User talk:MilborneOne/Archive 31

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you. Thewinrat (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iamwickandshut (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Was there a problem with my added content? I can send photocopies of my Aircrew Logbook showing in green ink our Assisted Kills as well as the Arthur Barratt Memorial Prize Fund? Mark Pead (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mark Pead you need to provide a reliable source for the claims, something that has been published in the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm the guy who created the "Full Noise (aircraft)" page. Despite all my efforts to fix the page by adding citations, needed information etc, it is still being nominated for deletion, why do you want to have the page deleted so badly? What's wrong with it? And if it's something I've done, how can I improve it (or for later stuff)?

From Spitfirepilot19 Spitfirepilot19 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spitfirepilot19 in my opinion it just is not noteworthy for a stand-alone articnle, you need to make a case for it on the deletion nomination page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been caught, so stand dowb, but FYI if you see it again. Cheers —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this article? I’m of the same opinion that there is no evidence of a serperate air corps, but want to see what you have to say. Garuda28 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that I can find the the three leased Piper Cubs formed an "Air Corps", as I have said at Mil Hist suggest redirect back to Luxembourg Army which has nearly the same content. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milb, I've found another photoshopped background added by Fox52, and I suspect there more such images that he's uploaded. See my revert here for the files. I don't mind that he crops some images, but adding false backgrounds seems to be going too far to me. Should we raise this issue at WT:AIR? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker: This is probably worth a discussion and consensus. In the case of the HU-16 picture, it really does look pretty bad. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, I assume you saw this "flying" version of this stationary aircraft? - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't seen that one. It is better done, but still we are running an encyclopedia here, not a work of fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As we are not a work of fiction we dont need to make-up images to use, perhaps need to raise it at project but really we shouldnt be adding it as they are misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an accident stating that it isn't notable. The section isn't titled "Notable Accidents." It is labeled "Accidents." It is my opinion that either the section should be titled "Notable Accidents" or it should be a list of all accidents. As it is now, it is in a gray area where someone might look at it and think that there has only been 3 accidents because only 3 are listed. There is no indication that it is a select list. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) - all explained at

WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that revert. User:Denver Indiana is obviously a sock of banned user User:Hoggardhigh. You can block him if you would please. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I dont know enough about that user to just block them, really needs an SPI so others with knowledge of behaviour can comment. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I reverted all his edits, they were identical to Hoggardhigh, vandaliszing articles with "comma-ands". This user had no other connection or common editing history with me, that is how I know it is him back again. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, he even vandalized Wikipedia:Vandalism!! - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at his again and it appears somebody else has already blocked them. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep looks like he checked as a sock of User:Hoggardhigh. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th! I come to you for advice, you being an esteemed administrator who knows about aviation. When someone makes an edit, if another edit reverts it without discussion, a possible response would be to further research the issue, discuss it and think of a compromise edit. If the other editor continues to revert it back, what is there to do? I think there is no "judge" in Wikipedia so it is either to try continued discussion, RFC, or just let it go. That might seem like empowering someone who doesn't want to compromise, but that is the way things work in Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the objective is to bring an article to FAC, any conflict would probably preclude WP:FAC so letting it go might be the best route. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Disclaimer: general advice is requested, not administrative action or even research on your part. If you are curious, it's about Talk:SeaTac/Airport station, but don't look.[reply]

User:Vanguard10 If another edit reverts an addition then it really needs to be discussed although it sometimes takes another revert by the same or different person to make the point. Before it gets into edit war territory then it needs to be raised on the talk page and thrashed out, remember it is the addition that needs to gain a consensus not the status quo. Get others involved by raising it at project level and getting an admin involved might help. MilborneOne (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated Arado E.500 for deletion (unremarkable paper 'plane) & I know that there is a list of aviation AfDs, but being a klutz I can't work out how to add it...could you kindly do the honours?TheLongTone (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ta muchlyTheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milborne, please see the bottom of my talk page. I do not seek any administrator action from you or others but, optionally, you may discuss with your Wikipedia friends or administrators how aggressive editors hurt Wikipedia in indirect ways. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MilborneOne. You have new messages at YSSYguy's talk page.
Message added 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

As related to the fatality total of 1937 Sabena Junkers Ju 52 Ostend crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC) ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"M" are you in position to terminate this "

Reluctant to do anything as I was involved in the AfD discussion, really needs somebody not involved. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milb, you recently blocked Special:Contributions/86.165.119.144. Special:Contributions/Sadiedens has made almost identical edits here and here. It seems to be from a prolific UK/Irish sock farm that mostly uses IPs, but occasionally uses registered accounts also. Are these enough to block the account for socking? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the racist vandalism on the Indian military articles, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Missileinfo. Those should definitely be reverted on sight, and blocked when necessary. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Bill, thanks for that link. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While working on the List of airlines of Yugoslavia I actually tought about including the "defunct", or not, in the title. However, there is a problem here. Lots of companies are still active. The country is "defunct" while many companies aren´t. That makes the title including "defunct" wrong. I considered making two lists, with active ones, and ones which are not, but I think the list gains in gathering all Yugoslav companies since anyway they are not that many. I think leaving the title as it was is better. The country is "defunct", while anyone can see in the list immediatelly which companies ceased operations and which are still active. While leaving the word "defunct" out of title makes no problems, adding it creates the problem that some are still active despite not being obviously anymore companies of a defunct country which was Yugoslavia. I think the title without saying "defunct" is better. FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I still think it could be misleading as it appears that the country and airlines are still operating, probably best just to make a note that the airline was tranfered to foo country or make the list part of List of defunct airlines of Serbia and such like. Perhaps we may need to go to the airline project for some opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each airline has clearly indicated the year it ended activity, or saying "present" in the list if it is still active. I really think it is easy for any reader to see it. But of course, opinions from other editors are welcomed. I really woudnt mind if the change didnt messed with the inclusion criterium of the list (if it says "defunct" it should then exclude the ones that are still active). I think the benefit of the list is actually to have listed the companies that were active in Yugoslavia, if we separate them by defunct/active it makes a mess... FkpCascais (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I will source the text, I took it from diverse articles. FkpCascais (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS2: Please dont delete the Pan Adria Airways redlink. I was waiting for years for someone to create that article, but no one did. We even had a picture at commons of their aircraft that seems to have been deleted recently. My next step is to create that article. It was an important charter to touristic destinations in the Adriatic during the time it existed. We, en.wiki, have a chance of becoming the firs to have a serious article about them. FkpCascais (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why the Pan Adria Airways would be deleted it seems a viable subject for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am Oleksii Shliakotin. And picture I added is MY! And it was DONE BY ME, I made a special shooting to make it! So please return it to my page on Wiki. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleks2247 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide evidence that you own the copyright of the image and not the website that is was taken from at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aleks_shliakotin_a%26s_football_center1.jpg. Once it has been passed as OK at commons it can be added back to the article. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh were these images copyrighted? If they were then I apologize. If they were not, then why were they removed? Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because made up images dont add to the article and can be misleading. The only exception is such images that have come from official reports. MilborneOne (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, this user has been prematurely removing dates for new services that are starting June 7-9 (even though it is only June 6, 2018) and was reverted by another user stating “it is not June 7th yet” but was reverted back stating “it doesn’t matter, services starting this week” at

• I have left a note on the users talk page about being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:MilborneOne, the mentioned user also continuously removes references from the A&D tables, which I and many others would consider to be vandalism. I have left a note on the users talk page, but can you please keep an eye on this users behavior? Thanks. Garretka (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MilborneOne, @User:Garretka If you have an issue, talk to me directly please. Mealer2015 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MilborneOne, To inform you that the above "editor" is still edit warring on the BA CityFlyer and Edinburgh Airport pages and has exceeded 3RR on other articles. I have come on to this situation rather late, but looking at the editing history of this person it strikes me that this person is not here to improve the encyclopedia? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood David but he has only made one edit (to the user talk page) since my Please Stop and Think warning, if they edit war or be disruptive again they will be blocked without further warning. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Dames category tag to the Sue Hill page. It's worth noting that the correct form of address should be Dame Sue Hill OBE (as she is a previous recipient of the OBE, and this recognised that) - in the same way as, for example, Professor Malcolm Grant, Chair of NHS England, should be Professor Sir Malcolm Grant CBE to recognise he has been awarded both Knighthoods and a prior CBE. Hope this is helpful

Jpmaytum (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:Jpmaytum I have to disagree with you about Sue Hill she has been promoted in the order to DBE so is no longer an OBE, you odnt have two levels of the same order. In your example his knighthood was not in the same order so he is still a CBE. MilborneOne (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me - that nuance was new to me. Debretts doesn't offer explicit guidance on this, but it's clear from their published material that this is the correct form. Apologies for questioning you and thank you for your courtesy! Jpmaytum (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Well spotted adjustments - there is a good pic somewhere of N90 that I'll add when I have a moment. This topic does take some puzzling over. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might want to repeat the comment you made here in this discussion. -

Milb1, United States Space Force is getting some IP vandals and trolls due to Trump's recent announcement. I saw you reverted some vandalism earlier, so you're watching the page. It it time for semi-protection yet? Perhaps 72 hours until the news wears off a little. Thanks for whatever you decide. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mil. Could you weigh in here? 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi MilborneOne, it says in the plar bio, at [[1] that he married his niece, daughter of his brther. I think the times article is possible incorrect, as the Plarr ref has the Times article as a sources, but also several other articles as sources including BMJ, Lancet, Med Pr and Circ. 1936. I don't know what that is. Thanks for helping. scope_creep (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MilborneOne. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

hi there. Blind date - It is quite an easily referenced fact and quite well known, they talked about it themselves in their interview https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a9664508/prince-harry-meghan-markle-relationship/ - Govindaharihari (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that is an insult which is a bit naughty - The fact might be well known but it needs to be referenced and the reference that was in the article didnt mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you presume that is an insult? Its not at all, it was some simple information for you, I won't insert it after your removal and question if it is notable. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that User:Govindaharihari I was reading to many things at the same time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for that. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MilborneOne, I request your comment at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777,--Otto (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have proposed a merge of Airbreathing jet engine into Jet engine but the destination article is locked so I cannot post the mergefrom template there. Would you be able to add it? Something like:

{{mergefrom|Airbreathing jet engine|discuss=Talk:Jet engine#Merge proposal|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that article has been fully protected indefinitely is there a point at which you're planning to reduce the protection level? There's a request to do so at

WP:UNPROTECT. It's been nine days, and it looks like a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Fish+Karate 09:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have unprotected the article assuming good faith on those involved in the discussion, sorry for not being around but in real life the chance to see the Royal Air Force 100 aircraft flypast over London trumps anything here. Per Ardua Ad AstraMilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Fingers crossed on the outcome. I didn't know the RAF had 100 aircraft any more ;/ — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

104 aircraft in the flypast just to make sure they actually had more than 100. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One editor is back to a run of contentious edits again. Would you be willing to reinstate the block, preferably reverting it to this state before their run? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. The merge discussion has been quiet for over a week now. Do you feel uninvolved enough to close it, or should I make a standard request? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The oleo strut of the F.E.2's undercarriage is of course well known - and well referenced. Just two sources that come to mind are:

• Hare, Paul R. The Royal Aircraft Factory. London: Putnam, 1990. ISBN 0-85177-843-7, pp.208-209.
• Cheesman, E.F., ed. Fighter Aircraft of the 1914–1918 War. Letchworth, UK: Harleyford, 1960. pp. 44-45.

I have nonetheless run into a bit of conflict with someone with interests from "a later war" who disputes this - perhaps on the authority of works documenting more modern "oleo struts". I wonder if you could apply an impartial eye on this one? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I will have a look. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B003:929D:E0DE:8AD3:DEE4:9A47. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y bagged. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

airforce and hope
... you were recipient no. 1693 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milb1, you blocked this IP for making unsourced and undiscussed changes to the leads of ship types articles. This registered user is making similar edits to different ship type articles, and other types of articles too, again without discussion or sources. Could you take a look? Thanks much. - BilCat (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more than likely they are the same, not sure if it they are trying but failing to help or just WP:DICK. I have left a note on talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take

User:E.M.Gregory I dont really have an objection about AfD or a strong view on it, I protected it after some BLP vandalism issues so I would be looking for some consensus (deletion or improvement) before removing protection. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I'm slightly confused to know what you mean by wanting consensus. The post-AfD discussion is deadlocked. I would like to bring this to AfD in the hope of getting a larger group of editors to look at the page and form a consensus on notability, especially since many of the arguments and sources and arguments used to argue for keep in the previous AfD have been shown to have been misstated in various ways. Would you object to my doing that?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory no objection. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question now becomes, how to start the AfD? A simple way is for you to start the AfD on my behalf. Alternatively, you could lift protection and I can start the AfD, although I share your concern about the page, which could be vulnerable if it in unprotected for several hours. If you prefer to have me start it, I would want to do it at a time when you would be available to reinstall the page protection soon after I start the AfD. I would be able to do this at almost any reasonable hour U.S. East coast time on the week of Aug 27. Again, thank you. It takes a great deal of work to deal with this sort of request.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think another disciple of User:HMAS onslow has emerged. Favorite articles edited by both: Nicaraguan Air Force, Malagasy Air Force, Biafran armed forces, & Air Force of Ivory Coast - Also has created some Air wing articles Sierra Leone Defence Force Air Force / Mongolian People's Army Air Force similar to User:HMAS onslow article subject creation. Lastly the other sock connection to User:SOKO Super Galeb seen here - FOX 52 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fox, tagged and blocked, may not be worth sending to SPI. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See these changes to Grumman F6F Hellcat, complete with misusing a contraction as a pronoun, and located to eastern Pennsylvania. -BilCat (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, certain looks similar, keep an eye on it and see if it pops up again, normally the IPs get changed for every editing session, MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air Jordan Flight 601 is making me it is the work of RyanK. The User name is definitely suggestive. Maybe @YSSYguy: would like to offer his opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely Ryan. He also just created Kanisa Mountain Air Disaster which contains such Ryan like gems as 'Toke off' and 'did not report over the bacon'. Was it over Fried eggs? I have nominated both articles for speedy deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recently read your post on the talk page of the subject article of this post. I didn't see the suggested revision, so I revised the page according to your suggestion. If I did this incorrectly, just let me know on my talk page, and I will gladly revert it.

Cheers, American474 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jak474 the suggestion was to change to an image of an L-17 not add L-17 to the title, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. American474 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MilborneOne

I really appreciate your patience with me. You have been very kind not to flame me for my legion of errors. I was so stupid making contributions without a profile myself obviously made me seem to be another nutter and highly suspect contributing on a sensitive subject. I was honestly trying to make a positive contribution and realise I was making many mistakes and huge breaches of etiquette. By way of a possible aviation tid bit would information about a concord visit to Western Michigan University to drop of their first group of BA cadets be an area you would be interested in.

I am truly sorry for any upset or offence I may have caused you And can I once again thank you for your patience

Eimhin Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG that was a typo I meant "here not herr" in the subject. I checked the body of my message and missed my subject error If I had meant to use Herr I like to think I would have used the correct capitalisation. I better quit now and stop digging. So Sorry Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milb1, Template:Infobox aircraft career was recently vandalized. Can you look into protection for the infobox, possibly Extended user? If you think it needs full protection, that's OK too. I'm thinking of applying for Template Editor rights so I can edit some of our infoboxes that have full protection. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Y MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilborneOne, your last contrubution on the Qatar Airways page was not appreciated. Please don't undo like that ever again.

Bro Dude51 (User talk:Bro Dude51) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bro Dude51 attacking others in edit summaries is not clever, I have left a warning on your talk page rather than block you this time but read and take notice. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you weren't prepared to give peas a chance! Really!! Cnbrb (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with peas more about not including non-noteworthy items in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it has received some wide media coverage [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (two of which were cited in the article) and is discussed in a Historic Building Recording of the Chalfont Viaduct, I judge it to be noteworthy. Everybody knows about it, they just can't read about it on Wikipedia. Cnbrb (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take it to the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother, it's not that important. I was fully expecting a po-faced response at some point - I'm only surprised it didn't survive more than 9 minutes. It would be nice if a bit more light-hearted content could make it into Wikipedia now and again, but alas not. Cnbrb (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because this is an encyclopedia not a website for fun things. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly bother. Who says peas are fun. Unlike Po's, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha! Oh, sorry, I forgot - no fun allowed. *serious face* Cnbrb (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This edit warring is starting again at this page in which future routes are constantly being removed per

You may have heard of the double murder in Hadlow yesterday. So far, nothing has been added to the article. I would like it to stay that way. As I know all involved, I'd appreciate it if you would keep a weather eye on the article. As far as I can tell, tragic and shocking as this is, it is not notable enough to be mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about that, but no problem added it to watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but this edit intervened. He and I actually discussed that issue somewhere, but I can't find it. - BilCat (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just a heads up about Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 in which our Tiger friend has tried putting that CGI image back in as the main illustration, against our advice on previous occasions. Please could you intervene again. You said at one stage that a decision was taken at WikiProjectAviation not to use misleading made up images. I wonder if you could give a link through to the discussion to emphasize the point when reverting the latest edit? Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks it has been removed again by User:Ahunt, will keep an eye on it if they come back. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please move back

Please note this discussion[9] also. This editor also has draft pages of aviation articles that already have articles. For example Draft:Linate Airport disaster, [[Draft:Avianca Flight 011], to name two....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the tigerdude has moved it back, will have a look at the drafts later. MilborneOne (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiantSnowman, perhaps if you give me a chance to add my references rather than revert a minute after the edit would help. Also it is considered bad form to template experienced editors. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't know you were a fellow admin; I'd certainly expect (from any editor, let alone an admin) for a source to be provided at the same time as making the edit, or at the very least stating 'ref to follow' in the edit summary... GiantSnowman 15:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milb1, an IP hopper from Thailand keeps making incorrect edits to Eurojet EJ200 infobox. The primary issue is the IP farm's insistence that the Rolls-Royce XG-40 be listed in the "developed from" field when there is no separate article on that engine. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK not protected it for the moment unless they come back, I have added it to my watchlist. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long! Twelve minutes, and no sign of listening either. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started at Talk:Eurojet EJ200#Why the Rolls-Royce XG-40 should not be listed in the infobox. We'll see if it responds. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a stub at HeliOperations, which is the last operator of Westland Sea King helicopters. It seems relevant to me and I contested a "speedy deletion"--Chrisdunn112 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else has already removed the deletion request, I have added an image. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm ex_Sea King RN, hence my interest :-) --Chrisdunn112 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please page protect this again and permanently? The IP is back after you protected it for a year[10] and the page has been protected 6-10 times before that and for the same reason....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. It has been taken care of....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:FN 509 has been deleted as an abandoned draft twice, so I'm hesitant to ask that it be restored again. Could you userfy it for me please, and I'll see what it needs to be made a viable article. If it requires too much work, I'll request deletion. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made a bit of mess of it but eventually ended up at User talk:BilCat/FN 509 <!> MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A user named Andrewgprout has made unconstructive edit reverts after fixing callsigns in most airline pages. I have thought you said that callsigns are supposed to be uppercase. for the user reverting my fixes, it is a big problem having all callsigns uppercase to him. His unconstuctive and disruptive must stop by falling November. Please put a description in his user talk and be sure to warn him.

Regards, 71.198.2.72, an airplane lover just like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.2.72 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize. I messed up big time. I got over determined (you ay or may not have noticed on my user page that I am autistic) I have always asked for permission, and I will continue to do so. Update: I'm nervous since you haven't responded. I know that you are busy and all, but I'm wondering if i will be punished since you're an admin. Again, I'm sorry. Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears another admin has now given you a warning, if you still want to upload and add images to pages make sure that they are free for use. MilborneOne (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but if there are non-free images I would like to use, then I will ask the owner for permission, and I will not take any action until I get a response. If get no response at all, or I do get a response but it says no, then I won't use the image. If it is yes, then I can upload as non-free, stating that I have explicit permission. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that I've seen other users do it on other articles, but I respect your opinion, so I won't undo it (but if I did want to, I would ask for permission first). Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on the revision front - you reverted my addition of the duchess's birth name, Prince Harry's mother is listed as "Lady Diana Spencer" - which of course is her maiden name so I wonder if you could help?

On various pages ie Prince William. other Wikipedians have changed her married surname to that is was when the princes were born - it has been reverted by others claiming that it should be the birth name not the married name used.

Is there some common ground or ruling in black and white on this site on who is actually correct?

Many thanks

Juanpumpchump (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maidename is related to your surname not your given names, you need to raise it on the relevant talk, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flags bring unnecessary attention to sections as stated in

Thanks, but you need to raise it at the

aircraft project not here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes this does appear to be a project wide issue. IWI (chat) 18:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you say you served in the RAF, I wanted to ask, do you need a co-pilot for certain types of aircraft for night time flights? Govvy (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is related to speculation about the LCFC crash then I would rather not comment. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not really, it's a general question. One my great uncles was a bomber pilot in WW2, when he was alive told me many stories, he also told me that due to the size of the aircraft he flew that it needed a co-pilot. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several IPs are removing Chennai from the destination list for AirAsia India. The schedule cited, clearly shows Chennai for the whole of the winter schedule. Could you take a look? If need be, protect the page? Thanks, — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked them up and it appears to be a division of the same company. I didn't add that to the article but I think it belongs. Enigma^msg 17:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. [11] "Lion Air is part of the Lion Air Group, together with Wings Air, Batik Air, Lion Bizjet..." Enigma^msg 17:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are all listed in the Infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilborneOne. Back in early September you raised the question of the notability of Captain Hayward in Wikiproject Ships. In the discussion I said that I would see what I could make of an article on the Water Witch, which is now at Water Witch (1835 steamer). In doing that, I have kept an eye out for any biographical material on William Hayward, but without much success, so I don't intend to pursue that any further. Davidships (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for all your efforts Davidships, I will keep an eye out for anything else on Hayward. MilborneOne (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]