I have just about finished building a new article on RAF Condover. Could you have a look over it and see if you can find any additional information and references to firm it up? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you have checked these as well but the user has made a wadge of changes that all interreact [[1]] 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. yes he did an illegal cut and paste move (without agreement) and then set about redirecting everywhere, it will need clearing up just need to stop them first. I have warned them to stop but I might have to block if they persist! MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I received your notices regarding the image copyright tags of those two Sukhoi Su-25 images. I'd like to mention that in the time I asked the permissions to use those images on wiki, I was not very familiar with the formal types of letters to be used in such cases. However, I've still got those emails, so at least I can prove you informally that I really received the permissions to use those images (as they are not quite appropiate to be posted on wiki as evidence of formal permission). Perhaps forward you the emails? Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That means I have to request his permission again? That seems quite embarassing, especially considering that he has to fill in a declaration of consent. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's absoutley no need to have British before it, the usage is unamibguous anyway, that's why the article is at Royal Navy, and in the particualr context there in the article, it's all about Britain and Germany anyway, it's just an extra word that adds nothing. Searching the article for "British Royal", there were no other examples. David Underdown (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you take it to the article talk page. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain clearly why you are after this airlines former destinations list when references have been added, there are many other such articles on wikipedia that are unreferenced but still exist why arent you removing those.inspector 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspector123 (talk • contribs)
I have brought the subject up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines you are welcome to comment. It would be usefull if you signed you comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removed the NATO code names from the aircraft tables for the Armenian Air Force and other articles. While I don’t particularly mind, I was wondering why? Was it just to clean up the tables or is this something you plan to do for article text as well? That could impact some other articles I'm working on. Ta, Askari Mark(Talk) 03:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, I have been removing them from the air force articles mainly because they are nothing todo with the name of the aircraft they are just a shorthand name used by the west mainly because they did not know the real names. The russians and most users dont use the NATO names so it really is pushing a western-orientated view. I dont have any problems with the code names being mentioned in the aircraft articles, something like MiG-29 is a good example where it introduces the NATO name in the intro and where appropriate in the variant list but otherwise doesnt use it. If we have evidence that the russians or others actually used the name in service then that needs to be mentioned. Interested on your thoughts on the matter if you have a different view on the article text we may have to take it to project for discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you may get some reverts by folks who have a different understanding of the consensus (a compromise I worked out between Rusavia – who wanted them all removed – and others who wanted to use them freely). The established consensus is to specify the NATO code name (and as such, not as part of the name) in the intros of Russian aircraft articles, and not to use them in the main text afterwards (excepting the variants section). Generally, this extends to their usage in other articles as well, but it’s been pretty much left up to the editors as to follow that approach or not to use them. IMO, outside the Russian aircraft articles/lists themselves, there are only a few articles and lists where there is reason to capture them. Where they are used, I’ve also put them in single quotes so they’ll stand out as something different from a name, but not a nickname (which is in double quotes, if unofficial). I’m also pulling the code names out of wikilinks and placing them as “black” text to clearly distinguish them from proper names. Askari Mark(Talk) 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK the consensus sounds reasonable and I believe that I am working to it. Just have to encounter any resistance with more discussion! Is the compromise written down somewhere or indeed should it be on the aircraft project guidelines somewhere? MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I'll take the dot to run down the original discussion and add it, if it isn't. Cheers, Askari Mark(Talk) 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a problem on Venice Marco Polo Airport. I have keep removing the "Former Airlines and Destinations" section of this article and User:Marco1990 keeps restoring it into the article. I thought we aren't suppose to list them in airport articles but i may be wrong. I am concerned that he may be a sock puppet of User:S marky 90. Since they both come from Italy and both users have made similar edits to this article, I am afraid he may be the same person. Just to let you know that User:S marky 90 was blocked indef. I have put a case on this matter at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/S marky 90, if you want to comment, fell free. Thanks and have a great day! Cashier freak (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will keep an eye on it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Being an attempt to have our cake, eat it also, and maybe get a little extra icing.)
Site at present is 644 names loading as 96 kilobytes, with the present cutoff point being 10 or more victories (with a few listings for lower scores). This is approximately a third of the total 1861 World War I aces. It becomes apparent that Trevor MacInnis’s concept of listing all the aces in a single table is impossible, as site size will burgeon to about 250 KB. I have previously discussed this with him, and he suggested breaking out the list by nationalities, or by listing them alphabetically by last name. (Details on my talk page.)
I believe the list as constituted has a very real value. Scanning it gives an idea of the contribution of each nation’s fighter pilots. It also gives an idea of the relative strengths or weaknesses of the air services of the various nations. Other concepts, such as the contributions of the Commonwealth to Britain’s cause, also become apparent.
I believe some version of the present list should be preserved, even if it is presently large enough to be slow loading on dialup connections and on older servers. However, I do think the list could be trimmed to a shorter, quicker loading version than the present one without damaging its value. I also believe the complete listing envisioned by Trevor is of historic value. We are on the brink of becoming the most complete archive extant on this subject; www.theaerodrome.com is presently pre-eminent, in my estimation.
I have been mulling this over for some time (obviously), and fiddling with figures. Here is what I have come up with thus far.
If the cutoff point is 20 victories or more, and the list is truncated, then the various nationalities of aces are represented thus:
Nationality Aces listed/total aces
Australia 8 aces out of 75 total
Austria-Hungary 4/49
Belgium 1/6
Canada 24/192
England 34/595
France 14/182
Germany 74/393
Ireland 2/33
Italy 5/45
New Zealand 2/13
Russia 1/15
Scotland 6/67
South Africa 7/46
USA 2/123
Wales 3/23
It can be seen that all the nationalities that had fighter aces are represented. Most list between 10% and 20% of their aces as scoring 20 or more victories. Those that don’t show the weakness of their air effort—the Russian and Austro-Hungarian air forces were mal-organized and the Americans were latecomers. The other exception, the English, still have a large listing.
At any rate, the 187 aces that scored 20 or more victories would thus comprise a list of about 28 KB.
If the entire list of 1861 aces was also broken down into separate national lists by the above nationalities, they would also be small, easily loadable pages with two possible exceptions: England and Germany.
England, with 595 aces, comprises a complete list near the size of the one we now have. However, without the Country column with its graphics, I intuit the site size would be tolerable. (Your opinion on this would be most welcome; you are probably more knowledgeable than I on this.)
Germany is a lesser version of the same problem, with 393 aces.
I am bringing this to your attention as an administrator because it is an administrative problem. Consider it an unsolicited staff study with recommendations for a solution. In other words, there may be some more improving ideas out there.
With an eye toward this, I am also submitting this to others on my talk page who have expressed interest: Protonk, Trevor MacInnis, Scoop100, Panth, and Canglesea. You may wish to send it to others you may think interested.
I am not going back on our agreement that English, Irish, Welsh, and Scots are all British aces. Please take a look at my new entry in the discussion on splitting the aces list.
With regards to the 3rd/4th generation issue, I can prove that one of the sources (reference 3, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fc-1-specs.htm) is out of date. If you visit this link, you will notice that this website claims the following specifications:
MAX LEVEL SPEED 1031 knots Mach 1.6
MAX RANGE / Ferry range 864 nautical miles 2,037 km
SERVICE CEILING 16,000 meters 15,240 m
Compare these to the specifications listed on the wikipedia article - they are different.
I believe globalsecurity.org article is listing max speed as Mach 1.6 because this is the max. speed of the first version of FC-1, the first three prototypes, 01, 02, 03. Prototype 04 had notable new features such as DSI (divertless supersonic intakes), noticeably larger LERX (leading edge root extensions) and a small fairing on the vertical tail, similar to the Electronic Warfare fairings on other aircraft, such as the SEPECAT Jaguar. With this version came an increase in max. speed, Mach 1.8. If you check sinodefence.com (http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1_specs.asp), you can see that max. speed is listed as Mach 1.6~1.8, another source of this is Defence Talk (http://www.defencetalk.com/world_military_aircraft/fighters/jf-17_thunder_fc-1_20040730.php). Here you can see that the different prototypes are listed, along with a list of improvements to prototype 04. Max. speed here is again listed as Mach 1.8.
If you visit the link for reference 2, you will see it is simply a newspaper, not an authority on military aircraft. I believe that reference 3 is simply out of date (as shown above) and reference 2 is nowhere near as reliable as others here. If you look at the bottom of the MILAVIA source, you will see it cites Air Forces Monthly, a magazine dedicated to military aircraft, as its source. Unfortunately, credible sources such as MILAVIA and sinodefence do not comment on the generation of the JF-17. Therefore rather than list JF-17 as 3rd generation, would it not be more accurate to list it either as 3rd/4th generation, or not list the generation it belongs too at all? As you may know, jet combat aircraft generations are just general descriptions, different versions of aircraft can belong to different generations.
With regards to the variants list issue, the source http://www.defencetalk.com/world_military_aircraft/fighters/jf-17_thunder_fc-1_20040730.php shows that each prototype is referred to as PT-01, PT-02, and so on. Another source of this is MILAVIA (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/fc-1/fc-1.htm) - scroll down to half way, read the section with sub-heading "Progress". All three sources I have listed here call the JF-17 "FC-1", they do not mention FC-2, FC-3, etc. Yet two sources refer to different PROTOTYPES (as a pose to "variants") as 01, 02, 03, etc. Also please note that MILAVIA only seems to show pictures of the earlier version prototypes - PT-01 to PT-03, they are easily distinguishable from PT-04 onwards, please check the other sources such as sinodefence for pictures of the later prototpes/versions. I believe there has been some confusion with regards to nomenclature of the different prototypes in certain sources, and this should not be continued on Wikipedia.
Hj107 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks for the information but you really need to explain this on the article talk page before you use different sources to make changes. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, sorry for not explaining on the talk page. Shall I just copy the above to the talk page? Are you going to amend the article? Hj107 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem you can copy this to the talk page. I will not change the article - but nothing wrong with you changing it but it may be challenged by others so it really needs to be made clear on the talk page so everybody is aware of the logic behind your change. May be best to split the explanation under the different headers for generation and variants just to make it clearer to others what you are doing. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
minimal current destinations and extensive former ones, plus useless flags, please do something about it.118.103.239.10 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at tidied it up per WP:AIRLINES guidelines and concensus. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)[edit]
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! the reference I used for types operated by RAS was 'Railway Air Services' (1987) by Mr John Stroud. This apparently well-researched and illustrated book is based on Mr Stroud's long association with the company and its successors from 1935 onwards and quotes many well known aviation historians as references. On pages 115-116 he lists the types, and the individual aircraft, operated by RAS 1934-1947 as : Dragon : Express : Dragon Rapide : Avro XIX : Douglas Dakota. On page 117, Mr Stroud lists the Spartan Cruiser I/II/III as operated by the associated, but separate 'Spartan Air Lines', these aircraft being transferred later to airlines other than RAS. Similarly, the Fox Moth and Scion Major are shown on page 118 to have been operated by the associated but separate Great Western & Southern Air Lines. Your reply is awaited with interest! RuthAS (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Joey Boeing 777 is pasting flags in some airline destinations lists that hes taken charge of editing, click on his profile to see the list of airlines hes taken to.116.71.56.10 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added some specs to new page Slingsby Falke. Suggest though it should be renamed as Slingsby T.61 Falke both for consistency with existing standard and to avoid confusion with the original Slingsby Falke of 1931. . . Rcawsey (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It good to see the Shorts gaps being filled! Thanks for starting S.32 and for pointing it out to me.
There are some minor differences between the specifications given from Jackson and those in Barnes & James, i.e. wingspan (126.5 ft), length (90.5 ft), empty weight (39,050 lb) and range (3,400 miles). B&J give the cancellation date as being May 1940, which can be added. I'll add a few more interesting details soon, I hope.
I'm sure that you also noticed that Air Ministry specification 14/38 is not detailed in the List of Air Ministry specifications. Perhaps it can be 'reverse engineered' from the S.32. There are several details of the specification in Barnes & James, so it is feasible to produce an outline specification, which can then be referenced.
A supplementary question: You recently (and quite correctly) tagged for removal the SA.4 Sperrin image which I had scanned in, giving its Shorts catalogue number. Is this catalogue available to the public somewhere? Thanks. I wonder whether Shorts would be interested in making selected images available under WP conditions.
By the way, the British Aircraft Directory website is currently unavailable. If it remains offline there'll be lots of work to be done on many British aircraft articles! --TraceyR (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of resolution would be acceptable for a non-free image? I can reduce it without problem. I'm not sure about reloading it to the same commons image - I haven't had to do that so far. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
image ada tejas is relised by ADA, a company under the indian goverment. Under Rights to Imformation Act the image is releaded under the public domain94.108.251.48 (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right to Information Act gives free access to government data nothing in the act says it can then be re-used for anything for example commercial activities. In the public domain in the RIA act means it is available to the public not to do with what they want. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Milborne1 the thing is that RIA allows anything published in their sites to be used, yes you're right not anything but in this case it is allowed as one can use any image released by the government for any purpose that provides a normal inidan with information. You can access RIA on the government and you will see that this this image satisfies the term that material released by the government can be used to inform normal Indian of what this government is doing. Now you might think that this falls under the defence section, but in this case it was released by a Government Department of their success, thus this image can be used. Anyway this is not commercial its a free web based encyclopedia. I have removed the tag if you have any problems you can add the deletion tag again and we can discuss it. Thanks- Enthusiast10 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please refrain from editing the Whirlwind article for a few hours? I had just completed about an hour's worth of work on it and lost it all when I tried to enter the update because you had tweked an earlier edit. I tried saving my edit from the page that pops up when someone else has edited it while you're working on it, and I've now discovered that the open panel at that point only contains the original information before I started editing. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, and I don't blame you at all. You had no way of knowing that I was still working on it. Normally when I do a large edit I move the whole thing to a notepad, but I suddenly got pressed for time and just hit the update. I was told that if I saved the article from the box that appears when there's a conflict it would have my full edit, but this turned out not to be true. Now I know just to click back instead and hope for the best. Hope you enjoy the article. Best regards - Ken keisel (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Milb1, according the to the Pratt & Whitney X-1800 article, and Gunston's aeroengine enxcyclopedia, the X-1800 is an H-engine, and "1800" represents its power rating, not it's displacement. Gunston quotes the displacement as 2240, while the article says 2600. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that not an expert on engines it was just on the list in Andrades designation book I used to start the template as X-1800, Pratt & Whitney, 24 cyclinder, x-type, liquid cooled. Looks like a non-standard designation for some reason. It looks like an H in the image of an H-2600 which is meant to be the same engine http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/Museum/Recips/XH-2600_002.jpg. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of YS Flight Simulation System 2000[edit]
Great picture, nice and clear and it makes all the difference to the article, Cheers. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. When I was researching this, I found this dab page, and since I had no clue which of these actually won it, I decided to hold off. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure it was the right one but he seemed to be more notable, perhaps without proof it should link to the dab page! MilborneOne (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad thought. BTW, the redlinks in the list are there because I found multiple refs to these names in other articles, and so I'm going to be trying to work up articles on these people in the future. Starting Furio Niclot Doglio now in my sandbox. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham International Airport (United Kingdom)[edit]
There's an anonymous user at 81.174.158.200 who keeps deleting entries by bmibaby from BHX to Milan-Bergamo (BGY), Krakow and Prague. The airline continues to sell tickets on these routes. I've added multiple message to the IP address talk page and left message on the edit history but to no avail.
The airline did announce that some routes would close - but the press didn't mention these 3 routes. The IP talk page seems to have entries from others relating to possible vandalism.
Edit wars burn time and energy - what's the procedure on this ? Pmbma (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma[reply]
I will keep an eye on the article and user I have reverted his/her changes, I presume the other routes not running in the summer are summer only routes? ( From 29 March to 24 October 2009, summer flights to Rome, Milan, Lisbon, Madrid and Bordeaux will be suspended from Birmingham International Airport. ). MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rome, Lisbon, Madrid and Bordeaux are suspended until March 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7750958.stm so it seems reasonable to consider these. Airline is selling tickets for Milan, Krakow and Prague for travel later this month - implying that they are not cancelled. 81.174.158.200 has deleted these routes again today without a source.
Not having much joy on stopping anon user reverting changes - do you have any suggestions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbma (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your warning hasn't had any effect ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbma (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent a whole lot of messages. Before I give the anon IP address a last warning message, do you as an admin consider his/her actions to be vandalism ? Pmbma (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma[reply]
I just noticed that you re-ordered the applications list in General Electric J85 by introducing piped links using the manufacturer's name just after I had arranged it alphabetically by article name. Are you disagreeing with the project naming conventions? The only time I can see the need for piped links in this section of an engine article is when a particular variant of the aircraft used the engine, I have got round this problem in some articles by adding a footnote to say that only the generic aircraft type has been listed. I do need to know before I try to alphabetically organise any more application lists. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for all the work you've done on my grandfather's entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_William_Foster) - it looks very good now, and I had no idea that I could have gone to the London Gazette site and found out further details about his medals (v. useful link). It's an interesting career, which is why I made him an entry. Thanks again. Jaycey (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You recently expressed an opinion at Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1, which I have been loosely referring to in the dispute that has run on and on (nobody has yet turned up following an Rfc request). It is now (maybe prematurely given the Rfc is only a few days old?) listed as a mediation request. If your could review the further arguments made on the talk page and perhaps give further comment/clarification, that would be helpful. (I am also cross posting this to User:AndrewHowse) MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I only commented last time following the request at Editor Assistance, I will come and have another look. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)[edit]
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you have an unquestionably PD image of a W8? Neither of mine are very good, and lack any orig. source info. It would be nice to have a good photo of this historically-significant aircraft. TIA & cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll have a look. The online version are pretty coarse, unfortunately.... Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you give detailed reason why you believe this cited information is not notable on the talk page & I will discuss.--Blue67 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've received your notification about possible copyright problems with two images I uploaded for the page on Sacha Gervasi.
While I mentioned the creators of both images in my photo descriptions, the copyright on both actually belong to Sacha Gervasi, who I work for. He has given permission for both images to be used on openly on the internet. What is the appropriate action I need to take to make sure that these images are not deleted?
Hi Millborne!
Are his edits considered vandalism? Cause I tried to report to the wiki admins and they said his edits are not considered vandalism. Every time a user gives him warnings, he removes it from his talk page. Can you watch hium for a while on Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport? Thanks! Cashier freak (talk)
OK not really vandalism just a diffrence of opinion at the moment - I have reverted his addition about bicycles as it has been challenged by more than one user and suggested he/she use the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HAL Tejas has the same avionics as Sukhoi Su-MKI and even better in some aspects! So 4.5 generation avionics!
HAl Tejas can carry all weapons that can be carried by MKI but its capability is about 4000-5000 kg of weapons! But we do not decide an aircraft's generation by it's weapon load capability . It can carry all new generation BVRAAM and also bombs.
It will carry a new FE404IN as powerplant initially i.e. for first 20 aircraft, followed by either FE414 or EJ200.
It will for now be equipped with a EL/M-2052 radar and it is not the same as Elta-2052. This is new generation radar with advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capability! It will eventually be replaced by a indigenous MMR which will be among the best!
And airframe, it has been constructed with Carbon composites which again implies that it is an advanced 4.5 generation aircraft! Its airframe is better than that of Rafale in min radar cross-section and stealth !
PLEASE DON'T BASE YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF AN AIRCRAFT ON ITS SIZE OR LOOKS!!!! COMPARE THEM TO SOME AIRCRAFT AND THEN DECIDE! HAL TEJAS IS A 4.5 GENERATION AICRAFT COMPARABLE TO J-10, SAAB GRIPEN, etc!johnxxx9 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer article discussion to talk page. And please dont shout its rude. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RNAS Grain also falls within WP:KENT, you might want to post there, but things are pretty quiet on there atm. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was to use capitals' to sum up the whole thing and not to be rude! So, I am sorry if you thought that it was rude........johnxxx9 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the Arik Air aircraft were originally allocated to Kingfisher but that is not the same thing as Kingfisher being involved in their sale to other customers. The Airbus press releases do not indicate any involvement by Kingfisher in the Arik sale. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Milb!, I've found another image from JSF.mil that's marked as US Govt PD, but isn't. File:Sdd f136 006.jpg is found on the http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_sdd_f136.htm Gallery, and the thumbnail states "Photo courtesy of General Electric". The image is not on Commons to my knowledge. We can probably use this under Fair-use, since it's not a production engine yet,and PD images will be hard to find. What would you recommend? - BillCJ (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it should be copyright GE, need to change the licence (perhaps Template:Non-free promotional) and add a fair use rationale based on only a dev engine and not in production. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I have another question on images. I am updating an Article on Walter Oesau. I recently received a portrait of his made by one of his fans. They are willing to give standard Wikipedia authorization for permission releasing to Public Domain. The question is, can I use it ? I searched on images used. But couldn't find any guidelines on usage of the same. I'd appreciate if you could point me in right direction.
Another thing, if you come across a German Federal Archives owned image, are they in Public Domain or can be used on Wikipedia ?
When you say a portrait do you mean an image of a painting made by somebody else. You need to look at the procedure at WP:COPYREQ to get a copy of the public domain release from the original artist into the system. I dont think any of the German Federal Archive is public domain but they have just loaded 100,000 images to wikipedia commmons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv) with a CC-BY-SA licence which means they can be used on wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the HAL Tejas designer, I was wondering if, given today's aircraft design methodology, it means that there are no fewer than a 1000 design engineers working on an aircraft, and no clear individual responsible for the project. This becomes more acute when you look at non-US designs, where the Project Directors do not last through the lifetime of the program, and the fact that unlike say, in the US, the productionizing company may not be the one designing the aircraft. For eg, in India, ADA or NAL designs the aircraft, and HAL produces it. So IMO, this is a very US-centric classification, and needs to be changed. Plus, given the present design methods, a single designer like in WW2 will not be suitable.
I'd be grateful if you could point me to where it has been decided that the deisgner refers to an individual.... I agree that it is ok with WW2 aircraft, where small teams worked, but given the scale of today's development, it will be problematic to point out that individual for modern programs.
What do u think? Cheers. Sniperz11@CS 06:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton for that info.... I think that text is ok then, but as u suggested, I'll also add a bit to the wikiProj Aircraft page about it... maybe they can change the text a little clearer. Plus, if we have a design team headed by someone, do we put the team/Company name or the project head name (especially given the changing scenario of design work)... that also needs to be discussed I guess. I'll undo the edit on HAL Tejas then. Cheers. Sniperz11@CS 10:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Milbourne, I just noticed ur edit on Hawk image... was jus wondering what the upright does to the image. Sniperz11@CS 06:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry MilborneOne. It wont happen again. Iam just trying to make to article as good as possible, but it is very hard finding images on the Skyfox! Hahahaha :)
Thanks for wading in on this one! When I found it today it was a copyright violation mess! I left the sentence on the reassigned N number in there just because I was concerned that after what had been written before (qv) that it might be reverted. But I agree that it isn't important enough to be there - thanks for removing it! - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt remove the fact there was a bus service just the detailed information about the routes and cities served because wikipedia is not a travelguide. Fair enough it was referenced to an airline timetable but the basic information needs something else to show notability which is why I left that information with a fact tag. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - but I think it would be more travelguideish if the times were included - However it looks better if it is in prose, so I converted everything to prose. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK your edit looks a lot better than what was before. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have had a busy day here on Wikipedia! Hope you are getting some Christmas dinner! - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - no problem christmas dinner and pudding were consumed first! MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a day when people are either very busy or have a lot of time on their hands! Hope it was good! - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Milb1, could you have a look at these contributions? He keeps adding info to the RR Merlin article making claims that Nils Joel Skrubb was the "designer" of the Packard V-1650. Some of his claims were very dubious, such as "Nils Joel Skrubb of the Packard Motor Car Company who converted the Rolls Royce design to American Standards after spending some 6 months memorizing the engine design drawings and registering the changes before setting pencil to the Packard version." I did do a search on the internet on the name, but turned up nothing related to Packard or the Merlin. I have issued some warnings on several counts, but not tried to engage him in conversation yet (I doubt I can remain calm with him!) Whatever you can do on this would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only ref on google was in a discussion on you tube by IslandArchitect! I will have a word. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well transatlantic mind reading is a useful skill on Wikipedia! Glad you liked the photo! I added a second one, too to show the wingspan since the first one didn't do the 17 meters justice! - Ahunt (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have no idea how to land that thing in a crosswind! - Ahunt (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
