete the photo Mick Kieth Money.jpg? We have permission from the photographer Ethan Russell. We have an acknowledgment of that permission from somebody at permissions wikimedia dot org. The "Ticket Number" was #2009111610003902 and the email dates from November 30, 2009.

This is a pain for these old men to keep dealing with. Please re-post the photograph.

Here is the email with the acknowledgment:

_____________________________________________________ Re: [Ticket#2009111610003902] Permission for use of Mick_keith_money2.jpg Monday, November 30, 2009 12:41 AM From: "Permissions" <permissions@wikimedia.org> Add sender to Contacts To: "Ethan Russell" <ethanarussell@gmail.com> Cc: nickveltre@yahoo.com, "Ron Schneider" <rons@ironicapps.com>, "Rolling Stones" <rons@meandtherollingstones.com> Dear Ethan Russell, Thank you for your email. 11/16/2009 01:57 - Ethan Russell wrote: > I am the copyright holder on the above mentioned file and Ronnie Schneider > has my permission to use it in his Wikipedia article under CC-BY-SA license. > > Sincerely, > > > Ethan Russell > > -- > Follow on Facebook: > http://www.facebook.com/ethanrussellphotographs/ > > ----------------------------------------------------- > ETHAN RUSSELL PHOTOGRAPHS > Real Moments with Extraordinary People > email: ethan@ethanrussell.com > web: www.ethanrussell.com > If you wish for text from another website to be included in Wikimedia projects, it must be released by the copyright holder under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, which may be viewed at <http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>. Images and other media are allowed if they are under a free license (such as the above and certain other Creative Commons licenses). You can see the allowable licenses at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses>. If you provide us with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed. Thank you for your understanding! Please see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> for more information. Yours sincerely, Peter Symonds -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org

Deadhead63 (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Deadhead63, I didnt actually delete it just flagged it as a problem and another admin reviewed and removed it. I see that the image has been re-uploaded, although you have copied the text of the emails it still needs official confirmation that it meets our requirements. The message from wikipedia just says that it has been received not actioned, I have asked an OTRS volunteer who can see the original tickets look at it to see why it was not actioned. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Gremlin article

On the Gremlin article, I need help in formatting the infobox image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Fixed - not all infoboxes have the same format! MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, prompt and helpful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Irreplaceable image:TumMMWPintro.jpg

Hello MilborneOne. No, this is not a replaceable image; yes, I will consider donating it to Wikimedia Commons, although I cannot do this with my other images, which are copyright protected as scholarly research as yet unpublished--although available through fair use provisions as I have stated on my image pages. However, I am trying to get my article up and corrected, with links, and I am constantly being interrupted by people trying to delete my non-free (copyrighted) images. It will take me a while to do this, and after that, I will start my tutorial on how to donate this image. When I have the time, I will donate other images germane to my topic as well, as I think this is a good idea. Meanwhile, please desist, as this is my first article and I am still learning the conventions. Thanks. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to explain why the image can not be replaced otherwise it will be deleted, I appreciate that you wish to release the images on a free licence but until then we cant really host copyrighted images without good reason. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User rant posted in article

A user has posted a long rant in the Aerospace article, per this diff. Given that the content probably violate BLP, how should this be handled? I'm not even know what warnong to give. Anyway, as the target fo the rant is a living person (I think), should this be deleted from the visible history? If so, is this something you can do, or is there another sysop who could handle this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

He posted the same crap at Elon Musk, per this diff. Looks like someone with a grudge or vendtta against Musk. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see [1] on International Space Development Conference - also now reverted.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

and here and here.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Very strange! - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I had an early night I didnt see the rant, hopefully now they have got it out of the system they will go away. I am not sure if rant contributors think it will stay on display for years when in reality it gets removed very quickly. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Working over on Bristol Britannia

I recently took a shine to this article, and have given it a pretty thorough overhaul. I noticed your name in the talk page and article history, so I've come to you under the assumption you are interested in the aircraft and have technical sources upon it. Thanks to Bzuk and my own efforts, Operational History and Development and Design are well covered and referenced; but there's a gaping hole in the article: The Models section. I just can't find an online source documenting the various model types and changes to reference the article's own list to. I don't suppose you can point me in the right direction? Kyteto (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Incubation of S-97

User:Marcus Qwertyus wants to either merge the Sikorsky S-97 article to Armed Aerial Scout, or incubate it. I've never heard of Incubation till now, but it seems like this must usually be the result of an AFD. Do you know much about it? Thanks. (Btw, the user proposing this created the AAS page!) - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange terms, I presumed Wikipedia:Article Incubator was related to articles about to be deleted so they can be parked while more work is carried out on them. Not sure of the relevance to S-97. MilborneOne (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Per his comments at Talk:Sikorsky S-97#Proposed merge, he seems to be hung up over the fact that the S-97 is a proposed entrant for the AAS competition, and seems to think it must be selected as the AAS to have its own article. I've tried to address both points (that Sikorksy is self-funding the 2 prototypes) and that proposed aircraft can be notable, even if they end up nver having ben built. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Bill, I will pop along and support your oppose when I get a few minutes. Interesting the AAS article doesnt even list the competing helicopters, but that is a different problem. MilborneOne (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Aden Airways

Re this edit - what's wrong with the list? All entries are referenced. OK, maybe it wouldn't work with the major airlines, but I think it works well for smaller airlines. You are the first objector in the many months since I created the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not something that is done in the airline articles, the history of an individual aircraft is not really relevant to the airline. Not really encyclopedic and it is something best left to the enthusiast websites. We can take it to project if you are not happy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it for now. Yes, let's discuss at WP level as this affects a number of airline articles. I'll answer in the morning as I'm heading up to bed soon. In the meantime, I'd ask that the info is not removed from the article whilst the discussion is ongoing. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, understood. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for info when you are back online please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airlines#Detailed aircraft histories MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied, and disclosed four other articles this issue affects. Can I please ask that you post a note at WP:AVIATION so that the issue gets more eyes on it. Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A new editor on the scene

Please note the angry and disruptive editing of the following record. It involves an opinionated but unverified set of changes. Can anything be done? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Mjroots has left him a message about supplying sources, will keep an eye out. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New editor needs a freindly word from an admin

Can you have a look at Special:Contributions/Theguy0013 - the editor has uploaded a lot of files without any kind of license or specifying the source. He or she may need some coaching as to what's acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have left a message . MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a new Wiki-Crusader on the Global warming and Climate change pages

Dear Milborne, I think you had better check out the editor at User talk:Wikispan on the the two pages of Global warming and Climate change. For what ever reason that person see him or her as the guardian. Also I think it is a person with more than one account. To my reason for posting this message, I found a 1951 article in Popular Science with lost of drawing and illustrations by Rachel Carson about why winters were no longer as cold as they use to be. She stated she thought it cyclical ocean currents. I have no dog in this fight (ie personally I am actually not a fan of Ms Carson), but it was just another view/idea on the subject and was one of the first time these two important issues of today were discussed in print. And for what ever reason Wikispan just deletes. His talk page indicates he/her is big on that subject the last two-three months. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that area is to much of a minefield as everybody has an opinion it has become a bit of a battlefield. A general sanction from the arbitration committee has been issued at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions. Its a subject area with a lot of eyes watching it so we should really leave it to them. All you can do is say why you think the link adds value to the article on the relevant talk page and at least it is on record but remember if you dont know the WP:TRUTH then you are wasting your time! MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, I concur with MB1, that topic area is like a minefield to new and seasoned users alike. And about the link you've provided, that was based on the book The Sea Around Us by Rachel Carson which was extracted for use by Popular Science, my thoughts are that it is best to leave it out of the external links section since there's already too much being listed. However, what you can do instead is to start or join in the discussion on the talk page on how best to use that information to improve the article as it is happening right now. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)br />

• Thanks for looking into it, but I think I will let this one pass and move on to other subjects. I now have problems with some tags about finding links and categories for the GRASSHOPPER -- ie not as easy as you think as this one does not eat or breath. <GRIN> I just thought it was of interest on the subject of the page and Popular Science with its drawing and illustrations made it far easier to understand Carson than her book does. Again, thanks for looking into. Btw, we now have a vandal hitting the pages deleting any links to Hebrew WP pages. College must be getting boring for some. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  

Nimrod MR1 or MR2?

The aircraft in the photo (File:Nimrod MR1 in Naval Station Norfolk.jpg) has the air intake on the port side of the base of the fin, which AFAIK, is a distinguishing feature of the MR2.[2] It also has a blade antenna beside the middle of the dorsal "towel rail" antenna, which also seems to be indicative of an MR2. Regards, Letdorf (talk)13:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

• No worries, just an error in the title, the description of the image file on commons is spot on, it is an MR.2. Think we just need someone on commons to help to correct the title error, that's all. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I saw it did not have the Yellow Gate ESM pod on the wing tip which I presumed was part of the MR2 update. Was Yellow Gate added later? MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• MB1, I recognise the aircraft in the photo, that's Nimrod XV231 and IIRC... part of the original batch of thirty-two MR.1 which were upgraded to MR.2 standard in 1975. Loral EW-1017, aka Yellow gate ESM or ARI.18240/1 in RAF nimrod service, correct me if I'm wrong. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree it is an MR2 they must have added the ESM later as the picture clearly shows it doesnt have the wing tip pods. Apology to Letdorf we should revert to his original move. MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Yellow Gate was retrofitted after the original MR2 upgrade programme, although I can't find any references off-hand for its introduction date. I have reverted the Nimrod article accordingly. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

• Yes, the description in Commons was changed in September, but they didn't change the file name then. I've now got them to change the file name in Commons, & I've updated the link on the Nimrod page. David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

de Havilland Sea Vixen

Hi Mil, the File:Sea-vixen-sky.jpg image was one that I discovered on this site which gave the impression that it was a free image to use, but I now realize that there were some restrictions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

No problem, sorry about the templated warning. I dont have a problem with the infobox image being changed but it has to be at least a flying image although I dont really get the point about advertising. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the concern was that the scheme was "non representative" in that it was an advertising slogan that was being peddled rather than an authentic, period colour scheme. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

OK understood that is a reasonable argument and as the only flying Sea Vixen I am sure it will not take long for a free image to appear. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The aircraft is now flying in the appropriate RN scheme of the times – that is why the File:Sea-vixen-sky.jpg was so appealing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Edgar Amphlett

Nice work on the expansion of this article! Lugnuts (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

332d or 332nd? problem

The Tuskegee Airmen uses two different titles, while the USAF uses 332nd. I cannot move the 332d Fighter Group to the proper title. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a simple deletion Bzuk whover created 332d did it as a cut and paste and not a move so the 332nd still has some page history in it. Not an easy thing to do so rather then mess it up I have tagged the 332d for a history move. Hopefully an Admin with more experience on these things will then do the merge. When it is all in one place it can then be moved back! MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sikorsky S-97

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

De Havilland Mosquito

Hi, thanks for your corrections at De Havilland Mosquito. Much appreciated. I added a thank you note on the talk page too. Lightmouse (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

SS Dresden

I've expanded the infobox, given the article a copyedit per WP:MOSSHIP, found a more exact location for her sinking. Added DEFSORT, created and added {{GER Ships}} now that we have article on two of them, added WPs to talk page. Ship has been added to List of ship launches in 1897 (expanded!) and List of shipwrecks in 1918. Book sources are fine, but don't forget there's the 'net too. Maybe you can find more info on her there! Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Mjroots - a new area for me so I am still learning so your help is appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a better structure, and details of construction, dimensions etc adding. SS Brussels will give you a good idea of this. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

List of RAF stations

So as to avoid edit conflicts, I'll leave the sorting of headers to you. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops I will get it right in a minute! MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock'em~!

• About this question posed by this editor User:LS C HIST, checked and confirmed by a Checkuser to be the sockmaster of User:Scania N113 as well as being the operator of a large sockfarm and has been blocked accordingly. Peace at long last... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was suprised by how big the sock draw was! MilborneOne (talk)

• So did I~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Enrisga

Hi, I was the author of the report against Enrisga for copyvio in the article about Piaggio Aero. I see that the user explained his position and you promised to unblock him, and also the blocking admin agreed User talk:Closedmouth/Archive_18#User:Enrisga, but then nothing happened. Since the user is in good faith and could be useful to the page, I wanted to ask you to lift his block. Thank you, Gengis Gat (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology to all, the user has been unblocked please refer to my comments on the users talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible assistance reqd

Sorry to bother you but I may need assistance with this problem. It has been going on for two years now and needs to be stopped one way or the other. I may need advice as to which resolution process to follow as I have never raised a report on a user's conduct in three years editing (and hope that I don't have to either). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:DDE gives some guidance on the steps that can be taken. I have left the user a level 3 warning for adding original research. MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. Your message may work, we'll see. I have been reading the DR guidelines all day, they indicate that RfC/U is the correct process for this kind of problem. Fingers crossed that it does not have to end up there. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it did not work, hopefully I am still on the right lines over there. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Req for assistance

• Issue related to Qantas Flight 32 and its nomination for deletion.

Please look over Advanstra (talk · contribs) and his recent contributions. See my talk page for the warnings he gave me and my reply which I copied from his talk page. Obviously, I'm too involved here to take any administrative action, so I'd welcome an uninvolved set of eyes on the situation. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Advanstra has retracted the warnings, so that's that part sorted. I've given him some advice on AfDs and suggested he continues to improve the article for now. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem I will keep an eye on it in case you need any help. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article Charles Whitman

I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a WP:COI issue, and I am now appealing for help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Looks like you have moved on to ANI for help, sorry I was not around earlier. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it just started to look like too much of a sticky issue for one person to handle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a Complaint, Just Curious How To Handle Two Reliable Source With Two Dates

Dear Milborne,

I found a good article and page for some referencing of the Convair XFY. I noticed that the page stated it had it first conversion to VTOL to take off and back to land VTOL as Nov 2nd 1954 and FLIGHT stated it was Nov 5th 1954. So I changed it to the 5th. Then I notice in one external link video of 1954 flight it stated Nov 2nd. I have left a note that there are two dates and go to the TALK page. What is the protocol on this???? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is not clear which is correct we normally take what is the better source and then add a footnote to say Note: Source x says it is January 1944 MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Caravelles with Aerojet (Switzerland)

Hi Milborne, I've just seen your recent change claiming that the airline never operated any Caravelles. Lokking at this source though, might proof you wrong. But in this matter I rely on your knowledge, as I do not have any deeper insight. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No apology you are right my Caravelle book is probably far to old as HB-ICJ was sold to to Air City in 1988. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

Good morning! We have been having a spot of trouble with an IP editor deleting content at Xubuntu and leaving really insulting, bullying personal attacks at Talk:Xubuntu. His article content removals have been reverted now five times by three different editors and his personal attacks have been removed twice by two different editors. He has threatened to do anything he can to get his way on the content deletion, so I expect he will be back, probably later on today. I was wondering if I might trouble you to keep an eye on the article? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be me. I was removing the "personal attacks" as you well know since I received the same warning you did when I tried to save. YOU prevented me from doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. So it isn't my LAST warning. YOU interfered with my process. I will attempt again. And guys, I can renew/release my IP address at will. You people cannot stop me. So grow up.99.30.226.124 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It was your last warning please see my comments on your talk page, please state your position on the article talk page without attacking others so a consensus can be reached on the content. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading those comments on my "page," it seems like you are an OK guy so I will attempt to comply. But I ask you to talk to Ahunt and Greenman about accusing me of Vandalism when I complied with the rules for reverts. I consider this a greater Wikipedia "crime" than what I did. Vandalism corrupts everyone's experience whereas if Ahunt feels insulted then the "damage" is contained to him. Also, this whole issue could have been averted if Ahunt was not so heavy handed, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.226.124 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi, I replied with a question on two other images at WP:PUF, regarding your deletion of Katrina Law. Thanks--Shadowed Soul 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on "disambiguation pages" red links and references

Dear Milborne, I don't know if I am addressing this to the right person. But I have noticed something in my trolling articles, etc when I come across something. Please bear with me as I explain. I come across little known items and the only place to place them is in a disambiguation page. For example in the 1950s the USN had built a huge amphibious tracked landing craft called the LVT(U)X2 Goliath. It is no where else on the WP and so I added its name at the Goliath (disambiguation) technology section. It of course created a red link. I would like to have added a reference on the subject, but from I can see references on disambiguation pages is a No-No. And for good reason. Now for my suggestion to WP. Allow a reference section on disambiguation pages only for red links. So at least researchers (and for those -- like me MAYBE -- that will eventually write a page for it) will have a general idea what the item is. And when that red link becomes a green link, then the reference entry on the disambiguation page is removed. Jeez, it took me a day and forever to give a simple suggestion. Sorry. Note if you are curious here is a link to a small blurp on the Goliath LVT(U)X2 Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the above. Someone told me the way around that problem. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Not sure exactly how old you are, but I'd say you were probably a 60s child (like me). When will these kids learn that what we can verify beats the truth every time? I've no problem with people saying "This is the truth, but can we find sources for it?", but won't stand for POV pushing on articles. I'm looking forward to the final report being published, hopefully there'll be an English version. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at TraceyR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Tiny" Scholefield

Morning MilborneOne. I'd been keeping an eye on TraceyR's page, in the hope of hearing more on Flight images, so noticed your interest in Scholefield. There is information in "Vickers Aircraft since 1908" (Andrews & Morgan, Putnam). ERC "Tiny" Scholefield was chief TP at Vickers 1908-28, motor racing at Brooklands in his spare time. "Tiny", as he weighed "15 stone or more" (p11). Photo p8. He died 1928-10-31, testing the successful Vanguard after a (tail?) modification. There are several entries detailing the aircraft he tested but nothing more about his personal life.TSRL (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that not aware he was called "Tiny"! I should have some stuff for an article in the next few days so would appreciate anything that could be added to the article when it goes live as I dont have the Vickers book. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In the photo (in his car) he looks well fed; moustache (p.8). Newly appointed chief TP Flt Lt ERCS flies Virginia IV with "additional centrally mounted rudder" 1924-07-29 (p.136). On fatal crash: "circumstantial evidence indicates that the modification [to the Vanguard] ... was the fitting of a new tail unit of the Virginia X pattern with all-flying rudders. ....it is now thought that Tiny Scholefield applied too much rudder force, which caused over-stressing." (p.175) Came second in the King's Cup air race in 1926, in the Vixen III, and third (same aircraft) in 1927.(p.174) 1928 in Chile, demonstrating the Valiant as a potential Vixen V replacement.(p.189) 1927-06-27 first flew Vivid. Flew it to Bucharest 1928-09-06.(pp.190-1) March-April 1927 test flying the Vendace I on floats (with Maj Payn, the other Vickers TP) at Felixstowe.(pp.195-6) Summer 1926 crash lands the Vespa I after engine failure in preparations for the RAF Display in June.(p.200) Late June 1926 bails out of Wibault Scout during spinning tests, his first parachute exit.(p.211)

All from 1988 ed: only fragments of a life. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks article is at Edward Scholefield. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Milborne Have been away for a few days so just seen your kind note. I've no known link to Edward. The Scholefields initially tended to come from the Oldham/Rochdale area. Perhaps his ancestors emigrated to Canada some time in the mid 19th Century. He seems to have been a 'larger than life character'. Had not known of the first Vickers Vanguard as I dont have that Putnam! Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pilot's certificate earned abroad - your views, please

There would appear to be a need for some way of listing such pilots as Scholefield, since there were quite a few in the very early days who went to France to learn to fly. There are also a few who got the certificate in the USA - Glenn Curtis took both the French and US examinations, I think. I wonder whether they should be added to the existing R.Ae.C. lists, with their foreign number (and prefix), or whether a separate list would be better. Would adding them to the existing lists necessitate a change of article name, or could it be argued that, since the R.Ae.C. ratified the foreign certificates, the name could remain as it is?

Although the holders of foreign certificates are named in the Flight pdf archive, the certificate numbers and dates are not. Grace's Guide has lists of French and USA certificate holders, but often without dates. Would that be deemed a reliable enough source for Wikipedia, since there are few original sources cited there? What do you think? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a list perhaps a separate article like List of pilots with foreign Aviator's Certificates accredited by the Royal Aero Club 1910-1914 or similar. It may be to confusing to patch them into what is a serial numbered list. Flight is a reliable guide I have not looked that closely at Grace's Guide but it can always be used as a starting point. The original RAeC record cards with some of the detail can be seen at ancestry.com but they are indexed by name not number. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll start collecting the French and US American data and constructing a table. I'm thinking of a structure based upon year within country list (France, USA - maybe others, Germany perhaps). It'll be a long slog, whichever way! Are the RAeC cards at ancestry.com avaialbe free of charge? Thanks. Would French and US lists analogous to the RAeC lists be useful - while I'm collecting the data in that area anyway? --TraceyR (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Access to the record cards needs a subscription! Dont have a problem with a breakdown by country, no reason why other country lists would not be notable within the same time frame see how you get on with the data. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fokker PW.5

Can you move User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox Fokker PW -5 to Fokker PW-5 (which is currently a redirect to Fokker V.27 (despite the fact that they do not appear to be the same aircraft, and the PW-5 is not mentioned in the V.27 article). ThanksNigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Nigel Ish (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

I wish to comment on your suggestion regarding sepoy - here. Can I do it here, since I have declared that I would keep away from the BE talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes no problem, I wasnt aware that you had an editing restriction. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A self-imposed one. Thanks. See the definition of sepoy from its wikipedia article.(not a wp:rs, please bear nevertheless.)

“ In its most common application Sepoy was the term used in the British Indian Army, and earlier in that of the British East India Company, for an infantry private (a cavalry trooper was a Sowar). ”

Does the British Empire wish to inform that only the infantry privates mutinied and all the other ranks and specialities sat out. Ergo sepoy is inaccurate, native soldiers accurate.

Thanks again. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood your point YK I have changed my suggestion and reveresed the usage to use Indian soldier but have added known at the time as the Sepoy Mutiny to the end, see what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer "1857 saw a mutiny of its native soldiers that grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government.", your version is also fine. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to find a compromise between both camps, may not be perfect. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Airport Names

I have added an exhaustive list for discussing the contentious airports here. Please contribute and provide any suggestions / additions etc. Thanks, jasepl (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Stanley Booth

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Notability#Pushing_forward

Hi Michael: I think we are waiting for your clarification on this! - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just replied. MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Super! - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas

Apologies. I reverted your change when I had intended to change the new editor's change. My mistake. You have it right now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Aviation AfD record

Hi, any idea why the aircrash AfDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/AfD record are not all displaying correctly? (scroll down the list to see what the problem is)/ Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably because they are not formated at the source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/AfD record. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rans aircraft

Hi Michael: When you started this template in July 2009 you included the Rans S-2 and S-3. I have finished starting articles on all the aircraft Rans makes or made that I have sources for, but I have nothing on these types. Searches just turn up Wikipedia references to this template or Wikipedia mirrors. Even the FAA registry database turns up no aircraft with that designation. Do you have any refs that indicate these two types exist/ed? - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question I cant find any reference at the moment, I dont think I made it up perhaps I just copied it from an original sequence list. Might be worth deleting them unless I can find a source. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The one thing that makes me suspicious is the Rans history written by Randy Schlitter where he pretty much confirms that the S-4 Coyote was his first aircraft design. I am not sure why he called it the S-4, but some designers don't like to number their first plane in a fashion so that it looks like their first try at designing an aircraft. Oddly enough on the S-19 overview he makes reference to having named 19 aircraft designs. This has to be apocryphal as I know he deliberately skipped the S-13. Regardless I'll remove the S-2 & 3 from the template and if those turn up later they can be put back in! Now maybe I should start the company article to take care of that last redlink! If you have refs I'll ask you to add them to help out with WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have added Rans Designs, please feel free to add anything you can, esp refs! - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was downtown at our main library branch today where they squirrel away the big Jane's books and had a look through the early 1980s entries on Rans. It really does look like there were no models prior to the S-4! Thought you might like to know! - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ben Gills

Sorry for the delayed response - I had a dental appointment and just got into the office.

Yes, certainly - give me a few minutes to get settled and I'll be happy to start an SPI on this one. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI started. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy to be of help. Thanks for alerting me to him - I've been keeping an eye out, but he seems to have snuck through. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

External Link Question on Battle of Britain?

Hi MilborneOne, I was wondering why you thought it was necessary to undo the link I added to Battle of Britain - the animation of the battle. I am very new and just thought it was a different way of showing what happened - rather than just text. Maybe not Additional Material, but a showing it in a way that can be understood by people more easily. It looks carefully researched. I read the Wiki guidelines for external links and it seems to follow? Not commercial - no advertisements? Didn't seem to be self-promoting to a web site? Not in the main text? References are specified, on the initial page if not all through it? Just a different way of showing stuff for the non-text oriented. Should it be elsewhere? Wiki Commons? I know you do a lot so I respect your opinion. Just trying to figure out what was wrong.... Thanks Jamesjhood (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not think the animation provided anything new that was not already in the article (WP:ELNO#1) and it required a flash plugin to view (WP:ELNO#8). I understand you are trying to make something more accessible but we do have a simple text version at simple:Battle of Britain and some page are available as spoken text, although not Battle of Britain yet refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Not sure but I dont think flash animations are allowed on Commons and it may have copyright issues. If you still think it should be added then you are welcome to bring it up on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Renewable Power Corp.

I had created a place-holder. I've now populated the article with content. Let me know if it's okay. Renewable Power Corp.

OK I deleted the article because it had no content it is not normal practice to have empty article even as a placeholder. I dont have an opinion on the content of the article as it is not really an area of interest but you can ask at the relevant wikiproject which is Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy, where I am sure somebody will help and give an opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

C.W.A. Scott artical may be ready for reclassification

Hi, I notice that in January 2010 you and User:Canglesea rated the page C.W.A. Scott as a b class artical on its talk page Talk:C.W.A. Scott which was appropriate at the time. Since then I have added about 5000 words and many references and links etc... and generaly made the artical alot better (in my opinion) so I thought it may be a good time to get you to put it up for a fresh rating so that you, or you and others can decide which class the artical has now reached. many thanks Jimmy3d0 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also put the same comment on User talk:Canglesea now as he was the person who rated it last time. just so you know he may also be dealing with it. Cheers Jimmy3d0 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes question

Michael, do you know the current status of Pending changes? It appreas it is being added to new articles at this time. If so, would you consider a 2-4 week PC for the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11 pages? User talk:174.51.92.50 has been continuing he "Death Cruiser"/"Mega Death" campaign, in spite of several blocks. That IP seems to be vandalism only, but I do believe he has used other IPs in the past for this sort of vandalism. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not think that pending changes has been approved, I dont think it is being removed from articles but I understood it was not being added at the moment - but I have not watched it that close. Mjroots has blocked the IP for a week so we just need to keep an eye on the articles if they do come back with a new IP then we can semi the articles for a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Henry Walker (mines inspector)

Thanks for the additions to the article, just out of interest how did you pick up on the article and how did you find out his family information? Cheers. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, 1873 it is. My typo. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Williams Texas-Temple Sportsman

Hello again Milborne! Thank you for clearing up the (inappropriate?) tags in this article. I've not experienced challenges before to use of data from the fine Aerofiles site. The reasoning behind the 'rebuild' reference is that the FAA register shows this as being 'built' in 1990. Its identity seems OK - so a rebuild must be inferred. Perhaps this is when the radial engine was installed. Regards RuthAS (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Yeadon Airport"

You got any refs for that? I looked but couldn't find any. The ref currently used I found in a cache[3], but note that the title is "Yeadon airport on ..." rather than "Yeadon Airport on...". All it is doing is describing the location, not giving it an alternative name. Quantpole (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Official airport website says Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBA) was originally Yeadon Aerodrome, which began operating in October 1931 [4]. MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Multiple references in Hansard [5] MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The first says it was originally known as Yeadon Aerodrome, which is true, and I didn't remove that from the article. The second is comments in parliament, the newest from about 20 years ago. How can either of those show that it is "sometimes locally referred to as Yeadon Airport"? I am local and have never heard it referred to as such, and the source for the statement didn't back it up. Quantpole (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK perhaps you need to take it to the talk page for a wider audience as it clearly is still called Yeadon Airport, but as long as it mentions Yeadon Aerodrome in the lead then I dont have a big problem. I just note that it is my experience that airports are still called by the old names like Elmdon and Ringway. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I did actually look at Manchester Airport to see if there was a comment about it being known as "Ringway Airport", but all it says is that that was its original name, and doesn't comment on what people now call it. Anyways, thanks for the replies. Quantpole (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I have tweaked it to remove the currently known bit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH

Thank you for your note. Glad that move and change from an essay to a guideline works for you. Consensus has been hard to achieve on this issue so I just wanted to wait quite a while to see if anyone objected before moving it forward. Perhaps in future we can further develop and refine the guideline incrementally, one step at a time, rather than have to start from scratch? - Ahunt (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No problems, I didnt see it as the final solution, perhaps using the list of previous AfDs we can add a "lessons learnt" and examples but perhaps as as an add-on rather than part of the guide. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, or at least incorporate the lessons learned at those AfDs into the guideline. - Ahunt (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Baldwin

Thanks for the additions. So far I've been skimming the Gazette archive (thanks be to service numbers) and Flights archive. I've now got to fit in the unfortunate 1st Minesweeping Flotilla and the very unfortunate Cap Arcona incidents.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem I have done a few more tweaks but I will leave you to it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

AirLony Skylane

Thanks for starting this article! I had never seen this aircraft before, but the design is amazingly like a 182! I added some text from their website, it has an encyclopedic description of the aircraft design, just needed translating from Engrish. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you squint it looks like a Cessna! MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Except for the nose gear it looks exactly like a scale model of a 182! Amazing job they did! They'll probably get sued, though. - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Many thanks for your blue helmet act. I assume you've kept a watching brief on the page, but in any case your intervention seems to have precipitated a process which has led to a consensus text on a very knotty issue. We need more admins prepared to be gently firm in difficult situations like this. Again, thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem I have kept an eye on the page and welcome any consensus achieved by the regular editors. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope for your advice if there's a next time.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		This barnstar is awarded to you for getting discussion in Talk:Gibraltar back on track. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the barnstar. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Keesbleijerveld

Michael, I noticed you've posted notes at User talk:Keesbleijerveld. Could you review his note on my talk page here, and his revert here on the European Air Group page? As you can see, there are many probl;ems, and though the user appears to be acting in total good faith, there's an obvious misunderstanding about what WP is about. COuld you advise the user on how to proceed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't check the EAG page's article history correctly, and you've already intervened. Thanks for thr quick respones! :) - BilCat (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I first noticed the note on your page and had a look around, as you said all in good faith we just need to help and guide them. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add I have added another note on his/her talk page, as good faith editor despite the conflict of interest we should encourge them to discuss it on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your help is needed!

You've got a message at this link. Please seriously consider the message because help is dearly needed; your experience as a veteran Wikipedian will be valuable to this collaboration. Whatever your decision is, please drop me a message. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 08:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

comments requested

Hi; if you could share your thoughts on this discussion, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Mlm42 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

copyright question

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial (educational) use. indicates commercial restrictions.

So, how best should I handle this? Mollwollfumble (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Really needs evidence of permission from the copyright owners, the other alternate would be to use it as a non-free image but it has to pass a lot of hurdles (see WP:NFCC) but I suspect it would not pass No free equivalent as you could get a public domain image or a drawing that could do the same job. See next answer for information about getting permission to use from the copyright holder. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"you could get a public domain image or a drawing". Any idea where I might find one? Apart from taking the Google Earth image (with it's attendant copyright issues) and both fixing it (because it's poor quality) locally and adding my own text I don't know where to find a public domain equivalent.Mollwollfumble (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not an expert on this but you can get images and maps from US federal government sources like U.S. Geological Survey that are in the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

On a related topic, I have another image that I've sought and received email approval from the original author to put it on wikipedia, but need to know which type of copyright license to use Mollwollfumble (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All depends on what permission the copyright holder has released it, if you follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission it explains the process and the acceptable releases. Another good place is to ask questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"it explains the process and the acceptable releases". I did try to read through that but got quite lost, that's actually held me up from posting it for over six months. All I did was ask the author "can I have permission to post it on wikipedia?" and received the reply "yes, go ahead". Since then, the same image has been copied to other websites.Mollwollfumble (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia use only is not an acceptable licence it has to allow the use of the images by anybody including commercial uses. If you get get the copyright holder to release it in the public domain or one of the other free licenses by CC-BY-SA. The easiest way is to get them to actually change the licence on the source website (if it has one) then all you need to do is link to it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

UK airliner crashes

Re this edit, the supporting ref states Croydon. I've certainly not heard of an airliner ever crashing at Sevenoaks. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Didnt think it was correct because it was originally linked to a place in Wales. The Times of 23 August 1927 is headlined Aeroplane Crash at Sevonoaks and says "crashed into a tree at St. Julian's, two miles from Seveonoaks, this morning, with the loss of one life, that of the mechanic." MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no mention of Sevenoaks in the single ref for the entry. St Julians is presumably St Julien Rd, which runs along the southern side of the parkland surrounding Knole House, and is at the top of the scarp slope south of Sevenoaks. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert Undiscussed Move

Michael, could you move Bombardier CRJ700/900/1000 back to Bombardier CRJ700? The user who moved it, without discussion, edited the previous page, so now it can't be reverted by a non-admin. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved back - do you need to start a discussion so it is not moved again, or not moved without consenus? MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

refer Talk:Bombardier_CRJ700#Article_move MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re article on Captain George Mulock DSO, RN: Having just seen this positing I would like to offer further infomration on Captain GFA Mulock for the page as I am his relation and biographer. I can provide information and pictures for the page and notte, for example you list Jane as his mother - she was Jane Collister his step mother, his mother Clara died giving birth to him. He was also in Singapore during World War II. However, If you would like to contact me directly at editorial.nhcra@yahoo.co.uk I will happily furnish you with full cited article on his life as I am eager to see this put in the public domain.Hughesmullock (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

Can you assist in asking for a consensus on a controversial passage in the article which was arbitrarily deleted, although a final determination was still not present on the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Left a message on the talk page requesting a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "Flyingved"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Flyingved (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded Photos Proposed for Deletion?

I WhizzSheep The creator of the following Images proposed for deletion File:Hayley Moorwood.jpg, File:Hannah Wall.jpg, File:Rosie White.jpg, File:Ian Hogg.jpg, File:Luiz del Monte.jpg, File:Maia Jackman.jpg, File:Abby Erceg.jpg. I see no reason why the images should be deleted as I'am the creator of them and I have no possible way of showing No more proof that these Images are not a Violation of any Copyright rules and would be grateful if you can now reconsider for these images not to be DELETED Thank's MilborneOne. —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Sorry it is not up to me once they have been reported, you need to explain your position on the discussion page Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 December 23, I am sure if you took the images it would be easy to prove that, but note that three other images you uploaded and declared as creater were the work of others hence the problem has been raised. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons help

Could you take a look at the Commons Help Desk and offer an opinion on my post? I want to help with the backlog on file duplicates, but after your post an AN/I I may be too inexperienced to continue. Thanks Tiderolls 17:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: File permission problem with File:Longitudinal section of the Zagreb Synagogue computer reconstruction.jpg

Hi MilborneOne! The image - File:Longitudinal section of the Zagreb Synagogue computer reconstruction.jpg is in the public domain, I just extracted it from the given source. I am sorry if I didn't tag something correctly. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK you need to explain on the image page why it is in the Public Domain. You also said you were the copyright holder which is not true if you just copied it then uploaded it, again you need to explain on the image page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin oversight needed

Michael, could you review the coments by an IP here? He seems to be trying to stir up trouble at this point, and I'm not certain I can give a civil response. If you think closing the discussion would help, that might be a good move. As always, do what you think is best. Thanks- BilCat (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How is pointing out a fact "stirring up trouble"? The terrorist campaign in Ireland was not a war, nor was it recognised as such by the British government. (92.3.204.205 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Left a note in the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, could you check to see if User:Just Feel It is an admin? He has an admin user boxbox on his userpage. I clicked on the Verify link in the box, and couldn't find his name, but I've never used it boefore, so I want to make sure I'm right about him not being an admin first. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt show as an admin (or for that matter a rollbacker) if they have any rights it shows up after the name for example BilCat ‎(autopatrolled, reviewer, rollbacker) (Created on 20 August 2006 at 18:09) or mine MilborneOne ‎(administrator) (Created on 15 January 2006 at 19:05) they have only Just Feel It (Created on 31 July 2010 at 16:29) nothing under there older name User:Rafhan513 either. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Von?

See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted and I have it on my watchlist appears to be heading for the status quo so it may not need any more input. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Coandă-1910

Thanks for your firmness at Talk:Coandă-1910, saving the rest of us from rehashing old arguments. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

British Royal Air Force

British Royal Air Force is like saying the British Open - It is nonsense. But sorry about the revert i thought it was just finger trouble on my part. i didn't check if someone else had changed it.Petebutt (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)