User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 28

AgustinusHal

See User:SSPanjit Arun, who claims to be User:AgustinusHal. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, if he's gonna out and out say it...hammertime. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. He's advertised before, IIRC. Too bad they all don't make it that easy. - BilCat (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Boeing, organizations

Category:companies is subcategory of Category:Organizations by legal status SoSivr (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

!! SoSivr (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Its also not defining most or a very large percentage of companies are named after founders rather than organisations which tend to have more functional names (although charities are probably an exception). So to categorise companies that are named for the founder/s is not really a helpful thing for the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Coming back to whether companies are organizations: in Wiktionary company is a hyponym of organization.RegardsSoSivr (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Fonte de regaz again...

Serial sockpuppeteer is back again, this time as IP 118.101.61.104 [1] - Now calling me, and others, ISIS terrorists and such. Can we get some assistance here? Hate to bug you, but you are familiar with him. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 14:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We know you working with ISIS.ISIS Is now working with Israel,UK And USA.We will find you and put you in the jail.14:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No really much more I can say, is there? Scr★pIron^IV 14:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, another admin has given them a 31 hour break but we may need to block it for longer when that runs out. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And he's back. - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocks, BR. These are socks of User:Fonte de regaz, a Malaysian user with notoriously bad spelling and grammar, even worse than Ryan the aircrash king. The stalking of admin notices is typical also. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And so I have another one to keep an eye out for! *Ow!* - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And, of course, User:Eagle Striker and User:Eagle Striker 2 are also socks of this user[2] - I hadn't reported because they weren't editing, but clearly coming into the open now per that edit. We could use the mop... Cleanup in Aisle 3... seriously, thanks in advance Scr★pIron^IV 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Eagle Striker has been bagged, 2 has not been active since October. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked Eagle Striker 2 on the grounds of 1. blatantly a sock and 2. preventing them doing the same thing with it as with Eagle Striker (which had been idle for longer). Ounce of prevention and all that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well now isn't this interesting. I hear quacking... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Goord catch! There's seems to be the same pattern of bad grammar and requests not to hold things against them used in edit summaries as with "fart de rogaine", per this diff. We ought to hear some squawking from its IPs here shortly. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Darn it! I had seen one of these recently, but missed the connection with our dear friend. I must be getting sloppy. Scr★pIron^IV 12:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly the CU result says that while ES and RS are (unsurprisngly) the same fellow they are not Fonte! "It's treasonmeatpuppetry, then." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

After a long absence, he's back!! - BilCat (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well come on. Im Not any people Enemy and You were childish. Im Not a Sock and You were Annoyed since Scrapiron is Gone. Stop making People angry. From Now On. I Will Do the Editing Error and Picture.Alif Dayabi (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

regulation.org.uk

I edit a website which aims to provide a neutral, non-commercial but helpful introduction to the subject of regulation - now a huge activity in most countries. (I am an ex-civil servant and ex-regulator.) I thought it would be helpful to add four links from Wikipedia - e.g. to a page explaining the background to the current argument about who pays for any third London airport runway. Others were about water/environmental regulation. The links were then deleted. If, after further thought, you decide they would be OK, I will reinstate them. Otherwise let's forget it!

Ukcivilservant (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ukcivilservant Wikipedia doesnt not allow people connected with websites to add them to wikipedia even if you think it is worthy, have a read of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. I am afraid if you continue to add them you may have your account blocked from editing. Note it doesnt stop you adding worthwhile content to wikipedia and if you think your website adds value then you can raise it on the related talk page and if other editors think it adds to the article then somebody else will do it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's helpful - many thanks.

Ukcivilservant (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturer display teams

Re: this, I fully expect to be reverted shortly by that user, who almost always re-reverts several times before discussing. Can you try to head him off first? Thanks. Honestly, he is a problem editor with poor English-language skills, and a proven lack of discernment when it comes to judging what is encyclopedic, and is prone to nationalist/manufacturer-ist fanboy contributions, which this one certainly is. Any thoughts about pursuing an RFC-user (if those still exist)? - BilCat (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid RFC-User is no longer used but clearly this user has a competence issues, I will keep an eye on things but I am not sure what the answer is. MilborneOne (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of about RFCU. He actually has responded on the article's talk page without reverting. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Something to watch

See this diff, with the edit summary "rmv opinion/OR template". Hopefully it's a one-time edit. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has made a similar edit here. I smell a storm coming. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree but we will be in the wrong again, I think we now have more people correcting code and MOS changes to a perceived right way then actually correcting and adding to articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Ai yi yi. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"captain sparkles"

Troll/vandal calling itself "captain sparkles" has shown up again. Also doing BLP vios. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bushranger has given s/he a little break from editing but I suspect from the comments they have a mission so they will be back. MilborneOne (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an odd one, occasionally putting useful contributions, but interspersed with significant misbehavior. They actually improved the Wolfgang disambiguation page. I never will understand the mind of vandals. Then again, many don't understand mine... Scr★pIron^IV 13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Michael and BR. Yes, Scrap, it's an odd one, probably quite young and bright, which can be a bad combination when added to anonymity. The comments on the actor's talk page were of the proverbial "Have you stopped beating your wife" line of questioning, and certainly not appropriate. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Mayday Episode airdates

Stop changing the airdate for S15E02 Terror in San Francisco to TBA. See http://natgeotv.com/uk/air-crash-investigation/about

Also Fatal Transmission aired 1/6/16 at http://www.natgeotv.com.au/tvguide/?day=2016-01-06 Tntad (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about I dont normally go anywere near the page except to stop the fans arguing. MilborneOne (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Proposed demerger[edit]

Hal Amca

Hello I am the same person from the reference section who done edits from january to april and I propose a potential demerger between Hal amca and Amca programme as in the start part of development section it crates confusion, I purpose that a potential de merger between the above two parts will help to reduce confusion, as the previous design section should kept as it helps to understand the development of the programme but in different article of Amca programme totally separate from Hal Amca which would indeed help to reduce confusion between the article and help to grow in proper direction for both proposed different article,I have posted same on the Hal Amca talk page. I would like your opinion on the proposed demarge. 1.39.10.180 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so Hal Amca is part of Amca programme which just not includes the aircraft but also includes many other aspects like engine radar avonics previous design were not just developed step by step but also at same time competing with each other so the previous design are not same but different design computing each other for the finalized design. 1.39.10.180 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Amca programme is comprable to JSF and ATF programme which included two prototypes similar to current Amca plan and Amca Technology Demonstrator will have major difference over production aircraft. Amca programme evolved out of MCA programme which initially started to developed 4.5 generation aircraft later evolved to 5 generation and after some time evolved into Amca programme.

1.39.10.32 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Phil M again

Michael, looks like Phil M is back at Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

BushRanger has blocked and tagged. Thanks, BR! - BilCat (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• He's back again. - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked and semi'd the B-24 article for awhile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess his range blocks ran out again, or he's bored. - BilCat (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Northeast Airlines (2014)

Thanks for updating the incorrect callsign, didn't thinking to check the FAA for it's correctness. Anzmibu (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Request

Michael: We're having persistent IP vandalism on Meredith effect. Can we please get it "semi-protected" for 30 days or so? - Ahunt (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like somebody else has already dealt with it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

They locked it for two weeks. I guess we'll see if that does it or not. In the past this vandal has come back more persistently than that. I did get him to breifly engage on teh talk page, but he isn't making a convincing case there and just goes back to removing cited content. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now added it to by watchlist, perhaps a stronger link to Meredith may help, but that is not a reason just to remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping keep an eye on it. As you can see on the talk page there was no consensus to remove it after a discussion. The editing consensus from now four editors is to retain it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Username

This one appears to be a vandal-only account, and their only edit so far bears that out. Does it even need to be reported first, or can it be blocked outright? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would really need more than one edit for a vandalism only block but with the use of two profanties in the username they dont appear to be on a mission to improve the article, so a not here block has been given. MilborneOne (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that with the meaning of the username and the vandalism edit, that would also indicate a vandal only account, but whichever way works. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarabjit Roy

Good morning, could you please delete and SALT Sarabjit Roy. User recreated this to bypass a previous SALT on the correct spelling. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Y MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I contest the speedy deletion and explained and provided many refrences that name "Sarabjit" Roy is common name also for Roy, so you are wrong to delete my hard works, and what is SALT ? also I would like the copy of all the deleted materials for future improvment for this story. So I'm asking you give me all versions of this artcile and all the edits I made plus I want the artcile talk comments also.

Unsigned you need to raise this it Wikipedia:Deletion review if you are not happy, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell what code like A6 or G7 was used for speed Delete. I need it to appeal. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYYadav (talk • contribs)

Didnt actually use a code but G4 is probably appropriate and a bit of WP:IAR. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta

Hi, Since your semi-protect expired, Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta has been constantly warred over by an IP editor. Would you mind taking a look at the history to see if it needs further protection? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK extended the protection, perhaps you could comment on talk page to see if we can get the IP to listen, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Running amok

Hi MilborneOne, If you have time could you take a look at this editors recent additions? I've reverted his edits and warned him twice but he won't reply. Thanks Samf4u (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cant see anything wrong with his additions at List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location, he perhaps needs to slow down, I can see the warnings about copyright and unsourced additions so I will keep an eye on it for the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Samf4u (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Royal Flying Corps airfields

Evening,

Don't forget the bottom of the table has a number of un-alphabeticalized airfields that an IP editor has added previously. Gavbadger (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No I missed that! I will have a tidy up latter. MilborneOne (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MilborneOne.

Those Canada and Other ones were moved from the Royal Flying Corps page, as there is a comment there that says: ""

So, I moved them. Also I notice you have removed links to RAF Squadron pages and removed citations to www.raf.mod.uk for the (Night) Training Sqns. If the dates and locations match your book, and as the RAF website says on each Squadron History page 'formed as a Night Training Sqn'(which they all do) was it fair to remove them with the comments "remove link - no connection" and 'dont appear to be mentioned in reference provided' ?

I'm glad to have piqued your (and GavBadger's) interest in this page and other pages I have been working on. As I have no intention of creating and account and apparently have a dynamic IP address that changes at least daily, I'll leave up it to you as you won't be able to contact me. Didn't want to start an edit war !

92.30.138.142 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no connection between the night training squadrons and the "real" squadrons", not a problem if you want to use an IP as long as your improving the encyclopedia, if your IP is not stable you can comment on the related talk page, that said if you create a login it allows others to connect your edits and you can build up a history of good contributions which helps to build a reputation and credibility. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

First flight on Amca[edit]

HAL Amca first flight

Hello I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page. First flights section in the info box recently had been effected by edit war as the user Aryan Indian tried to put entry date around 2030 that looks like uncronstive, he is trying helping editing any helping Amca article but need guidance and look like he is not fimilar with the wikipedia rule. It's better to leave the flight reference out of info box, but should be in other part of article with reference as it helps to understand programme development, But it be kept out of infobox as it look like speculative as Bilcat has already mentioned.

1.39.10.42 (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, it may need some protection if they come back, I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nashville International Airport

Hi MilborneOne,

Currently there is an ongoing issue at Nashville International Airport regarding persistent IP vandalism and unexplained removal of content. Since you are one of the few admins that edits aviation/airport related articles, I thought it'd be best to let you know about the situation so it could be handled properly.

Current discussions about the IP vandals:

[WT:Airports] [WP:AIV]

Thanks! Nodayrt (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Nodayrt but it looks like another admin has already protected the page, I have added it to my watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, it's already been taken care of... :-) Nodayrt (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 1502

That was probably one of those unexpected dives that 707s and KC-135s were prone to, in addition to control problems at low speeds on landing. There were several training accidents where 707 crews lost control in the late 50s and early 60s. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I still need to find the accident report to add more to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the details in the pre-CVR and FDR era are going to be hard to find, it's mostly speculation I've seen in forums. They were two common threads in 707 accidents in the decade or so after they were introduced. After all, Boeing was still figuring out how to control swept-wing aircraft, the B-47 was of course notorious for control issues. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

IPBE Questions

Michael, could you (or another admin) look at User talk:Mike V#IPBE Questions? This admin has taken it upon himself to remove IP Block Exemptions from a slew of users, apparently without any discussion beforehand with any of the users involved. I'm not sure how best to handle the situation, but I've not done anything to warrant the IPBE removal. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

His explanation at removal was "Removing IPBE, no longer affected by blocks", but how does he know that? Odd. - BilCat (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

P-51 POV warrior

North American P-51 Mustang and talk page being hit by a single-issue POV warrior bent on proving that the Mustang was British. We've had people pushing this POV on the talk page before, and it may even be the same person. Semi-protection on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the FA-50 in the Philippine Air Force article.

I noticed you reverted my image of the FA-50 in the article. The newer image is posted by the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines saying shows the planes in action (escorting the President's plane). The old image is an image from the Korean Air Force in Flickr saying that its a test flight of the aircraft. Are you sure the individual plane (of the older picture) are meant for the Philippine Air Force and not the Republic of Korea Air Force? Sure the old image is better aesthetically but the newer image definitely shows individual aircraft owned by the Philippine Air Force.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

OK User:Hariboneagle927 you make a good point although the image is not so good at showing the aircraft it is as you say a Philippine Air Force aircraft, I have reverted my reversion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

AgustaWestland AW139

Michael, for several days, a number of IPs have been making the same annoying edits to AgustaWestland AW139, despite being reverted by several editors. Not sure it's worth the trouble of semi-protection, but not sure what else to do here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this IP range a has a long history of POV and edit warring. See User talk:Murry1975/IP.86. for some of the history. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure those are the same people. The AW139 guy traces on whois to ISP of BT-Central-Plus in the UK, whereas the User talk:Murry1975/IP.86. guy traces to ISP of Eircom in Ireland. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

While you might be right, people can travel/move. There is some article and editing style overlap, and they don't seem to discuss their edits. Either way, the current IP needs watching. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Watching would be good in both cases! - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP has continued edit warring on the AW139 page, and several other articles, especially Template:Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft. Can you look into semi-protection for these pages, and/or blocking the user? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this has been dealt with, sorry I was not around due to RL issues. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, RL happens. Sorry I forgot to update it here that he'd been blocked. - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Viggen Operators

Hi MilborneOne. I've been doing a lot of work over on the Saab 37 Viggen article, and it feels like a lot of progress has been made with the overhaul. I was wondering if you would happen to have any good material for the Operators section? You seem to have been good for sourcing this kind of information in the past, but I'm running dry on this now. Anyhow, thanks for reading. Kyteto (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Protection of Metrojet Flight 9268

Please set an expiration date. Protecting an article indefinitely is never a good idea. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite is not really indefinitely it applies only while the current dispute is ongoing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I was just worried it'd be forgotten, but on second thought, that's probably unreasonable. Thanks! 62.228.200.32 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

George Cyril Colmore

@MilborneOne: I saw you mention a delete to Wormwood Scrubs Royal Naval Air Station because of a link already being there. But, that link was put in by me & there was no link before I edited the article. All I should like to know is whether consistent rules and transparency are being maintained throughout Wikipedia? Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

PS. if not, just say so & then I will understand, but your comments would lead many to think that such contributions are unwelcome (or is it just a stilted turn of phrase)? L'honorable (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
*However, I trust we can work together, qv: Sir Francis McClean and the Meopham air disaster articles? L'honorable (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:L'honorable thanks for the message, an external link should really add something to the article, in this case it doesnt really mention Colmore so an internal link would be better to explain to the reader about the airfield. Currently the Wormwood Scrubs article doesnt have that much so it a possibilty for the future to have a stand-alone article or at least add to the content. All your contributions are welcome, if they dont fit in with the way things are done then as long as they are done in good faith somebody will help and advise or correct as we all stride to improve the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd revert war

Michael, could you look at M-84? User:Читалац started removing and adding photos, claiming "has been removed as impropriate", but refused to explain further. Then User:BobNesh showed up and started reverting my reverts without a good explanation, only parroting my own edit summaries. Not sure what's going on here, but it might be some sort of Croatian/Serbian rivalry. I'm far past 3RR on this, but the users' refusals to give sensible explanations are odd. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for JetKonnect

An article that you have been involved in editing—JetKonnect —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Boeing 707

Michael, there's an (apparently static) IP user edit warring to make unnecessary changes to existing styles, such as in the refs section, to Boeing 707. Could you loomk into semi-protecting the article to encourage discussion and/or blocking the user if necessary? Thanks for your consideration. - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

They appear to have moved on so I will leave protection for a moment unless they return. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fokker 100

Good evening. You have undone my contribution to Fokker 100 subsection "Accidents and incidents". The reasoning was: "Doesn't appear to be particularly notable". While there were no injuries or deaths and the damage to the plane was reportedly minimal, doesn't the fact of a landing gear malfunction qualify as an incident (although even the video of that landing was quite pedestrian)? Of the last 8 entries in that section 6 were related to landing gear malfunction (granted, generally with more damage to planes and with an occasional death/injury). There seems to be a trend. Any toughts on revising your decision? IvanTheRussian (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says these accidents are connected we cant come to conclusions on our own. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I don't have a source that says that those accidents are connected. That is the job for an intrepid young researcher to come up with a published article that connects those dots. We are in business of gathering information, not analysing it. I am kidding. I guess I didn't make myself clear; allow me to try again: There are numerous landing-gear related incidents already mentioned in the article, some with scarcely any damage. The last event is of a similar nature. I am deferring completely to your judgement to keep the last contribution out or in, I am just asking to compare it once again to already published incidents. Cheers. IvanTheRussian (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You are right; that entry was just as notable as any of the other non-injury landing gear incidents. I have removed them all for consistency, along with a couple of entries that were unsourced. Thank you for pointing it out! Scr★pIron^IV 20:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. IvanTheRussian (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Cleanup

Thanks for the cleanup on that, and feel free to pull his talk page access per this. Also, I modified the template since you told him you indeffed him, so feel free to correct it if it is wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the template it was my error I must have got the format wrong somewhere, I will leave the talk page for the moment per WP:ROPE. MilborneOne (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, although it appears as though he is just moving the discussion to his own page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In case you're unaware, the IP is User:Enchev EG, who was blocked indefinitely last year for disrupting multiple talk pages. They said as much in their comments there. 87.228.158.48 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that 87 I was not aware of that. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is the hint, but thanks for letting us know, as it puts a lot of the recent edits in context. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sikorsky, Kiev

There are many places, nowdays in Ukraine, where it is not clear to whom they belong ethnicaly. But not Kiev. That case is very sensitive and important. Try to write it another way, but do it well, not just revert. I'll try to explain: I come from Warsaw, Poland. In the 19th century Warsaw has been occuped by Russia. Same as Kiev and most of Ukraine. The difference is for how many ages the Russian occupation lasted. But it has alway been an occupation. Until 1790, in Kiev it was not allowed to print books in Ukrainian. When Sikorsky was born, the Ukrainian language was officialy not called "a national language", but only a "simple peasant's dialect". When Sikorsky has been arleady a great aircraft constructor, Russsians have been killing Ukrainians by many millions, with the artifficial hunger. Now... If you would write that "Warsaw is present-day Poland", Polish would feel offended. They would explain to you that Warsaw has always been Poland, not only "present-day". Just try to find more precise, neutral description for Kiev too. I'ts been the heart Ukrainian nation, for a period of at least 1.200 years. --Grb16 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation USer:Grb16 but unfortunately you are reading to much into the statement, all we are doing is explainig that Kiev, Russian Empire is the same place that is now known as Kiev, Ukraine just in case the reader might think it is somewhere else. Nothing to do with ethnics or offending anybody it is just an explanation for the reader, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As now there is a small but substantial change, in the disputed sentence, it's much better now. Thank you. --Grb16 (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Has it snowed enough?

WP:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 3445 looks like a pretty clear delete. You may want to close the AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closed as delete per WP:SNOW. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines

Hello MilborneOne. Regarding the full protection of the article, I think you should take a look at Nofil Jawed (talk · contribs)'s disruptive behaviour across it, along with the one at Shaheen Air (where the user is well over WP:3RR even after having been warned of this) and Shaheen Air destinations. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I have blocked the user for 24 hours and protected Shaheen Air. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Nofil Jawed (talk · contribs) keeps warring.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks protected both articles and the user has been blocked for 72 hours. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that Nofil Jawed has posted this message on his Talk page, making it look like a message to him from another User. YSSYguy (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you help

I just made a post[3] to Administrator Bbb23's talk page about a editor. After posting, I learned Bbb23 is away from Wikipedia right now. Can you please handle it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have left a warning on the users talk page, we will see if they take heed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Kentwood12

Michael, User:Kentwood12, whom you've reverted elsewhere, keeps re-adding Virgin America fleet info to Alaska Air Group. Could you drop him a line about this please? I doubt I could be civil with him at this time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

He just re-added it again, and I've already reverted him twice. Facepalm He probably doesn't read the edit summaries. He looks to be autoconfirmed, so semi-protection won't stop him, but it might be useful anyway, as IPs have been adding similar to both articles. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! He's probably young and/or not fluent in English. - BilCat (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow up

Hello, yes there is definitely edit warring, but it is coming from the other side; I edit a page like normal, and that person comes along and takes out part of the article, something that they had never done before now, which is mysterious and unnerving. You've only heard their side so far. That person has had issues with several editors, and when the editors try to talk to that person, that person pulls out the old "you're personally attacking me" line. I have made no person attacks, in fact I have not even communicated with that person. I've been going about my editing like normal, setting up pages a year in advance as is the way it is usually done for the golf related pages that are of significance, and that person suddenly has decided, after years of pages being set up in the usual manner, that is suddenly isn't acceptable to them. Keeping in mind a couple of things; first, that that person never even edits the pages in question and so hasn't a reason to even concern themself after so many years, and two, that person has a history of being blocked 8 times for making trouble and has been warned in recent months that they might be blocked again if trouble persists. ... Myself, I don't go around making trouble for people in here, I've been making the golf pages in the manner as I always have, putting in information that could change over time, and there has never been any problem with this, but only suddenly, unexpectedly, and for no good reason. Even the most active golf editor in Wikipedia never had a problem with it either (an editor that the person in question has also had a run in with in recent months). ... If there had ever been a serious issue with the way that the annual golf pages were set up, it would have been raised years ago, and it would have definitely been raised by the most active golf editor in Wikipedia. .. You've seen fit to give me a warning without knowing the whole story. Now that you know my side, I'm sure you'll see fit to issue a warning to that person as well, for unnecessarily continuing to delete valid information from an article. As I said, the contents I put in an article when setting it up is the way that I've been doing it for a long time without trouble. This new resistance to it from that person is odd and unprovoked. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Milborne, if the above doesn't constitute another personal attack, which you just warned him about and which he has been blocked for in the past, I don't know what does. He makes accusations above accusing me of things without proof which is exactly what was one of the reasons he was blocked for seven days for....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For my part, as someone sitting on the sidelines, I've a few thoughts:

(1) "This pettiness and nonsense will not be tolerated." That's a personal attack, and indeed that entire paragraph is an ad hominem attack against the editor, as opposed to his action.

(2) Your response here reeks of WP:OWN. Any editor has the right to edit any article you create or any edits you make yourself; every page you edit states "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone ..." No one needs your permission to do so, and there's nothing sinister in someone editing your work who'd never edited your work before.

(3) Nor is there anything sinister in none of your golf articles never having been sent up to AfD before, although there's nothing about golf which is immune to the deletion process (I've AfDed NN golf-related articles myself). The obvious answer to your incredulity that "suddenly" this CRYSTAL violation isn't suitable to anyone is that no one had noticed before. With over five million articles on Wikipedia, this happens a lot, and you're neither the first nor the first hundredth editor I've encountered who imagined "No one's tried to delete/edit any of my stuff before!!" to be a valid defense at AfD.

(4) Speaking of precedent ... I see from your talk page that this is not, in fact, the first time you've run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL; there's a caution from another editor on your doing so two years ago. This is not, in fact, the first time you've had dealings with William or that he's edited golf pages; he put a warning template on your talk page last year asking for the reason you deleted information from a PGA article, since you failed to leave an edit summary, and he's commented to your talk page regarding golf articles several times over the course of the last five years. This is not, in fact, the first time you've had dealings at deletion: you've HAD more than one article AfDed and numerous articles prodded, and you've filed at least one AfD.

(5) Finally, to your assertion that there's nothing wrong with the article and that it's being AfDed for No Good Reason (a retort I hear more often from my teacher wife's grade school students than from grown adults, I fear), it also can't have escaped your notice that the unanimous opinion of every editor other than yourself who's commented so far is for deletion, all on TOOSOON/CRYSTAL grounds. Obviously, you don't agree, but that neither makes the reason invalid nor constitutes persecution of any sort. Ravenswing 01:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Destination maps

Hi MilborneOne,

A quick query for you, as I recall you were one of the editors who contributed to the various discussions at the time regarding the inclusion of destination maps in airport articles. I recently removed such a map at the Lisbon Portela Airport article, citing project consensus not to include, but a user challenged me (fairly enough) to show where such consensus was reached and for the life of me I can't find anything too definitive in the former discussions. I'm sure the conclusion not to include was reached, but as the project guide was not updated it would be useful to point to that discussion. As an aside, such a map has also found its way onto the London City Airport page, but I want to hold off removing until this is clarified. Thanks for any assistance. SempreVolando (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It was discussed in the airport project pages that have been archived, we did not get to a point that the page layout guideline was updated but they are high maintenance and repeat information in the table so normally get deleted. Perhaps we need to get the page layout guide updated if we can get a clear consensus again from the airport project. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-created article

The recently deleted and salted article 2017 WGC-Dell Match Play has re-appeared as 2017 WGC Dell Match Play. 40.138.97.1 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 40 I have deleted it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't Johnsmith face a block for his disruptive behavior after you warned him? BTW the second article isn't salted. The first one was per its AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was just looking at that clearly being disruptive after a warning, two-weeks block. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Some people just can't wrap their heads around the fact that sometimes consensus is against them, and the only thing to do then is lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 18:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: A few weeks ago, JS2116 not once[4] but twice[5], sought out sponsors for WP:RFA in addition to putting his name down in the optional poll here[6]. I've tried working with JS but in the early days I got ignored, then he turned to personal attacks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

help?

I am looking for another editor who is somewhat interested and knowledgeable about airlines and willing to act as a collaborator on the American Airlines article. You come to mind. Actually, somebody did come to mind, but they are not interested in airlines at all, merely aircraft.

What I seek is someone with knowledge, good judgment, good temper, and willing to edit at least 3 minutes per week on the article. Someone with very good judgement can act as a mentor and also to occasionally add something. I am willing to direct assigned tasks as well as do tasks assigned to me. Usually, most work won't be assigned at all.

Are are willing to help? There are not such people who frequent the article at the present time. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your American Airlines comment. I did not see the point of child articles. However, this is a useful idea where child articles are made. I am thinking now of working only on child articles first before working on the American Airlines article. I must admit that it is discouraging for the chart to be called vandalism and, a few weeks ago, for a legitimate edit to be called BS and crap.

In view of this development, I no longer ask for your help in the American Airliens article, but you are free to edit anything you want. I am going to work on child articles for now.Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It clearly was not vandalism as you were acting in good faith, child or sub-articles are handy when the article gets to big so information doesnt get removed. Another thing about these child/sub-articles they do give you more room to expand on the information. An example is the accident and incidents when it is in a different article you can open it up and list all fatal and notable accidents that sometime would not be on the main article as in balance they are not notable to the main summary article but that doesnt apply to the sub-article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There's trouble down pit

G'day MB, I find myself involved in probably the oddest situation I have come across in my time at WP. There is a nest of registered and IP users (probably just one person with multiple accounts, to judge by the editing style) creating hoax draft articles and draft articles of subjects already having articles - some aviation-related, some not. These include:

• Draft:China Western Airlines, hoax deleted after I tagged it for G3 Speedy
• Draft:Line 20, Beijing Subway (appears to be a hoax, details in infobox are contradictory)
• Draft:1989 Beijing subway accident
• Draft:Air New Zealand Boeing 747 hijack and Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 (both on the same subject, see their Talk pages)
• Draft:Cathay Pacific Flight 418, hoax - see its Talk page
• Draft:Beijing Centrel Sky Tower, subject already covered by Central Radio & TV Tower
• Draft:List of Greenland passenger jets accident, no jets, and no matching records on ASN either

The User accounts are:

• A single box (contrib)
• Gavinfu2016 (contribs)
• Inarafu2016 (contribs), claims to be Gavin's sister

and pretty-much any IP in the edit histories of the drafts above, and the other articles edited by - and the User pages of - Gavin and Inara. There is some more info at User talk:wiae. As I said, all a bit strange. Just wanted to get your two cents' worth. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Really strange if not juvenile behaviour, I think if they continue we may have to look at them being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

IP edit warring

Michael, there is a dynamic IP edit warring about a single word on Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. All attempts to reason with them have failed, mostly through edit summaries and user talk pages, and they've reverted at least 3 different editors. Can you look into semi-protection? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped and provided a source for the term "re-built", although I agree it doesnt sound right. Probably something to discuss on the talk page. Dont see any reason to protect it at the moment but have added it to my (very long) watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sdghgrret5er

Re: User:Sdghgrret5er, is his time up? - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked now, thanks to Nick-D. - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous report // Iberia Express A320 with sharklets image has permission to publish

Iberia Express A320.jpeg image has permission to publish !!!

This author has given permission for the publication of their photos in this album. as indicated in this other wikimediacommons publication --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been deleted from Commons as a copyright violation and has been removed from the article by a bot programme, you need to take it up at commons nothing we can do here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your attitude is shameful. I have submitted clear evidence that no violation of copyright. I repeat your attitude is shameful and infuriating with the report of this photo. You should see the evidence that I have put on the table and not reporting without having a idea of the conditions of publication of this particular photo.

This photo has permission to publish LOOK the text of this photo about Flo Weiss photos in this album--Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Cuentaprueba10 you need to calm down a bit, the image was uploaded on commons.wikimedia.org and although connected to wikipedia in that we can use the images and it is owned by wikimedia we have no control on what they do. As has been said you need to take it up at commons. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

misguided?

I believe this user, SwisterTwister, is misguided into blanking the Mileage Plan article. [[7]] If this is done, AAdvantage, SkyMiles, Mileage Plus, and many other similar articles are also in danger of wholesale blanking. I do not think this is right. Note that you are one of 3 experts in this field that I am asking for a look at to see if that user should be allowed to blank out all frequent flyer program articles. Thank you. I have not given that user warnings because you may know better. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure they are really that notable outside of the airline articles but if somebody does not like it they are welcome to take it a deletion discussion to see what the general consensus is. Just to note that blanking was just a challenge to you changing it from a redirect which they are allowed to do but it should be discussed on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Something suspicious?

Vickyluv143 created Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8 today (their only edit). Pichpich has edited the article (only active since 3 March). You've previously deleted the article as creation in violation of a CBAN. Something odd going on her or not? Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not the same text as before but does have the feel of a cut and paste from somewhere, perhaps we need to see what the next if any edit is to see a pattern. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Gannet on Commons

Just a note - Not sure I understand but one of my images on File:XL472-Gannet.jpg has been nominated for deletion on commons as it is not current and the aircraft is no longer in the same location! MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

How does a new user know how to nominate a file for deletion on his fifth Commons edit? I think you might have a stalker/enemy! Very fishy! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support at commons and the image has been kept, the user has not re-appeared yet. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Request assistance

The user Cuentaprueba10 (talk) has committed six reverts within a three hour spell on the Real Madrid page. I message you as I've seen you had to deal with the user before. There is a discussion on the talk page but the user has no interest in debating or seeking consensus. Thanks for your assistance.. RyanTQuinn (talk) 17:1, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh how serious is this ...., I posted several messages on the talk you ignore me and reverses the correct edition that I have done on the TV channel section, and now you will tell the conflict to a user that s totally outside of the discussion, Sorry for this MilborneOne. --

Stalking too. MilborneOne is an admin and when an issue of edit warring crops up then they get contacted for assistance. MilbormeOne you have warned Cuentaprueba10 before, the user has no interest in following rules. Six reverts inside a few hours, gaining zero consensus on the article talk page for material that was previously removed. The user has no regard for Wikipedia nor other editors.RyanTQuinn (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You write your own article, is it not? no matter what I published in the talk It will be what you want, seriously you have to be a bit serious. --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Cuentaprueba10 has been blocked for 24-hours and the article protection has been changed on Real Madrid to encourage discussion when they return. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 in British television

Replied on my talk page, and opened a discussion on the article talk page. This is Paul (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Three aviation accident articles you might want to look at

Wei Hang Flight 203, Wei Hang Flight 252, and China Eastern Airlines Flight 5443. The second of which I suspect might be a hoax due to its info box having the title Viagra Airlines....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC) ‎ ‎

Watching, but they are all at AfD, we will need to have word if they continue as it wastes everybodies time. MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Phil M returns

Michael, it looks like Phil M is back here,and here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

His latest IP has been blocked by Nick-D. Thanks Nick! - BilCat (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D, interesting some really bad spelling from a professional author like "Reversed disrubtine edits by billcat". MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Boeing 777

Michael, can you look at semi-protection for Boeing 777? We have a series of IPs continually adding the same info, along with insulting edit summaries. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted to the status quo and protected for a week to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much! - BilCat (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP is back again. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F

Please change the protection on this page. As per the current policy, extended confirmed protection is allowed only as part of arbitration enforcement provisions (noting that there are no currently-authorised community uses). BethNaught (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have changed it back to previous protection level, some confusion about extended confirmed as it was introduced without any explanation to confuse people like me! MilborneOne (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. While you're at it, consider removing {{pp-30-500}} from the text since that's what appears to put the blue lock on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks missed that. MilborneOne (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft Registrations.

Hello. I didn't quite get what you were trying to say in your edit summary when you reverted my edit on Aircraft Registration. Please can you clarify? The aim of my edit was to club together examples of colonies that changed their registrations after independence, and list out the ones that didnt (India and Australia) separately in another sentence.Trinidade (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The change made it look like India had always used VT but the modern India is not the same as the old one so what we now call Pakistan (and Bangladesh) was also allocated VT. Dont have a problem with what you are trying to say but it just didnt read right. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Eagle Striker

See User talk:Eagle Striker#MilborneOne. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this notable?

T Suvarna Raju? Also, for a user who has created 126 articles before this one, the article seems to have been written by a newbie. Makes me wonder if User:Fitindia a "corporate" account of some kind. Odd. - BilCat (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:BilCat i usually write about Indian legislators, Govt officials i tend to keep my articles India centric. The gentleman in question T Suvarna Raju falls under the Indian Govt officials as the Chairman and Managing Director of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited which is under the Ministry of Defence (India) is equivalent to the rank of a State Minister in the Indian Govt and is a political and Govt of India appointee.The company he heads is a US$ 9.5 billion company and is the only aircraft manufacturing company in India,he was also involved in the R&D programmes for the Indian built Light Combat Aircraft.Please do let me know if i need to make any improvements to the article,I will be adding to it soon but as Wikipedia is a learning experience i will be happy for any guidance in this matter.Thank youFitindia (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"The only aircraft manufacturing company in India"??, see Category:Aircraft manufacturers of India. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ahunt sorry i meant defence aircraft manufacturing company Fitindia (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Bit thin on content and no indication why he would be considered notable, it really need to show more media coverage on why he is more than just another chairman or managing director. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Nozzle dynamics

Hello MilborneOne,

Something I read on the article Propelling nozzle worries me. The first bullet point of 'Principles of operation' says that nozzles work using the throat to increase pressure by constricting airflow - which runs contrary to the Venturi effect and what is described in the diagram illustrating de Laval nozzles. It also mentions that the nozzle 'back-pressures' the engine; sure it does, but by underexpanding the airflow, not by constricting it. I pointed it out on the talk page, but nobody got back to me.

Should I change it? And if you're not knowledgeable enough on this subject, could you indicate to me someone who is?

Regards, Hayazin (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not my area of expertise - you try leaving a note on the talk page of WP:AVIATION or WP:AIRCRAFT which may flush out somebody with the relevant knowledge. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on production numbers in lists

There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. As a contributor to previous relevant discussion, you are invited to join in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Embraer Legacy 500

An article that you have been involved in editing—Embraer Legacy 500—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky again

Milb1, it may be time for some long-term semi-protection on Igor Sikorsky to encourage discussion. The Ukrainian vs Russian vs Polish POV warriors are making almost daily edits now, and its getting tedious trying to keep up. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The POV warring is continuing, including from a registered user now. Full protection may be necessary. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

Could you please page protect this again? It is the same problem that had you protect it once before[8]. IPs trying to put something in against consensus....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Y two-weeks semi MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

SW Airlines

You suggested that a section I added to Southwest Airlines was not notable. I happen to disagree since it got international news coverage and reverted it back. If you'd like to discuss it further, I've got a section going in the airline's talk page here Talk:Southwest_Airlines#Discrimination_against_muslim_passengers]

Best, cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Aero-Astra Okhotnik‎

Evening MilborneOne, There's a slightly quirky comment at Talk:Aero-Astra Okhotnik‎ about the need for pictures in articles (we'd all agree on that), which ignores the problems of copyright and seems to imply that an article without a picture is useless. His/her heart is most likely in the right place but he needs bringing into the tent with some guidance. I thought of replying but suspect you have the experience etc to do it better. What do you think? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Left a reply. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - spot on.TSRL (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Phil M is back

Just when you thought it was safe to edit WP ... See this edit and others at Martin PBM Mariner. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And I didn't realize aircraft were a religious issue. His edit summary: "Ifact, that is comparison is an Anglican perspective". Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that and thanks to User:Nick-D for the block, clearly a user that doesnt listen which is a shame as he clearly has a lot of knowledge but just doesnt get cooperation and working as a team. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: Two more IPs blocked today clearly has not intention of team working so will continue to be reverted and blocked. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

He's back again at North American B-25 Mitchell. Word of the day: "Considetation". - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bill blocked IP. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Need to keep an eye on User:2600:1002:b105:e47c:6d92:94ba:f3f6:b886 as it was involved with adding vandalism back to the Concorde page which is probably related to edits at Scranton High School (Pennsylvania) by the previously blocked IP! MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably unrelated, but as you say, worth keeing an eye on. - BilCat (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And again here. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And here. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And again, see here. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And again! See North American A-36 Apache. - BilCat (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And again, again! See Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants. - BilCat (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Aviation

Please, before correction, see the list of Gabriel de La Landelle's books in Wikipedia in French. As I had explained before corrections, le first publication date for the La Landelle's book Aviation ou Navigation aérienne sans ballons was 1863 and not 1873. Thanks--MOSSOT (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure French Wikipedia is a reliable source and you need to explain why you want to change it on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sure English Wikipedia is wrong. See : Aviation ou Navigation aérienne. I want to change because the date is wrong.--MOSSOT (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You may well be right MOSSOT but you changed the date in the article without any explanation in the edit summary. Best thing is to go to the article talk page and raise it there so it can be discussed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Lebanese Air Forces

Regarding your reversion of my edit, I've switched it back to air forces, that being the actual name (quwwat>forces, in the plural). If you still object please comment and we can discuss. However I may not reply very fast! Mesoso2 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you really need to explain why the lead image says "Lebanese Air Force", which as I said is the common name in English not the literal translation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK I have reverted it back, you need to start a formal move request on the talk page and provide evidence that the common name in English is not Lebanese Air Force, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

First 200 aviation deaths

I have a list of the first 200 aviation deaths if you want to help transcribe it. It is a PDF so only the first page displays here. The document is at Wiki Commons. thumb. I also have the one printed the next year on the same day with the next 100 deaths. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Probably worthy of some sort of list but need to consider a cut-off point as not all deaths could be considered notable. MilborneOne (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Already is one: List of fatalities from aviation accidents

Help would be appreciated at File:Aviator deaths in Je Sais Tout on 15 August 1912.jpg in filling in the full names of the early deaths by comparing it to the necrology lists. I am volunteering at EarlyAviators to drag them into the 2010s. I want to move their records into a wiki format and rescan their photo archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a few bits to the photo caption. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert Cocking

G'day, I just wanted to double-check the spelling in your edit to the List of aviation fatalities. Was it "Dihederal Parachute" or "Dihedral"? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your right (Dihedral) just a typo by me, put in down to age! MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Airlander 10

The Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10 is in the news now, and is attracting increasing amounts of IP vandalism today. Could you or an admn lurker look at semi-protecting it for a few days? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

All quiet at the moment so it may be best just to keep an eye on it, some of the last IP edits were constructive, surprisingly it was not on my watch list. MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thrush Aircraft

Milb1, could you take a look at Thrush Aircraft? User:Ericboelts has been repeatedly adding copyright or unsourced material, and may have a COI. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appears to be a very close re-write of the company website, if they continue I will leave a polite message. Not disruptive enough yet to protect the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This user seems determined to add copyright violation text from the company website. He is making no other edits but on this article. I have reverted and warned him several times for copyrights and COI, as has Bill. If he doesn't get it a block may be required. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Scottish Independence Referendum

You reverted my edit to the 2014 article. But I think that the Scottish vote was a big deal. I live in America, and even over here, it made the front pages of the newspapers, and I remember people talking about it. It only involved one country, but it still made headlines all over the world. Please let me put it back. Also, on September 28th or 29th, there were protests in Hong Kong. We could add that, too.Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand the reason it was not mentioned as it has been removed before following a talk page discussion, perhaps you need to raise it on the talk page again if you feel strongly about it. But note the page is for events that were or are significant internationally not local political events. MilborneOne (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Emirates image spammer

See this user's contributions. Seems like we've had similar IP users in the past. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

Left a warning about not discussing challenged image changes. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

And again here. I couldn't figure out why he was continually adding a Delta pic, but then I realized what airline it was: El Al. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching this and reverting as well. I am wondering if the motivation is anti-Semitic or something similar. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably so, and pro-Arab as well. There were quite a few similar users several years back, but I haven't seen them in a while. Sometimes they are from Pakistan, and remove photos of Indian airlines also, and vice versa. Blocking and/or semi-protecting is about all that can be done. - BilCat (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP address does trace to an ISP in Doha, Qatar. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

More on Airbus A340 page. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Another on here on the 707 page, this time from a new IP address. - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks we need to see if that IP edits again to look for any motive. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

More again at Boeing 747-8, Boeing 757, and Boeing 777. - BilCat (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And at Boeing 757. - BilCat (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Canadian International Air Show

It is the Labour Day weekend here in Canada, time for this air show and time for the annual endless IP vandalism of the article for political purposes. Can we get it "semi protected" until Tuesday, please? - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy and somebody else has protected it. MilborneOne (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, it is handled. Interestingly the ongoing protest vandalism of the article has made the local news and I have incorporated that into the article. Perhaps that will address the vandalism? - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, I'd leave that part out, especially considering the comments I reverted on Ahunt's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that the media has noticed, the vandals want to include the vandalism wording in the article as cited content. I agree under WP:DENY that is not a good idea, as it will just encourage more vandalism. Probably best to leave the article "semi-ed" indefinitely given the history and the ongoing threat of more vandalism. I honestly wish these people would do something concrete if they want the airshow stopped, like getting city council to ask Transport Canada to revoke the operating certificate. Vandalizing Wikipedia may make them feel like they are doing something, but it is ineffective. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be the age of the "professional" protesters (and many are actually paid protesters too). They get more attention by not having the problems solved! - BilCat (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Indian Navy vandal

Milb1, could you take a look at Indian Navy. A user with at least 2 accounts is being disruptive, and making personal attacks in edit summaries, particularly towards me, and on my talk page. The first account, User:Itiltil, was blocked for a short time, and the second account, User:Itititiitl, was apparently created during the block to avoid it. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked the second account for a month for the personal attacks, it will give me time to think about blocking them both. They have not used the first account since August but if the intention was to hide the first block and warnings then that is enough to block the master/sock. I just need some time to think about that, I have protected the article to avoid disruption. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Semi-protection might be enough in a few days, then if they use the original account again to edit there, it's clear block evasion. - BilCat (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The vandal is back, per this diff, on a new account. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you please issue a harrassment warning to User Shelbystripes

She is repeatedly pinging me after I have asked her to stop. Check out Continental Express Flight 2286 talk page plus her talk page. I have asked her four times to stop. She refuses to....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I am only replying directly to WilliamJE. I haven't done anything harassing; I was immediately told to "never" do this after doing it once, in an ordinary reply. It's only in that context that I've ever replied to him. And now he's apparently going from administrator to administrator looking for one to censure me? He didn't claim I was doing it to harass him, only that he doesn't like me doing it. Like I already told him on my talk page, I can't keep track of other users' preferences. I can't promise to keep track of other users' preferences. If he told me "never revert me again" and then claimed reverting him was "harassment", that would be just as ridiculous. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

More Phil M

See User:2600:1002:B011:9C5F:A15E:6091:E2EB:C24C. Evidence from summary: "The intrpduction also said the yerm came into use in the later stages of war". Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks sorry I wasnt here to close the door, some really bad spelling but they are unlikely to use the same IP again so it may be best to revert and ignore. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

More here. He now seems to have an obsession with Cadillac. This one is great: "Moreover the statement is poorly wrotten." :)- BilCat (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Strange behaviour but blocked anyhow. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

Can you please page protect this article again? The IPs are back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock farm or meatpuppets

See User:Rand Editor, User:Ashoka26, and User:Updater21, who have been making odd edits and tests, sometimes on overlapping articles. Very strange. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Several IPs belonging to Microsoft, though in different countries, are also being used. See User:2001:4898:80E8:3:0:0:0:52E, User:2404:F801:8050:2:0:0:0:7B4, and User:2404:F801:8050:2:0:0:0:2AA, though there may be others. - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

More: User:TestingEditor, and User:CaptainCook. - BilCat (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Strange behaviour unless they are trying daft edits to autoconfirm the accounts. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rand Editor. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc

Milb1, do you see any problem with an article being created on Doc (aircraft)? It currently redirects to List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses#Doc. There's a good article here with a lot of background information on the restoration. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not a standalone article is created, there are some USAF photos here and here which can be uploaded to Commons. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have seen less worthy aircraft with articles! its not the only flying B-29 so its notability is more to do with its restoration and survival as it doesnt have a particularly notable history before being recovered from the desert. If it went for a vote I would support keeping an article on it but it is not clear cut. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It is the second B-29 flying, and was flown by the crew of the Fifi on its first flight. I'll probably work on it in draftspace first. Thanks for the comments. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've started it at Draft:Doc (aircraft). Any help is welcome. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Minor trivia Bill, but the owner/operator is legally "Docs Friends Inc" rather than Doc's Friends! MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source I can cite? Another editor just added an in-flight photo, so we may be close to moving it to mainspace. Do you see anything else that needs to be done before going live? (Btw, it will pro have to be moved by an admin anyway, but I haven't tried it yet, so I'm not certain.) - BilCat (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking OK to move, let me know if you want me to do it, the legal name comes from the FAA register and if you google [other search engines are available] there is an official charity document around. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. An admin will have to move it, so go ahead when you have time. - BilCat (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, MilborneOne. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice! - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Milb, could you please semi-protect my talk page for a few days or a week? A sock has been repeatedly vandalizing it today. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Bill I have been busy, do you still need protection ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, it never continued after I posted. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)