Michael, could you please restore my rollback rights? I've implemented (I think!) the instructions at WP:RBK#Accidental use of rollback. Hopefully this will solve the main issue I had with rollbacks, which was accidental use on my watchlist page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airports for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:AthelhamptonHouse.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)12:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tagged now for copyvio. I just wanted another set of eyes to verify my interpretation, and that's been done now. It should be deleted soon. Since the Scorpion is flying now, I don't think we can justify fair use, as a photo could be attained. - BilCat (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work expanding this requested article. I've taken the liberty of nominating it for DYK, and have named you as one of the authors. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An editor just moved this article. The new name is wrong. I alerted TRM but if you get online first, could you please move the article back. That editor has also created other problems that need fixing aka either the articles returned to their original names or the yearly templates all changed so the links aren't redirects.
Best thing to do is just go down this editor's contribution list and see what pages need to be moved back. Funny, but almost all are UK related. Kind of makes you think of some other editor except this isn't our friend's style....William14:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just given Dreamliner 2012 and FonEengIneeR7 a 24 hour block for edit warring over the Iran Air article. Although neither were warned they've been around long enough to know the rules. Would appreciate it if you would let me know if you think my decision to block was wrong. Only gave 24h as I want it to be a short sharp shock and get the pair of them discussing the issues. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iran Air wasnt actually on my watchlist! they were certainly edit warring and they didnt have to actually break ther 3RR to be edit warring, perhaps 24 hours may have been a bit long as we really want to encourage them to discuss it, it is four hours now perhaps consider lifting the block and have a word about making a case on the talk page. I think they also need some words so they understand they should get help from others by raising the issues on the talk page and at the airline project to seek other views and get help. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked them both. I don't like having to block people if it can be avoided, and these two don't seem to be intent on destruction. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I cant see any relevance to aviation in them, not sure if they would have any relevance elsewhere other than a source for the signatures. I notice that Wright brothers already has signatures in the infobox, although entwined in history it is also a bit strange that the brothers dont have individual articles! MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Milborne, would you happen to have a source that lists the radio call names of the various Sector Controls during the Battle of Britain? We have an article that lists the commands, and the radio names of the squadrons, but not the sectors, groups, etc. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Milborne I'm concerned about your entries into the operators section on the Westland Wessex article. You've added the Bangladesh Air Force and Oman's Air Force as user's of the type, with references. However I did some searching for an on-line source, and found nothing. Oman 1974, 1987, and 1994 - Bangladesh (purportedly rec'd in 1973) although in 1974 no sign of them, as well in 1976 and in 87. Perhaps they were used for mechanical training, or something else other than actual use. Could you double check your sources - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem first Bangaldesh where I have found another one from "Fleet Air Arm Helicopter since 1943":
XT452 Struck-off charge by the Royal Navy on 10 August 1972 and refurbished by Westlands for Bangladesh government and first flown as a Mk 5A on 22 February 1973 as "WA274". Delivered to RNAS Yeovilton for onward delivery to Bangladesh 23 February 1973.
XT478 Struck-off charge by the Royal Navy on 10 November 1972, First flown as "WA300" and donated to the Bangladesh government 27 February 1973. To Yeovilton for onward delivery 28 February 1973.
I suspect they were air freighted out to Bangaldesh. Not so reliable http://www.helis.com/database/modelorg/91/ says they were operated until 1994. Far more reliable http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1975/jan/15/bangladesh#S5CV0884P0_19750115_CWA_195The aircraft were handed over in March 1973 and 12 months' supply of spares was provided. In the autumn of 1973 specialist advice was given on the spot to the Bangladesh Air Force on the control, storage and issue of spares, and a further list of items required was identified and subsequently ordered. One aircraft has been grounded since January 1974 for lack of a calibrated torque transducer unit which proved extremely difficult to replace. A twelve months' supervisory and training consultancy paid for by Britain ended in April 1974. At the end of July 1974 the Bangladesh authorities, then having other helicopters available, decided that they had no further use for the British helicopters and asked us to help find a prospective buyer. This search is now going on. In view of their decision, most available outstanding spares were sent to Bangladesh at the end of August, the rest being sent in October. Altogether spares cost about £190,000. The supply of these helicopters has to be seen as only a small part of our total aid effort to Bangladesh.MilborneOne (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I guess they were an "under the radar type of acquisitions". Anyhow just wanted to make sure they (sources) were on the up and up - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we have a lot missing! I dont think we actually have a plan were slowly working through the more obvious accidents that are missing as we come across them, we can get some good results if we work as a team as you can see different users bring slightly different angles and experience to each article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MilborneOne, I found an image of the prototype A400M you did at the page Airbus A400M Atlas and I want to ask you if you can give me the honour of considering this image suitable for mass copying or for sale (I want to display a little version of this image in a website), I request the courtesy of advance notice through my Wikimedia Talk page. Thank you.
The second prototype A400M, Grizzly 2, at the 2010 Farnborough Airshow
Thank you very much for your quick answer. I studied the Commons License Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) [3] but I thought if it were possible, I would prefer to ask you for an authorisation/permission of use to confirm the information. I have another question, if you don't mind : Can I put you as an author and mention the Commons License as a watermark in the photo? I wanted to use the original photo and put the credits as "By MilborneOne. Source: Wikipedia.org. License: Creative Commons - CC BY-SA 3.0". Do you think that it's correct? Did you want more information in the credits? Thank you for your support. Leticiazm (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, would you mind if I nominated this at DYK? I think there's more to add, but as usual, there's a time limit on new articles at DYK, so we'd only have a couple more days... What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a question, it looks like (from the Italian article), a search was conducted by air using a "AB-205", this redirects to Bell Iroquois on this Wikipedia but has no mention of AB-205. Firstly is that an omission from the Huey article, and secondly, should we add this into the article linking the the Iroquois? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Agusta-Bell 205 is mentioned in both the Bell UH-1 Iroquois and in the Bell 204/205 article, it gets a bit confusing as it was decided to list all the military models under the American military designation which is not technically correct sometimes but it is probably a factor of our American/Military-centric bias! MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a bit about some British diving support from Malta at the recovery operation as it did take a bit of time, it was in the London Times but didnt really give much detail. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a reply there too. This is a lot of sources on the Superpowers that were removed Dec 28, 2013[[4]] on that article that has been under a lot of heat since Dec 28, 2013. I find it offensive to an editor to call Russian Nationalist for POV pushing (I'm not Russian but the comment made is racist). I stated in my earlier comments on a thread left on Acroterion[5]. The point is, there's a problem with the newer version, it removes too much sources and clearly is sending the message in the wrong direction on edits made by one editor[6] 23:14, 30 December 2013 by Antiochus the Great (talk | contribs)(37,169 bytes)(-4,976)(tidy-up, re structure and paragraphing). I will note, there was no prior talk on these edits, it was push with discussion. Too much at once, is clearly wrong for this article.
Comments here left on Acroterion:
You can start another dicussion but you appear to be in the mess of the edit war Antiochus the Great. Acroterion I sent Antiochus the Great on his talk page to appear of using another ip and engaged in an edit war using the ip 109.76.220.159 and Antiochus the Great of POV pushing but he quickly removes my comments[7]. I looked at the history of the Superpowers[8] and Superpowers talk[9] but the result has been under edit war since Dec 28[10] and the discussion has been minor on there part. If you start with an edit, then talk first but the action Antiochus the Great has taken has been too much and no real discussion for such. There are disagreements but that is not stoping edit push. I think there is no resolution if this continues like what I see here[11][12][13][14] as this matter was never discussed, it just appeared without any talk, this is a problem.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get Russian national POV? I'm born and live in America. I have read Wikipedia's policy on maintaining POV and appeared to be using as required.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found out about the Met Police using islanders from many different aviation sources which WP would consider unreliable, so i can't add them as references. But to say it's unlikely and speculation is nonsense as i took time to research my edit beforehand. i didn't think lack of a reliable source would matter on that page, since there's so few sources for other operators on that page. I don't believe it's a huge claim i'm making by simply saying the raf operate islanders for the met police. I could of left it as them being just operators instead of clarifying my edit if that's less of a claim to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepygristle (talk • contribs) 18 January 2014 22:16
No we dont do speculation on Wikipedia and if you have a reliable source that the Met Police operate Islanders then you need to provide it. If somebody else is operating the Islanders then it is not relevant to a List of Britten-Norman Islander operators. The unlikely is that I could believe that that anything the Islanders find is probably shared with other agencies but that is not the same as saying they work directly for the Metropolitan Police (who unreliable sources say have there own airborne assests) and the chances of finding a reliable source on intelligence sharing or gathering are probably zero. Please sign your post, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MB1: This article seems to have become the target for persistent IP vandalism recently. I was wondering if I could trouble you to semi-protect it for a while? - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the they dont like the criticism section which I have to say is a large part of the article, so perhaps we could look at it against weight and importance on the talk page and see if we get any IP input. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I deduced who the culprit is from observing their editing behavior and style, they're a registered editor, if I am correct. I made a response to an earlier conversation on this topic at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II; if it's the same guy the whole time he's been doing this for 18 months now without getting a clue. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clues, I did leave a message (for the second time) at the IP saying this was disruptive, the user makes so many edits it is difficult to unstitch the reference changes. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is continuing to make mass changes to reference formats of articles, and appears to be ignoring your request to stop these changes. In some of the changes, the editor is actually changing the title of references.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to the new title. I think tThe changes Fox is referring to are in the article itself. The problem is that Alex has changed links in several places that link to outside sources, such as Commons, which was not changed, or external websites. In some cases, the changes are anachronistic, in that they refer to past incidents or events. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not always depends on how different the two "companies" are, with a simple name change we dont usually have two articles, if we have enough "historic" material it may be worth keeping a "Eurocopter" article, that said it should really be discussed on the article talk page to gain a consensus. (with Aérospatiale it just wasnt a name change but it had merged into what was really a new company). MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The 1992 Eurocopter merger included DASA's helicopter assets, including the MBB Bo 105 and BK 117. Note that I created a separate Airbus Group article instead of moving EADS for the exact reasons Milb1 laid out, but the articles have since been controversially merged. - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I check all the modif and perhaps I miss some mistakes... but for the page title, it is only redirection...
regarding difference between aerospatiale and eurocopter, it was not the same company but eurocopter and airbus helicopters are the same it is just a renaming; idem for eads and airbus group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGyss (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you need to understand we dont rename the articles on products just because the company name has changed, many of the products are better known or were built under the previous company name. You need to discuss each one on its merits on the talk pages before moving, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MilborneOne. I thought I should let you know that the wikiarticle about "Eric Butler-Henderson" has been nominated for use in the "Did you know..." (DYK) section on Wikipedia's MainPage. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. You may want to keep an eye on the nomination in case reviewers at DYK have comments or questions regarding your edits. Thanks. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alitalia incident removal due to offshore aircraft ownership
Don't really care to fight you on this but I figure that when Alitalia customers buy tickets for an Alitalia flight, from Alitalia, then board an Alitalia liveried plane for a domestic Italian flight unaware the aircraft is in fact being wet leased from a Romanian carrier with a not so brilliant reputation then this does in fact have something to do with Alitalia.
It is fairly standard practice to make passengers think they have bought tickets with a major airline only to carried by a smaller airline, the poor folks on Colgan Air Flight 3407 though they were flying with Continental for example. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of English People: Monarchs
Hello MilborneOne. I do understand your view that people not born in England should not be listed in a list of "English People". However, in the case of monarchs of England, I don't actually agree with it. If a person becomes the king or queen of England, -- in effect the chief or leading person of England, then in my book that alone qualifies the person as an English person, wherever he or she was born, or whatever the national origins of his or her parents, or whatever his or her principal mother-tongue. I did think about this before I made my edits. I should be very happy for the appropriate names to be annotated with brief comments such as "born in France". In fact, I considered putting in some such annotations myself, but I don't have the knowledge to do that and would have needed to research it. I started by adding Lady Jane Grey, and then I happened to notice that there are other omissions, and I started adding one or two, and then I realized that many were omitted and I ended up spending more time on it than I ought to have spent just now. I wasn't originally intending to do anything other than a very minor edit !!! I'm really sorry if you feel I am messing-up the item. Certainly not my intention at all. Anyway, I have explained my view (my own personal view of course, but it seems to me to be a fair and reasonable one) as to why I have regarded those I have entered as "English People". If the prevailing view is that those not originating from/in England should be omitted, then so be it. It's not something I would want to get into a long discussion over. I hope this note explains what I have done, and why I did it. I noticed that some of the entries were listed with their birth-dates and others were listed with the date they became monarch. So, I took the opportunity of trying to resolve this inconsistency. In the case of the current monarch Elizabeth II, I have shown birth date as well. Once again, my apologies if by inserting some of the names I have insereted I have done something you don't agree with, and particularly if you feel strongly about it. Diakonias (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
POSTSCRIPT: By the way, I did not intentionally reverse your deletions. I wouldn't have done that knowingly. What happened is this. After I had made one or two edits, I carried on editing, adding further monarchs, and making other editorial adjustments, and when I came to take a "preview" I noticed that some entries I had made were not showing. I assumed I must have made a mistake and not pressed the "save" button, so re-typed them. It never for a moment occurred to me that another editor might have already deleted my work. (I'm not very experienced on wiki editing). So, I APOLOGISE sincerely for reinstating things you had already deleted. As I say, I did not reverse your edits knowingly. I just assumed I must have never saved some of my edits in the first place. Having said that, actually, I am a bit surprised to find that someone would deliberately delete another person's work without first engaging in some form of discussion about the matter and allowing time for that discussion to be responded to, but clearly you are a very experienced wiki editor and I am certainly not, far from it, and I'm sure you know the courtesies and protocols of wiki far far and away better than I do. Diakonias (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, but if for example you are German-born to a German family and become King of England it still in my book doesnt make you English. Certainly since 1707 you cant become English you have to be born English, you would become British instead. I will take this to the relevant talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
747-8 operators images as reference
Why are photos not reliable, they are actual pictures showing the aircraft at real airports from authentic databases, in some cases with summary, not like destinations lists where I can understand photos are not allowed as it could be a one off charter flight, VIP service or a diversion or for maintenance that the airline visited that place. Also who is the author of the 748 article, every bit of relevant missing information needs to be there but an editor is removing it, some additional operators and identified BBJ customers have been deleted, so have cancelled orders by Emirates and Guggenheim aviation, these could be mentioned somewhere, an MoU of Hong Kong airlines is not there either, why do have to look it up elsewhere? that article is model specific and is dealing with the last version of a historic aircraft, there are not many customers, or cancellations etc. so all such information should be in there with reference.115.167.86.79 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Photos require some sort of interpretation so are not reliable, having an image of an aircraft painted in a particularly colo(u)r scheme is not evidence that they own or operate the aircraft. Anybody can paint an aircraft with anything or even photoshop images they are just not reliable. Remember that information needs to be reliable referenced and also notable and not trivia. Nobody owns any of the articles they are created by consensus of all users, if you have any particularly questions about the Boeing 747-8 article then can I ask you to raise it on the related talk page Talk:Boeing 747-8. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Helen Skelton
Helen Skelton does not hold any world records. She may hold Guinness records but they are not the same thing. It is therefore not wrong to remove the part of her article claiming she holds world records, but it is however wrong to revert correct edits because they come from an unregistered user. ASSUME GOOD FAITH. If you want to reword the part of the article to indicate that she merely holds Guinness records then that would be the right thing to do.
Anyone could publish their own list of records, but it wouldn't mean they hold a world record. I'll demonstrate that here with my personal list of records:
1. Fastest 100m Sprint: Me with 61.875 seconds. I was eating a kebab at the time and didn't want to drop it, but I still managed to set the record. My list does not recognise the legitimacy of Mr Usain Bolt or indeed any other human being on the planet.
2. Individual with the greatest number of lifetime sexual partners. Me with 4 (and a half). Real proud of that one.
3. Heaviest object lifted by man. Me and my friend (joint) with one side each of a 2 seat sofa. We moved this from one room to the other recently and I swear it must be at least twice as heavy as anything those strong men have to carry.
4. Wikipedia admin with the worst understanding of Wikipedia policy and therefore most likely to lose admin rights in the near future: MilborneOne & Nthep (JOINT)
I'll leave it to you to go edit any articles to include these new records.
I debated how to title the article for RAF Wing, as I considered on the possible confusion with an RAF wing (unit). I appreciate you shifting it to the non-dab header. I decided it was time for someone to create this one as I had already discovered that the station red-linked in other articles I had worked on. I am little bit wary of the 1956 closure date, however. With 26 OTU disbanded on 4 March 1946, that sounds more likely a year for the station to close. Background info on RAF Wing is not widely available I found while compiling the article. Sub*
Evening MilborneOne. I've recently stumbled into ScaleSoaring's library and realized they have digitized some very useful, citable and interesting pre-war foreign aircraft books, mostly German though one is in Russian. They cover powered aircraft as well as gliders and some have lots of data as well as photos and 3-views on 1930s types and earlier. How do I go about determining if these images are out of copyright? I'm not even sure which are more important, the laws in the source country or of the country in which WikiP (USA?) is published. Image sources like these, digitized or on paper, would be very valuable if legal. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a minefield but Template:PD-URAA says it has to be in the public domain in the source country before 1996 and Image copyright (Germany) says that copyright expires 50 years after publication which is anything before 1946. Although like everything to do with copyright this is just my take on it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Links Air
I set up a page on Links Air - they';re a scheduled airline in the UK, currently as a charter carrier abut beginning scheduled in April 2014. I note the page was deleted - I'm not able to get it back myself. Do you think you could take a look at this ? Many Thanks Pmbma (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Pmbma[reply]
It doesnt appear to be that notable just s small charter operator with three aircraft, I have put it at User:Pmbma/Links Air so you can work on it and perhaps when it starts scheduled services it might be worth moving back into the main encyclopedia. Try and find some media coverage to show the flights are notable and anything else you can find first. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cares more about notability than whether a fact is true. The article Coast Guard One just barely rises up out of the noise of non-notability, because of one related event involving the call sign Coast Guard Two. NOAA One has no such benefit. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you.
Seemed to have upset User:Dark Liberty priceless bit was the edit summary "you are not an admin. there is no free version either on the Internet or foreign web sites. if you want to make a change, ask for permission and find a replacement image." MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who is upset at the changes Kyteto and I made to the article and could not tolerate it any furthur. If you don't like the changes, you vandalize. Typical "If-I-don't-like-what-I-see-I-rage" behavior. Did you go to your lodge meeting this week? Dark Liberty (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the former myself, as I'm much more of a caveman. It the next step after from the YCMA (Young Cave Men's Association). But do they even have those kinds of lodges in Britain? I always thought those were unique to US/North American culture. Not that the OP even knows where Milb1 is from. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Travelodge is still in business and they have facilities in the UK. I stayed at ones in the US when I was younger. Maybe that counts as a lodge experience. I am happy to see they still use a sleepy bear as part of their logo....William01:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. And many hotels have meeting rooms, and Milb1 has probably attened a meeting of some sort at a hotel at some point in his life. Since hotels are lodges in one sense, he probably did attend a "lodge" meeting without realizing it. :) - BilCat (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I followed your suggestion, summarized the situation on the article talk page, invited William to discuss ... and he did not. Again. Could you please unprotect the article so that I can make the change one more time, and perhaps warn William not to revert it unless he's willing to discuss his objection to a fair compromise? Thanks, DoctorJoeEreview transgressions/talk to me!22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood DoctorJoE I would just wait a few more hours as WilliamJE is offline at the moment, if he does not respond I will release the article later today. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Milborne, the only person who chimed[16] in on this topic at the WikiProject Baseball talk page Where I went seeking other opinions last month, said- It is not for us to present the opinion of a book writer as though it is fact. If you have conflicting sources, you can't list it as being truth. I don't like being accused of not doing something that I actually did. Joe accused me multiple times of 'refuses to discuss'. That's total bullshit because I am the one who started the thread I linked to in this post. He ignores that and the fact the only person to reply doesn't support him....William17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that WilliamJE and I have asked at the Baseball project if anybody else has any other opinions to use the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
William, you have still not rendered an opinion on my compromise proposal, after multiple requests. The "only person to reply" hasn't done so either. And just for the record, one person does not constitute a consensus. DoctorJoeEreview transgressions/talk to me!17:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I never did get an answer. Thanks for unblocking the article. I have decided that this passive/aggressive nonsense is not worth the effort for one sentence, even an accurate sentence (see article's talk page). And for the record, "consensus" is a mythical state of utopian human evolution; many scholars of Wikipedian theology theorize that if consensus is ever reached on any subject, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear. Cheers, DoctorJoeEreview transgressions/talk to me!16:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You got your answer and multiple times- No. You just don't like it and for that I got to receive personal attacks from you. Like your passive aggressive comment above. My wife had gall bladder surgery last Monday afternoon and there was a notice on my talk page about it. I also stopped commenting because it was a waste of time. Nobody supported you at WikiProject Baseball but took silence as support. What kind of fancy term do you have for that? How about this- The only support you have for putting the bs in the article comes from an account[17] that very interestingly has made 23 edits, 21 of which are related to you and the two others are concerning his talk or user page. Is something very odd going on around here?...William19:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the two crew had not asked to work together was specifically mentioned at today's press conference. The implication was that this is something that is possible on Malaysia Airlines. If suspicion has fallen on the crew, as it has, the fact that they appear not to have been working together strikes me as very relevant. Please reinstate. Roundtheworld (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the problems that I have caused. I didn't know you were an admin, and I didn't see your good faith edits. Please be assured that this will not happen again.
haha, but that was funny.
Also, I would like to affirm that the speculative material were added by someone else perhaps vying for a non-objective bent on the article. I trust your decisions as an editor. In addition, I believe Kyteto has shortened the article a little to much, and perhaps too quickly over a short period of time, but his professionalism stands. I don't think there is anything to add to the article until we have more updates from Mr. Erickson, he won't write about it because the information is classified.
However, I would like to let you know I will upload the picture soon because I believe the picture doesn't really fit any criteria previous images fell under free-use; basically the image is not replaceable - you can't really fly a plane at that angle for such a high-res image. As a pilot, you are aware of the technical challenges in taking images in-flight.
The community generally is in favor of a picture - A lot of people thanked me (not on my profile) for that particular edit - taking the time on the span of several days of filtering, checking through images and the copyright criteria to find a non-free image. Also, the image was taken directly from CCTV.com itself, so it counts as public domain - I think I did not mention this and that was why you believed the grounds to be iffy. Let me know your thoughts on this here on this thread, because you are the expert.
Left them two warning, one for conflict of interest (as they declared they work for AgustaWestland) and another for behaviour, see how they react but if they continue they may need a holiday from wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First you remove two refs commenting that they are not needed here, then u remove the info those refs were supporting, saying it is not supported by any ref, in your next edit. A trout, and cheers! Anir1uph | talk | contrib22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks fair cop on the Do 228 but certainly no mention of Tu 142s anywhere, I did say on the article talk page the edit was in good faith and could have mistakes, it was a bit of a mess with three or four references to the same facts and the large number of references doesnt help editing. I have removed two more refs you added as the 228s are actually covered by the ref used for the Herk. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I only restored the Dornier bit. The Tu 142s must have been added in error by someone else. The sheer number of edits on the article and talk page made it difficult from me to track down issues there itself! I usually add two refs to support something even slightly controversial (even three sometimes, when i am in doubt), hoping that more experienced chaps like you would finally select the best ref of the lot. Cheers! Anir1uph | talk | contrib23:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, these two businesses made aero engines under licence during World War I. I am unable to find what engines they made or quantities. Are you able to supply that information? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Hooker Limited built Gnome and Le Rhone Engines and the Newall Gauge (whatever that is), in 1917 they had a factory at Walthamstow. It has two subsidaries trading as "Gnome and Le Rhone Engine Company" and the "Newall Gauge Company". MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left off the Limited because I understood that was "deprecated" but you're most welcome to change it. "Most"? I thought I had all of that already in! (They are not subsidiaries.) Perhaps you should read it? Where I miss out please tell me. As I see it I still need two things and info about (1) is on its way (when Thomas bought into Hooker's) and I hoped (why I write to you) you could tell me about (2) which is Hookers and Gwynnes, the engines they made and the quantities of those engines. Can you help? Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on my Watchlist - and I daresay it's on yours and several others' as well; I have no doubt that any jiggery-pokery will be quickly detected. Cheers again YSSYguy (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not having been built in China is no bar to inclusion of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning (although I don't know who was operating them). There is an encyclopedic value in categorising the aircraft operating in that conflict, and also for those operated directly by the Chinese Nationalist forces. If you think that country of manufacture is an essential requirement (presumably just the Chu X-PO), the I would suggest renaming this category to clarify its actual function (I see no value in a new manufacture category, as there would be so few entries). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can I draw your attention to a 'discussion' on Optical Express with regards to a user once again trying to add content where consensus was previously agreed that it wouldn't be included. Your input would be valuable. Thanks. Hardlygone (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I didn't upset you by diving into the Avro Shackleton variants during your tea break. Please revert if you know better. 11:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to take the time to thank you personally for your recent edits on this subject, you have accomplished more than I had expected from my appeal. Kyteto (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a mild brainwave/suggestion; would those same sources of yours cover the Operational Squadrons of the HS Nimrod as well? Right now, that uses an un-cited table for delivering this info, I can't help but feel that the style used on the Shackleton article is actually more practical and detailed. No sweat if you don't have the info/time/compulsion though, and thanks for what you have been able to do once again! Kyteto (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I believe flight 107 (1953) and 178 (1954) were somehow mixed up. I think I did the right thing based on sources and French wikipedia. I noticed the mismatch when adding interwiki links through Wikidata (from NL and FR). I don't normally do much on EN wikipedia, please excuse my not following proper procedure if in fact I didn't. :)
Do you think it is right to revert lot of totally factually things I edited in India ,the only reason being it needs discussion. 1) why don't you read the 8 th schedule? of Indian constitution. There are no regional languages only terms being used are scheduled languages and recognised languages
2) caste
Try to see a advertisement for gov job or admission to any college .. You could see the details about reservation for scheduled castes ( sc) scheduled tribes ( st ) other back ward castes (obc) . caste system was not banned only caste based discrimination is . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunjmenon1 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What can one do with editors who may be unstable or just full of themselves?
Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRoNGRoN&oldid=604520139
It basically says it all. The editor IronGron became very upset when I edited an article on the A-12. I tried to correct a ambiguous sentence and was mislead by what it stated due to the ambiguity. My edit was incorrect but the original sentence was unsourced and I used my 25 years of experience as an aircraft maintainer to try to sort out what the confusing sentence was trying to state. The editors response was well under the bar of civil discourse. I have tried to address that with the editor through his talk page and it appears that the editor may be sufferring from a mental disorder based on their comments or intentionally deceptive??? So my question is how does one go about address editors who curse and are extremely uncivil? I am not well versed in wiki procedures but I understand there is a warning process but unsure of the protocol. I am not new to aircraft maintenance and never heard of an engine oil that was "solid at room temp." That is misleading in the article because it contained an additive to make it fluid. Only the base lubricant which would not of been used by itself would be between a state of a solid and liquid at room temp. The current edit is still incorrect due to a lack of technical understanding on Irongron's part. My research reveals it was heated to 70 degrees fahreheit to achieve the necessary fluidity for engine starting. It otherwise was like molasses which is still a liquid albeit to thick to ensure its flow through the lubrication system. I did my research and I put a citation needed remark and he promptly deleted it. There are many additional areas that need references. Irongrom may believe one blanket reference several paragraphs down is sufficient however the statement as it is written about the lubricant is contradicted by books and other sources about the J-58. I hesitated for a couple of days to edit the A-12 article and decided the best approach would be to request citations which Iromgron promptly deleted. Irongrom says he has not taken ownership of the article but his remarks to editors when he is working on an article, demands that I go edit something else, false accussations that I called him a wiki Nazi, and the final to go f off with other adjectives contradict that claim.
Copy of history page related to original negative tone comments below.
(cur | prev) 06:10, 15 April 2014 IRoNGRoN (talk | contribs) . . (53,763 bytes) (+69) . . (→ New Materials and production techniques - modified a sentence to prevent readers misinterpreting "operation at below 40C" to mean "minus 40C" - the oil was almost solid at room temp, so it had the diluent to be able to operate under 40C temps!!!) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:39, 15 April 2014 IRoNGRoN (talk | contribs) . . (53,694 bytes) (+15) . . (Undid revision 604258109 by 172.56.10.223 (talk) - the oils was nearly solid at room temperature, i.e 20C or so - it's well documented, that anonymous edit was absurd) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:32, 15 April 2014 172.56.10.223 (talk) . . (53,679 bytes) (-15) . . (→New materials and production techniques: Fixed a conversion from celsius to fahrenheit that the editor forgot they needed to apply negative to the equation and not state below outside of the equation.) (undo)
Irongron appears to be helpful with articles but his lack of civilty is not. He also appears to mistakely believes he is always right and other editors are just in his way. Thanks. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They could be rewritten and given proper credit. It appears IronGron copied the text. He has also made statements that it was word for word. I will do more research as many other portions may be also plagarized which bring up the question? How many other articles has IronGron done this to. This may the tip of a plagarizing iceberg. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a copyvio, but plagiarism is the unattributed use of someone else's work, regardless of copyright status,as I understand it. That's certainly frowned upon, PD or not. In these cases, it's not plagiarism, as it is properly attributed. However, we don't generally want unedited text added to articles except as direct quotes, especially from government material, which often isn't neutral or encyclopedic in style. - BilCat (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call it a copyright violation but it could be if the author loaned his brief of his book to the CIA. He may call it a copyright violation. I am not sure of the legal ramifications but it is unethical to directly copy a great deal of another source especially when not identified as a direct copy. There also appears to be much more in this article by the same editor. I am currently using valuable time researching the matter. Another point I believe wiki refers to us as editors and not copyists. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving the impression he isn't attributing at all, which isn't so, as much of the material you removed cites its sources. He may not do so in every paragraph, but that us probaly inadvertent. - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to say it is a word for word copy and is not identified as such by quotes. Hope that helps to clarify. I also bring up the question of fair use. If wiki does not have a policy about fair use that is consistent with laws and standard ethics concerning plagarism that frowns upon this I would be surprised. Outside of Wiki plagarism is directly copying anothers work and not crediting the original author by quoting the direct copy and properly referencing it. It was referenced but not quoted which would lead a reasonable person to conclude it was rewritten in one's own words. It was not. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If is the key word. People assume it is public domain if it is on a government website. If the author allowed the government to use a brief from his book under a limited license it would likely be an illegal copyright violation. It appears that the CIA websites contains information from people they employed to write the history. However there is material that is directly copied from non-government websites in the A-12 article. I am no lawyer but my informed hypothesis is that is considered a copyright violation. Its is much better to severely shun cut and paste editing to avoid legal and ethical implications. Simple copy/pasting is lazy editing at best and illegal at worst. Fair use is fine but wholesale cut and pasting is not fair use especially when it is not quoted and where it is referenced is unclear.172.56.3.134 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Below is a copy from the wiki article which is word for word from page 155 of the copyrighted book.
"The A-12’s specifications were slightly better than the Kingfish’s, and its projected cost was significantly less. Convair’s design had the smaller radar cross section, however, and CIA’s representatives initially favored it for that reason. The companies’ respective track records proved decisive. Convair’s work on the B-58 had been plagued with delays and cost overruns, whereas Lockheed had produced the U-2 on time and under budget. In addition, it had experience running a “black” project."
The author is a CIA historian David Robarge so it may be government sponsored. There are additional direct copies by the editor Irongron from the work of Robarge in the A-12 article.
BilCat you brought out another important point about encyclopedic style. Copying books directly is not encyclopedic in style as they are often written for entertainment value. I earlier challenged some of the comments in the article talk page on the grounds they did not sound encyclopedic nor accurate in technical speak. I later realized they were directly copied from the source which I brought up here. I have since realized the author is a historian who makes it clear he has no aviation technical experience. It is all coming together now that I know wrote the copied material originally. I have never seen tech manuals so vague as was written in the A-12 article. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we should not be copying text directly from copyrighted works and such text should be removed, need to deal with this on the article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Strong Case for Copyright violation
The direct copying of the below material is from the referenced secondary website which would be considered an unreliable source on its own. A further google search reveals the original author of "Sled Driver" Brian Shul wrote this in his copyrighted book ISBN0929823087. Irongron failed to notice it was from the book and thus did not give the proper source credit and also directly copied it without quotes. Irongron has demonstrated a knack for direct copying and unwittingly violating copyrighted material. After hours of research it appears most of Irogron's A-12 edits were simple cut and paste from other web sources. Again I ask is this the tip of the iceberg? Has he done this with other articles and unwittingly violated copy laws? This needs to go up further for review in my opinion. I do not have the time to check out all of the other articles IronGron edited.
"Before the Blackbird, titanium was only used in high-temperature exhaust fairings and other small parts directly related to supporting, cooling, or shaping high-temperature areas on aircraft. The Blackbird however was constructed mainly out of titanium and the rest were high-end composite materials. Because this aircraft was way ahead of its time, many new technologies had to be invented specifically for this project – some still in use today. One of the biggest problems that engineers faced at that time was working with Titanium."172.56.3.87 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we should not be copying text directly from copyrighted works and such text should be removed, need to deal with this on the article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed something rather peculiar while working away on the Handley Page Victor article today. A book written in 2012 by Kev Darling, happens to feature a paragraph absolutely identical to what was in the article. At first, I thought that someone had added a copy-violating wholesale copy+paste affair; but it turns out that the Wiki article has had the material in since April 2011, the revision history even shows it being built line by line, fully cited from various sources. It is inconceivable that it's a coincidence that line after line in the two paragraphs are word-for-word the same; at the same time I refuse to believe that the Wikipedia editor, Nigel Ish, would have done this, or even could have as it would have been taken from a book that wasn't published for the first time until over a year later! Could it be that the book's author has actually been taking material straight out of the article? It's just a little mind-boggling. Kyteto (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is such a pity, I would have though that someone with a 30 year-long writing career, not to mention two decades of RAF service, would be above scrapping whole paragraphs from other sources. You can consider me to be disappointed by such actions; I guess I just expected better. Kyteto (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern books are just another authors re-mashing of previously published information and have little or no new content, it would be easy to use a paragraph as is from a source, as you can only say the same things a limited numbers of ways, when you are under pressure from publishers to produce. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what you're saying comes from first-hand experience, and perhaps I am being too harsh. I just didn't expect to find a whole para lifted straight onto an author of this caliber's work! Thanks for taking to the time to respond to my queries. Kyteto (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the Darling book, but it's far from unusual for an author to write the body text for a book, then for other people to write image captions during the editing and publishing process. I've seen this repeatedly (from one particular publisher) done by using inexperienced junior editors to write such captions, lifting them straight from WP (and also from my own copyrighted website). Similar things happen with prefaces and appendices. It may not be the author's doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odd IP changes
Milb1, there's a series of IPs making unexplained changes to EADS CASA C-295 over the past week or so. Could you lol into this, and possibly consider semi-protection to encourage discussion? Thanks - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I would let you know that the text dump attempted twice on this article was a copyright vio from this website. I warned the IP editor about this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}