User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 26

B-17/B-24/B-25/B-29

I'd suggest dropping the thing about this person not signing their posts - it's not a significant issue given that the posts are easy to recognise, and is rubbing the person up the wrong way. Note that while signing posts is strongly recommended, it's not actually a requirement - please see WP:TPHELP#Sign your contributions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood Nick, it was just a simple request that the user just didnt understand and was just an indication that the user was not listening. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, Consolidated B-24 Liberator and North American B-25 Mitchell articles, the recent revisions were at first being treated as legitimate AGF edits. I initially tried to correct grammar and spelling but noted that wholesale changes were being made that tended to challenge authoritative and long-standing reference sources. The edit commentary at times referred to out-of-date or inaccurate references being "corrected". After awhile, I noticed that major changes were not accompanied by verifiable sources and the persistent use of poorly written, grammatically incorrect submissions were rife with minor spelling errors, an indication that the editor may not be a native English speaker. All this aside, on the appropriate talk pages, bouts of "wiki-lawyering" and a series of combative and hostile assertions that the editors revising the latest submissions were vandals, was even more troubling. Does this type of activity warrant some other type of intervention, as I see that the articles have had some protection applied? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bzuk I tried to resolve the issues but the IP would not listen, they appear to not understand how wikipedia works despite efforts of some to explain. They dont reply to questions asked on the talk pages which as they say they are a published expert on the subjects they should be able to answer easily. We clearly dont understand, we use outdated references and dont appear to be up to his standards. Some of the talk page and article additions appear to be mainly in a fan boy talk which appears complete gibberish to the average reader. After a series of personal attacks against me in particularly I have decided to remove myself from efforts to explain to the IP what is required. User:Nick-D has protected the B-17 and B-24 and I have left it to him to try to protect the articles and explain what is required of the IP to contribute. I dont like to abandon these articles but I cant really work with somebody who has no respect for and who attacks the motives of me and others. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the IP's apparent antagonism towards Joe Baugher (sp?), I wonder if contacting Baugher off-wiki might shed some light on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody have an idea what the adding a single full stop/period (causing the sign bot to add an unsigned template) is all about? MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The North American B-25 Mitchell article was left unprotected and it appears to be the only place where the disruptive edits continue. I really don't care about the content edits, except that most of the time the writing needs attention, it's the comments on the talk page that really are a concern. I'm done with trying to help here. Adding polite expressions of don't be "incivil" make no difference. An admin needs to look at this type of behaviour. 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts Bill, I was happy to discuss things with the IP (I dont think to this day he noticed I was an Admin) but I had to get my coat when they started on the personal attacks, perhaps need to consider ANI, but we will see how User:Nick-D gets on. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Now the Boeing B-29 Superfortress article has to be protected. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Too funny! I cite Joe Baugher in the B-17G-1-DL along with Freeman/ Osborne and instead of address the proof, you (pl) go into along parargraph about how Baugher is not an acceptable Wiki source. I defended joe's site as far more reliable than Wiki. joe and I have exchanged information for decades. the comment above shows just how poorly are your (pl) abilities to read and comprehend a string of discussions. The state of all four article ('17, 24, 25,& 29) were rife with errors, anecdotes and airshow ramp lore. All were absent significant stages of development, lack authoritive writting style, and contained many run on sentences. Most indicative of the arcane style was the abundant use of the passive voice. The absence of reference to the more outstanding sources on each plane and reliance on extremely poor and outdated sources characterized the research. That is what prompted my intervention. I did not come to be maligned and certainly not to be counterproductive. That you (pl) have no idea who I am is proof in itself that your research methodology is antiquated and inadequate. Moreover, and most telling is that each of your talk pages shows you have a history of lack of comprehension and incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It a shame really I am sure if you stopped attacking other editors and learned how we do things here your may have been able to contribute to help us all improve these articles. So far you have managed to insult nearly every editor who has tried to communicate with you which doesnt help set you up as somebody who is respected and willing to join what is a team effort. It doesnt matter who you are what matters is coming to the party with reliable sources and an ability to communicate and co-operate with others. Perhaps go and have a cup of tea decide if you really want to work with others to improve the article or just attack everybody who doesnt come up to your high standards. If it is the later then it is unlikely that you will be allowed to contribute again. MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK you have decided that personal attacks like your recent comments on User:Nigel Ish talk page are the way to go so are now clearly not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've asked them to keep off my talk page as they now seem to be treating this as some sort of game - [1] - " You did exactly what I set you up to do". The worry is what article they are going to move into next.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Noted Nigel, I did give them another chance above, but they clearly want to be disruptive, as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia any changes they make to articles should be reverted as disruption. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that, per Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "There is general agreement that the passive [voice] is useful when the receiver of the action is more important than the doer". This is especially true in the Lead of an article, where the subject of the article needs to be the focus. - BilCat (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

More articles

Michael, here are some more articles being hit by our IP guy: United States Army Air Forces, Martin B-26 Marauder, Martin PBM Mariner, and Consolidated PB2Y Coronado. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

Thanks protected and IP blocked. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• North American XB-28 Dragon. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• North American F-82 Twin Mustang. - BilCat (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks protected, as you have said on the IP page all they need to do is make an offer to come down to our level and behave appropriately then they could help us improve articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure they've even seen it, as their IP changed after I posted it. They certainly didn't accept the offer if they did see it! - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• And another one: List of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress variants. Can you look into a range-block, even short-term? I know it's probably not possible, but it's worth asking at least. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like the IP has changed again. See here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Socks put in the draw until tomorrow I guess when they get a new pair. Not sure about range blocks with Ip6s I will have a look around. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure about the IPv6 either. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP. - BilCat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Douglas A-1 Skyraider - BilCat (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Bill and others I protected the page but forgot to block the IP who came back later to edit the A-26. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Davis wing. This is certainly on of the worst caseS of IDHT I've ever encountered on WP. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Lockheed Ventura- BilCat (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly. I'm not positive on this one, but he's using the same wrong way of adding [citation needed] as the last,so I'm pretty certain. This IP locates to Philadelphia (as we've suspected), and is on the Verizon network. The IPv6 addresses locate to Verizon's headquarters in New Jersey, and are likely for Verizon's nationwide network. The reaction to my revets should be telling. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP per WP:DUCK, the first post was to comment on User:GraemeLeggett talk page about an edit on the B-17 by IP 2600. I am sure he denied a connection with the 70 IP at one point. I think the more the user goes on then it is highly unlikely that an offer could be made to unblock and it just weakens any case they have. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

False assumptions, fasle acusations and blantant abuse of administartive previleges. a reminder:

Its clear you are the same person as 70.192.137.166 from your edits so not really a false assumption, you are using multple addresses to avoid the blocks so not a false accusation. Administrators are here to protect the encyclopedia from damage and abuse, thanks for your reminder. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Grumman G-73 Mallard and Grumman HU-16 Albatross. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the latest IP was blocked for making legal threats! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that I didnt get a chance to be online yesterday, thanks to User:Binksternet for his hard work on raising it at ANI, it is clearly not acceptable to make legal threats. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

A user recently changed measurement from metrics to Imperial as the system is developed in U.S. see [2]. i am not sure if the conversion is accurate and is it necessary to make that change from metrics to Imperial ?. please take a look if you are interested.Thank you :). Nicky mathew (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is a U.S system then not using just Metric to keep American readers happy is not a big problem we can just show both. I have added a conversion template to show the figures in both systems it does show some of the conversions may not have been right, also wondering what value these figures actually have to the general reader? MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I think most readers are not going to understand what those numbers mean, those number would make some sense to general readers if Steam catapult also have a similar table then some might try to compare them to see the performance differences of launch systems. i saw some newspaper reports which used EMALS in place of CATOBAR, daily news sites usually don't really care about details and sometimes end up providing misleading information to their readers and they still call wikipedia non reliable..funny Nicky mathew (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point User:Nicky mathew perhaps it may be better just to remove the figures from the table, it wasnt clear to me what they were trying to tell the reader when I looked at it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right and they lack citation anyway so i support removal those figures from the table. If someone comes up with a reference then we can add them back.Nicky mathew (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of strange...

...this user shows a fair amount of wiki-knowledge for a brand-new user. Might be worth watching, as he may have feet leggings! - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Noted "drag it to WP:MILHIST for clarification" is a strange thing for a newbee to say. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It definitely made me suspicious. It could be a regular IP that registered, but more probably something else. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries etc

Michael, these PA accusations are getting tiring, as is the restoration of deleted messages in the next edit. Is it time for ANI, or can you do something directly. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note I've now removed the same warning 3 times, along with his obnoxious justification of his personal attacks. Help please! - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have left them a warning on the talk page there was no need for the "revenge" bit, I hope he understands and uses the talk page to resolve the issue, you did right to ask but please dont make any more changes to the article for a moment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and understood. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Please see this phrase in his reply in vikrant-class talk page.

"but that just probaly means I'm racist to you"

M.srihari (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@MilborneOne: Also please see his comment in the next column "request for intervention".

Your inability to understand what I say is tiresome, which is odd since we both appear to speak English, and I have no apparent trouble understanding what you say.

Is this not a personal attack (If the accusation revenge edit itself qualifies as a personal attack)M.srihari (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Of course it's not a personal attack. I'm simply expressing frustration at fact that you continually misconstrue what I do say to mean things that I did not intend to say, such as "fruitless" being "unacceptable". - BilCat (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm an American. What possible reason would I have for thinking that Indian, Russian, Chinese and British carriers are not supercarriers other than racism? (I was and am being sarcastic, but it's not a stretch, as you've already accused me of racism in the past.) - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what your nationality is. Your tone and your comments about me are not civil. You tend to again and again disrespect me and my language. And please stop your discussion here. It's neither your talk page nor mine.M.srihari (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I honestly don't care what your nationality is either. The problem has been that you don't always understand me, or you chose to misunderstand me. That makes communication with you difficult, as you are quick to accuse me of things I didn't mean. - BilCat (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Request your intervention

I am sorry to disturb you. But one editor (BilCat) wishes to start a edit war on most of the edits made by me and then accuses me of personal attack(when I say that he revenge edits). He even decides to revert the edits made by me on his talk page (that includes the explanation to my edits). Please intervene as soon as you can.M.srihari (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I have left a message on your talk page User:M.srihari, I cant see any evidence the User:BilCat is wanting to start an edit war, please take the issue to the article talk page as I suggested. If you have any questions then please ask, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

please see my reply. He reverted my edits as soon as I have made it (Twice) without giving proper explanation. If he had wished, he could have started a thread on talk page (which he didn't). But I have explained my views by discussing in talk page for days. I agree that I am not an experienced editor. But how come an experienced editor like him wishes to revert edits so quick when wikipedia states that No urgency in solving edit disputes?M.srihari (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

And to note, He was the one who reverted my edit on supercarrier but didn't even take part in a single discussion(which is dragging for days) to help solve the issue. How could I view it when he suddenly reverts my other edits too other than calling it revenge edit. I agree with you that I shouldn't have made such a statement in the summary page on his first edit itself, but I had no choice to leave this continuing issue.M.srihari (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I have left you another message on your talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that I haven't participated in the conversation on Talk:Supercarrier because it has been dragging on for days, and I felt I had nothing to contribute beyond what Nick had already said. I reverted your edit on the article because no consensus had been reached to that point. I'm not obligated to participate in fruitless discussions. - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)_≈

@BilCat:Calling a discussion for a consensus "fruitless" is not acceptable. Then why did you revert edits if you don't wish to talk on the issue? you didn't even express your view that you agree with Nick back there. And let's have our discussion somewhere else hereafter, as this is not our talk page.M.srihari (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

How is calling a discussion that has been "dragging for days" (your own words) "unacceptable"? "Fruitless" simply means that no new consensus has been reached. I should not have to explain or justify that! Such comments are precisely why I'm not participating in the discussion. Your inability to understand what I say is tiresome, which is odd since we both appear to speak English, and I have no apparent trouble understanding what you say. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of Airbus CC-150 Polaris

Hello; would you like to have all A319s and A321s changed to "German aircraft", because they are all german built? The same applies to the "Spanish aircraft" A400M. In my opinion they are all international projects. Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree the A310 was built in France so is by any definition a French aircraft, likewise the A400Ms are built in Spain so are Spanish aircraft, simples. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

220 Sqn.

Hello Milborne. Please review this version! I think we both agree the previous version was pretty ropey. You intervened before I could tackle the concept of an RNAS in September 1918! If that is our level of Subject Matter Expertise, this project is going to be a wee bit uphill...Protozoon (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes sorry about that User:Protozoon,I think I changed some of your improvements, the only thing I was not sure of I didnt think the flights existed in the RNAS I thought they were an RAF invention. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, again. FYI, this is 2 Wing RNAS/62 Wing RAF, as I understand it: A Sqn.= 222 Sqn.(Mudros) with 478, 479, 480 (boosted with Z Sqn RNAS, about the 9th April 1918). B Sqn.= 223 Sqn (Mitylene?) with 559, 560, 561. C Sqn.= 220 Sqn.(Imbros) with 475, 476, 477. D Sqn. = 221 Sqn. (to South Russia, against the Bolsheviks, and all Flts. DH.9) with 552, 553, 554. Wing HQ at Mudros.

I kept your detail on disbandment, but I would ask you to view the RAF (the ROYAL AIR FORCE itself!) website: raf.mod.uk, History, historic sqns, 220 sqn., which states: Dec.1918.

The RAF ranks are essentially naval: Commander, Captain, Commodore, and the rank became rings not pips. RNAS ranks included: Flight Sub-Lieutenant and Flight-Lieutenant, plus Sqn.Cdr. (sic) and Wg. Cdr. That would suggest RNAS used Flights, as well as Squadrons and Wings.

1 (N) Wing, 4 (N) Wing, and 5 (N) Wing operated together as the Dunkerque Group on the Western Front, but do you know the movts. of 3 (N) Wing? Was that just Home Service?

Would you kindly review the page again. I have now 'messed about' with WW2 and post-war. Please consider the flow of the language, and of course the factual accuracy, of any changes. I do try both! Thanks.Protozoon (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Smj03103

Michael, User:Smj03103's sole "contributions" consist of repeatedly adding South Korea to the F-15 infobox, per this last diff. The ROKAF uses the F-15E variant, and is listed there already. Could you check is semi-protecting the article would work? A block seems like a lot for this kind f edit, but perhaps it's necessary in this case. Thanks for whatever you decide is needed. - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Quiet at the moment I will hold on doing anything unless they come back, I see you have left a warning on the user talk page, so we will see what happens. If I miss anything happening then give me a kick. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:StrongFreeCanadian

Michael, could you review User:StrongFreeCanadian's contributions? The user doesn't seem to understand the need to cite sources. Though most of the edits seem innocuous, without sources it's hard to know. - ~~

As they have had a number of warnings I have given them a 31 hour block to stop them adding unreferenced material. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

IP

a refresher in citation procedures is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but as a blocked user you are not allowed to contribute to wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

James Garner

Michael, could you look into semi-protecting the James Garner article for a few weeks? A series of IPs have been adding a specific unsourced claim to the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Y MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Avro Vulcan XH558

I don't understand why you don't think this article doesn't need a Background section? Links to the main Vulcan page are obviously helpful, but that's a hell of a long article - I doubt people are going to want to read and absorb the entire thing as a prerequisite to understanding the XH558 article. As such, I don't think it's unreasonable to provide a small section describing the Vulcan in the XH558 article. From what I've seen, such background sections seem commonplace elsewhere on Wikipedia. Natural Ratio (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Natural Ratio All I can say in my experience that it is unusual to repeat what is in the parent article in what is a child article, thats why we have links between articles so the reader can follow the links for more information. The article introduction says as much as you need in my opinon. If you feel strongly about it then perhaps raise it on the talk page of the article or ask for opinions at members of the Aircraft project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I do feel strongly, not only because I don't think it's remotely unusual in my experience of Wikipedia (I've seen lots of such sections, which by definition will always be duplicating some part of Wikipedia), but also because my intended Background section deliberately went into more depth than the introduction of the main Vulcan article does (or really should). I don't think the average reader has a chance of really understanding the XH558 article without having the sort of quick summary I wrote to be immediately on hand on the same page - and quite clearly they're not going to wade into the minutia of the main Vulcan article if its introduction doesn't offer the sort of basic information that they might be looking for as they read about XH558. Natural Ratio (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a talk page section, and asked for feedback from WikiProject Aircraft, and also Military History, as that seemed appropriate too. I'm not sure if there's any others that would be relevant? Natural Ratio (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Natural Ratio OK we will have to see what is said but remember the article is about the one aircraft not about the type. Perhaps you could try a somewhat briefer overview at the start of the history section to put the aircraft in context. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the article is not about the type - don't assume that based on the inclusion of a Background section. I've actually already removed some stuff because it was clearly not specifically about XH558. You've also just done something as equally perplexing to me as removing 'Background' - removing the 'History' heading - not to labour the point, but again, I thought this was an entirely standard way of organising articles on Wikipedia. By removing it, I fear readers will not appreciate the fact that sections 1-8 are meant to be read as a chronology, while the others are stand-alone information. Natural Ratio (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It didnt look right that most of the article was in a history heading when it didnt need to be, in my opinion, perhaps it needs to be broken down differently but not one huge history section. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to have to start giving me more information about your reasoning because I'm struggling to follow your train of though in nearly every one of your comments, and what appears to look right or be normal to you doesn't seem to match my experience of reading other articles. You seem to be saying here that you don't want one giant history section because it looks odd, yet you actually removed my attempt to introduce a non-trivial non-chronological section, 'Characteristics', putting most of it into the History timeline? I'm not averse to a different structure, but to simply remove the clarification that, at present, 8 out of the 10 sections made most sense by being read in order, because they're written as a chronologically, makes no sense to me. I know it's currently written chronologically, you know it's currently written chronologically, but does the next person looking know that without a 'History' header? Or rather, what's the point in wasting their time requiring them to speed read the whole page before they realise it? I'm struggling to see what benefit these changes you're making actually bring to the page, and they certainly don't seem to be fixing any pressing problems either. Natural Ratio (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what "Characteristics" was meant to be certainly not a heading used in wikipedia that I have seen, the two bits you put in it didnt make sense at the beginning of the article. Being civilian registered is part of the history and to be honest the Vulcan noise thing is just trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't set on having it at the beginning, and would probably have moved it to the end as the next job had the addition of a Background section gone as smoothly as everything else up to then - but the title is surely self-explanatory? It was meant to be for things which describe the aircraft, but don't really need to be explained as part of a chronology. If not Characeristics, then what? It's not really Design or Specifications. Configuration? I was planning on adding other things like its display ceiling and the various other restrictions on how it was supposed to be flown, that would simply just look odd placed at the start of the return to flight part of the history, and that might have resulted in a rename. I don't know about the howl being trivia, but it certainly looks oddly overblown having its own dedicated section (which was part of the reason for creating Characteristics, to have somewhere to put it that didn't make it look odd). Natural Ratio (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock or meatpuppet of User:Fonte de regaz

Michael, could you look at this edit, and see if it seems familiar? We might need to do an SPI, butb this one doesn't seem to have the same really-bad grammar issues. This addition to my talk page is certainly suspicious, however, as I've had no direct interaction with the user beyond a few reverts. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hum the talk page comment was a bit strange, not sure it is our Malaysian friend but from what I have seen from the editing style it will not take long for them to trip up. MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Michel,Fonte De Regaz Is Dead And No Longer In Wikipedia.And He Would Not Or Sam Kazani Franfrut The Guy Called Bilcat. I Repeart,Fonte De Regaz Is No Longer In This Wikipedia.And I Just Imform That He May Or KnowKornet GSR (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please tell us why you think Fonte De Regaz is dead was he a friend of yours? MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No,His Not Friend Of Mine.I A Chief of Multimedia Malaysia (SKMM),Fonet De Regaz Was Dead in 2008.He Was From The Phillipines.and The Computer User That You Block Him That He Was not Human175.141.22.214 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Raised all three users at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz. MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:President of United States is editing several Malaysian-related articles, and does seem to be a sock of User:Fonte de regaz. I've noticed that nothing's been done at the Sock investigation, and I'm wondering if something is wrong with the page. It's been over 2 weeks since you filed. Also, the new user name probaly isn't allowed anyway. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked PoUS per WP:DUCK and added the name to the sock page, it doesnt look like any reports on the board have been looked at recently! MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

AgustaWestland AW101

Michael, can you look at AgustaWestland AW101 and consider semi-protecting it to encourage discussion? An IP user keeps making changes to the sepcs variant without.discussing what their issue is. I'm at 3 reverts already. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ysemi for two-weeks to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Refresher

Conflicts and involvementAdministrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they areinvolved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace. You are in continuious violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B012:E1F9:83BE:9989:1BC0:18C9 (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts and involvementAdministrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they areinvolved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace.

Thanks for the reminder but you have been blocked for disruption and personal attacks and as such you are not allowed to contribute. Each time one of your IP accounts is blocked you are given the opportunity to challenge that block, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

you have blocked me a) without cause, and since that is in disputes, b) directly in contempt of Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.141.105 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been explained to you more than once you were blocked for continuing personal attacks after you were asked to stop and being disruptive. As you continue to edit despite being blocked you are also being blocked for block evasion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It has also been explained to you that you can appeal the block per your talk page block notice, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Iyou fail to understand that I used grest restain in avoiding personal attackas in thhe face of your (pl) attacks both on article talkpages and your talk page. I was critical in specific manner of your actions and understanding of the subject matter. THAT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIKI POLICY. Moreover, I am not nearly the bumpkin you imagine I am. I know that you know your blocks are provocation to have me reveal my identity. I knew that at the time your block threat. You are willfully and and maliciously abusing your adminstrative tools to try to learn my ermail identity...your goal all along. I am not so stupid. Your motives are transparent. that was obviousl because the quality of my edits was excellent and if you were focused on quality of the articles this discussion would not be taking place. your motives are far less noble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02D:CF7E:BA2A:7564:9D64:A4C0 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what (pl) means is it some sort of code? anyhow why would I want to know your email address or real life identity it is of no interest to me (or to anybody else) and I have never asked for any personal information so I fail to understand why you think I would care who you are or what your email is. My only interest is to protect the encyclopedia against disruption and personal attacks, and you continue to make personal attacks which as you have been told is one of the reasons why you were blocked. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he means "plural", as in second person plural "you". It's hard to tell sometimes - his editor must work long hours! - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Eurofighter Typhoon 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by TransporterMan (TALK), Committee Chairperson, on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

PC-7 Team

show me a team who had done this before the PC-7 Team, to fly the diplay exactly to a real Band need a lot of skil... skil from the team and the band. The commander of the PC-7 Team is the best source you can have about the team. stop puting always swiss aviatic topics down! FFA P-16 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats OK all you need to do is find a reliable source that nobody before has ever flown a display with real music, but remember You-Tube is not reliable, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How should this go? Think logical. The other way its possibel, if a other team has done this already then its possibel to profe it. But as long as only the PC-7 Team can deliver such a profe... Well the youtube clip is not just any clip, its from the Swiss Military. and btw also on the homepage of the PC-7 team http://www.pc7-team.ch/de/ FFA P-16 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to discuss this on the article talk page and provide a reliable source, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Health+Stealth

Michael, would you mid reviewing User:Health+Stealth's recent contributions? The user was blocked a few days ago for repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles, often with canned and misleading edit summaries. They have added some sources to a few contributions since the block, but returned to old habits with this edit. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I have added a copyright warning from the last post they made, see if the heed the warnings. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't look at the source given on the dolphin article, so good catch on the copy vio. - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Davis Wing Article

first sentence: the Davis Wing was a wing. Next few: it was on these PLANES... NOT ABOUT THE wing nor WHY. last sentence: This is when it was NOT USED, I.E. defined it terms of what it wasn t, not what it was....And you(pl) have the audacity to criticise my edit! Who, what, where, when why, how much or how often?...factual writting Iin the active voice. you would do well to learn it.

The Davis wing article is wrong on almost every point. There is no "Davis wing". Davis invented an airfoil section, not a planform. It's important, it worked (even though Davis' theory makes as much sense as a roulette system, he happened to be right), but it's nothing like how it's described on WP. Your change was an improvement in the right direction, but didn't go far enough.

Yet (as the aircraft cabal argued last time this came up), their invented viewpoint is gospel and is not to be challenged. WP isn't about truth, it's about tag-teams. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bill Zuk

copy vol??? Meaning copyright violation. No. I wrote my edits. If they sounded familar, it might be because I wrote extended sections of books and articles you may have seen and It is copyrighted to me. Another unfounded accusation. Of course you don t know who I am so You dont know what you dont known...but I ve told you that before.

WP can't accept copyrighted written material, except for small quotations per fair use. As an author, you should already know that. You certainly can't revoke.your copyright anonymously, and not through a talk page either. I doubt your publisher, if you aren't self-published, would appreciate it either. - BilCat (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

	hi
	hi Planecrashexpert (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, is this an apology for your vandalism on my talk page before? MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A-26 Article

Another example of of a revent without protocol being followed.

"The A-26 was unusual for an attack bomber of the early 1940s in having a single pilot."

..except for the twin engined A-20, A-22, A-30, XA-38, and the version of the Mitchell, (B-25H), Mosquito, and Beaufighter; and the s/e A-17, A-24, A-25, A-36, and XA-32 .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02A:6E9F:A440:A154:A891:C66E (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but you are still blocked per all the previous discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making enquires about removing my admin status (User talk:TransporterMan#Bzuk, bilcat & milboureone) for abuse in regard to blocking you, as suggested by User:TransporterMan you are welcome to raise it at WP:AN for review. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

B-17G-1 & 5-DL

Let the number of captioned planes = Y. Let the first six hundred Douglas B-17 = X. Look up the approriate AAF S/N(s). Solve X-Y=F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02F:12DD:A2C1:277A:3593:8B60 (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how many times I need to repeat it but just to be clear you are still blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing, personal attacks and block evasion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Help!

I've got in a tangle trying to move an article about the Vándor out of my sandbox, in the course of which I've lost both the Janka-Rotter Vándor article and my sandbox! I partly understand how it happened but know you have rescued me before. Any ideas how to retrieve them? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC) I've now found the article; it's at User:TSRL/sandbox/Vándor but I cannot move it to Janka-Rotter Vándor, which was my target. Still haven't found my sandbox.TSRL (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Strictly, I can't find the contents of my sandbox; the box is at Janka-Rotter Vándor.TSRL (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've managed to regenerate my sandbox and its contents but cannot move Janka-Rotter Vándor out of it as an article (because my earlier sandbox is renamed as it!). Sorry to be a pain, Cheers,TSRL (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I've marked it for SD, so that may sort it.TSRL (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC) All now seems to be well, Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was offline, is everything OK or do you need me to do anything? MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Santa Bárbara Sistemas

Michael, a series of IPs is making odd vandalism edits to Santa Bárbara Sistemas per this diff. Could you look at semi-protecting the article for a week or 2? Hopefully they will lose interest. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Y semi for 2w to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure what's to discuss - it was just vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

London International Airport

Please see Talk:London International Airport#Recent move. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Monty Oum

I'd beg to differ. Time Magazine, Deadline, Variety, People Magazine, New York Times, Huffington Post, E! all reported on him and his impact is resonating, as his show RWBY is now being broadcast and dubbed for Japanese viewers, which is quite a feat. You speak of notability, yet for many people a lot of the people on that list wouldn't be recognized by a lot. Rusted AutoParts 20:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Still appears to be little known outside of the United States and hardly known in the rest of the world, need to take to the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

Just wanted to say thanks for your kind words of support over at my RfA. I'll do my best to ensure that I fill the role properly and discharge my duties well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Saw this

Hi, saw this and realized you were probably unaware of an ongoing problem. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, we appear to have a trend of trashing the work of projects to appease some small print in an obscure guideline or essay but not allways to help the user, apparently the opt out for some projects (for example not to include navboxes and ignore all the rules) doesnt apply to the aviation projects who are seen by the small print team as not conforming. I dont see any of these changes actually improving the readers experience. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not just aviation, that's the problem, it's across the board. Disconnect between those who create and use content and those who fuss over "teh rulz". More here: [3]. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's too bad he couldn't have gone on Wiki-break before beginning his crusade against the Aviation lists navbox. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a group of people who "own" that guideline, all of whom weighed in at the RfC, thus creating a false consensus. Truth is, this isn't just one wikiproject's concern. I took a look at the aviation list navbox and see exactly what you guys were up to. Though it's an extreme case, it is in line with my own views that articles "two clicks" from the navbox should be allowed to have a navbox transcluded into them without a violation of the bidirectionality guideline. The navbox crowd generally ignores the IAR exceptions, until that one editor comes around, taking everything literally and creating havoc. The problem is that the others seem to think that categories or see also lists can substitute, but they have tunnel vision: for FAC, huge see also lists are discouraged and categories are not great navigability tools across categories - in fact, the tendency at categories is to "Balkanize" them into "footballlers from Sri Lanka who were goalies in 1986" types of groupings. My own concern is {[tl|Equine}} where List of horse breeds is in the navbox and links to over 400 horse breed and horse type articles, which simply cannot all be organized logically in a navbox format - and a hundred "breeds by country" navboxes would be patently ridiculous. Anyway, sorry to rant, but I'd like to consider reopening the aviation lists RfC if there are enough other people who can provide examples of similar, useful non-bidirectional transclusion navboxes across multiple wikipedia projects. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 00:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky

Michael, a Ukranian POVer is changing Igor Sikorsky's page to state that he was Ukranian. As discussed on the talk page at length, Sikorsky self-identified as Russian. Could you look into either sem-/full-protecting the article to encourage discussion, or blocking User:Mariia7 for edit warring? Im already at 2 reverts, so I can't do any more today. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Bleu

Good morning. You have interacted with (and blocked) this rather abrasive user in the past, so I thought it best to bring this new issue to you: Apparently he has accumulated sufficient contempt for John Wayne to label him a "known racist" -- without proper sourcing, of course. His edit was reverted by multiple editors, and he has re-reverted five times in the last 36 hours or so, often including a rude edit summary, and in my case, a rude note. My polite, somewhat lengthy explanation on my talk page as to why his edit is unacceptable has been ignored. Since he won't listen to us, perhaps he'll listen to an admin? Apologies in advance, as it's obvious from a brief skim of his talk page that he is not exactly a mensch. (Multiple blocks for edit warring, POV pushing, bad behavior, etc.) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DoctorJoeE, I have blocked them for 48 hours for "Aparently you don't. Damn racist!" which he directed at you on the talk page, it is not acceptable. I have also protected the article for a couple of weeks to encourage some talk page discussion rather than edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Full protection needed at 2 articles

Please full protect Târgu Mureș and University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Târgu Mureș for edit warring. An editor is trying to unilaterally add biased information without any prior discussion on the talk page. 213.229.69.46 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN I have protected the articles to try and get them to discuss it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Flybe

I have added content that is factual, appropriately phrased and adequately sourced. There have been no objections citing adequate reasons over the last month since my initial edit. Consensus is a desirability, not an obligation, and certainly not an expedience for certain editors to censor content that they personally find "undesirable". Please do not remove factual content, particularly that is which suitably referenced, or I may find myself obliged to report you for disruptive editing. Thank you. ShugSty (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ShugSty Thanks for the warning but no matter how true or well sourced your "facts" are you still need a consensus to add it, and for you to edit war to add it is probably not the best way to go. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Brian Lawrence (jockey) AFD

The article has been nominated for speedy deletion because it is virtually a copy of something written in a newsletter. The newsletter was written 1st person, the article here isn't but the wording is the same. The AFD can be closed as a snow delete too. I dropped you note if you wanted the honor of deep sixing it....William 13:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but somebody else has done the honours. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force

Hello MilborneOne I am in a disput about the desing of the List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force especaly YSSY guy is reverting things out ..not only pictures , also flaggs of the origin of the ACtype and ignores the talk page. Please have a look at the list how I hpreffer it.. and have a look to undrstand my point of view for eg. at List of active United Kingdom military aircraft may you can have a look at it and say your opinion. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: May you like to give your ideas or tell your opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#List_of_aircraft_of_X_Air_Force.2FMilitary_table_formats.2C_especially_as_related_to_images FFA P-16 (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:AManlyMan4781

User:AManlyMan4781 has been edit warring on Consolidated PBY Catalina. The user has also been editing on several articles also edited by our Pennsylvania sock farm, through the style and content is different enough that I don't think he's the same user. It is odd that this user showed up the day after the sock farm was ranged blocked, though. Might be worth keeping an eye n. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thnx, watching. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:M.srihari

Michael, User:M.srihari is apparently trying to avoid his 6 week block which just started a few days ago. See here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

117.201.42.194 is DGM Broadband, BSNL NOC Bangalore, India, if that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Blocked the IP and raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/M.srihari to suggest block is extended to indefinite. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Anon user removing content from Richard Pryor article

Greetings: I have noticed that a particular anonymous editor, User: 207.245.58.40, keeps removing any reference to Bill Cosby from the Richard Pryor article. I have reverted the changes a couple of times, but it has happened again. Whether Cosby's recent revelations are a disappointment doesn't affect the validity of the two bits of content that refer to him in the Pryor article, in my opinion, and I get the feeling that this nameless person just doesn't like Cosby. Regards. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kawanishi E5K for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kawanishi E5K is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawanishi E5K until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Petebutt (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Fonte de Regaz again

As you are familiar with this user, perhaps you could assist. I attempted to file anothe SPI, and he is now blanking the SPI page.[4] Any input you have to offer in dealing with this user would be appreciated. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 13:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

?????.Michal,Fonte De Regaz Would Not Apread to Vandlisme.He Has Been Ashame by you.And Stop Hunting Him.His not apread anymore.175.136.111.225 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep that looks like Fonte or a close relative. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Scr★pIron^IV 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Reminds me of a toddler covering their eyes and saying that you can't see them! Some people never learn. - BilCat (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And... he's back as User:Paval Sukhoi, and reverting my edits everywhere. I included it in the SPI. I hate to bug you, but... Scr★pIron^IV 01:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK blocked per WP:DUCK MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Would you be willing to help me with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? news.google.com and news.google.com/newspapers have a lot of results when putting in Joanne and Kirste's names. I just need help fleshing out the article. I'm not the world's best editor or writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

New crash article

Hello MilborneOne,

I plan on creating a new crash article, but am unsure if the crash is significant enough to deserve one. The crash I would like to cover is Biman Bangladesh Airlnes Flight 609 - where a F28 crashed into a paddy field. I will be using this, this and this as my references. I also plan on using this image (similar aircraft). It will be a small article covering a small crash.

Please check out the three links and let me know if you think the crash is significant enough to deserve an article. Thanks! Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 05:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this is a crash article I made last year. It should give you an idea of how good I am with crash articles. I may not be great or anything, but I guess I am capable enough to give it a shot. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 05:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure as it was not fatal although a hull loss, it is already mentioned in Biman Bangladesh Airlines in what is a non-standard accident table (need to look at that, perhaps split it off into a seperate accident article which can have more information). Although the similar Air Canada Flight 624 is an article I am not sure why nobody has taken it to deletion or tried to discuss if it is notable, probably because it is recent an in the news. If it was me I would not create an article on 609 as it could be seen as non-notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible sale of Sikorsky to LockMart

Michael, could you look at Sikorsky Aircraft, and consider semi-protecting the article for a few weeks? Lockheed Martin has announced an agreement to purchase Sikorsky from UTC, but several IPs have been changing the article to show Lockheed as the owner already. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Flitfire article

Just to let you know, I have raised the reinsertion of copyvio text at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Cubgirl4444 does seem to have some problems with copyright issues, as I see they have been blocked on Commons.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks MilborneOne... Nigel Ish removed four entire sections of the work and it was NOT all from the EAA article. As a matter of fact, the EAA erroneously reports there were 50 Flitfires. There were only 49. But I did like some of their word smithing. Anyway, everything has been rewritten and I like my word smiting much better!

Who do I ask about the copyrights permissions I'm trying to get for photos? If posting copyright photos is not allowed even with special permission, then I don't want to waste my time getting them, except for maybe a private web page I could start on Flitfires.

I have to say, I've owned a Flitfire for 30 years and know more about them than probably anyone else on earth. Mine was the first one restored in 1991. Trying to share this on Wiki has been frustrating: work constantly getting deleted, the article immediately getting nominated for deletion and then I got banned on Commons (even if it was only for one day). Just learning to "talk" is a chore as it's not an intuitive system. And it was frustrating when that BOT goes around deleting hours of your work if you're a newbie and forget to put in an "edit summary" or forget to check the "minor edit box".

All in all, if you all want to delete my work on the Flitfire, then go ahead because I'm simply tired of fighting for this here. If I had fond memories of the Wiki experience, I might feel differently. It was quite a surprise to learn how the Wiki world works and from my viewpoint, it's not a very friendly place. Your message is the first friendly message I've received here, so thank you for humanizing Wiki somewhat. Cubgirl4444 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ryanair Flight 296

User:Tobystress has recreated an AFDed article, Ryanair Flight 296. I can't remember what to tag it with, r if it's eligible for a speedy or not. I note you've warned the user already for someone else. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I see now that you have reverted that once already. Looks like Tobystress is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babestress. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep just needed a bit more rope, blocked and raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babestress for the record. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

They are back - see IP contributions here. Probably need to semi- protect the pages they arevl editing also. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RAF Stations map

Hello, I made a map for the RAF Station page which has been removed - I entirely understand the reason. Just wondering if it might be more appropriate for the List of RAF stations page or if its size and complexity makes it totally unsuitable for both articles. I'm currently at the last stage of RAF selection process as a pilot - as part of my revision, I found it helpful to visualise the location of stations rather than just reading the list (and the RAF website is not updated on a regular enough basis to be entirely confident about the information there). I just added the map in as I thought it might help display the information in an easier-to-comprehend way. I can totally appreciate that the map did not belong with the RAF Station page but just wanted to check it was also inappropriate for the stations page. Cheers!

P.S. Editing wikipedia is definitely not a skill of mine, and I'm only editing articles I believe I can improve with newer information, so my apologies if I've put this in the wrong place!

Waterwings91 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Waterwings91 The main problem is the size of the image and the relevance to each page, when it is reduced in size the information is just not usable. I had a look at adding it to List of RAF stations but as it is not an "image" I dont known how it can be reduced in size. Not sure at the moment what the way forward is but thanks for your effort, wikipedia can be a bit of a mine field for new users so if you have any questions then please ask. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)