User talk:Ahunt/Archive13

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruppert Archaeopteryx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airbrake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Livingston Gilson Irving

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livingston Gilson Irving not my best article.. since it had to follow the military aviator template. But AFD? with 12 citations, and a half dozen links? Are they going to AFD the other Dole racer's that have articles pending? Thoughts? FlugKerl (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I read both the article and the AfD. This really sums up why I really stay away from biography articles - the criteria for a biography on Wikipedia, particularly WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER, just seem far more rigid than for other subjects. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your picture was used in the news media

Hey there Ahunt,

Forbes recently used one of your pictures in one of their articles. Just thought you'd like to know.

Best wishes to the guy who welcomed me to WP,

--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 01:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey that is great! Thanks for letting me know. Because I post all my photos "Public Domain" they often get picked up by the mainstream news media and reused. - Ahunt (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Nitwich

I was just noodle around with the folks on the talk page. It seemed like they needed an eye opener. Not a great idea, I know. Sorry. They seem to go after each other, so I thought I'd give them a real ememy. Does that logic hold up? I think it's valid in an historical context.....Whatever. Different topic; Anti-Wiki faction out there. Seems emotionally driven. Your thoughts please. I find it highly disturbing. I'm a believer in the humility to admit that you don't know it all and could use a good beating.(learning wise). I am dedicated to Wikipedia and have been for years. I will leave my email address for anyone that wants to engage me. Thank you for your kind attention. Mtworkowski@optonline.netLonginus876 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

T-T.10

Evening Ahunt: That image is from Jane's 1956 (so it may be under copyright?) but oddly has the tail number blurred out. There's more on that number on the T-T.10 talk page now: do you have anything to help decide if there was only 1 (Air Britain implication, this month), two at least (Jane's 1956), or many?TSRL (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I just found that image in a web search, so you may be right it maybe a copyright problem. I have no information on the number built. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And the file manager?

the use of third party logos and icons alone should be grounds for deletion, and the file manager image you replaced lower in the image was from quote 'chrome / chromium' anyway, so all you have done is re-added third party copyrighted content into the page. NotinREALITY 12:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• May I suggest editing the image to blur the third party copyrighted logos and icons to comply with the fair use or free-use image guidelines. if needed, i can do this in the morning

Blurring is unnecessary, I am just looking for the policy that allows coincidental logos to be retained for accuracy, also these should be covered in the fair-use rationale. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Under the fair use rationale, the third party logos are copyright of their respective owners, and unless the image is blurred or re-sized to prevent infringement, the image must be either declared non-free-use or replaced, so since blurring preserves the majority of the image, it is the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotinREALITY (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply the use of these screenshots is covered by fair use to illustrate the subject in question, including the other logos. There is no need to blur images as this does not represent the subject in question. Also please stop bringing subjects up for discussion and then barreling ahead and doing them anyway without waiting for a response. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, logos such as that of facebook and Angry birds are NOT covered by fair use or the non-free rationale. And since there is no admin from whom to await a response, the simplest solution is to create updated image versions with the ability to revert them. NotinREALITY 12:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no rush to barrel around making these controversial changes in such a rush. Also my talk page is not the place to discuss article issues such as this. Please take this issue back to Talk:Google Chrome OS to present your case there, for a proper discussion and this time wait long enough for a consensus from editors working on the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can easily be done, but the authoritative tone with which you are responding to my comments is rather annoying, and since neither of us can legitimately claim to have more valid a claim to the content of the page, the 'barreling ahead' of which you speak is debatable. shall we move to the talk page? And the only controversy is between you and I, which cant really be called controversial.NotinREALITY 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your bringing up questions and then taking action without waiting for a response is not how consultation is done on Wikipedia and is fairly uncivil. Articles look how they do by consensus. That article has a couple of active editors on it who will probably participate in this discussion, but it needs to be on the article talk page so that they can see it and participate there. If we need to bring in an admin who understands copyright rules then I can invite one who does. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia favicon

Okay, I don't know how many permissions you have but I'd like to suggest a new Wikipedia favicon. The only thing wrong with the current one is the white background. It makes it look dated and kinda ugly IMO. I have made up a new one that's the exact same "W" but without the white background. If there's interest and a possibility that it could be changed I'd be happy to customize this as much as Wikipedia wants. - Syberiyxx (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The old https site had a black favicon with a white "W". It sounds like a good idea, you might try suggesting that at Wikipedia:Village pump. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou :). - Syberiyxx (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad that was of some help! - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow... Well, after searching for discussions about it already I've become very discouraged. There are many discussions about changes or improvements to the current favicon and none of them have been used. So I assume if it ever gets changed it won't possibly be by be my doing. Especially since I'm still an uncomfirmed user. - Syberiyxx (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was an area of heated debate. Perhaps if you put up an example or tow and started a a new debate? - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mode C transponder

I am sorry to disagree with you on the Aviation transponder interrogation modes article. I cannot help feeling you are absolutely wanting to have the last word, and that's a sorry way to create an encyclopedia. The wording as put by the IP-contributor is absolutely correct, and as complete as could be. I regret not having the time now to find suitable references, but am fully confident these can be easily found. Please avoid a revert-war. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep this over at Talk:Aviation transponder interrogation modes. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Airdrome Morane Saulnier L, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roland Garros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum

Would it help for photos from the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum to be included for future edits? - Dakotadude (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. Photos that can be used in articles are always helpful, but due to the restrictions of WP:OR they can't be used as references by themselves. The problem there is the interpretation and identification of aircraft in photos is considered "original research". If the problem is that the museum website is out of date then the best solution is to the get the museum webmaster to update it! - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in the article should a section on the aircraft that rides are offered in? On the www.warplane.com website, this page http://www.warplane.com/pages/services_rideprogram.html has a list of twelve aircraft that rides are offered in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakotadude (talk • contribs) 02:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You could just start a new section, I guess! - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

DAC RangerR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diesel

Jodel DR1050 Excellence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pierre Robin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

CFS and WAS

I was just updating the Canadian airport and created Kirkfield (Palestine) Aerodrome but I discovered that it and Pukatawagen Water Aerodrome share the same TC ident. I was wondering if you had or knew someone that has the current WAS. If you do could you check and see if Pukatawagen is still in existence and what its ident is. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting problem! I don't have a current WAS, but perhaps I can locate someone who does. I do note that TC indicates that the company that owns Pukatawagen Water Aerodrome, Beaver Air Services Ltd, is still in business. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked with a friend who indicated that Pukatawagen Water Aerodrome is not listed in the 2011 WAS, so it must have been de-registered. I'll update the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Our WAS is several years out of date and the only person that would have had one went south for the winter. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem - glad that I was able to help! Drop me a note anytime you get stumped! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Two logos for gNewSense

About this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNewSense&diff=515937669&oldid=515931166

The one I uploaded is the new logo, see: http://www.gnewsense.org/

I believe we ought to keep the new logo and the old one for historic purposes. That's why I kept both logos. At least we should use the new one which is SVG instead of the old PNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sav vas (talk • contribs) 06:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining that, let me see what I can do to use both in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft article dispute

Hi,

Hoping you can help clear the air at Talk:Aircraft#Blurb_about_rockets_and_missiles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I was more hindrance than help to you there! - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. A measured and level-headed reply was sorely needed. I am not proud about who wins the argument. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that is good! All part of building an encyclopedia! - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wild Thing weights error

Please respond to my remark in Talk:ULBI_Wild_Thing. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Pro-Composites for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pro-Composites is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Composites until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on the talkpage for AFd. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to complete this thread, I have now gone to the central library and found complete company profiles in four recent editions of Jane's and added those. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hawks Miller HM-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newark Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

MFO and Fiji

Hi. Regarding this, please see Talk:Fiji and the United Nations. Unfortunately, Diana Muir clearly has very little knowledge of the situation in Fiji. Thanks. Aridd (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - removing it altogether looks like the right move, given the information you note above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Technology Barnstar
		To Ahunt, thank you for updating the Linux distro articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! No problem, I am glad someone noticed - at least they are getting read! - Ahunt (talk)

Antonov An-225

Dear friend, about the 'aerodyne' vs 'aircraft' thing, the airships of the '30s were aircrafts too and way way larger than any airplane or aerodyne ever built.

Aircrafts are divided in aerostats (lighter than air) and aerodynes (heaviest than air). Aerodynes are divided in fixed-wing (airplanes, sailplanes...) and rotary-wing (autogyros, helicopters...). The An-225 is the heaviest aircraft ever built and the largest aerodyno ever entering operational service, but not the largest aircraft (those were the Hindenburg class airships.)

Would you mind if I change it back? Regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "aerodyne" is not commonly used in English and so adding this term will only confuse readers. Further confusion is caused because the Aerodyne link goes to a disambiguation page, which points to Heavier-than-air aircraft which points to Aircraft. If you want to clarify the sentence then it should be done with terminology that will make sense to an English-speaking reader and say something like "...and the largest heavier-than-air-aircraft (in length and wingspan) ever entering operational service". - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

While aerodyno is the correct technical term, I think you're right on the confusing part and will use 'heavier-than-air'. Regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - that sounds good to me. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Team Tango Foxtrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycoming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

George de Bothezat‎

Evening Ahunt: following your reversion of nationality in this article, I've noticed and reverted similar changes to de Bothezat helicopter by an anonymous user. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - this has been an ongoing nationalistic vandalism streak that comes back every few months! - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

BOT SC07

Thanks for your msg. Generally, I'm not searching for images, just checking wp:en for WP name, background details, etc to ensure Commons cats accurate. In this case, a new Commons cat for SC07 was created with no manuf, but designation suggested connection with SC01 Speed Canard. Still nothing firm, but found that SC07 was development of (Canadian) Sky Cruiser. Also, SC01 manuf Gyroflug taken over by FFT then taken over by a Dornier firm, and FFA AS.202 developed into FFT Eurotrainer 2000 under Gyroflug. Perhaps links needed between all those? PeterWD (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. That was a great find, I had a look though the cat and added an instrument panel photo to the article. I agree that Commons needs some real re-organization for the aircraft photos. I am always trying to fix it up, but too many people add photos with very general cats or none at all, that make the photos very hard to find! - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Falconar F11 Sporty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dihedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Aero L-39 Albatros

For your information, I just left a message on User talk:Mt hg: diff here — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - that is a well-thought-out note you left him. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

ERCO variants

AHunt, please checkout my comment in the Erco talk(Coupemanwi (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Aircraft Spirit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia and Henry County Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:DAR-23 Prototype.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DAR-23 Prototype.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Airplane vs. aircraft

G'day from Oz; I wasn't aware of any consensus to not use "airplane". I have been changing "plane" to "airplane", "aeroplane" or "aircraft" (usually "airplane" for US bug smashers, "aeroplane" for non-US bug smashers and "aircraft" for anything bigger than say a Cessna 310) whenever I come across it for quite a long time now. Do you recall where the discussion took place?

Changing the subject rather radically now, do you have access to a CCF Harvard IV? You might recall me mentioning in the past that I have been working on one and I need some help due to an illegible wiring diagram. I need someone to get in the cockpit of a Harvard IV and physically read the idents of each wire and each terminal of a particular piece of equipment. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. It was a few years ago on WikiProject Aircraft and was the result of the debate about do we use "airplane" or "aeroplane". The result was a decision to use "fixed wing aircraft" and avoid national squabbling.

I have a friend who has access to two Canadian Car & Foundry Co. Limited Harvard Mk IVs at two places. Both organizations have documentation, so if you let me know what you are looking for I might be able to get you a better wiring diagram. Feel free to send me a detailed note offline at wikieditor.sca9z@ncf.ca - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van's Aircraft RV-14, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Instrument panel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

link to foreign wiki?

Thanks Ahunt for welcoming me. I have a question regarding links to foreign Wiki's. Example: I am very interested in the German aircraft builder Adolf Rohrbach (1889-1939) en.wikipedia. org has several articles on the man and his creations. So has de.wikipedia. The German and English versions complement each other in a certain way, but are not identical. A person studying Rohrbach may find mutual links useful. Why not give them? This question must have come up earlier?(I am a newcomer at Wiki.) Tikker2 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, thank you for your question! The different language versions of the same article subject on Wikipedia are normally linked together through what are called "interwiki" links. The link to Adolf Rohrbach redirects to the article Rohrbach Metall-Flugzeugbau, where you will see on the left hand side the two interwiki links to the German and Spanish articles. These can be manually inserted into articles by adding [[de:Rohrbach Metallflugzeugbau]] and [[es:Rohrbach Metall-Flugzeugbau]]. There is a complete explanation at Help:Interlanguage links. If you need more detail please do let me know. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fast response. I thought 'languages' in the left column meant translation of the article I was reading. Very neat. But obviously I have still much to learn about Wiki. By the way, proper spelling of Metallflugzeugbau is indeed without hyphen. As far as I know it is a proper name. Should the English and Spanish titles not be changed accordingly? Many thanks Tikker2 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

All the refs cited on that page spell the name with the hyphen, so that would be an issue to bring up on the talk page for a discussion! - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well,I guess I better read the Manuals and Protocols first. See you in about 2 yrs time and I'll tell you all about Rohrbach. Regards, Tikker2 (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Aerola Alatus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ukrainian

Mitchell Wing B-10 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Don Mitchell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Let L-33 Solo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air brake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why notify me???

Just wondering why you notified me that 6mouv had been AFD'd, considering all I had done was speedy tag it..... Mdann52 (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I notified everyone who had edited it even once, including IPs, to make sure that there was no perception of canvassing. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OpenAirplane

This article was recreated a few days after deletion as A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). The article is still very crystal ball and speculative and nothing in it appears to be particular of note as it doesnt exist yet. As you have edited the recreated article I was interested in your thoughts on the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I did have a read though it - my main concern is that it is pretty spammy. There are a few third party refs, but many of them are about other similar past programs unrelated to this article. Its like saying "Cessna makes airplanes and Aeronca used to make airplanes too". True but off topic. There are only two real third party refs to establish notability, which makes WP:GNG. I rated it as a sort of "weak keep" at this point and have watched it to see how it develops over time. Basically it needs a good clean up right now to remove the unrelated previous programs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood, as you suggest perhaps a clean up and keep an eye on it so it doesnt turn into an advert for the website/scheme, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will have a kick at that today then looks like you have given it a close look!. I would appreciate you putting it on your watch list! - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Marsh Aviation

I left a comment on the AfD. WP:GNG is about general notability guidelines for sources. The article has no sources so I was confused as to why you thought GNG was met in the article. Mkdw^talk 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, misread AfD sources met GNG, but still the article remains with out. Mkdw^talk 21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that is it exactly - the AfD nominator found enough sources for notability, but the article needs a scratch re-write! - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Allstar SZD-54 Perkoz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Air brakes

Evektor VUT100 Cobra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kunovice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

F-35

Sorry, I messed up that link. Thought the name should be a link because it's the first mention in the article. I made it a link again, but not broken this time. 132.244.95.5 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the tagging and thanks for fixing the link! I have updated the message on your user page - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Polling graph

Hi, I wrote this on your commons page without realizing I was on it. I was interested in getting some polling graphs created for a page. I don't know if this is something you are able to do or if you could tell me what you have used to create the graphs? Thanks. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Great to hear from you - at least someone looks at that graph! I use the free spreadsheet application LibreOffice Calc (like MS Excel only free) to make the graph and then do a screenshot to make it into a png and post it - very simple. If you want a copy of the spreadsheet file to see how to set it up, I can e-mail the file I use to you. Just drop me a note at wikieditor.sca9z@ncf.ca - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see what I can do. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.
MGB GT & LAND ROVER userboxes

Thank you - have a good holiday season yourself! - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

		The Writer's Barnstar
		Awarded for the creation of an endless stream of high-quality aircraft articles in 2012. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't keep up! Perhaps you can tell us how many you have created this year? Super effort. Happy holidays. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gosh I haven't specifically counted Wikipedia articles alone as I write other articles as well, but let me have a look at my list from the last two years. The list covers 2011 and 12, and it looks like 858 so far in those last two years, but then this year isn't over yet! I will admit that it is getting harder to find topics that we don't already have for aircraft type articles, so perhaps we are starting to get to the end of the list? - Ahunt (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

858?! That's 'amazeballs' (a new phrase on the streets over here, hope it's not rude!). Don't wear your fingers and keypad out! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for a name change

Need more eyes to look at what is a bit of a contentious issue in assigning a name to an aircraft-oriented article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Let me see what I can do there. - Ahunt (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill! You too! - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 85

Hi! I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 85 I watched the Mayday program and it said there was an Airworthiness directive. The FAA directive required installation of a part on all B747-400s.

How do I search these directives?

The program said that there was a rudder failure that happened on the NW flight. Another happened on an Air France flight. Because the AF failure happened the NTSB felt it needed to take action. So the NTSB recommended attaching tail plugs in the event another failure would occur - it prevents rudder from moving too far in either direction - FAA issues Airworthiness Directive which required all B747-400s to receive the tail plugs. Also the program also says that the Airline Pilots Association, in 2003, awarded the crew the Superior Airmanship Award.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. FAA ADs are all found at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage You just have to search there by aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll take a look and figure out which AD corresponds to this incident WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/745c28e8d42011988625695e00603f23!OpenDocument#_Section5 Amendment 39-6382. Docket No. 89-NM-212-AD. is it? I'm going to see if I can find the final report on NW85, and I want to find something that links this amendment to NW85 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks possible - the dates will probably give it away! - Ahunt (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The article on AFD said it was October 9 2002 - So http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20021018X05344&ntsbno=ANC03IA001&akey=1 says that it describes the October 9, 2002 incident. It says: "As a result of this incident, the airplane's manufacturer has issued Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated July 24, 2003, which recommends operators perform an ultrasonic inspection of pertinent high-time lower and upper rudder power control modules. The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), "Airworthiness Directive; Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F Series Airplanes," published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2003, which would make this inspection mandatory on affected airplanes. " WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Then it can't be a 1989 AD, must be something later! - Ahunt (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.. I'm searching the ones in the 2000s WhisperToMe (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I continued this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Northwest_Flight_53_and_airworthiness_directives - I think I'm finding some interesting things WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the directives:

• Cancelled directive: 2003-23-01, Effective Date 12/18/2003, Issue Date 11/03/2003, Superseded By 2006-18-17
  • Database entry: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/C29267B0C1FFB78586256DDD006065E4?OpenDocument - http://www.webcitation.org/6D5ydPFIF
  • Detailed PDF: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/c29267b0c1ffb78586256ddd006065e4/$FILE/032301.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6D5yUO2I2
• Current directive: 2006-18-17, Effective Date 10/13/2006, Issue Date 08/30/2006, Revises AD 2003-23-01
  • Database entry: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/555BA02656615AD8862571E300579294?OpenDocument - http://www.webcitation.org/6D5yhyAy5
  • Detailed PDF: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/555ba02656615ad8862571e300579294/$FILE/2006-18-17.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6D5yjsh19

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks more like it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Do you think it's enough to re-create the article or request a re-creation or should I look for something more? Which publications do you think would cover this AD? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In reading the incident report and the AD they do seem to match, so I think the AD was a result of the incident. Because this incident resulted in an AD I think it would meet the requirements at WP:AIRCRASH for a stand-alone article. "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good (the date of the first AD corresponds with what is said in one of the NTSB writeups: August 28, 2003 - http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20021018X05344&ntsbno=ANC03IA001&akey=1) - So should I just re-create the article and cite the AD, or should I do a DRV? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No need for DRV I would think. The deletion was done right given the information available at the time, so perhaps just recreate it from scratch with the evidence about the AD included. I would suggest working on it off-line or in a sandbox so that when it goes "live" it is beyond reproach and doesn't get nominated for CSD under criteria G4 - Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. I note that it has been recreated and G4ed twice already since the AFD was closed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright - I started a draft version: User:WhisperToMe/Northwest Airlines Flight 53 - How is this so far? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good so far - certainly notable now! - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just got moved :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Whups, I realized the flight number was 85, not 53, so I moved it to Northwest Airlines Flight 85. I discovered a Seattle PI article, and I found that one of the crew members had testified in court about it (I'll post links to the material at Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 85) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Good move, I missed that - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The NTSB report says "captain" said things but I'm not sure which one since there were two captains. I'll re-watch the Mayday program and see if I can get info about the Air France incident it mentions. At some point I want the editors on the Japanese Wikipedia to write a translation in Japanese; this is because the destination was Tokyo Narita and many passengers were Japanese, so it would be important to have an article in Japanese. I said it wasn't ready yet, but once it is I will inform the project again that it's ready. - I made notes of the NTSB investigator's statements in Mayday at Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 85 - Maybe that will help determine if the article covers its bases? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Lake Buccaneer

Sorry this is my first post on a Talk page, so please excuse any errors I make thanks.

Um, the articles on the aircraft appear so blank and uninteresting with zero operational information provided. Many people are curious as to not only how the aircraft were made but how they are used in the real world. With that in mind why would you delete a reference to their current operational status?

Thanks, Weloveseaplanes (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Weloveseaplanes.

While more operational information about aircraft that is referenced to independent, third party references is always welcome on Wikipedia, your addition of external links promoting one company is considered WP:SPAM. A quick look though your editing history seems to show that all your edits involve adding links to promote this company and all of them have been removed after you added them. I think you need to have a careful read of WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Torch Browser logo 2012.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Torch Browser logo 2012.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been replaced by a new image at another name so go ahead and delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Chromebook

OK, good reversion. Rojomoke (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Robocall scandal article

The issues over the robocall scandal are under discussion on the talk page. Please stop vandalizing the page by removing important information.ARMY101 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

New aircraft articles

It is getting harder, but those unwritten types are still out there. You've done a great job this year with several rich seams. For amusement, I've been plotting the numbers of new aircraft articles each month for the last 6 years work, going back before my time as far as the stats look reliable. This year's total, 843, is almost exactly the same as the annual average. Probably the total of units produced of these different models falls over the years as the number of one-offs increase. So don't hold your breath! There are still a lot of red links in the gliders list, probably a fair number of microlights and I suspect several major pre-war European manufacturer's prototypes. Question is, where's the data? The French, for example, don't have the same book coverage that Putnam gives the UK, though there are islands like the DOCAVIA series. The pre-war Jane's sound promising; between myself and my local library I have access to most of the post-war volumes but the earlier ones (1938, 1919 and 1913 reprints excluded) as a rare as hen's teeth (or rocking horse shit, if you prefer). There is a set in the British Library in London and another at the IWM (though I'm not sure where this is geographically, probably London also) but a bit of a hike to get to.

Then there are all those engines ... Here's to a productive 2013!TSRL (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed note! I agree there are still types to do, but as you say it is the refs for them that are the challenge to find! I lot of rare homebuilts have no documentation at all beyond listing on the national register! I am systematically working my way though the World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2011-12 and only have some of the autogyros and the trikes to go yet. Then I'll have to dig into some old publications on plans-built homebuilts that I have in reserve. I ran out of refs on engines a while ago, now I just only occasionally stumble across a new ref for one. One day we'll run out of refs! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your hard work on aviation related articles. ...William 14:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop deleting important facts out of Pilatus!

Stop deleting important facts out of Pilatus! This are Important facts in the history of pilatus. the reference ist given its out from the book in the referenclist, it does no mather that this book is only aviable in german. It fits wit the wikipedia rouls and with the US rouls and most important wit the swiss rouls (because the book is from switzerland). Because all this are projects they have to be on the main page of pilatus (only for the P-8D who was build in a single prototype probaly a own page can be made). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.75.33 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The page has now been protected by an admin to prevent your text dumps there. Take your complaints to the talk page for the article please. - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dead links

thanks for the link fixes on the UH-1N Twin Huey (Canadian squadrons). If your up to it, the Canadian squadrons links could use your help here as well. Thanks again FOX 52 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, let me have a look and see if I can fix them! - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gatineau Park

The new Gatineau Park section needs lots of references to back up arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎76.65.4.13 (talk)

Please take this up on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing Informations about MOWAG

Ther was someone asking about this informations , because you deletet it i put it on again. Please don't delet informations about MOWAG, the MOWAG Artile in English is missing a lot of informations. Especaly about the civil MOWAG Trucks, the prototypes and aircrafttugs. So thes Informations are vital so that people can use them to create with this a article in perfect english who contains realy all vehicles build by Mowag. Without MOWAG Puma &Shark never a Piranha would have been build, also more than 500 Trucks for the swisspost is something.. all references are given it does no mather that some of them are in german language only, because MOWAG is locatet in the german part of switzerland and so not everything is translatet to english (especaly if the product was only made for switzerland and not for export). So bee patience let the informations ther , as soon as a good articlle about it is created it could be deletet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.75.33 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, text dumping huge amounts of copied and unattributed text is a copyright violation and is not going to to result in it being incorporated into the article. You need to discuss and gain consensus for changes, not just dump text. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyright. stop cencorshiping informations. this informations are not a simple copy . Also i have clearly writen that the text needet worket over bye someone who speaks english perfect.Al prototypes are worth to be on wikipedia without MOWAG PUMA and MOWAG SHARK the PIRANHA never would be build. also the more as 500 Trucks for the Swiss Post are something important for the history of MOWAG. Have also a look at the refernce links, no mather that they are in german (and you see that it is not only a copy from words). People must have the chanche to work with this Informations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.75.33 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ahunt, so what do you recommend to mad it possible to get this informations in a apropiate and correct form into the article? can you help?Most of the Informations are from the Military Museum at Full in Switzerland who owns most of the prototypes and who has the history of MOWAG in German made public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than dumping huge amounts of text in the talk page, what you need to do is just post a list of subjects that you think should be included in the article, with refs that describe them. Other editors will comment on whether they should be included or not and you can engage them in creating the needed text in readable English. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chromebook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

15 Hürkuş aircraft may be ordered by Turkish Army

Hi Ahunt, thanks for your help. The kokpit.aero ref I wrote also mentioned that the Turkish Army is considering canceling their option for 15 KAI KT-1 and instead are considering the Hurkus. Can you write a `future operators` section or something similar? That would be a great help. This is the part I`m talking about (I can translate it if you wish). Güney Kore ile yapılan anlaşmada, 40 uçak için anlaşma yapılmıştı. Son uçak ekim ayında TAI tarafından Hava Kuvvetleri'ne teslim edildi. Buna ek olarak 15 adetlik de opsiyon söz konusuydu.

Ancak TAI’ye Savunma Sanayii Müsteşarlığı (SSM) tarafından verilen ve Hürkuş olarak adlandırılan eğitim uçağı projesi ile birlikte 15 adetlik opsiyon iptal edildi. Projenin planlanan aşamalarının beklendiği gibi gitmesi üzerine 15 uçaklık siparişin Hürkuş’a kaydırılması ilk defa ocak ayındaki SSİK’da tartışılacak. Kabul edilmesi durumunda Hava Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı Hürkuş’un ilk kullanıcısı olacak.

In addition, can you also add some of the specs of the Hurkus mentioned here to the wiki page?:https://www.tai.com.tr/en/project/hurkus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fah112778 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. No problem, I was able to translate the article okay. We normally don't add an operators list until they are actually operating the aircraft. Potential orders normally get mentioned in the text. Let me add that, though. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahunt, can we new a picture to the TAI Hürkuş page because there is now a prototype ready (it hasn't flown yet though). Can you upload this picture as a fair use rationale http://i948.photobucket.com/albums/ad329/Fuzuli_2023/Hurkus4-1.jpg . Its from a Turkish defence site and they'd likely let us use it without copyright anyway.Fah112778 (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We would need full details on who took the photo, it's licencing status, who published it and when it was taken, etc to do that under fair use. If we can get that info it could be used to replace the existing artist's concept. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mooney Mite - external link removed?

Having initiated the article on the Mooney M-18 several years ago, I confess I now spend very little time "backstage" at Wikipedia. I was surprised on a recent visit to see that the Article had changed so much. I noticed that much information was missing. My reason for adding the link was that it was simpler than making wholesale changes/additions to your article. I was startled when my "External link" to www.mooneymite.com was removed within minutes, twice!

For example, I would have mentioned the M-18LA or the most popular model, the M-18C-55 (built in 1955, of course). I would also have put a link to the Type Certificate (1948), etc. I'll leave the changes up to you. I have more than enough work to do tending the Mite Site.

Incidentally, on the other Wikipedia article I initiated, the External link to my website on the same topic is apparently perfectly acceptable, as it has remained there for years. --Drutherford (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. By consensus on Wikipedia external links to aircraft type clubs are considered spam. They don't meet the requirements of WP:EL and are specifically dealt with at WP:TYPECLUB in detail. I'll have to review the other article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome userbox logo question

Hi. Calling your attention to Template talk:User browser:Google Chrome, in case you might not be watching it. I'm wondering if the fact that File:Google Chrome icon (2011).svg is on Commons would mean it's OK to use it in the Google Chrome userbox — or if our policy on trademarks in userboxes may still preclude some Commons material in a userbox. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is on my watch list. I have answered over there! - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ultravia Pelican

Hello, I am new to Wiki. I found errors in your page on the Ultravia Pelican. My name is Izek Therrien and I was working with Kolb and Flyer. I did the purchase of Ultravia Assets in 2006 and did the redesign of the aircraft that was certified SLSA on the 15 of August 2008. Contact me for the corrections and I will let you edit the page yourself but tgese errors must be corrected. I can also supply you with exclusive material and pictures. Izek.therrien@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izek Therrien (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, it is nice to hear from you. One of the primary pillars of Wikipedia is that we cannot accept original research, meaning that what any individual knows from their own experience cannot be just put into an article. The articles are based on the principle of verifiablity from reliable published sources. The article right now reflects what the cited sources say. Now they might be incorrect or there might be more to the story that is there but we need to be able to reference any changes to new reliable published sources. So if you can cite those sources then, sure we can update the article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the broken ref that was cited and re-read it and it does basically support the text you added, sop I have added that back and expanded what is there to provide more information. Have a look and see if that covers what you think needed to be said. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, since I am new to Wiki I am not sure if I use the system correctly. I understand about the references but it makes no sense to publish false information. I don't know where you got all your dates and facts. I purchased the assets of Ultravia directly from the syndic in 2006 (after purchasing the company's debt from CIBC). I still own all the intellectual rights on the Pelican aircraft and in 2007, I sold only the right to distribute and manufacture the Pelican to Serge Ballard (Contact Serge Ballard and he will confirm). It was important for us to keep the intellectual rights on the aircraft since we were using the Pelican to develop the Flyer SS (The sales agreement was written by my attorney Me Yves Pepin from Montreal). Kolb became the distributor of the Pelican in 2000 but presented the aircraft for the first time at Oshkosh in 2001 (I flew the aircraft myself from Gatineau to Oshkosh). Between 1999 and 2004, I was a demo pilot for Kolb Aircraft. During that period I also worked for Flight Dynamics in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu working on the design of the flight control of the Seawind C300. In 2004, I teamed up with Kolb and Flyer to produce a LSA aircraft based on the Pelican. The Intellectual rights of the Flyer SS are owned by Flyer and former owner of Kolb. A few years ago, Kolb was sold to Bryan Melborn but without the Flyer SS. The Flyer SS is not a Pelican. The aircraft was totally redesigned to include a wet wing, new landing gears, bigger carbon fiber fuselage with cargo a door, electric seats and flaps, etc... Kolb presented the Pelican Sport 600 until Oshkosh 2007... I have the pictures. In 2007 we had in our booth two airplanes, a Sport 600 and a Flyer SS (Mock-up). The Flyer will return with new modifications in 2014 but I can't talk about it in that forum but if you contact me by email I can provide you with exclusive pictures and more details. I currently work for a major airframer and I am based in the UK. izek.therrien@gmail.com

You can also read this article by Dan Johnson: http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=7956&p=11

I rarely read Wikipedia but as a first experience, I have to say that I am disappointed. If errors like this can be published, it means that the system does not work. I would love to contribute and if you care about this page, contact me to get the real story.

Cheers,

Izek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izek Therrien (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the information. Let me see what I can do to straighten things out. As far as Wikipedia articles go, they are only as good as the published sources that they cite. If the sources are wrong or incomplete then the article will reflect that. As explained at WP:V we can only work from published sources, not personal knowledge or claims, because it cannot be verified. I have updated the article based on the cited ref, which is an archived copy of the New Kolb website's history page, so if the information is incomplete then it is because that is what Kolb published. Let me have a read though your other source and see if what you have said here about only the rights to distribute and manufacture the Pelican being sold to Ballard. - Ahunt (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dan Johnson article doesn't mention any of the factors you have mentioned, so I can't verify what you have said here. I have made some more adjustments to the wording of the article though. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we have both made fixes to the article - see what you think of the text now. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Again, thank you for helping me correcting this page. Regarding Ballard Aircraft, the sale was not done under a license agreement. Serge Ballard does not have any royalties to pay. In fact, the rights to produce and distribute the Pelican was sold as intangible assets with alienation rights. He has no restriction on what he can do with the aircraft except that he is not allowed to certify the Pelican or any aircraft that would be based on that design. Also it is important to note that The New Kolb Aircraft Co. (the official company name of the company includes "The") was and still is an ultralight manufacturer. Kolb never had the production facility to produce the Pelican, the Sport 600 or the Flyer SS. This is why a strategic alliance was created between the owner of Kolb and Flyer in Brazil. This alliance was created in 2003. Kolb never owned the Flyer SS assets. It was owned by its owner and as such, Kolb was chosen only to be the marketing vehicle for the new aircraft. Between 2000 and 2007 Kolb marketed the Pelican Sport 600. The name Pelican was however removed from its name in the USA to be called the Kolb Sport 600. The Sport 600 was a Pelican Sport but with a new engine cowling.

Hoping that you can collaborate in correcting the story, please accept my best regards,

Izek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.127.122 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I took the time to revisit the Kolb website archive and I found where I wrote from 2003 to 2005. The reason is that in 2001 and 2002 we could not get a Pelican Sport 600 as it was not ready. However we displayed a Pelican Sport which was not the same model and we used the aircraft for a market study and see the reaction of the public at Oshkosh. The reality is that we started to promote the Pelican as early as 2001. The distribution agreement between Kolb and Ultravia was negotiated at the end of 2000 but was signed in 2001, a few months before Oshkosh. At that time it was important that the public saw that we were bringing a new aircraft. Many pilots were complaining about the Sport model and we wanted to associate Kolb with a new product.

I am sorry if I overwhelm you with long texts. I might put too much importance in this as I was deeply involved in Kolb adventure.

I know and understand that you need references to back up your text. But know that I wrote all the texts on Kolb website archive you sre referencing.

Thank you for your patience .

Yes indeed it is all a matter of being able to cite refs. I am starting to think that the Flyer should probably be split off into its own article, especially if it is coming back into production. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In Brazil the Flyer SS never stopped to be produced. Since 2008, I believe that the number of unit produced is around 120. However, I will contact Claudio from Flyer Aeronautica to get the exact number. What makes the Flyer interesting in Brazil is that it qualifies on both regulations, LSA and Ultralight (registered as a PU aircraft). This gives a larger potential market for a single model. Flyer will not stop soon the SS line. A large investment was done for the development and the certification of this aircraft. If you want to create a page for the Flyer SS, please let me know so I can forward you exclusive material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.72.39 (talk)

It all comes down to published references! - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bushcaddy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unicom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKMONGOOSE13 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It looks like your post there was already assessed by an admin as "no violation". You can note all I did was remove unacceptable WP:SPS refs that you added that didn't support the text. The rest was just clean up of unsupported text and external links that all met policies and guidelines at WP:EL and WP:TYPECLUB. In future you may want to read WP:BRD and when someone removes text and refs you have added discuss the edits first, rather than post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, especially when there clearly was no edit warring. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Qaher 313

There is no rule two exactly quote stupid wording of a reporter. The guy is a dissident politics writer not an aerospace specialist. Referring to a project as cheap on a wikipedia page is against neutrality.

If you prefer so we can remove the whole quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadys (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add the quote in the first place, but you can't just cut words out and change the overall meaning because you don't agree with what he says. BBC is a WP:RS, but if you think that the quote is not valid then yes it would be better to just remove it instead. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding Israeli POV to the page. I will oppose and act against converting the page into an Israeli publication.Sarmadys (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please confine discussion of the article to the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I told you some people weren't going to like the inclusion of that criticism (LOL). I'm behind you 100%. It's all reliably sourced.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove the counter claims if you add claims (Tazarv example of Composites use is authentic and it is flying since 2002). Also refer to Saegheh discussion in the talk page before changing the fact that it is an aircraft which is produced by Iran (since no body else produces Saeghe with that shape and specs.) Sarmadys (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Model kits: sufficiently relevant for "external links" ?

Kindly add your thoughts to my recent addition on Talk:Felixstowe_F.5. Regards, Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ahunt, I left a reply on Talk:Felixstowe F.5, please examine the article (and John Cyril Porte) more closely, your comments please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ahunt. You have new messages at YSSYguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.