See User:SSPanjit Arun, who claims to be User:AgustinusHal. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 01:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:companies is subcategory of Category:Organizations by legal status SoSivr ( talk) 00:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Serial sockpuppeteer is back again, this time as IP 118.101.61.104 [1] - Now calling me, and others, ISIS terrorists and such. Can we get some assistance here? Hate to bug you, but you are familiar with him. Thanks! Scr★pIron IV 14:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
We know you working with ISIS.ISIS Is now working with Israel,UK And USA.We will find you and put you in the jail.14:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
And, of course,
User:Eagle Striker and
User:Eagle Striker 2 are also socks of this user
[2] - I hadn't reported because they weren't editing, but clearly coming into the open now per that edit. We could use the mop... Cleanup in Aisle 3...
seriously, thanks in advance
Scr★pIron
IV 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
After a long absence, he's back!! - BilCat ( talk) 09:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I edit a website which aims to provide a neutral, non-commercial but helpful introduction to the subject of regulation - now a huge activity in most countries. (I am an ex-civil servant and ex-regulator.) I thought it would be helpful to add four links from Wikipedia - e.g. to a page explaining the background to the current argument about who pays for any third London airport runway. Others were about water/environmental regulation. The links were then deleted. If, after further thought, you decide they would be OK, I will reinstate them. Otherwise let's forget it!
Ukcivilservant ( talk) 13:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That's helpful - many thanks.
Ukcivilservant ( talk) 13:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: this, I fully expect to be reverted shortly by that user, who almost always re-reverts several times before discussing. Can you try to head him off first? Thanks. Honestly, he is a problem editor with poor English-language skills, and a proven lack of discernment when it comes to judging what is encyclopedic, and is prone to nationalist/manufacturer-ist fanboy contributions, which this one certainly is. Any thoughts about pursuing an RFC-user (if those still exist)? - BilCat ( talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
See this diff, with the edit summary "rmv opinion/OR template". Hopefully it's a one-time edit. - BilCat ( talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Another editor has made a similar edit here. I smell a storm coming. - BilCat ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Troll/vandal calling itself "captain sparkles" has shown up again. Also doing BLP vios. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop changing the airdate for S15E02 Terror in San Francisco to TBA. See http://natgeotv.com/uk/air-crash-investigation/about
Also Fatal Transmission aired 1/6/16 at http://www.natgeotv.com.au/tvguide/?day=2016-01-06 Tntad ( talk) 05:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello I am the same person from the reference section who done edits from january to april and I propose a potential demerger between Hal amca and Amca programme as in the start part of development section it crates confusion, I purpose that a potential de merger between the above two parts will help to reduce confusion, as the previous design section should kept as it helps to understand the development of the programme but in different article of Amca programme totally separate from Hal Amca which would indeed help to reduce confusion between the article and help to grow in proper direction for both proposed different article,I have posted same on the Hal Amca talk page. I would like your opinion on the proposed demarge. 1.39.10.180 ( talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so Hal Amca is part of Amca programme which just not includes the aircraft but also includes many other aspects like engine radar avonics previous design were not just developed step by step but also at same time competing with each other so the previous design are not same but different design computing each other for the finalized design. 1.39.10.180 ( talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Amca programme is comprable to JSF and ATF programme which included two prototypes similar to current Amca plan and Amca Technology Demonstrator will have major difference over production aircraft. Amca programme evolved out of MCA programme which initially started to developed 4.5 generation aircraft later evolved to 5 generation and after some time evolved into Amca programme.
1.39.10.32 ( talk) 07:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Michael, looks like Phil M is back at Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
BushRanger has blocked and tagged. Thanks, BR! - BilCat ( talk) 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the incorrect callsign, didn't thinking to check the FAA for it's correctness. Anzmibu ( talk) 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Michael: We're having persistent IP vandalism on Meredith effect. Can we please get it "semi-protected" for 30 days or so? - Ahunt ( talk) 03:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This one appears to be a vandal-only account, and their only edit so far bears that out. Does it even need to be reported first, or can it be blocked outright? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Good morning, could you please delete and SALT Sarabjit Roy. User recreated this to bypass a previous SALT on the correct spelling. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I contest the speedy deletion and explained and provided many refrences that name "Sarabjit" Roy is common name also for Roy, so you are wrong to delete my hard works, and what is SALT ? also I would like the copy of all the deleted materials for future improvment for this story. So I'm asking you give me all versions of this artcile and all the edits I made plus I want the artcile talk comments also.
Can you tell what code like A6 or G7 was used for speed Delete. I need it to appeal. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYYadav ( talk • contribs)
Hi, Since your semi-protect expired, Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta has been constantly warred over by an IP editor. Would you mind taking a look at the history to see if it needs further protection? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne, If you have time could you take a look at this editors recent additions? I've reverted his edits and warned him twice but he won't reply. Thanks Samf4u ( talk) 14:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Evening,
Don't forget the bottom of the table has a number of un-alphabeticalized airfields that an IP editor has added previously. Gavbadger ( talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, MilborneOne.
Those Canada and Other ones were moved from the Royal Flying Corps page, as there is a comment there that says: ""
So, I moved them. Also I notice you have removed links to RAF Squadron pages and removed citations to www.raf.mod.uk for the (Night) Training Sqns. If the dates and locations match your book, and as the RAF website says on each Squadron History page 'formed as a Night Training Sqn'(which they all do) was it fair to remove them with the comments "remove link - no connection" and 'dont appear to be mentioned in reference provided' ?
I'm glad to have piqued your (and GavBadger's) interest in this page and other pages I have been working on. As I have no intention of creating and account and apparently have a dynamic IP address that changes at least daily, I'll leave up it to you as you won't be able to contact me. Didn't want to start an edit war !
92.30.138.142 ( talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
First flight on Amca[edit]
Hello I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page. First flights section in the info box recently had been effected by edit war as the user Aryan Indian tried to put entry date around 2030 that looks like uncronstive, he is trying helping editing any helping Amca article but need guidance and look like he is not fimilar with the wikipedia rule. It's better to leave the flight reference out of info box, but should be in other part of article with reference as it helps to understand programme development, But it be kept out of infobox as it look like speculative as Bilcat has already mentioned.
1.39.10.42 ( talk) 04:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne,
Currently there is an ongoing issue at Nashville International Airport regarding persistent IP vandalism and unexplained removal of content. Since you are one of the few admins that edits aviation/airport related articles, I thought it'd be best to let you know about the situation so it could be handled properly.
Current discussions about the IP vandals:
[ WT:Airports] [ WP:AIV]
Thanks! Nodayrt ( talk) 05:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That was probably one of those unexpected dives that 707s and KC-135s were prone to, in addition to control problems at low speeds on landing. There were several training accidents where 707 crews lost control in the late 50s and early 60s. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Michael, could you (or another admin) look at User talk:Mike V#IPBE Questions? This admin has taken it upon himself to remove IP Block Exemptions from a slew of users, apparently without any discussion beforehand with any of the users involved. I'm not sure how best to handle the situation, but I've not done anything to warrant the IPBE removal. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
His explanation at removal was "Removing IPBE, no longer affected by blocks", but how does he know that? Odd. - BilCat ( talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
North American P-51 Mustang and talk page being hit by a single-issue POV warrior bent on proving that the Mustang was British. We've had people pushing this POV on the talk page before, and it may even be the same person. Semi-protection on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my image of the FA-50 in the article. The newer image is posted by the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines saying shows the planes in action (escorting the President's plane). The old image is an image from the Korean Air Force in Flickr saying that its a test flight of the aircraft. Are you sure the individual plane (of the older picture) are meant for the Philippine Air Force and not the Republic of Korea Air Force? Sure the old image is better aesthetically but the newer image definitely shows individual aircraft owned by the Philippine Air Force. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Michael, for several days, a number of IPs have been making the same annoying edits to AgustaWestland AW139, despite being reverted by several editors. Not sure it's worth the trouble of semi-protection, but not sure what else to do here. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like this IP range a has a long history of POV and edit warring. See User talk:Murry1975/IP.86. for some of the history. - BilCat ( talk) 19:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne. I've been doing a lot of work over on the Saab 37 Viggen article, and it feels like a lot of progress has been made with the overhaul. I was wondering if you would happen to have any good material for the Operators section? You seem to have been good for sourcing this kind of information in the past, but I'm running dry on this now. Anyhow, thanks for reading. Kyteto ( talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Please set an expiration date. Protecting an article indefinitely is never a good idea. 62.228.200.32 ( talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MilborneOne: I saw you mention a delete to Wormwood Scrubs Royal Naval Air Station because of a link already being there. But, that link was put in by me & there was no link before I edited the article. All I should like to know is whether consistent rules and transparency are being maintained throughout Wikipedia? Please advise. L'honorable ( talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Michael, could you look at M-84? User:Читалац started removing and adding photos, claiming "has been removed as impropriate", but refused to explain further. Then User:BobNesh showed up and started reverting my reverts without a good explanation, only parroting my own edit summaries. Not sure what's going on here, but it might be some sort of Croatian/Serbian rivalry. I'm far past 3RR on this, but the users' refusals to give sensible explanations are odd. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— JetKonnect —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — LeoFrank Talk 16:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Michael, there's an (apparently static) IP user edit warring to make unnecessary changes to existing styles, such as in the refs section, to Boeing 707. Could you loomk into semi-protecting the article to encourage discussion and/or blocking the user if necessary? Thanks for your consideration. - BilCat ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Good evening. You have undone my contribution to Fokker 100 subsection " Accidents and incidents". The reasoning was: "Doesn't appear to be particularly notable". While there were no injuries or deaths and the damage to the plane was reportedly minimal, doesn't the fact of a landing gear malfunction qualify as an incident (although even the video [1] of that landing was quite pedestrian)? Of the last 8 entries in that section 6 were related to landing gear malfunction (granted, generally with more damage to planes and with an occasional death/injury). There seems to be a trend. Any toughts on revising your decision? IvanTheRussian ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Thanks for the cleanup on that, and feel free to pull his talk page access per this. Also, I modified the template since you told him you indeffed him, so feel free to correct it if it is wrong. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many places, nowdays in Ukraine, where it is not clear to whom they belong ethnicaly. But not Kiev. That case is very sensitive and important. Try to write it another way, but do it well, not just revert. I'll try to explain: I come from Warsaw, Poland. In the 19th century Warsaw has been occuped by Russia. Same as Kiev and most of Ukraine. The difference is for how many ages the Russian occupation lasted. But it has alway been an occupation. Until 1790, in Kiev it was not allowed to print books in Ukrainian. When Sikorsky was born, the Ukrainian language was officialy not called "a national language", but only a "simple peasant's dialect". When Sikorsky has been arleady a great aircraft constructor, Russsians have been killing Ukrainians by many millions, with the artifficial hunger. Now... If you would write that "Warsaw is present-day Poland", Polish would feel offended. They would explain to you that Warsaw has always been Poland, not only "present-day". Just try to find more precise, neutral description for Kiev too. I'ts been the heart Ukrainian nation, for a period of at least 1.200 years. -- Grb16 ( talk) 23:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 3445 looks like a pretty clear delete. You may want to close the AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne. Regarding the full protection of the article, I think you should take a look at Nofil Jawed ( talk · contribs)'s disruptive behaviour across it, along with the one at Shaheen Air (where the user is well over WP:3RR even after having been warned of this) and Shaheen Air destinations. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I just made a post [3] to Administrator Bbb23's talk page about a editor. After posting, I learned Bbb23 is away from Wikipedia right now. Can you please handle it? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Michael, User:Kentwood12, whom you've reverted elsewhere, keeps re-adding Virgin America fleet info to Alaska Air Group. Could you drop him a line about this please? I doubt I could be civil with him at this time. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 18:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
He just re-added it again, and I've already reverted him twice. Facepalm He probably doesn't read the edit summaries. He looks to be autoconfirmed, so semi-protection won't stop him, but it might be useful anyway, as IPs have been adding similar to both articles. Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, yes there is definitely edit warring, but it is coming from the other side; I edit a page like normal, and that person comes along and takes out part of the article, something that they had never done before now, which is mysterious and unnerving. You've only heard their side so far. That person has had issues with several editors, and when the editors try to talk to that person, that person pulls out the old "you're personally attacking me" line. I have made no person attacks, in fact I have not even communicated with that person. I've been going about my editing like normal, setting up pages a year in advance as is the way it is usually done for the golf related pages that are of significance, and that person suddenly has decided, after years of pages being set up in the usual manner, that is suddenly isn't acceptable to them. Keeping in mind a couple of things; first, that that person never even edits the pages in question and so hasn't a reason to even concern themself after so many years, and two, that person has a history of being blocked 8 times for making trouble and has been warned in recent months that they might be blocked again if trouble persists. ... Myself, I don't go around making trouble for people in here, I've been making the golf pages in the manner as I always have, putting in information that could change over time, and there has never been any problem with this, but only suddenly, unexpectedly, and for no good reason. Even the most active golf editor in Wikipedia never had a problem with it either (an editor that the person in question has also had a run in with in recent months). ... If there had ever been a serious issue with the way that the annual golf pages were set up, it would have been raised years ago, and it would have definitely been raised by the most active golf editor in Wikipedia. .. You've seen fit to give me a warning without knowing the whole story. Now that you know my side, I'm sure you'll see fit to issue a warning to that person as well, for unnecessarily continuing to delete valid information from an article. As I said, the contents I put in an article when setting it up is the way that I've been doing it for a long time without trouble. This new resistance to it from that person is odd and unprovoked. Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 00:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
(1) "This pettiness and nonsense will not be tolerated." That's a personal attack, and indeed that entire paragraph is an ad hominem attack against the editor, as opposed to his action.
(2) Your response here reeks of WP:OWN. Any editor has the right to edit any article you create or any edits you make yourself; every page you edit states "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone ..." No one needs your permission to do so, and there's nothing sinister in someone editing your work who'd never edited your work before.
(3) Nor is there anything sinister in none of your golf articles never having been sent up to AfD before, although there's nothing about golf which is immune to the deletion process (I've AfDed NN golf-related articles myself). The obvious answer to your incredulity that "suddenly" this CRYSTAL violation isn't suitable to anyone is that no one had noticed before. With over five million articles on Wikipedia, this happens a lot, and you're neither the first nor the first hundredth editor I've encountered who imagined "No one's tried to delete/edit any of my stuff before!!" to be a valid defense at AfD.
(4) Speaking of precedent ... I see from your talk page that this is not, in fact, the first time you've run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL; there's a caution from another editor on your doing so two years ago. This is not, in fact, the first time you've had dealings with William or that he's edited golf pages; he put a warning template on your talk page last year asking for the reason you deleted information from a PGA article, since you failed to leave an edit summary, and he's commented to your talk page regarding golf articles several times over the course of the last five years. This is not, in fact, the first time you've had dealings at deletion: you've HAD more than one article AfDed and numerous articles prodded, and you've filed at least one AfD.
(5) Finally, to your assertion that there's nothing wrong with the article and that it's being AfDed for No Good Reason (a retort I hear more often from my teacher wife's grade school students than from grown adults, I fear), it also can't have escaped your notice that the unanimous opinion of every editor other than yourself who's commented so far is for deletion, all on TOOSOON/CRYSTAL grounds. Obviously, you don't agree, but that neither makes the reason invalid nor constitutes persecution of any sort. Ravenswing 01:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne,
A quick query for you, as I recall you were one of the editors who contributed to the various discussions at the time regarding the inclusion of destination maps in airport articles. I recently removed such a map at the Lisbon Portela Airport article, citing project consensus not to include, but a user challenged me (fairly enough) to show where such consensus was reached and for the life of me I can't find anything too definitive in the former discussions. I'm sure the conclusion not to include was reached, but as the project guide was not updated it would be useful to point to that discussion. As an aside, such a map has also found its way onto the London City Airport page, but I want to hold off removing until this is clarified. Thanks for any assistance. SempreVolando ( talk) 11:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The recently deleted and salted article 2017 WGC-Dell Match Play has re-appeared as 2017 WGC Dell Match Play. 40.138.97.1 ( talk) 16:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I am looking for another editor who is somewhat interested and knowledgeable about airlines and willing to act as a collaborator on the American Airlines article. You come to mind. Actually, somebody did come to mind, but they are not interested in airlines at all, merely aircraft.
What I seek is someone with knowledge, good judgment, good temper, and willing to edit at least 3 minutes per week on the article. Someone with very good judgement can act as a mentor and also to occasionally add something. I am willing to direct assigned tasks as well as do tasks assigned to me. Usually, most work won't be assigned at all.
Are are willing to help? There are not such people who frequent the article at the present time. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
G'day MB, I find myself involved in probably the oddest situation I have come across in my time at WP. There is a nest of registered and IP users (probably just one person with multiple accounts, to judge by the editing style) creating hoax draft articles and draft articles of subjects already having articles - some aviation-related, some not. These include:
The User accounts are:
and pretty-much any IP in the edit histories of the drafts above, and the other articles edited by - and the User pages of - Gavin and Inara. There is some more info at User talk:wiae. As I said, all a bit strange. Just wanted to get your two cents' worth. Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 14:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Michael, there is a dynamic IP edit warring about a single word on Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. All attempts to reason with them have failed, mostly through edit summaries and user talk pages, and they've reverted at least 3 different editors. Can you look into semi-protection? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: User:Sdghgrret5er, is his time up? - BilCat ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Iberia Express A320.jpeg image has permission to publish !!!
This author has given permission for the publication of their photos in this album. as indicated in this other wikimediacommons publication -- Cuentaprueba10 ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Your attitude is shameful. I have submitted clear evidence that no violation of copyright.
I repeat your attitude is shameful and infuriating with the report of this photo. You should see the evidence that I have put on the table and not reporting without having a idea of the conditions of publication of this particular photo.
This photo has permission to publish LOOK the text of this photo about Flo Weiss photos in this album-- Cuentaprueba10 ( talk) 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe this user, SwisterTwister, is misguided into blanking the Mileage Plan article. [ [7]] If this is done, AAdvantage, SkyMiles, Mileage Plus, and many other similar articles are also in danger of wholesale blanking. I do not think this is right. Note that you are one of 3 experts in this field that I am asking for a look at to see if that user should be allowed to blank out all frequent flyer program articles. Thank you. I have not given that user warnings because you may know better. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Vickyluv143 created Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8 today (their only edit). Pichpich has edited the article (only active since 3 March). You've previously deleted the article as creation in violation of a CBAN. Something odd going on her or not? Mjroots ( talk) 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a note - Not sure I understand but one of my images on File:XL472-Gannet.jpg has been nominated for deletion on commons as it is not current and the aircraft is no longer in the same location! MilborneOne ( talk) 08:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The user Cuentaprueba10 ( talk) has committed six reverts within a three hour spell on the Real Madrid page. I message you as I've seen you had to deal with the user before. There is a discussion on the talk page but the user has no interest in debating or seeking consensus. Thanks for your assistance.. RyanTQuinn ( talk) 17:1, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page, and opened a discussion on the article talk page. This is Paul ( talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Wei Hang Flight 203, Wei Hang Flight 252, and China Eastern Airlines Flight 5443. The second of which I suspect might be a hoax due to its info box having the title Viagra Airlines. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael, it looks like Phil M is back here,and here. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 13:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael, can you look at semi-protection for Boeing 777? We have a series of IPs continually adding the same info, along with insulting edit summaries. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 14:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Please change the protection on this page. As per the current policy, extended confirmed protection is allowed only as part of arbitration enforcement provisions (noting that there are no currently-authorised community uses). BethNaught ( talk) 14:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I didn't quite get what you were trying to say in your edit summary when you reverted my edit on Aircraft Registration. Please can you clarify? The aim of my edit was to club together examples of colonies that changed their registrations after independence, and list out the ones that didnt (India and Australia) separately in another sentence. Trinidade ( talk) 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
See
User talk:Eagle Striker#MilborneOne. Facepalm -
BilCat (
talk) 02:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
T Suvarna Raju? Also, for a user who has created 126 articles before this one, the article seems to have been written by a newbie. Makes me wonder if User:Fitindia a "corporate" account of some kind. Odd. - BilCat ( talk) 12:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne,
Something I read on the article Propelling nozzle worries me. The first bullet point of 'Principles of operation' says that nozzles work using the throat to increase pressure by constricting airflow - which runs contrary to the Venturi effect and what is described in the diagram illustrating de Laval nozzles. It also mentions that the nozzle 'back-pressures' the engine; sure it does, but by underexpanding the airflow, not by constricting it. I pointed it out on the talk page, but nobody got back to me.
Should I change it? And if you're not knowledgeable enough on this subject, could you indicate to me someone who is?
Regards, Hayazin ( talk) 09:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. As a contributor to previous relevant discussion, you are invited to join in. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Embraer Legacy 500—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Marc Lacoste ( talk) 09:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, it may be time for some long-term semi-protection on Igor Sikorsky to encourage discussion. The Ukrainian vs Russian vs Polish POV warriors are making almost daily edits now, and its getting tedious trying to keep up. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The POV warring is continuing, including from a registered user now. Full protection may be necessary. Thanks again. - BilCat ( talk) 22:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you please page protect this again? It is the same problem that had you protect it once before [8]. IPs trying to put something in against consensus. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You suggested that a section I added to Southwest Airlines was not notable. I happen to disagree since it got international news coverage and reverted it back. If you'd like to discuss it further, I've got a section going in the airline's talk page here Talk:Southwest_Airlines#Discrimination_against_muslim_passengers]
Best, cOrneLlrOckEy ( talk) 13:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Evening MilborneOne, There's a slightly quirky comment at Talk:Aero-Astra Okhotnik about the need for pictures in articles (we'd all agree on that), which ignores the problems of copyright and seems to imply that an article without a picture is useless. His/her heart is most likely in the right place but he needs bringing into the tent with some guidance. I thought of replying but suspect you have the experience etc to do it better. What do you think? Cheers, TSRL ( talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Just when you thought it was safe to edit WP ... See this edit and others at Martin PBM Mariner. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
And I didn't realize aircraft were a religious issue. His edit summary: "Ifact, that is comparison is an Anglican perspective". Facepalm -
BilCat (
talk) 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
He's back again at North American B-25 Mitchell. Word of the day: "Considetation". - BilCat ( talk) 12:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
And again here. - BilCat ( talk) 18:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
And here. - BilCat ( talk) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
And again, see here. - BilCat ( talk) 19:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And again! See North American A-36 Apache. - BilCat ( talk) 01:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
And again, again! See Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants. - BilCat ( talk) 01:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, before correction, see the list of Gabriel de La Landelle 's books in Wikipedia in French. As I had explained before corrections, le first publication date for the La Landelle's book Aviation ou Navigation aérienne sans ballons was 1863 and not 1873. Thanks-- MOSSOT ( talk) 07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your reversion of my edit, I've switched it back to air forces, that being the actual name (quwwat>forces, in the plural). If you still object please comment and we can discuss. However I may not reply very fast! Mesoso2 ( talk) 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a list of the first 200 aviation deaths if you want to help transcribe it. It is a PDF so only the first page displays here. The document is at Wiki Commons. thumb. I also have the one printed the next year on the same day with the next 100 deaths. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I just wanted to double-check the spelling in your edit to the List of aviation fatalities. Was it "Dihederal Parachute" or "Dihedral"? Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 15:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10 is in the news now, and is attracting increasing amounts of IP vandalism today. Could you or an admn lurker look at semi-protecting it for a few days? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, could you take a look at Thrush Aircraft? User:Ericboelts has been repeatedly adding copyright or unsourced material, and may have a COI. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to the 2014 article. But I think that the Scottish vote was a big deal. I live in America, and even over here, it made the front pages of the newspapers, and I remember people talking about it. It only involved one country, but it still made headlines all over the world. Please let me put it back. Also, on September 28th or 29th, there were protests in Hong Kong. We could add that, too. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals ( talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
See this user's contributions. Seems like we've had similar IP users in the past. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk)
More on Airbus A340 page. Sigh. - BilCat ( talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Another on here on the 707 page, this time from a new IP address. - BilCat ( talk) 18:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It is the Labour Day weekend here in Canada, time for this air show and time for the annual endless IP vandalism of the article for political purposes. Can we get it "semi protected" until Tuesday, please? - Ahunt ( talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, could you take a look at Indian Navy. A user with at least 2 accounts is being disruptive, and making personal attacks in edit summaries, particularly towards me, and on my talk page. The first account, User:Itiltil, was blocked for a short time, and the second account, User:Itititiitl, was apparently created during the block to avoid it. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat ( talk) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
She is repeatedly pinging me after I have asked her to stop. Check out Continental Express Flight 2286 talk page plus her talk page. I have asked her four times to stop. She refuses to. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
See User:2600:1002:B011:9C5F:A15E:6091:E2EB:C24C. Evidence from summary: "The intrpduction also said the yerm came into use in the later stages of war". Sigh. - BilCat ( talk) 02:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you please page protect this article again? The IPs are back. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
See User:Rand Editor, User:Ashoka26, and User:Updater21, who have been making odd edits and tests, sometimes on overlapping articles. Very strange. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Several IPs belonging to Microsoft, though in different countries, are also being used. See User:2001:4898:80E8:3:0:0:0:52E, User:2404:F801:8050:2:0:0:0:7B4, and User:2404:F801:8050:2:0:0:0:2AA, though there may be others. - BilCat ( talk) 07:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
More: User:TestingEditor, and User:CaptainCook. - BilCat ( talk) 12:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, do you see any problem with an article being created on Doc (aircraft)? It currently redirects to List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses#Doc. There's a good article here with a lot of background information on the restoration. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not a standalone article is created, there are some USAF photos here and here which can be uploaded to Commons. - BilCat ( talk) 21:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, MilborneOne. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Milb, could you please semi-protect my talk page for a few days or a week? A sock has been repeatedly vandalizing it today. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
See User:SSPanjit Arun, who claims to be User:AgustinusHal. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 01:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:companies is subcategory of Category:Organizations by legal status SoSivr ( talk) 00:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Serial sockpuppeteer is back again, this time as IP 118.101.61.104 [1] - Now calling me, and others, ISIS terrorists and such. Can we get some assistance here? Hate to bug you, but you are familiar with him. Thanks! Scr★pIron IV 14:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
We know you working with ISIS.ISIS Is now working with Israel,UK And USA.We will find you and put you in the jail.14:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
And, of course,
User:Eagle Striker and
User:Eagle Striker 2 are also socks of this user
[2] - I hadn't reported because they weren't editing, but clearly coming into the open now per that edit. We could use the mop... Cleanup in Aisle 3...
seriously, thanks in advance
Scr★pIron
IV 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
After a long absence, he's back!! - BilCat ( talk) 09:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I edit a website which aims to provide a neutral, non-commercial but helpful introduction to the subject of regulation - now a huge activity in most countries. (I am an ex-civil servant and ex-regulator.) I thought it would be helpful to add four links from Wikipedia - e.g. to a page explaining the background to the current argument about who pays for any third London airport runway. Others were about water/environmental regulation. The links were then deleted. If, after further thought, you decide they would be OK, I will reinstate them. Otherwise let's forget it!
Ukcivilservant ( talk) 13:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That's helpful - many thanks.
Ukcivilservant ( talk) 13:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: this, I fully expect to be reverted shortly by that user, who almost always re-reverts several times before discussing. Can you try to head him off first? Thanks. Honestly, he is a problem editor with poor English-language skills, and a proven lack of discernment when it comes to judging what is encyclopedic, and is prone to nationalist/manufacturer-ist fanboy contributions, which this one certainly is. Any thoughts about pursuing an RFC-user (if those still exist)? - BilCat ( talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
See this diff, with the edit summary "rmv opinion/OR template". Hopefully it's a one-time edit. - BilCat ( talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Another editor has made a similar edit here. I smell a storm coming. - BilCat ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Troll/vandal calling itself "captain sparkles" has shown up again. Also doing BLP vios. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop changing the airdate for S15E02 Terror in San Francisco to TBA. See http://natgeotv.com/uk/air-crash-investigation/about
Also Fatal Transmission aired 1/6/16 at http://www.natgeotv.com.au/tvguide/?day=2016-01-06 Tntad ( talk) 05:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello I am the same person from the reference section who done edits from january to april and I propose a potential demerger between Hal amca and Amca programme as in the start part of development section it crates confusion, I purpose that a potential de merger between the above two parts will help to reduce confusion, as the previous design section should kept as it helps to understand the development of the programme but in different article of Amca programme totally separate from Hal Amca which would indeed help to reduce confusion between the article and help to grow in proper direction for both proposed different article,I have posted same on the Hal Amca talk page. I would like your opinion on the proposed demarge. 1.39.10.180 ( talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so Hal Amca is part of Amca programme which just not includes the aircraft but also includes many other aspects like engine radar avonics previous design were not just developed step by step but also at same time competing with each other so the previous design are not same but different design computing each other for the finalized design. 1.39.10.180 ( talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Amca programme is comprable to JSF and ATF programme which included two prototypes similar to current Amca plan and Amca Technology Demonstrator will have major difference over production aircraft. Amca programme evolved out of MCA programme which initially started to developed 4.5 generation aircraft later evolved to 5 generation and after some time evolved into Amca programme.
1.39.10.32 ( talk) 07:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Michael, looks like Phil M is back at Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
BushRanger has blocked and tagged. Thanks, BR! - BilCat ( talk) 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the incorrect callsign, didn't thinking to check the FAA for it's correctness. Anzmibu ( talk) 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Michael: We're having persistent IP vandalism on Meredith effect. Can we please get it "semi-protected" for 30 days or so? - Ahunt ( talk) 03:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This one appears to be a vandal-only account, and their only edit so far bears that out. Does it even need to be reported first, or can it be blocked outright? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Good morning, could you please delete and SALT Sarabjit Roy. User recreated this to bypass a previous SALT on the correct spelling. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I contest the speedy deletion and explained and provided many refrences that name "Sarabjit" Roy is common name also for Roy, so you are wrong to delete my hard works, and what is SALT ? also I would like the copy of all the deleted materials for future improvment for this story. So I'm asking you give me all versions of this artcile and all the edits I made plus I want the artcile talk comments also.
Can you tell what code like A6 or G7 was used for speed Delete. I need it to appeal. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYYadav ( talk • contribs)
Hi, Since your semi-protect expired, Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta has been constantly warred over by an IP editor. Would you mind taking a look at the history to see if it needs further protection? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne, If you have time could you take a look at this editors recent additions? I've reverted his edits and warned him twice but he won't reply. Thanks Samf4u ( talk) 14:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Evening,
Don't forget the bottom of the table has a number of un-alphabeticalized airfields that an IP editor has added previously. Gavbadger ( talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, MilborneOne.
Those Canada and Other ones were moved from the Royal Flying Corps page, as there is a comment there that says: ""
So, I moved them. Also I notice you have removed links to RAF Squadron pages and removed citations to www.raf.mod.uk for the (Night) Training Sqns. If the dates and locations match your book, and as the RAF website says on each Squadron History page 'formed as a Night Training Sqn'(which they all do) was it fair to remove them with the comments "remove link - no connection" and 'dont appear to be mentioned in reference provided' ?
I'm glad to have piqued your (and GavBadger's) interest in this page and other pages I have been working on. As I have no intention of creating and account and apparently have a dynamic IP address that changes at least daily, I'll leave up it to you as you won't be able to contact me. Didn't want to start an edit war !
92.30.138.142 ( talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
First flight on Amca[edit]
Hello I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page. First flights section in the info box recently had been effected by edit war as the user Aryan Indian tried to put entry date around 2030 that looks like uncronstive, he is trying helping editing any helping Amca article but need guidance and look like he is not fimilar with the wikipedia rule. It's better to leave the flight reference out of info box, but should be in other part of article with reference as it helps to understand programme development, But it be kept out of infobox as it look like speculative as Bilcat has already mentioned.
1.39.10.42 ( talk) 04:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne,
Currently there is an ongoing issue at Nashville International Airport regarding persistent IP vandalism and unexplained removal of content. Since you are one of the few admins that edits aviation/airport related articles, I thought it'd be best to let you know about the situation so it could be handled properly.
Current discussions about the IP vandals:
[ WT:Airports] [ WP:AIV]
Thanks! Nodayrt ( talk) 05:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That was probably one of those unexpected dives that 707s and KC-135s were prone to, in addition to control problems at low speeds on landing. There were several training accidents where 707 crews lost control in the late 50s and early 60s. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Michael, could you (or another admin) look at User talk:Mike V#IPBE Questions? This admin has taken it upon himself to remove IP Block Exemptions from a slew of users, apparently without any discussion beforehand with any of the users involved. I'm not sure how best to handle the situation, but I've not done anything to warrant the IPBE removal. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
His explanation at removal was "Removing IPBE, no longer affected by blocks", but how does he know that? Odd. - BilCat ( talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
North American P-51 Mustang and talk page being hit by a single-issue POV warrior bent on proving that the Mustang was British. We've had people pushing this POV on the talk page before, and it may even be the same person. Semi-protection on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my image of the FA-50 in the article. The newer image is posted by the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines saying shows the planes in action (escorting the President's plane). The old image is an image from the Korean Air Force in Flickr saying that its a test flight of the aircraft. Are you sure the individual plane (of the older picture) are meant for the Philippine Air Force and not the Republic of Korea Air Force? Sure the old image is better aesthetically but the newer image definitely shows individual aircraft owned by the Philippine Air Force. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Michael, for several days, a number of IPs have been making the same annoying edits to AgustaWestland AW139, despite being reverted by several editors. Not sure it's worth the trouble of semi-protection, but not sure what else to do here. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like this IP range a has a long history of POV and edit warring. See User talk:Murry1975/IP.86. for some of the history. - BilCat ( talk) 19:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne. I've been doing a lot of work over on the Saab 37 Viggen article, and it feels like a lot of progress has been made with the overhaul. I was wondering if you would happen to have any good material for the Operators section? You seem to have been good for sourcing this kind of information in the past, but I'm running dry on this now. Anyhow, thanks for reading. Kyteto ( talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Please set an expiration date. Protecting an article indefinitely is never a good idea. 62.228.200.32 ( talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MilborneOne: I saw you mention a delete to Wormwood Scrubs Royal Naval Air Station because of a link already being there. But, that link was put in by me & there was no link before I edited the article. All I should like to know is whether consistent rules and transparency are being maintained throughout Wikipedia? Please advise. L'honorable ( talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Michael, could you look at M-84? User:Читалац started removing and adding photos, claiming "has been removed as impropriate", but refused to explain further. Then User:BobNesh showed up and started reverting my reverts without a good explanation, only parroting my own edit summaries. Not sure what's going on here, but it might be some sort of Croatian/Serbian rivalry. I'm far past 3RR on this, but the users' refusals to give sensible explanations are odd. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— JetKonnect —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — LeoFrank Talk 16:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Michael, there's an (apparently static) IP user edit warring to make unnecessary changes to existing styles, such as in the refs section, to Boeing 707. Could you loomk into semi-protecting the article to encourage discussion and/or blocking the user if necessary? Thanks for your consideration. - BilCat ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Good evening. You have undone my contribution to Fokker 100 subsection " Accidents and incidents". The reasoning was: "Doesn't appear to be particularly notable". While there were no injuries or deaths and the damage to the plane was reportedly minimal, doesn't the fact of a landing gear malfunction qualify as an incident (although even the video [1] of that landing was quite pedestrian)? Of the last 8 entries in that section 6 were related to landing gear malfunction (granted, generally with more damage to planes and with an occasional death/injury). There seems to be a trend. Any toughts on revising your decision? IvanTheRussian ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Thanks for the cleanup on that, and feel free to pull his talk page access per this. Also, I modified the template since you told him you indeffed him, so feel free to correct it if it is wrong. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many places, nowdays in Ukraine, where it is not clear to whom they belong ethnicaly. But not Kiev. That case is very sensitive and important. Try to write it another way, but do it well, not just revert. I'll try to explain: I come from Warsaw, Poland. In the 19th century Warsaw has been occuped by Russia. Same as Kiev and most of Ukraine. The difference is for how many ages the Russian occupation lasted. But it has alway been an occupation. Until 1790, in Kiev it was not allowed to print books in Ukrainian. When Sikorsky was born, the Ukrainian language was officialy not called "a national language", but only a "simple peasant's dialect". When Sikorsky has been arleady a great aircraft constructor, Russsians have been killing Ukrainians by many millions, with the artifficial hunger. Now... If you would write that "Warsaw is present-day Poland", Polish would feel offended. They would explain to you that Warsaw has always been Poland, not only "present-day". Just try to find more precise, neutral description for Kiev too. I'ts been the heart Ukrainian nation, for a period of at least 1.200 years. -- Grb16 ( talk) 23:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 3445 looks like a pretty clear delete. You may want to close the AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne. Regarding the full protection of the article, I think you should take a look at Nofil Jawed ( talk · contribs)'s disruptive behaviour across it, along with the one at Shaheen Air (where the user is well over WP:3RR even after having been warned of this) and Shaheen Air destinations. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I just made a post [3] to Administrator Bbb23's talk page about a editor. After posting, I learned Bbb23 is away from Wikipedia right now. Can you please handle it? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Michael, User:Kentwood12, whom you've reverted elsewhere, keeps re-adding Virgin America fleet info to Alaska Air Group. Could you drop him a line about this please? I doubt I could be civil with him at this time. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 18:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
He just re-added it again, and I've already reverted him twice. Facepalm He probably doesn't read the edit summaries. He looks to be autoconfirmed, so semi-protection won't stop him, but it might be useful anyway, as IPs have been adding similar to both articles. Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, yes there is definitely edit warring, but it is coming from the other side; I edit a page like normal, and that person comes along and takes out part of the article, something that they had never done before now, which is mysterious and unnerving. You've only heard their side so far. That person has had issues with several editors, and when the editors try to talk to that person, that person pulls out the old "you're personally attacking me" line. I have made no person attacks, in fact I have not even communicated with that person. I've been going about my editing like normal, setting up pages a year in advance as is the way it is usually done for the golf related pages that are of significance, and that person suddenly has decided, after years of pages being set up in the usual manner, that is suddenly isn't acceptable to them. Keeping in mind a couple of things; first, that that person never even edits the pages in question and so hasn't a reason to even concern themself after so many years, and two, that person has a history of being blocked 8 times for making trouble and has been warned in recent months that they might be blocked again if trouble persists. ... Myself, I don't go around making trouble for people in here, I've been making the golf pages in the manner as I always have, putting in information that could change over time, and there has never been any problem with this, but only suddenly, unexpectedly, and for no good reason. Even the most active golf editor in Wikipedia never had a problem with it either (an editor that the person in question has also had a run in with in recent months). ... If there had ever been a serious issue with the way that the annual golf pages were set up, it would have been raised years ago, and it would have definitely been raised by the most active golf editor in Wikipedia. .. You've seen fit to give me a warning without knowing the whole story. Now that you know my side, I'm sure you'll see fit to issue a warning to that person as well, for unnecessarily continuing to delete valid information from an article. As I said, the contents I put in an article when setting it up is the way that I've been doing it for a long time without trouble. This new resistance to it from that person is odd and unprovoked. Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 00:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
(1) "This pettiness and nonsense will not be tolerated." That's a personal attack, and indeed that entire paragraph is an ad hominem attack against the editor, as opposed to his action.
(2) Your response here reeks of WP:OWN. Any editor has the right to edit any article you create or any edits you make yourself; every page you edit states "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone ..." No one needs your permission to do so, and there's nothing sinister in someone editing your work who'd never edited your work before.
(3) Nor is there anything sinister in none of your golf articles never having been sent up to AfD before, although there's nothing about golf which is immune to the deletion process (I've AfDed NN golf-related articles myself). The obvious answer to your incredulity that "suddenly" this CRYSTAL violation isn't suitable to anyone is that no one had noticed before. With over five million articles on Wikipedia, this happens a lot, and you're neither the first nor the first hundredth editor I've encountered who imagined "No one's tried to delete/edit any of my stuff before!!" to be a valid defense at AfD.
(4) Speaking of precedent ... I see from your talk page that this is not, in fact, the first time you've run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL; there's a caution from another editor on your doing so two years ago. This is not, in fact, the first time you've had dealings with William or that he's edited golf pages; he put a warning template on your talk page last year asking for the reason you deleted information from a PGA article, since you failed to leave an edit summary, and he's commented to your talk page regarding golf articles several times over the course of the last five years. This is not, in fact, the first time you've had dealings at deletion: you've HAD more than one article AfDed and numerous articles prodded, and you've filed at least one AfD.
(5) Finally, to your assertion that there's nothing wrong with the article and that it's being AfDed for No Good Reason (a retort I hear more often from my teacher wife's grade school students than from grown adults, I fear), it also can't have escaped your notice that the unanimous opinion of every editor other than yourself who's commented so far is for deletion, all on TOOSOON/CRYSTAL grounds. Obviously, you don't agree, but that neither makes the reason invalid nor constitutes persecution of any sort. Ravenswing 01:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne,
A quick query for you, as I recall you were one of the editors who contributed to the various discussions at the time regarding the inclusion of destination maps in airport articles. I recently removed such a map at the Lisbon Portela Airport article, citing project consensus not to include, but a user challenged me (fairly enough) to show where such consensus was reached and for the life of me I can't find anything too definitive in the former discussions. I'm sure the conclusion not to include was reached, but as the project guide was not updated it would be useful to point to that discussion. As an aside, such a map has also found its way onto the London City Airport page, but I want to hold off removing until this is clarified. Thanks for any assistance. SempreVolando ( talk) 11:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The recently deleted and salted article 2017 WGC-Dell Match Play has re-appeared as 2017 WGC Dell Match Play. 40.138.97.1 ( talk) 16:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I am looking for another editor who is somewhat interested and knowledgeable about airlines and willing to act as a collaborator on the American Airlines article. You come to mind. Actually, somebody did come to mind, but they are not interested in airlines at all, merely aircraft.
What I seek is someone with knowledge, good judgment, good temper, and willing to edit at least 3 minutes per week on the article. Someone with very good judgement can act as a mentor and also to occasionally add something. I am willing to direct assigned tasks as well as do tasks assigned to me. Usually, most work won't be assigned at all.
Are are willing to help? There are not such people who frequent the article at the present time. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
G'day MB, I find myself involved in probably the oddest situation I have come across in my time at WP. There is a nest of registered and IP users (probably just one person with multiple accounts, to judge by the editing style) creating hoax draft articles and draft articles of subjects already having articles - some aviation-related, some not. These include:
The User accounts are:
and pretty-much any IP in the edit histories of the drafts above, and the other articles edited by - and the User pages of - Gavin and Inara. There is some more info at User talk:wiae. As I said, all a bit strange. Just wanted to get your two cents' worth. Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 14:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Michael, there is a dynamic IP edit warring about a single word on Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. All attempts to reason with them have failed, mostly through edit summaries and user talk pages, and they've reverted at least 3 different editors. Can you look into semi-protection? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: User:Sdghgrret5er, is his time up? - BilCat ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Iberia Express A320.jpeg image has permission to publish !!!
This author has given permission for the publication of their photos in this album. as indicated in this other wikimediacommons publication -- Cuentaprueba10 ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Your attitude is shameful. I have submitted clear evidence that no violation of copyright.
I repeat your attitude is shameful and infuriating with the report of this photo. You should see the evidence that I have put on the table and not reporting without having a idea of the conditions of publication of this particular photo.
This photo has permission to publish LOOK the text of this photo about Flo Weiss photos in this album-- Cuentaprueba10 ( talk) 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe this user, SwisterTwister, is misguided into blanking the Mileage Plan article. [ [7]] If this is done, AAdvantage, SkyMiles, Mileage Plus, and many other similar articles are also in danger of wholesale blanking. I do not think this is right. Note that you are one of 3 experts in this field that I am asking for a look at to see if that user should be allowed to blank out all frequent flyer program articles. Thank you. I have not given that user warnings because you may know better. Whiskeymouth ( talk) 05:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Vickyluv143 created Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8 today (their only edit). Pichpich has edited the article (only active since 3 March). You've previously deleted the article as creation in violation of a CBAN. Something odd going on her or not? Mjroots ( talk) 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a note - Not sure I understand but one of my images on File:XL472-Gannet.jpg has been nominated for deletion on commons as it is not current and the aircraft is no longer in the same location! MilborneOne ( talk) 08:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The user Cuentaprueba10 ( talk) has committed six reverts within a three hour spell on the Real Madrid page. I message you as I've seen you had to deal with the user before. There is a discussion on the talk page but the user has no interest in debating or seeking consensus. Thanks for your assistance.. RyanTQuinn ( talk) 17:1, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page, and opened a discussion on the article talk page. This is Paul ( talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Wei Hang Flight 203, Wei Hang Flight 252, and China Eastern Airlines Flight 5443. The second of which I suspect might be a hoax due to its info box having the title Viagra Airlines. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael, it looks like Phil M is back here,and here. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 13:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael, can you look at semi-protection for Boeing 777? We have a series of IPs continually adding the same info, along with insulting edit summaries. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 14:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Please change the protection on this page. As per the current policy, extended confirmed protection is allowed only as part of arbitration enforcement provisions (noting that there are no currently-authorised community uses). BethNaught ( talk) 14:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I didn't quite get what you were trying to say in your edit summary when you reverted my edit on Aircraft Registration. Please can you clarify? The aim of my edit was to club together examples of colonies that changed their registrations after independence, and list out the ones that didnt (India and Australia) separately in another sentence. Trinidade ( talk) 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
See
User talk:Eagle Striker#MilborneOne. Facepalm -
BilCat (
talk) 02:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
T Suvarna Raju? Also, for a user who has created 126 articles before this one, the article seems to have been written by a newbie. Makes me wonder if User:Fitindia a "corporate" account of some kind. Odd. - BilCat ( talk) 12:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne,
Something I read on the article Propelling nozzle worries me. The first bullet point of 'Principles of operation' says that nozzles work using the throat to increase pressure by constricting airflow - which runs contrary to the Venturi effect and what is described in the diagram illustrating de Laval nozzles. It also mentions that the nozzle 'back-pressures' the engine; sure it does, but by underexpanding the airflow, not by constricting it. I pointed it out on the talk page, but nobody got back to me.
Should I change it? And if you're not knowledgeable enough on this subject, could you indicate to me someone who is?
Regards, Hayazin ( talk) 09:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. As a contributor to previous relevant discussion, you are invited to join in. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Embraer Legacy 500—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Marc Lacoste ( talk) 09:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, it may be time for some long-term semi-protection on Igor Sikorsky to encourage discussion. The Ukrainian vs Russian vs Polish POV warriors are making almost daily edits now, and its getting tedious trying to keep up. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The POV warring is continuing, including from a registered user now. Full protection may be necessary. Thanks again. - BilCat ( talk) 22:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you please page protect this again? It is the same problem that had you protect it once before [8]. IPs trying to put something in against consensus. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You suggested that a section I added to Southwest Airlines was not notable. I happen to disagree since it got international news coverage and reverted it back. If you'd like to discuss it further, I've got a section going in the airline's talk page here Talk:Southwest_Airlines#Discrimination_against_muslim_passengers]
Best, cOrneLlrOckEy ( talk) 13:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Evening MilborneOne, There's a slightly quirky comment at Talk:Aero-Astra Okhotnik about the need for pictures in articles (we'd all agree on that), which ignores the problems of copyright and seems to imply that an article without a picture is useless. His/her heart is most likely in the right place but he needs bringing into the tent with some guidance. I thought of replying but suspect you have the experience etc to do it better. What do you think? Cheers, TSRL ( talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Just when you thought it was safe to edit WP ... See this edit and others at Martin PBM Mariner. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
And I didn't realize aircraft were a religious issue. His edit summary: "Ifact, that is comparison is an Anglican perspective". Facepalm -
BilCat (
talk) 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
He's back again at North American B-25 Mitchell. Word of the day: "Considetation". - BilCat ( talk) 12:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
And again here. - BilCat ( talk) 18:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
And here. - BilCat ( talk) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
And again, see here. - BilCat ( talk) 19:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And again! See North American A-36 Apache. - BilCat ( talk) 01:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
And again, again! See Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants. - BilCat ( talk) 01:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, before correction, see the list of Gabriel de La Landelle 's books in Wikipedia in French. As I had explained before corrections, le first publication date for the La Landelle's book Aviation ou Navigation aérienne sans ballons was 1863 and not 1873. Thanks-- MOSSOT ( talk) 07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your reversion of my edit, I've switched it back to air forces, that being the actual name (quwwat>forces, in the plural). If you still object please comment and we can discuss. However I may not reply very fast! Mesoso2 ( talk) 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a list of the first 200 aviation deaths if you want to help transcribe it. It is a PDF so only the first page displays here. The document is at Wiki Commons. thumb. I also have the one printed the next year on the same day with the next 100 deaths. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I just wanted to double-check the spelling in your edit to the List of aviation fatalities. Was it "Dihederal Parachute" or "Dihedral"? Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 15:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10 is in the news now, and is attracting increasing amounts of IP vandalism today. Could you or an admn lurker look at semi-protecting it for a few days? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, could you take a look at Thrush Aircraft? User:Ericboelts has been repeatedly adding copyright or unsourced material, and may have a COI. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to the 2014 article. But I think that the Scottish vote was a big deal. I live in America, and even over here, it made the front pages of the newspapers, and I remember people talking about it. It only involved one country, but it still made headlines all over the world. Please let me put it back. Also, on September 28th or 29th, there were protests in Hong Kong. We could add that, too. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals ( talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
See this user's contributions. Seems like we've had similar IP users in the past. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk)
More on Airbus A340 page. Sigh. - BilCat ( talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Another on here on the 707 page, this time from a new IP address. - BilCat ( talk) 18:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It is the Labour Day weekend here in Canada, time for this air show and time for the annual endless IP vandalism of the article for political purposes. Can we get it "semi protected" until Tuesday, please? - Ahunt ( talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, could you take a look at Indian Navy. A user with at least 2 accounts is being disruptive, and making personal attacks in edit summaries, particularly towards me, and on my talk page. The first account, User:Itiltil, was blocked for a short time, and the second account, User:Itititiitl, was apparently created during the block to avoid it. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat ( talk) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
She is repeatedly pinging me after I have asked her to stop. Check out Continental Express Flight 2286 talk page plus her talk page. I have asked her four times to stop. She refuses to. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
See User:2600:1002:B011:9C5F:A15E:6091:E2EB:C24C. Evidence from summary: "The intrpduction also said the yerm came into use in the later stages of war". Sigh. - BilCat ( talk) 02:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you please page protect this article again? The IPs are back. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
See User:Rand Editor, User:Ashoka26, and User:Updater21, who have been making odd edits and tests, sometimes on overlapping articles. Very strange. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Several IPs belonging to Microsoft, though in different countries, are also being used. See User:2001:4898:80E8:3:0:0:0:52E, User:2404:F801:8050:2:0:0:0:7B4, and User:2404:F801:8050:2:0:0:0:2AA, though there may be others. - BilCat ( talk) 07:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
More: User:TestingEditor, and User:CaptainCook. - BilCat ( talk) 12:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Milb1, do you see any problem with an article being created on Doc (aircraft)? It currently redirects to List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses#Doc. There's a good article here with a lot of background information on the restoration. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not a standalone article is created, there are some USAF photos here and here which can be uploaded to Commons. - BilCat ( talk) 21:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, MilborneOne. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Milb, could you please semi-protect my talk page for a few days or a week? A sock has been repeatedly vandalizing it today. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)