User talk:Ahunt/Archive23

Rant on Ski-jump (aviation)

A, could you take a look at these diffs, and see if they're worth responding to? I've removed it, but if you can give a response, then feel free to restore it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

While he asks some good questions, yeah it was good to just remove it under WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK,thanks. Yes, some of the questions were good, but he continued to make conclusions, and assumes that because he can't figure out how the ski jump works, no one else can either! Obviously a catapult is better than a ski jump in allowing higher take-off weights, but I can't see the RN using them for 30 years if they hadn't figured out how to utilize them. As I understand it, the only reason the USN doesn't use them on the big amphibs is that they want a completely flat deck to allow more helicopter spots, which is important to them, and their decks are big enough to allow the Harriers and F-35Bs to just make longer take-off runs. But I'm an amateur too, so I could be as off as he is! - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That all sounds logical to me, but of course Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to do all that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I didn't respond to their post. And I kept it short here. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

- you are always welcome to drop anything here! - Ahunt (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Forum, or attempt to subvert Wiki OR policies?

Have you seen this? I guess it's a slow news day at the AvWeek comments section! - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now. Yeah your reply was right on, we can't cobble together new OR here and then put it in articles, save that for the conspiracy websites. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad case

Of IDHT. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm done responding point by point. If he adds anything to the article, it'll be against consensus, and easily reverted on that basis. - BilCat (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of Antonov An-12 6/1/2017

It seems you cursorily reverted an edit I made to Aircraft in fiction / Antonov An-12.

My edits were specifically for movies, and a primary information source for movies is of course the IMDB.

Be advised this does NOT fall under WP:SPS / Self-published sources as you cite.

What you fail to consider is that the primary quoted source for IMDB is the movie itself. This is not describing a function or an airframe or a moment in history. The citations are certainly not "self published" as you infer. Even the Trivia and Goofs (as colloquial as these may sound) are valid topic headings, in the IMDB vernacular, with verified content. It is truthful commentary and subject to editor and peer review.

The "World War Z" trivia reference is from a quoted interview with the director Andrew Niccol, and IMDB cited as such. The accident report DOES mention the accident, which you again cursorily refute. I cited the plane number, visible in the movie, and if you read the Airliner Accident report where that number is in the header (you need to scroll down the pdf) you will find it well reported.

The Red 2 reference is again clear from the movie, the goof is self evident commentary on the movie, again subject to years of editor review.

It is not as encyclopedic as I would prefer. I will polish the links a little to improve the encyclopedic appearance, but they are valid and do reflect facts. If I had found better sources I would have included them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssaco (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

IMDB main entries are acceptable refs but the "goofs" and "trivia are both reader submitted pages. Try it, anyone can add this stuff, so it fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. We don't put aircraft registrations in to articles as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations. It isn't rally relevant to this article that the An-12 later crashed after being involved in the film. This has actually happened to a number of aircraft, but we generally don't mention it as it doesn't affect the film appearance, it is really just WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hughes Aircraft Company

Any idea what these edits are about? I haven't a clue, but since I'm not omniscient, I simply removed then as being unsourced. - BilCat (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No clue at all. If they exist or existed than articles should be at least started! - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression it's totally fictional, as I can find absolutely nothing through Google searches on some of the key words. I could be wrong, of course, but we've seen similar stuff many times before, mostly from kids being too creative! - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Wishful thinking, perhaps? - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If we're lucky. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The user is back again, with new claims about a "relaunch". Not sure what is going on. If it is a new company, it's notability has to be established on its own, not tagged onto this one. - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, needs a ref to add that for sure. They should at least have a press release if it is real! - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RAAusLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RAAusLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?. Mamasanju (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thus is a bit disingenuous. You have reverted three times and were warned for edit warring, while I only reverted twice and started a discussion on this subject. Your response should be to participate in the discussion I started, not to retaliate with this warning here, when it isn't justified. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Aloha 27

I did look in Google books and did a web search. There is basically nothing to establish notability of the Aloha 27. The source you have in the article are run-of-the-mill data sources. The Sailing Joy source is very dubious. I'd be happy to remove the tags if you can come up with good reliable sources beyond factual items like the waterline length. Otherwise, it does not belong here.104.163.158.183 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed Article now has three independent third party refs and one second party ref. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you have nothing near good sources. Some of the the sources (an owner's forum, for example) are clarly unreliable. Tags restored. Take note that a revert will put you at more than 3RR.104.163.158.183 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your consistent tagging of articles with multiple, independent sources is clearly vandalism and will be treated as such. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to take some time and research when the A271 was produced. IIRC, after Ouyang went under (1986?), there were a number of boats (Hull number 184-188?) which were finished by "Aloha Yachts International". As the A27 model was registered, the designation morphed to the 271 I think in 1987. I know DH Boatbuilding bought the mould in 1989 and built their first ("Susie Girl") as a Parks 27. DH previously had built 3 Parks 23's. Funny thing, after DH ceased all boat production, we bought the house next door and the A27 mould was less than 100 feet from my front door. Regards   Aloha27  talk  02:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear from you! That is all great info if you can source it! I don't suppose you snapped a photo of the mould? - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a copy of the original Ouyang launch brochure featuring the yacht designer and have asked him if I would be allowed to send it to Wikimedia Commons so it could be included in the article. I'll let you know how that goes. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  20:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Brochure can be seen here: http://www.angelfire.com/ns/aloha27/brochure1.jpg   Aloha27  talk  01:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You can certainly cite the brochure as a ref. It may be more useful like that. We can easily incorporate a primary ref, as we now have so many third party refs included. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Perry has graciously allowed me to post the photo on the original brochure on Wikimedia Commons. (Called it a "funny old picture of me") Article has been updated with this new information. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I just checked it and the brochure is up for deletion as it is copyright material. It is also probably copyright to the company and not Perry, so will need permission from them. You need to go through the OTRS procedure to show permission. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources here are very very poor. One of the recent ones added is from a "sailboat market", a sales page essentially. Nominating for deletion. 104.163.158.183 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If you refer to sailquest.com, perhaps you missed the disclaimer that the site is not a commercial one.   Aloha27  talk  20:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:DFTT - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

AW139 edit

What was this? Vandalism or what? - BilCat (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It made no sense to me, looked like vandalism, so I reverted it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure either. It looked like someone trying.to cite a Type Certificate Data Sheet, but not knowing what they were doing, or just adding nonsense. - BilCat (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't clear, but it also wasn't constructive. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was weird. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, weird and incomprehensible. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

An AfD entry in need of attention

Hi.

There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Mobile Filter

Thanks

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! I should get to it later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DiamondAirLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DiamondAirLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it is now basically a duplicate and can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You are doing excellent job for the society Hemant (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I owned Kirby 25 #96, participated in the owners association forum while it was active and have corresponded with Bruce Kirby and George Cuthbertson once or twice. I've also corresponded with Randy at sailboat data, working to add a few boats and cull the extras in his Mirage section. Thanks for adding these pages, I'll try to exercise more discipline in adding my recollections! Charleslanning (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is nice to hear from you. It is great to have more editors working on the boat articles, we certainly need the help here! The sort of "thrashing out" process we were doing there together is pretty normal, it is often how articles get improved. We'll get better at collaborating as time goes by. It all hangs on finding good references. As we have both noted Sailboatdata.com is a great source of info, but it does have some errors. If you can get them fixed all the better. My current boat is a US Yachts US 22. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HydromashLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HydromashLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it has been superseded and can be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Unhappy IP editor

Nice to know somebody is watching. I presume you objected to the racist aspect of the guy's rant on my talk page. Meanwhile, I have seen some suspicious account activity so I have requested this sockpuppet investigation. I don't know if you might have noticed anything relevant? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning! Yeah I just thought I would let you know I had seen it. Sometimes with talk page traffic we think we are fighting these battles alone, but at least on WikiProject Aircraft a lot of watch each other's talk pages and are ready to lend a hand if needed. In this case it just sounded like ineffective lashing out and I see he hasn't been back. Good thing! - Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New aircrtaft: Couzinet 10

Thanks for desqiggling! But I didn't get the Cuisinart ref. Just joking (near homophone)? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was a homophone joke. Apparently not a funny one, either! - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh good! I thought perhaps I had made some bizarre error. When one of my jokes falls flat, I mostly blame the audience! Cheers, TSRL

Nope it was me, I bombed. Too subtle for the real world! I'll do better next time, I promise. - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Mach number

We get a number of these type edits a month. The main problem I see in explaining this is that we don't have a simple explanation and chart of Mach number and speeds at various altitudes. The Mach number article is highly technical, and even I have trouble comprehending it. There's no way most of the fanboys making these changes are going to understand it.

I thought I'd ask you directly first before taking the issue to WT:AIR. Do you have any interest in tackling the problem directly? One solution might be an essay on WTAIR's project space that would include a basic chart and simple explanation that we could link to when reverting such edits. Given the current state of the Mach number article and the editors currently active on it, it might be easier to do an essay (with citations) than try to add such a section to the article.

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah I see what you mean. I agree that a simple explanation somewhere might help. How about a brief para at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Operating_costs? - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good. Can you write something? - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I should be able to get to that tomorrow. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I had a few minutes this morning prior to going sailing, so  Done. Feel free to edit! WP:MACH-NUMBER. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the aircraft pilot page.

Hey Ahunt, Thank you for reviewing my edits. I am just little confused on why you're saying that my information is not credible when it's directly coming from a well known text called Aviation Pilots Techcareers which was published in 2011. I do plan on making other edits to the page from the same source.

Aside from being US-centric, the information you put in that article what just plan wrong. You can try again if you like, but you will need to reread the ref better first. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Any clue what this is supposed to mean?? I have no idea if it's real thing or vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not vandalism, it is terminology, but you are right it was odd and vague, needs a source as well. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

International Fighter Pilots Academy

Hi Ahunt.

I was going to revert your latest revert of my edit to Flight training and take you to its talk page, but you have a few more edits up than I do so I thought I would come here and ask you if you can do better.

I do not have any particular feelings about either Flight training or International Fighter Pilots Academy. What I (and a few others by the way) have been doing is trying to clean up the many thousands of orphan articles going back to 2009. This is important for two reasons, one, it simply makes for a better encyclopdia if related information is linked throughout, and two, it hopefully brings lost and forgotten articles to the attention of active subject aware editors (like your self for example) so that they can be improved, or got rid of if more appropriate to do so.

I first linked International Fighter Pilots Academy into Flight training because the former is a flight training school and the latter is a header article about flight training and said schools in general. So I was rather puzzled about your first comment that stated "not relevant to this article". Yes, sticking it into the See also section was a bit lazy but none the less would still achieve the two points above.

My second linking was I thought very reasonable and fully referenced with two independent sources at least one of which is presumably highly reliable. There were already two "unique" flight schools mentioned and International Fighter Pilots Academy is also pretty "unique" in its student intake, so making it a third was in line with first two, even if for a very different reason.

Is it promotional? I am not sure. It is certainly not the best of articles. If you believe it is WP:PROMO then you should take it to WP:AFD. I see you have done a couple of tweaks, so point two above is working a bit.

In the meantime your reverts of my edits have reorpaned the article (disambiguation pages, redirect pages, and pure indexes do not count), so you need to put the orphan tag back please.

What I do ask of you is that with your wiki experience and subject area experience, can you do a better job of deorphaning the article? It helps no one if the article is to languish unlinked-to for another 10 years.

Regards. Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. International Fighter Pilots Academy needs some serious work. I read the two refs you added, which are good refs, if old ones (1995 vintage). Basically the article is on a notable subject so it should not be deleted, but unless more refs can be found it does need stubbing down to what the refs support. As far as links go it doesn't belong linked at flight training for two reasons: 1. we aren't going to add links to every flight training organization to that article as there are thousands of them and 2. International Fighter Pilots Academy is not really a flight training organization, even though it bills itself as one. It isn't qualifying people for anything, no licences, ratings or anything. It is really just a "jet rides for rich people" unit that was set up to make money for the "cash strapped" Slovak Air Force. It isn't clear if it is still basically in that mode as we have no refs for the current set up, but fundamentally it is not a flight training organization, which is why I removed the link. I have added a link at Slovak Air Force, so it is no longer an orphan article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Understood and thanks. Eno Lirpa (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ThielertLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ThielertLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Chromebook

Although i did not explicitly word my question about Chromebooks as article-content related, that is what I meant it to be. if registration is required, I think this is a content-worthy fact. That is why i wrote my comment -- as a nudge for a knowing person to include it if it is and to say it it isn't if somehow it it isn't. Kdammers (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, from what you posted it looked like you were starting a discussion as per WP:NOTFORUM. If you would like to try again and be more explicit then please go ahead. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Help

See here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It's amazing the things people think when one disagrees with them. If I had actually gotten paid every time I've been accused of paid editing, my bank account would be very appreciative! - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I should figure out a way to get money from other people flying off the handle! - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

I am trying to comply with Wikipedia Rules, but you keep flagging me for posting a link to a For Tri Motor podcast

I would like to point out that I do not make money on my podcast so I have no financial gain to people checking out my podcast. I am not sure what rule I am violating, as I have reviewed the policy a number of times.

Secondly, I followed COI rules when it comes posting

Thirdly, the Ford Tri Motor podcast interview includes a lot of information about the aircraft (i.e.: the early days of passenger aviation and the later history of the plane) that is not included in the Wiki post. I only added it to the Wiki post because I am a big fan of the aircraft and wanted to truly add a source of information for others who are also fans of the aircraft.

Can you please address specifically what rules / procedures I am violating. I am truly trying to add something of value to the wiki post in an altruistic fashion. I really am trying to comply with the rules.

Thank you in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRybczyk (talk • contribs)

Yes, you are posting links to your own website, which violates WP:SPAM "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.", WP:ELNO "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" and WP:COI "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.". You can't link to your own podcasts, even if you aren't making money from it, it is still promoting yourself. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion proposed foe EFF Prometheus

Morning Ahunt. I've just removed a deletion tag from EFF Prometheus, placed on the basis on no production, and added a note on the Talk page with an explanation. Do I/we need to do more? Cheers.TSRL (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have "watched" it and added a reply to the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I did feel if that one fell, so might a large number of others.TSRL (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, deleting it would not be a good precedent. As I noted, it meets WP:GNG so no reason to delete it. Thanks for catching it, these things can just slip past unnoticed too easily. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Island X-199 Spectra

Hi A, take a look at this new article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice article! It bears more than a passing resemblance to the Seawind International Seawind. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft article dates

In this diff, you stated, "by consensus aircraft article use dmy". Are you sure about that? I know US military aircraft articles use dmy, but US civil aircraft articles use mdy. Check any civil Boeing, Cessna, Beechcraft, Northrop, article etc etc. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note! I thought we had agreed to do them all that way. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I certainly wouldn't have "voted" for it, had I known about such a proposal. The US military mdy format already causes confusion, even with regular WP editors. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL, I thought it was dmy. Apparently even here there is confusion! - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been adamant about certain rules being a certain way in the past, only to discover I was mistaken. That's the reason I asked you about this instead of just reverting! - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm I mistyped! The US military uses dmy, and WP follows that convention for US military articles, per WP:MILFORMAT. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Piper PA-22 Reversion

Your comment that my addition of the fact that PenAir's SECOND airplane, in what is now a major Airline company in Alaska, is "unsourced and doesn't seem very notable" is pretty trite. It is cross referenced to the PENAIR page itself, AND a rather remarkable humble beginning for an airline. Please consider reverting it, and not being so condescending. It is a notable beginning from a humble workhorse airplane. I own N7750D, and it is a 1957 PA-22, 10 years younger than this old pilot. Cheers Pabobfin (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) pabobfinf>

Thanks for your note here. The first or second aircraft operated may be notable for the airline article, but it isn't for the aircraft type article. Hundreds of small operators in the 1950s and 60s started with a PA-22 as a first aircraft, probably many more had one as a second aircraft. It is just WP:TRIVA. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Have you looked at Royal Canadian Air Cadets recently? There seems to be an awful lot of bloat for a pre-college program, especially course information, etc. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yes you are right. It looks like the usual case of people just adding stuff indefinitely and now there is too much detail. Needs a good paring down. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Groen Aeronautics Corporation logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Groen Aeronautics Corporation logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit review

See here. I was tempted to revert this, but held off. I have heard the saying before, but attributed to someone, though I can't remember who. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is actually a very common saying among pilots, sort of a meme, if you like. That said it is unsourced and so should only be put back in with some kind of reference cited. - Ahunt (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be "common" in the sense that some aviation novelist (like Ernie Gann) quoted it in one of his books (I think that is most likely where I have seen it), but I don't think I have ever heard a real, live pilot actually say that during my career, spanning over 50 years. Thus, I agree it should not be put back in without a real solid WP:RS cite that does more than just claim it was a "common" meme. EditorASC (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Avanti

I think we should keep an eye on the Avanti article, as well as user:Luizcmelo. That account was created over a year ago, but just made it's first edit today. It may be someone who never got around to using their account, or it may be a sock. Sario528 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree! Watching! - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Azalea Saberwing

Thanks for your thanks for posting the photo. I misspelled the photo's filename, and believe I'm not empowered to change it - can you do it for me? I spelled it 'Sabrewing' because that's how my fingers work! Many thanks in advance if you can! Lestocq (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do! - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the WikiUserboxer Award. My attempts to improve Wikipedia usually annoy users more than please them. You are one of the few users who care about Wikipedia:Userboxes/, unless they can't find something. Thanks again. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You are doing good work there, even though it is a bit "behind the scenes" and well worth recognizing! - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent reversions

I looked at the guideline and failed to find anything wrong with the Turkmenistan government B777-200LR. As I explained in my edit summary, the section was about corporate and government uses. It had a pic of the corporate, but none of the government. Would you care to elaborate exactly which of these edits are objectionable and why?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There was no problem with the addition of the Turkmenistan government 777, and in fact I have put that back in, but you also changed the lede image without discussing it. Looking at the page history I am guessing this was just an error, as I think you did it by reverting to restore your VIP 777 image, rather than just inserting it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct on that and I thank you for clearing it up. However, looking at the lead image, it's been used across so many times. I later on think it would be nice to replace it with another United Airlines B777 in-flight. An image that hasn't been used before. I find it unhelpful that with the millions of images posted at commons, only one is picked and recycled throughout wikis. I don't have the time to search now, but later on would like to replace it with something new and un-used.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It would definitely be best to bring that up on the talk page and see what the consensus is. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Userbox

Could you make a userbox that states that that user is adopted, please? Thanks. American474 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Here is a first cut at it. What changes would you like? - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikitext	userbox	where used
{{User:Ahunt/Adopted}}	This user was adopted	linked pages

Production completed

Google search

1. The Gemini Twin is an American powered parachute

2. Van's Aircraft RV-3 is a single-seat, single-engine, low-wing kit aircraft

3. The Air Creation Twin is a French ultralight trike

4. Ibis GS-600 Arrow is a Colombian homebuilt aircraft

etc, it's standard use on small flying equipment, produced in series, that people can buy. That's why it looked strange on jet plane. Klõps (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. We have been around the bush on this issue before over at WP:AIR, but without more guidance decided on than is already at Template:Infobox aircraft type, so it probably isn't worth any more time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Westminster Regiment

Hi, I'm not that adept with using Wikipedia so I don't know if this will work.

I am the current Commanding Officer of The Royal Westminster Regiment and we appear to be in some sort of "power struggle" regarding the Regiment's page. Mainly, the friction appears to be over the use of the term "armoury" over "armouries". I can assure you that a specific decision was made to use "armoury". Every time you undo this correction, you are perpetuating a mistake and confusing people. Use of "armoury" has the endorsement of me (the CO), the Senate, the Historical Society, the Museum, the Association (which you do not appear to be a member of) and the HCol. I am asking you nicely to back off from this current, inexplicable obsession. The Association Secretary confirms you are not a member and no one I've spoken to seems to have heard of you. However, Terry L does recall someone of a similar name expressing interest in becoming a pilot.

I will admit that, due to my ham-fisted computer skills, whenever I undo your undo, the link to your page entitled "The Armouries" gets broken. I think the best solution to that would be for you to rename that page using the proper title: "The Royal Westminster Regiment Armoury". After that, I'll have my Unit Historian correct the rest of the errors on the main page.

If you wish to continue this discussion via email, let me know via this means and I'll give you a contact.

D.J. Vernon LCol CO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.142.126 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. You will have to forgive my skepticism, but here on Wikipedia we get a lot of people claiming to be someone that they are not and also a lot of people claim that they are not someone whom they are. There is no way to confirm who anyone is in real life, but, as I will explain, that is actually of little import here. It seems unlikely that the CO of an infantry regiment would spend his time editing Wikipedia articles, though, especially given the fallout from the 2010 Canadian F-35 Wikipedia controversy where members of the military were caught editing a Wikipedia article, it made the national press, resulted in questions being asked on the floor of the House of Commons and embarrassment to the Prime Minister of the day. My understanding is that internal DND policy now instructs that Wikipedia articles not be edited by members of the military.

Regardless, though, it is probably worth explaining that people who have a close connection to the subject of an article, whatever it may be, are considered by Wikipedia to be in a conflict of interest (COI) and are subject to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which says "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted." Instead a discussion should be started on the article talk page, where changes can be considered by Wikipedia editors not in a conflict of interest.

It is worth noting that Wikipedia is an independent publication, where articles are written by volunteer editors and researchers, not by people involved in the subject at hand. That is why we don't have the Ford PR department writing the Ford Motor Company article or the CEO of Boeing writing that article. The official line on subjects would be on the official company or organization website, where the organization can control what it says like http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/royal-westminster-regiment/index.page. Here on Wikipedia we are independent and work to different rules. We are bound to write to reliable sources cited, and preferably third party sources, too. In this case the changes you were making contradicted the refs cited, as well as caused broken links on the article page. For instance this cited ref from the regiment historical society says "The Armouries".

I did find a new version of the Parks Canada heritage designation which says "The Armoury" and so I have changed the article to indicate what the refs support. I have also changed and updated the references, moved The Armouries to The Armoury and made other small adjustments to both the articles. If you have further suggestions for either article it would be best to bring them up at Talk:Royal Westminster Regiment or Talk:The Armoury. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and action taken. I know nothing about COI etc. I just thought this was the place to sort this. Further comments will be made on the actual page. As to the armoury vs armouries debate....it's been going for a while. The RQMS has an old photo showing "armouries" painted on the building, however, there were more than one at the time. I can give numerous examples of mistakes being perpetuated through the ages because, "that's what we always called it". Particularly reserve units. We all got together (Hist Society, Assn, HCol, former HCol etc) and have decided to go with the singular. If you wish to correspond, my official work email is: david.vernon@forces.gc.ca. I'm hands on as we have no one else to do it (for now). I have just appointed my 2Lt PA Rep to take it on. - Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72E0:8400:EC60:21BB:3A79:84 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think if nothing else that shows that the name has been subject to debate, or at least confusion, which I have indicated in the article. That is probably the best outcome, indicating alternatives, as per MOS:LEADALT. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

René Fournier

Is this René Fournier the same person who designed the aircraft listed in Template:Fournier aircraft? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A search shows that Rene Fournier the aircraft designer was aged 95 in 2016 Renowned aircraft designer René Fournier celebrates his 95th birthday, that makes his birth around 1921. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found my answer: the designer is fr:René Fournier, while the cyclist is fr:René Fournier (cyclisme). @Marc Lacoste: speaks French, so perhaps he can help translate the French article. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You guys are quicker than me! I found the same info, so it is pretty clear that they are not the same person. We need some links fixed! - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed I linked them all to René Fournier (aircraft designer). - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh! the fr:René Fournier article is so bad: far away from encyclopedic WP:TONE, no refs. Please start from scratch, it will be better. I'm available for ref verifications if you need me.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I agree that the refs in the French article are pretty skimpy and weak. I think we have to start with some solid refs and build from there. Anyone have any? - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ultralight aircraft (United States)

Regarding these edits to Ultralight aircraft (United States): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultralight_aircraft_(United_States)&oldid=prev&diff=809030396 I removed the statement that in the United States, ultralights are not classified as aircraft. You re-added the statement, writing that "the ref supports this"; but I looked through the references (Title 14 Part 103 and http://www.usua.org/faq.htm) and I wasn't able to find any statement that ultralight vehicles are not considered aircraft. Could you point out where either reference supports the statement that ultralights are not classified as aircraft? Thank you! --Tanner Swett (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. It is only a legal technicality that is used in the US. FAR 130.1 specifically says that these are ultralight vehicles and does not use the word "aircraft" or "airplane". Most other countries call them ultralight aircraft or similar, such as Canada which calls them "ultra-light aeroplanes". The FAA advisory circular 103-7 also covers this, as does the USUA, which says: "Ultralights fall under two basic sets of rules; either ultralight rules (Ultralight Vehicles) or General Aviation rules (Ultralight Aircraft)."- Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to this compromise wording; what do you think? 'In the United States, ultralights are described as "ultralight vehicles" and not as aircraft. They are not required to be registered, nor is the pilot required to have a pilot certificate.' --Tanner Swett (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure that is fine. It reflects what the refs say. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:United Kingdom sport aircraft

A tag has been placed on Category:United Kingdom sport aircraft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed tagging this for deletion. It was created in error and should be removed. I created it because of inconsistencies in the cat naming system. I was looking for United Kingdom sport aircraft because we have Category:United States sport aircraft when that should have been Category:American sport aircraft, using the adjective form, not the noun form. Most of the rest of the countries are correct, like Category:Canadian sport aircraft and not Category:Canada sport aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Firebird Skydiving

Please google and you will see that the changes are correct. You can contact us on usa@flyfirebird.com. George CEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebirdusa (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, sorry to see you have been blocked already for sockpuppeting. That really isn't the right way to start on Wikipedia. As far as the changes you made being reverted, it was because they were not supported by refs and so were not verifiable. I did carefully check the company website and it didn't provide any information to back up your changes, either. It isn't up to other editors to find refs for your additions. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit review

Ahunt, can you double-check this edit? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That text removed is debatable and not very well supported by the ref removed, either. There is also a question of WP:NOTMANUAL too. I would leave it gone. I will add some tagging there as well. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There are no current plans to build any more Snarks.

I dealt with this on the talk page on 19 September 2015! Arrivisto (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but we still have unsupported claims in the article. Anything we can do about it? How about I reword it to be a more general conclusion? - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've had a stab at this. Arrivisto (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I like your rewording "Accordingly, there are no current plans to build any more Snarks.", that works fine as a general conclusion. The only problem is that you introduced some unattributed quotes. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.". - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The quotes are taken from the excerpts (on the Talk page) of correspondence between myself and Tim Cripps. Apart from the "Pilot" article (which I no longer seem to have) there is very little 3rd party stuff on this aircraft. Tim had been urging me to take over the Snark project, but I regret it is beyond both my finances and my ability. It does occur to me that the Snark might be ideal for any firm wanting to manufacture a proven kit-plane, especially as it could also (probably) be developed into an autogyro version without too many mods. Arrivisto (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well we have a problem, then since we can't have unattributed quotes in an article and there isn't anyway to cite emails, unless you can post them somewhere that can be cited. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Shaanxi Baojii Special Vehicles Lie Ying Falcon

...it sounds like aircraft manufacturers are taking lessons on naming (especially length-of-title) from light novels! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I did wrestle with the name of this article, trying to make it shorter. I even tried shortening Shaanxi Baojii Special Vehicles to just Shaanxi Baojii, but that is the name of the province and town that the company is located in. I have actually started some articles with very short titles, like CS 36, for instance!! Any suggestions would be welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Ahunt. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation! - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Caesar Creek Soaring Club Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Caesar Creek Soaring Club Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Article has been deleted, the image can also be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ahunt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Eggnog for You!

DoctorWho42 has given you an eggnog (🥚🥛)! Eggnog promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day better. Yes nog! Eggnog is a rich, chilled, sweetened, creamy dairy-based beverage traditionally made with milk, cream, sugar, whipped egg whites and egg yolks (which gives it a frothy texture, and its name) and, in some contexts, distilled spirits such as brandy, rum or bourbon. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else an eggnog, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Eggnog by adding {{subst:Yes Nog}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope your holiday season is good! - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Nova Coden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nova Coden 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/Nova Coden 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 notice from the top of the article. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Web scraping????

Ahunt, any clue what the edit summary for this edit means? "Standardise formatting for easier web scraping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliners_by_maximum_takeoff_weight)" The IP locates to France, so perhaps its a bad translation? Whatever it means, the edits are incorrect, so I've reverted them. - BilCat (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IIRC, "web scraping" is the process by which people download Wikipedia pages to sell without proper attribution turn Wikipedia pages into printed books. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, BR. MOS overrides it anyway. - BilCat (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP has now registered an account at User:Nodraak, which describes his campaign. This is getting curiouser and curiouser. - BilCat (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, yup it's me, Nodraak from France. I thought given the number of edits I would make it would be better that I create an account. Sorry for the inconvenience and poor english. I'm just trying to get my projects done while beneficing others ;) Let's discuss that on my talk page :) (and btw, I'm new to wikipedia, this talk page thing is hard to grasp at first, forgive me if i'm not doing that properly)

Nodraak (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

From wikipedia, "Web scraping is data scraping used for extracting data from websites". I don't see any copyright violation here, so please, Bushranger, when you don't have any proof or hints, please don't assume anything (or assume good intention). Web scrapping is not illegal in itself. Thanks.

Nodraak (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if I gave that impression; unfortunatly, there are a lot of publishers who scrape content from Wikipedia, print it on dead trees, and make a tidy profit on it, without so much as a peep about the people who actually wrote the content, so that well has been thoroughly poisoned without further explanatory information. For a personal project, it's more than certainly proper, and I hope it turns out fun for you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nova Coden

Evening Ahunt: you have probably seen this photo which was taken at the 2015 AERO Friedrichshafen. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. There are photos of it on display at Aero 2015 and others by one of the designers too. The company Facebook page has an article that seems to show it in the air, but it is odd that the company FB page has been quiet since 7 Oct 2015. The official website is still up, though. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking SP-CODN is a cod reg? SP-XXX, surely? If the company has gone bust it will join a list of E European co.s that have gone strangely quiet, leaving prototypes (on which we may well have articles) in limbo. Some designs are resurrected under new names.TSRL (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that registration is just a "placeholder" in lieu of, or while waiting for, a reg to arrive. The company seems to still exist or at least they pre-paid their webhosting. It maybe just that certification flight testing is held up pending funding, investors, etc. Hard to say. It looks like an interesting design, so if they don't pursue it perhaps someone else will. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The in-flight pics I found looked to be CGI. One of the perils of living in the modern age I suppose! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That is quite possible. Usually when you see CGI pix it means it hasn't flown. When it has they usually use real photos. The project obviously was more than some CGI renderings in 2015, though, as a prototype, or at least a mock-up was shown at AERO 2015, but there seems to be no info on what has happened since then. Probably most telling there is nothing on YouTube. You know the 21st century motto: "If it isn't on YouTube, then it never happened". - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your revert of my contritubtion Cessna 182 Skylane

Hi,

You removed a template, source and specifications data that I added to this article with the comment: must be a mistake. Possibly the top of the article is not the best place for the specs, as a pilot, I like to see the specs first, but I am open to ideas on where it should be placed. Next time you are modifying a user's contribution, may I suggest that you propose a better placement of the contribution versus clicking the undo button. Having said that, can you suggest where is the proper placement of the template in that article? As a sign of good faith, I would appreciate it if you would make a contribution to that article and place the text where you think it belongs. Alan.ca (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. If you had read the article you would have seen that template is already in the article and completed, with all the specs, further down. The way the aircraft type pages are laid out is based on the consensus format detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. If you would like to get involved you would be very welcome to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft and contribute as part of the project to improve aircraft articles. We are always looking for new members to help out. One additional note: the ref you tried to add was a Cessna copyrighted manual that was on a non-Cessna website, making it a copyright violation under US law. WP:COPYLINK explains why Wikipedia cannot link to identified copyright violations on the internet. Basically it is contributory copyright infringement and leaves Wikipedia open to being sued under the US copyright laws. If you have any questions, please do let me know. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I had read the article, but did not realize the template was in use. I still sense a hint of insult in your response here. Why do you need to make the comment "If you had read the article". I decided to make a contribution today because the cruise speed of the aircraft was no in the right side infobox or immediately obvious. For pilots, the cruise speed is something we like to compare on aircraft and my goal was to contribute by finding a way to correctly make it easy to find in the article. I then spent a good 20 minutes reading about the different templates for aircraft articles. I don't contribute frequently, so this was a good 20 minute investment of my time for that small contribution. I appreciate that you are trying to maintain the quality of articles, but the best way to help is to demonstrate a correct edit, not simply make a revert with some derogatory commentary. With respect to the source, would it not be correct to refer to the copyright manual, but not include the online reference? I would appreciate any help you can provide, by showing through example, the best way to get the cruise speed displayed in the article. I will use your example to contribute to other articles about other aircraft. Alan.ca (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The cruise speed is already in the article, it is in the spec template and says: "Cruise speed: 145 knots (167 mph, 269 km/h)". The fact that you were putting it in a second time was what made me think you hadn't read the article or else you would have seen that. My edit summary was not "some derogatory commentary". I wrote "obviously an error, doesn't go there before the lede". It seems an obvious error to enter the specs a second time in the article and before any text, as that would violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which is the way all Wikipedia articles are organized, not just aircraft ones. I did make a "correct edit", by removing the duplicate information you added. There was no other way to correct it, other than removing it, as it was a duplication. Sure is is fine to cite the POH from a paper copy or an on-line copy, you just can't link to a copyright violation. In this case the specs already in the article cite two refs, the Cessna website official specs and AOPA. It is good to keep in mind which sub-model the specs are for, (in this case the "T") as we only cite one set of specs. The different sub-models over the years have had different specs (gross weights, powerplants, cruise speeds) and it is easy to get them confused by adding specs from different model years. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I take your point that different variants may have different specs. Potentially we could create a table for the specs to be demonstrated across all variants. Do you know how to use the Wikidata inside an article? Would Wikidata be a good method to store these facts about the aircraft and then the article could translate units, etc? Alan.ca (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As I linked to above within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_specifications it says that we only use one set of specs in an article: "These specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a specialized aviation publication, like Janes, so we don't list all the specs for every model year. In this case we have chosen the 182T as representative, since it is the current production model. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Could we then put the key specs in the right side infobox somehow? Alan.ca (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is not to. The documentation is at Template:Infobox aircraft type. Keep in mind that, being a general encyclopedia, Wikipedia is aimed at giving general information on aircraft types to a non-technical readership. It is not intended for a technical aviation audience. We leave that to more technical websites aimed at pilots. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Ahunt: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Thank you! I hope your holidays are good 'way up north! Here in Ottawa we have lots of snow to ski on and even some reasonably spritely windchills this year. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

and thank you from the very white south (this Christmas anyway). - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cessna 208 accident history

The 12/21/2017 accident in Costa Rica caused 12 fatalities. Seems significant to me, even though it may not strictly meet the criteria you cited. Lahaun (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The 208 has had over 200 fatal accidents, most very much exactly like this one. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There appear to be only three 208 crashes, including this one, that have their own wiki article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Cessna_208_Caravan) And, the Costa Rica wreck has the worst death toll of the three. Perhaps a better approach would be to info about the other two accidents to the 208 web page, not to delete the one that I added. Question should be, is the article better with or without the info in question. I think more info about serious individual 208 crashes improves on the sterile statistical summary which now provides the only info about these accidents. Happy New Year. Lahaun (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

One of then three accidents is up for AFD as not notable and I have reviewed the other two and they should probably also be sent to deletion for the same reason. If you read the accident reports for all the 206 fatal accidents on the C-208 they are all generally pretty similar, which is why they are simply summed up in the type article. Light aircraft accidents are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, a common occurrence, just like car accidents are, which is why we don't have articles on each car accident. - Ahunt (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reposted this discussion on the Talk:Cessna 208 Caravan talk page to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Lahaun (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Maupin Woodstock One

Thanks for fixing that. It was a misclick (the two dab links are one right over the other and I thought I clicked on the lower one). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad that we caught it. I see that you do a lot of dabs, which is great work, but you may want to test each one after you save it just to make sure it goes where intended. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, Ahunt. Thanks for catching my mistake on the Concorde article. I guess when I copied the URL from the encyclopedia it didn't take, and my past buffer still held the URL from the previous article that I was working on "Agriculture in Saskatchewan". I have added the appropriate URL now.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you! Yeah in looking at your recent edits before that I figured it was a "cut and paste" error. Thanks for fixing it. Basically we all check each other here and build a better encyclopedia: "collaboration works" . - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thanks

For the edit on the Piper Cub article. A friendly nod is always appreciated. From an expert in the field all the more. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits were good and worth noting. I find a little encouragement goes a long way and, after all, we are all on the same side here, building a better encyclopedia! - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hal Tejas operational history and news

Hello sir, recently you reverted that my edit accepting that critism and compliment allowed in Wiki. Here are some links http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/tejas-light-combat-aircraft-hal-narendra-modi-reaction-2887745/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/hal-tejas-light-combat-aircraft-easily-the-best-aircraft-ive-flown-group-captain-madhav-rangachari-2887419/

http://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tejas-is-as-good-as-french-made-rafale-fighter-jet-says-parrikar/story-9BLu7KFiGNmOnpby9amk2N.html https://www.ndtv.com/bangalore-news/indian-air-force-chief-arup-raha-flies-tejas-trainer-in-bengaluru-1407116 Should we also add these? If it is allowed then please add these information. Uttam mahatta (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I read them all and they are all from 2016, so while they could be added earlier in the text, they have pretty much been superseded by the pronouncements of November 2017. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

P-40 variant page redo

I'm working on redoing the List of Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants page because it's a bit vague, has misleading information, and is more of an operational history page. The redo is on User:ZLEA/sandbox/Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants. I'm structuring the page like North American P-51 Mustang variants, do you think I'm going in the right direction? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 22:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I had a look and it looks good to me, a better approach than the current version. - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Seaplane Experimental Station

Are you going to revert your last edit on the SES - see the talk page? I am interested in your justification for removing the other links as well on the basis of 'not relevant enough'?80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Seaplane Experimental Station. - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Urban L. Drew

Hi Ahunt, I fixed the link to Urban L. Drew in the Mustang article and noticed he flew with the 361st Fighter Group. Is that IP edit you reverted correct? - Samf4u (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I couldn't source the IP's change and since there was no edit summary it just looked like vandalism. I have undone it.  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks as always. - Samf4u (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)