User talk:Ahunt/Archive19

Petrol-paraffin engine

Hi, Do you fancy adding to the petrol-paraffin engine page? It's gone a bit quiet of late! Arrivisto (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here, let me see what can be done there! - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on "GNU/Linux naming controversy"

You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at GNU/Linux naming controversy. The edits which you reverted under "vandalism", were already explained on the talk page. Editing needs to be more constructive and respecting the natural point of view

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. 41.224.74.65 (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but reverting vandalism is not edit-warring and is not subject to the 3RR. - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

the reverted edits are not vandal, and already explained by the editor in the talk page. 41.224.74.65 (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleting cited content is clearly vandalism and you have been warned several times about it. Sockpuppeting with multiple IP addresses does not let you hide. - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you would just look at WP:PROVEIT, you will see that deleting poorly sourced claims is the correct action to take. It is not "vandalism". Your source is nothing but a single Softpedia article (Softpedia is not exactly known for being a reliable source) which makes a supposition based on the fact that RMS in one article didn't use the term "GNU/Linux", instead just calling it the GNU system. The claim completely ignores the fact that RMS has a long history of calling GNU/Linux the GNU system (his talks always include a joke about "Linux" being a common mispronunciation of "GNU", for example), but more importantly, gnu.org still uses the term "GNU/Linux", and no one from the FSF has confirmed the Softpedia author's claim. Because it is untrue. 23.28.14.219 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ahunt reported by User:41.224.101.46 (Result: ) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring . 41.224.101.46 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic GNU/Linux naming controversy. Thank you.. The discussion is #The administrator User:Black Kite has promoted the violation of WP:NPOV/WP:VAND/WP:DISRUPT policies. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: New Userbox

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Games/Video_games my section

You may need to look this picture http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/File:Grass.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans T.M (talk • contribs) 02:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, replied over at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Games/Video_games#New_Userbox. - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

edits about airworthiness and other aviation related pages

Thanks for your message and the welcome message Ahunt,Kourousis (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you revert the changes made to the airworthiness+military aviation pages? The review paper I referenced (Procedia Engineering journal, published by Elsevier) is the only available in the literature, covering military airworthiness frameworks' complexity. Also would be good to revert the changes you've made to other pages I edited - but you can remove the references (no need to repeat the reference to this paper, or if you feel that the reference to the other papers I have made is not appropriate that's perfectly fine)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kourousis (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

airworthiness page

you may keep this change. military airworthiness is a different 'story' this should mentioned in an encyclopedia.

All other changes you've made. I agree - no need to revert any.

Thanks for the previous feedback/input and sorry for any trouble caused.

Kourousis (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks re One-Design edit

OK, my attempt to use categories for Development and Box rules was rather crude; I hope that the revised version using anchors to get subsections in Sailing (sport) and now with the text re-ordered to get a more logical structure is also a help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadsalohcin (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. It looks like the bots don't like using categories in article text any more and removed it. I fixed the removed wording, but your links added look fine. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A400M crash

Did you see my post late last night on the talk page? Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did, this seems to be the latest news on the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A-26

your revert of this article did not follow wiki procedures for such. You have reintroduced numerious errors by reverting a well edited article. your intent mystifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:4DDD:A53C:B822:43A4:B4B7 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted for "Persistent block evasion" and the article protected. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Utterly clueless. If his editing was actually showing some improvement, that would be one thing, but he continues to make such a hash of the articles that cleaning up the edits he makes is too time consuming. And that's assuming his changes are correct, which in most cases they aren't, or are at least of questionable accuracy. And he's working the poor SineBot to death! I guess he still thinks "sign your posts" means "tell us your real name", which of course it doesn't. Again, utterly clueless. BilCat (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason he keeps getting reverted and blocked is, besides his choice of subject matter, his edits are so poor that they are easily recognizable. One way to fool us would be to register a screen name, and then make a broad range of small edits across a wide variety of articles in which he would learn how to become a competent WP user/editor. Then when he finally began editing WWII-era aircraft articles, we'd never know who he was! Of course, that assumes he is capable of editing competence, which a published author should be capable of being. - BilCat (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you mean becoming a competent contributor. Good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It may not happen soon as attempts to discuss bomb groups with User:Yobot (an error corecting robot) show a lack of understanding on how wikipedia works [1]. MilborneOne (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What I've suggested he do isn't quite in line with the standard offer, but if it takes him up to six months to learn the ropes, and if he stays under the radar and out ocf trouble, it would accomplish the same thing. Beyond that, his only option is what you've suggested, and that's to appeal the block now, but I don't believe the block will be overturned with all the evidence of disruptive sock puppetry since the block. - BilCat (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Still not listening. This IP locates to NYC, so I don't know if that's closer or further away from the actual location. Of course the user could be anywhere in the US on the Verizon network, but it's useful in identifying the socks, aside from the other duckish behavior. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Navion Page

Hello, Im Bosscat65, the user who recently made changes to the Ryan Navion page. The current type certificate holder is Sierra Hotel Aero and their main business is the complete re-manufacturing and rebuilds of Navion aircraft. This is a fact. With that being said, I am just wondering why you think adding the Sierra Hotel Aero link under manufacturer seemed inappropriate. Is it because of the fact that it links externally to the sierrahotelaero.com website? What if I just link it to a SierraHotelAero wiki page or create an anchor point and link it to the bottom "External Links" section? Bosscat65 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary for the removal: "Removed Sierra Hotel Aero Inc. from list of manufacturers in the info box, according to the text they have not actually built any aircraft yet. This can be added back in when they do." Sierra Hotel Aero is a parts manufacturer and overhauler, they haven't manufactured any new aircraft. When they do they can be listed as having manufactured new aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming a verifiable reliable source is cited. - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course! - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Manufacturers' websites as encyclopedical reference.

Dear, We have crossed swords about the reliability of manufacturers' websites as an encyclopaedical source of reliable information. I never wanted to get engaged in open war so kept my trap shut, from a given point. Now that the skies are clear and peaceful, allow me to cite an example I believe to be strong and clear: I own and fly a three-axis ultralight plane called an Apollo Fox. This type has the option of folding the wings backwards, for hangarage or for transportation. According to the company website, <quote> Wing can be folded backwards. One pilote can do it within 10 minutes. </quote> This is the publicly available information which, as I understand, you would accept as having encyclopaedical value. I also have the "pilots and owners handbook", a legally binding document, but not publicly available, which states (page 6-15, "07-05-14 Edition 1") <quote> Folding and unfolding of the aircraft should be performed by two people as a minimum".</quote> . This seems nowhere atypical: websites are basically sales tools, giving as rosy a sight of the world as possible. Blatant untruths are not uncommon. You will excuse me to keep on warning against your apparent conviction that every website can be considered as having encyclopedical value. We need to be more critical than that - more's the pity. Kindly yours, Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We can only go by the refs we have. WP:ABOUTSELF is the Wikipedia policy on this subject and it says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Thus we normally accept manufacturer's data, unless it is contradicted by a different source. If you have a better ref to cite, as in this case, then cite it and we'll adjust the text to indicate "manufacturer’s claims". - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiWings

Wikiwings 2.0

Wikiwings are the official award of WikiProject Aircraft. Styled after military flight wings, they are awarded to anyone who makes extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to the area of aviation on Wikipedia. They can be awarded by anyone, to anyone, in a barnstar-like fashion.

The wikiwings award is modelled after Rlandmann's wikiwings award, and were officially adopted by WikiProject Aircraft on October 29, 2005.

... for your series of articles on engines fo ultralights; very welcome material. Thank you,TSRL (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am glad you have liked the articles that I have started! - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Glasair Avition Logo 2012.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Glasair Avition Logo 2012.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have been replaced so can be safely deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Hello Ahunt, have you ever tried or proposed and RFA? If not, are you interested in one? The Snowager-is awake 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I have been asked to apply before, but I have declined. Basically I am not willing to go through the nasty character assassination program that RfA usually amounts to. If the community comes up with a less adversarial approach to appointing admins I would reconsider. - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force

Hello Ahunt I am in a disput about the desing of the List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force especaly YSSY guy is reverting things out ..not only pictures , also flaggs of the origin of the ACtype and ignores the talk page.may you can have a look at it and say your opinion. To understand my point of view see the List of Swiss AC and for eg List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, let me have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: May you like to give your ideas or tell your opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#List_of_aircraft_of_X_Air_Force.2FMilitary_table_formats.2C_especially_as_related_to_images FFA P-16 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, it looks mostly solved now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mighty Machines

This TV series has be be my toddler son's favorite thing from Canada (I like it also). We found the series on Netflix. But it went off Netflix for a while earlier this year and we found some Mighty Machines DVDs in stores. I've noticed some semi trucks with an extra axle, evidently to help with ice and snow. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you! It is good to know that Canada has some profile outside our borders! - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

HESA Saeqeh

hi. is that possible to aware me please which what was the problem that you had reverted my info please? thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glock-19 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your question. Just as my edit summary said "forums cannot be used as refs, please see WP:SPS". Data has to be referenced to reliable sources on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

Afternoon Ahunt, Is there a speedy deletion template to clear a redirect to make way for a new article? Specifically, I have just finished article Caudron Type B but find that at present this name redirects to Caudron Type A. I've looked at the SD page but can't find it. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any deletion there listed for Caudron Type B, so I would just replace the redirect with your new text. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do.TSRL (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ahunt. You have new messages at Template talk:Rocket engines.
Message added 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your input to the discussion. There is now a concrete proposal for you to consider. N2e (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Air Crew

Hi there, I am very new to WikiPedia. I made a change to Second officer roles which I think you reverted. Can we discuss?

Cheers

Craig Stevens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigstevensit (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page so that other editors watching the page can participate in the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Please stop accusing people of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for not having cited a Wikipedia policy. It is conceivable that one can present a coherent argument that is not enshrined in policy. Alakzi (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletions need to be based on policies and this one isn't, just on the fact that the nominator thinks that the templates nominated might lead to other templates "which leads to a mess". The nominator has not made any coherent argument for deletion so the link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is entirely appropriate. If you want to participate in the deletion discussion then please feel free to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

They don't, actually; please see WP:TFD#REASONS. We often delete navboxes for having too few links per WP:NENAN, which is merely an essay, for instance. The nom might've not made a very convincing case, but that's still no reason to throw WP:IDONTLIKEIT in their face. Alakzi (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NENAN has been discredited as a reason for deletion. In this case the nominator has not made any logical argument for deletion that stands up to any serious scrutiny and this needs to be challenged and debated, which I am doing. In this case the nominator has made an argument that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages singles out as a poor argument. Supporting keeping the templates requires pointing out the weakness in the deletion nomination. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NENAN has not been discredited; the outcome of that discussion was that it should be treated the same way most essays are - with a grain of salt! The nominator appears to have poor command of the English language, but he does (attempt to) make a point - that the desktop environment is not a defining characteristic, and, if we were to create a navbox for each major component of Linux distros, we'd be cluttering the footer of many of these articles. It does not rise (or, well, fall) to the level of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alakzi (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Hi Ahunt. I just want to let you know that I have tagged File:NighthawkCrest.jpg and File:One-O-Wonder.JPG as possibly unfree files to discuss their respective licensing. I don't believe that taking a photo of a copyrighted image on a patch like these, even if you own the patches themselves, implies a transfer of the image's copyright from the original copyright holder to the photographer. The licensing of these files are being discussed respectively at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 July 7 so please feel free to comment if you like. Just for reference, WP:PUF is just a venue for discussing whether the licensing of a free image is appropriate; It is not a deletion discussion per se like WP:FFD. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard Pryor edits

Hey there - - - This anonymous editor has tried several times to remove Bill Cosby references from the Richard Pryor article without explanation. I grow tired of playing footsy with whoever it is. Regards. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw that, it looks like vandalism to me. Everyone seems to want their heros to never have heard of Cosby this week. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The track record for this IP address is not good. None of the scant contributions amount to any value. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That anonymous editor is still at it. I have reverted his/her Richard Pryor removal of material - again. Mark Sublette (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jude and Semantic Web

Hi. Question: what is primary source (original or author) for this text :

«The word “semantic” stands for “the meaning of”:

The Beatles were a popular band from Liverpool; Lennon was a member of the Beatles; "Hey Jude" was recorded by the Beatles»

Many websites contain this. This is your suggestion (help). Give help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proni25892 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

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.

Eggenfellner Aircraft

added a link pointing to Edgewater, Florida

Eggenfellner E6

added a link pointing to Edgewater, Florida

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Pilatus PC-6 used by the swiss Air Force

The second time i add it whitout the Reg. The Swiss air Force uses the PC-6 of the armasuisse regulraly as lieason aircraft (oftem if armasuisse pilots are on duty for the swiss air force).FFA P-16 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page, so other editors can participate. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, its now on the talk page.FFA P-16 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for all you do! Samf4u (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Variants

Hi there, according to BilCat's logic the Short Singapore should remain in the related development section unless you mean the Short Singapore is a development unrelated to the 'tin' F.5 in that it is more directly related to the Cromarty? Your view?80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you are going to have to add some more detail to explain your question clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See BilCat's talk page I am sure you can figure it out the logical comparison - see the PN-6/Naval Aircraft Factory PN and compare with the Short Singapore page. By 'tin' F.5 I mean the Short S.2 on the F.5 page and the reference to the Short Cromarty in Design and Development on the Short Singapore page. 80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have been following that discussion and I have to agree with BillCat - if there are refs enough to start the Gosport F.5 or an article on the PN-6 then please do start them, but we don't list them under "Variants with their own articles" when they don't have their own articles. If the refs are short of what is needed to start a full article then they can be listed in the variants section of the Felixstowe F.5 article, but it all hangs on having good refs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, now should we restore the Short Singapore link you removed and retain the Naval Aircraft Factory PN link in the info box of F5L or remove the Naval Aircraft Factory PN as it is not linking to a separate article on the PN-6?80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any ref that shows that the Short Singapore design is related to the Felixstowe F.5? The Short Singapore article doesn't say that it is. There seems to be no article on the PN-6 yet, so we can't link to that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The reference in both articles is the same source, Barnes 1967, 167-8 Shorts Aircraft Since 1900, I do not have a copy to refer to. The F.5 article effectively states that the Short S.2 led to the order for the prototype Short Singapore - while the the Short Singapore article states, the Short S.5, was a metal hull version of the wooden-hulled Short Cromarty. It would seem that the Short S.5 hull was a development of the Short S.2 hull, and the S.2 (using F.5 wing and tail) a development of the F.5 so the Short Singapore is it seems a development of the F.5, but not a variant and in terms of appearance the Singapore seems to be influenced by the F.5. design. Is that sufficient to list the Singapore as a development of the F.5?

Sure why not. I'll add it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver

Hi Ahunt, I have created a new section on Talk:De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver#Possible new lead photo regarding possibly replacing the lead photo on the page with my new photo, which has numerous technical merits. However, I know very little about the aircraft and seek your opinion so that I don't make another mistake like accidentally removing the photo of the turbo version like last time. Thanks! dllu (t,c) 03:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with Quote Citation for Flitfire

Clyde Smith Jr. sent an email telling me Flitfire New Jersey, which he was heavily involved restoring, won the 2015 sentimental journey best j3 award. This is not on their website yet but Clyde gave me permission to quote him for the wiki article. how do i handle that? The cite quote template is not clear. Thanks!

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Basically personal communications like emails, phone calls and face-to-face communications do not meet WP:RS because they cannot be verified so they cannot be used. The event was only a month ago, so it may yet be published in a reliable source, so for now it can just stay and be tagged. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

about shielding

On my Flitfire, everything is original except the ignition was shielded and an antenna was installed so I can use a hand held. Even with an antenna, without shielded ignition, radio communication for me would be very noisy. Why remove the 1941 Cubs were not shielded when they were using the Lear Avia radios? I request for the data to stay. The airplanes were not shielded & had no antennas so it's a miracle they could communicate at all. Please let me know your objection to this data being included.

Thank you Cubgirl4444 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure that makes sense in that context, I'll put it back in. - Ahunt (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks & one more thing

A couple of my references were deleted and I can't figure out who did it. If I've made a mistake on a reference, how do i get someone to contact me before deleting? I have a lot of old paperwork here and/or there may be a typo or small problem. i will fix if its pointed out. Thanks...

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You really have to go back through the page history and see who removed it and what their edit summary said as a reason for doing so. Also, given all the ongoing work you are doing on the article you may wnat to go back to the AfD discussion and change your recommendation to delete the article, as that was your last comment there. As the person who started it your opinion may be given more consideration when the AfD gets closed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morane-Saulnier T, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Undercarriage. 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) 09:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semicolons

Semicolons can be used to separate dependent clauses. This is true if, as in that example, the dependent clauses, or some of them, contain commas.

Not that it matters, anyway, since that paragraph ought not to exist at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.63.66 (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That is only the case in the use of lists in which individual list items contain commas normally. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Web browsers and FTP clients

Re here Cf. Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox: software that can display Web pages as well as interface for FTP servers is both. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As a web designer I think you are going to have to explain that a bit better to me. Web browsers display web pages, while FTP clients upload web pages to web servers. I am using Firefox as a browser for instance, but it doesn't upload pages, I use FileZilla for that. How is a browser an FTP client? - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See File_Transfer_Protocol#Web_browser_support It may be the case that browsers aren't FTP clients as such but if we are going to remove the Edge from this category, we should also remove other web browsers as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it can download from an ftp site doesn't make a web browser an FTP client anymore than the ability to download from an http site makes wget a web browser. It is kind of analogous to the fact that being able to ride a bicycle on a road doesn't make it an automobile. I agree that if Edge is removed from the cat all browsers should be, so I'll follow up on that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Flitfire

Hi, confused about this link... which one was it? Can't find its removal. -->12:27, 29 July 2015‎ Ahunt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,604 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (removed link. Please check your links - this one goes to a disambiguation page and the person intended doesn't seem to be any of those listed) (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs)

As shown in the article history it was a link to Thomas Beck, which, if you click on it is a disambiguation page. I removed the link since the Thomas Beck you are referring to didn't seem to be any mentioned on that page. - Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Going to submit Germanwings Flight 9525 for GA

Hi Ahunt, good to be working with you over at the Germanwings Flight 9525 article. I believe it is time to submit this article as a GA nomination, and I will be doing that shortly. I wanted to get your thoughts on the matter as well. What do you think, is it ready? Thanks for your thoughts and opinions, Prhartcom (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. The article looks fine to me at the present time. I have tended to stay out of GA noms as in the past they had often resulting in "technical changes" that made the article worse, but let's see how this one fares in the process. I'll keep an eye on it as it happens. - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and for everything you have done to improve the article. I will nominate today and it will take many months before it will be reviewed. Prhartcom (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, go ahead and I'll watch as the process gets underway. Hopefully it will be smooth, without too many serious changes. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:KuKLFT D-class designations

I think I need your help and expertise! The template Template:KuKLFT D-class designations has a link to a disambiguation page at WKF. It looks like it has been an incorrect link since 2009 and only after achange to a disambiguation page I notice that. Unfortunately, I have no clue what "WKF" can mean. Are you able to correct both the template and the disambiguation page WKF? Thanks in advance! The Banner talk 18:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! It looks like User:MilborneOne has fixed it with a link to Wiener Karosserie Fabrik. Now all we need is an article about the manufacturer! - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not going after the template. Enough links to make it worthwhile. The Banner talk 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) But I do not mind when you manage to fill all red links in.

Flitfire

i never said i didn't like the article. (and it doesn't need fixing.) i said i was tired of conflict, which is now coming from "thebanner". before that it was those wikiaircraft guys. it gets very old very quick. thank you.)

P.S. why the opposition to churchill? his speech nicknamed the RAF pilots "the few" and was the start of the tide of public opinion changing in USA about entering the war. it should be included and i'd like to reinsert the reference. thebanner guy was not complaining about that. he said article was too detailed & i had a COI because i own a flitfire & was sneaky about it.

i'd like to re-insert the reference to Churchill's speech & don't want to edit war over it. thanks....

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a copy edit to clean a few things up and removed the tags. On some subjects conflict is just part of the process of how articles are improved. It isn't always the smoothest way to build better articles, but as a process it does work after a fashion. Some editors are more cooperative while others are more confrontational. Unfortunately you have to work with them all or else just start an article and then leave to it to greater forces to improve from there.

I removed the Churchill quotes and related text because it was only very indirectly related. Churchill never said anything about the subject of the Flitfire. The use of that and the related text made it sound "fluffed up" and even jingoistic. It isn't the sort of way we write encyclopedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

tell that to these guys... they are an encyclopedia too. i contend that my style is different than yours -- that's all.

1. The United States may not have sided with Britain, despite its President's personal friendship with Winston Churchill, if this battle been lost. It was therefore a decisive turning point in World War II. Battle of Britain
2. During this dark hour of the nation's history, its people derived a sense of pride and purpose from the somewhat romantic reporting of heroics in the air and from their Prime Minister's inspirational speeches. Battle of Britain
3. It turned a tide of defeats and heartened the enemies of Nazism. Many of the heroes, too, were the ordinary women and men who, as Angus Calder put it, “The front line troops were doctors, parsons and telephonists ... where the bombs fell, heroes would spring up by accident.” Battle of Britain
4. Winston Churchill summed up the effect of the battle and the contribution of the RAF in the immortal words: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" (speech to the House of Commons on August 20, 1940). Pilots who fought in the battle have been known as The Few ever since.Battle of Britain

All above are taken from The New World Encyclopedia. I find reading it enjoyable.

This Battle & Churchill's speech are linked to Flitfires. Without the Battle, no speech, without the speech, no Flitfires.

So how do I take this to Wiki to ask for a 3rd opinion?

thank you

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

None of that has much at all to do with the Flitfires. Including that sort of text is a really making things far more dramatic than reality. Drawing conclusions by combining multiple sources that don't draw the same conclusions is WP:SYNTHESIS. What does "The New World Encyclopedia: have to say about the Flitfire? Take it to discussion on Talk:Flitfire and start a discussion there to gain consensus.

As far as differing style goes you may want to read WP:PEACOCK and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to get some idea about the sort of language we use and the sort we avoid. - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"None of that has much at all to do with the Flitfires." that is wrong. and about being more dramatic? tell that to the EAA, whose article also discusses this very point. (http://eaavintage.org/the-flitfire-cub/)

so back to my question: how do I take this to Wiki for a 3rd opinion?? you took out an important point in the historical article. are you the final authority here. if not, please provide the answer so we can get a NEUTRAL THIRD OPINION. if you don't provide, that means you're biased. thank you

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You can start by reading WP:AGF and stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of harassment or bias. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach makes working with you very difficult. You will note that during the AfD I supported keeping the article, even while you were supporting deleting it and I have consistently worked to improve it even while you were vandalizing and blanking other articles. I have already told you that the content of articles is decided by consensus achieved on the article talk pages. If you choose to ignore that it is your choice. - Ahunt (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for Your help with Borisoglebsk 2, especially since weapon systems isn't my cup of tea. I just was surprised we lacked an article. Thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microsoft Edge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opus. 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) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Flitfire

hey, ahunt, I work really hard on this article and you come along and just delete stuff. WTH? You have not contributed ONE REFERENCE... but you think you own this article. well, nobody does. so please do not edit this until we can get wiki's opinion. i am not going to do an edit war with you.

1) you won't "allow" the article to include churchill and his famous speech that initially influenced piper to support the RAF. and if i try discussing the black out curtains? well, you just don't like that at all and zap! it's gone -- no discussion.

2) as far as no money going to expenses and being unique. in this world, every charity has expenses. that piper could do this with 100% of the proceeds going to the RAFBF is very very unique. do you think i can get a citation that discusses the expenses of every charity and associated expenses? but since you don't think it's unique, you just delete it.

3) i added a picture of a spitfire mk II to show the exact airplane used in the battle of britain that the flitfire's colors are based on. maybe guys know what a spitfire looks like, but women may not. so i wanted folks to see it here. but YOU decide it's not necessary and *POOF* delete it. no discussion, you act like you're a dictator of this article. well, you're not.

i've been gone for awhile, and came back today and did a lot of work to add data to the article and you just come along and delete them. do you have any articles where you actually add data with citations? you would not be happy if someone who contributed no data did that to your work.

STOP doing this because we're not going to do an edit war. i'm a newbie but i know that much. you are acting like a wiki bully and i'm not going there with you. i'm going to email wiki and explain this problem and ask for their help.

you know i could respect this heavy handed attitude maybe a tiny bit if you would have contributed just one fact or one reference to this article. but you have not.

i hope this message is clear and i ask that you respect it. please stop editing this article until i can get wiki involved. i'll figure out how to get them onboard.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)cubgirl4444

You need to read WP:OWN. It is not your article and you cannot tell other editors to stop editing it. My role on this article is to make sure it complies with WP:NPOV and is not turned into a promotional fan piece. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sharing history with people. Hey Ahunt, go over to this page. Many of these entries have no citation. What's this double standard at Wiki?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires

The Spitfire guys have 106 references but list 236 planes. How do they prove their facts? Edit that because it should be the same rule for everyone. And I think those guys writing the Spitfire article are waaaay too big of Spitfire fans. Better go and check up on that too. They seem to like those airplanes too much to be writing about them.

You asked for reference that the 4 Flitfires were restored, which i thought was reasonable. So i posted the pictures showing they were restored. But again you unilaterally decide that's not good enough. I had all the FAA links as references but changed them to links because the reference list was then too long. but you decide that's not allowed.

and I've contacted Roger Peperell & Clyde Smith to get the list they gave me on their Piper Historian letterhead or something like that. If you don't know who those 2 guys are, then you simply don't know Pipers. so all of wiki & the world will not see the list because you might know who they are.

Ahunt, I asked you to temporarily stop deleting my work because I've contacted Wiki about this edit war you want to wage and am waiting to hear from them on this. You don't own the article either. And you've contributed exactly 0 facts or references to this article. i guess your job is to slash my hours of work.

Also, I guess writing about Churchill, Flitfires and blackout curtains are a big no-no because you've decided it's not appropriate for this article.

You're quite disrespectful and I'm contacting Wiki again. You've ruined hours of my work again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to seriously cut out the WP:DRAMA and start collaborating properly. This is a content dispute and you are not engaging on the talk pages discussions to shape how the article looks. That is where it is decided. - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I request a couple of userboxes?

Hey, can I request a couple of new userboxes? I would like a dog breed one about Great Pyrenees and possibly the Coonhound breeds. The GP one could say something like, "This user owns a Great Pyrenees and knows they're not called great for nothing" and the Coonhound could say, "This user loves Coonhounds and their voices". Also, would it be too much trouble to make some horse breeds userboxes too? Like "this user loves Arabian horses" and "this user loves Tennessee Walking Horses". Thanks, I will get all these userboxes if they are created. White Arabian mare (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. No problem, here they are. Let me know if you want any changes:

Code	Result
{{User:Ahunt/Coonhound}}	This user loves Coonhounds and their voices.	Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Great Pyrenees}}	This user owns a Great Pyrenees and knows they're not called great for nothing.	Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Arabian}}	This user loves Arabian horses.	Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Tennessee Walking Horse}}	This user loves Tennessee Walking Horses.	Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No, they are fine the way they are. Thank you! :) White Arabian mare (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Super, glad that you like them! - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Canard wikilink

Aha! So that's what a duck is!! Arrivisto (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added something to the Rutan Quickie talk page. Arrivisto (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Have a look too at the Barber Snark! Arrivisto (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Forum

Hi! You removed a link to the support forum that I had reinstated on The Document Foundation because I believed it had been deleted in error by another user while removing a link to a blog. You state in justification that "we don't link to forums on Wikipedia, just the official website" and pointed to WP:ELNO, but I was not able to find a section that directly addresses such a venue, only a prohibition of social media/chat venues. The link in question, to http://libreofficeforum.org/, is a StackOverflow-style support forum staffed by volunteers and not a social media/chat venue. I believe it is a destination that frequently addresses the reasons readers consult this wiki entry. Given that information, do you still believe that WP:ELNO rules it out? Is there a different location in the article you would consider more appropriate? If you prefer we could take this up on the Talk page. Thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. WP:ELNO item 10 prohibits links to "chat or discussion forums/groups". It doesn't belong here in an encyclopedia article. The official link is there, if a reader really wants to participate in the forum then they will be able to find the link themselves. We don't provide links to more than the official site, as per WP:ELYES. Linking to forums and such is outside the scope of Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I did understand that (and agree with the policy), but was highlighting that the venue in question is not a chat site but rather a structured destination for getting help - rather like a dynamic FAQ staffed by experts. I wanted to make sure you had understood that, despite having the word "forum" in its name, it's not actually the sort of site I believe the policy regulates. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at it, it is a help forum. With other software providers we avoid making links to help pages, forums etc, mostly because we link to just to official site. This is to avoid ending up with a directory of the subject's website. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Packard DR-980

Sorry if I made a mistake during my intent to upload a photo of our DR 980. The pic was uploaded at Commons.wikimedia but I nevr managed to include the pic in the article. Regarding some reversions , they state "no source" Well the source of wht I write is my own experience visiting aircraft or restoring engines like the DR 980. Sorry fot the inconveniences I try with a little help of my friends".All the Best abastin1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abastin1 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to leave you a note that your test edit with the placeholder images had been fixed. Let me know if you need any help! - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Barber Snark

Hi, I entered both cruise speed and Vne for the Snark, but only the latter shows up on the page. Could you please have a look? Thanks in anticipation. Arrivisto (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but it looks like User:Nigel Ish already fixed it for you! - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me on the "straight and narrow"

Hi, thanks for the correction you made on the Audacity (audio editor) page today.

I put that text there as I had had to replace the image as someone had swapped the default waveform view of Audacity recording on Windows to a Spectrogram view on Linux a couple of days ago. Spectrogram work is a miniscually small part of Audacity usage and Linux is our minority platform. The person who swapped the image changed the display text on the page - but obviously did not have the nous to change the text associated with the image.

The page already contained a spectrogram view further down the page which I added a while back.

I (as a newby Wikipedian, but very experienced Audacitarian) very much appreciate your guidance.

Thanks, Peter H Sampson (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the image. I agree that we should use the most representative features and the most up-to-date version as possible to illustrate the article with. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the historical information about Sourceforge hosting of Audacity on Audacity (audio editor) as they somewhat unceremoniously dropped us earler this year - Audacity Team discussed the Audacity (audio editor) page recently and felt that in the light of that happening it was not right for us to be providing further marketing puff for Sourceforge. Peter H Sampson (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

From a project point of view I can see that, however Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we tend to retain the historical information, especially when it was notable, like the awards you won there. If there are refs about the drop by SourceForge, then that would be good to add to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Icon Aircraft

These are actions taken by the company, submitted to the FAA by the company, Icon Aircraft, signed by the CEO with supplemental data provided by the CTO to the FAA at their request. These are actions taken by officers of the company. The company, Icon Aircraft, petitioned the FAA and without doubt this pertains directly to the company. These are well documented facts that are clearly cited with leaders in the industry including the official Federal Aviation Administrations Exemption No. 10829 granting the temporary relief that expires on June 30, 2018.

I know you would like only positive things said about this company, but these are documented facts. By adding this information a complete well balanced picture is made available to the public. Not just a rosy picture of nothing but success that is portrayed now, but warts and all and I thing that is what the public deserves. If any information is incorrect please address it and I will gladly change it myself.''

On July 24, 2013 the FAA granted Icon Aircraft Exemption No. 10829. This allows for the exemption of the following regulations: §§ 21.181, 21.190, 43.7, 61.23, 61.31, 61.89, 61.303, 61.305, 61.315, 61.317, 61.321, 61.325, 61.327, 61.403, 61.411, 61.415, 61.417, 61.419, 61.423, and 61.429 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). [2] Page 1 More than half of the commenters were against the granting of the exemption, voicing strong safety concerns among others. The last sentence in the document states that, “This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.” [3] Page 17 Without further regulatory action this exemption will expire on June 30, 2018. At that time, all aircraft produced under this exemption would not be considered airworthy because they are too heavy to be a Light Sport Aircraft (hence the need for the exemption) by the FAA. FAR 91.203(b) states, "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew." [4] Every aircraft produced under this exemption would be effectively grounded because it is legal to fly without a valid Airworthiness Certificate. According to the FAA “An airworthiness certificate is an FAA document which grants authorization to operate an aircraft in flight.” And must be carried in the aircraft at all times. [5] Under current law the only way an aircraft can be mass-produced and ready-to-fly, other than an ultra-light or Light Sport Aircraft is by manufacturing according to Part 21.24 or 23 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). [6] Production under FAR Part 21.24 and FAR Part 23 both have many cost accelerators when compared to production under the Light Sport Category. The most noticeable are losing the benefits of being able to operate as a Light Sport Aircraft and losing this benefit would require a more advanced pilot’s license, FAA Medical, and compliance with maintenance requirements like annual inspections by an FAA certified aircraft mechanic etc. The other repercussion of production under FAR Part 23 is the extraordinary cost associated with bringing an aircraft to market. Here is an example of what it cost to certify an aircraft under FAR Part 23. “At their worst, they are bafflingly complicated, shockingly expensive to comply with and seemingly arbitrarily enforced. I remember when Cirrus first moved to certify a new airplane, the SR20, nearly 15 years ago now, just how optimistic the company was about the process. Sixty million dollars and several years later, it had succeeded in passing the finish line and educating itself in the fiendish process that is certification.” [7]

As I wrote on your talk page, the place to make your case is at Talk:ICON Aircraft, where other editors working on that article can participate, not here. - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hey , please help me to create a user page like you and help me to upload videos ,making columns and some more important things . I want become an editor like you Anadiwiki (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here, I am flattered that you like my user page. The best way to create a page like it is to copy my coding and then modify it to suit yourself. The best way to become a good editor is just to contribute - write articles and improve existing ones! - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dubious links

I don't know if you noticed, but a different account with a single edit linked to the same website on Chromecast. Here's the diff. Barte (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you! I wasn't watching that page so I hadn't seen that. There is a lot of sneaky spamming going on here on Wikipedia these days (like this aviation example). We just have to stay on top of it all! - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You too! Ah, the work is never done. Barte (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the cost of a great encyclopedia is eternal vigilance! - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Audie Murphy plane crash

Hi Ahunt, If you have time, can you take a look at this. I think it's ready to be moved to an article. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Samf4u (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, the article looks pretty good to me. It just needs a few minor tweaks, which can be done after it is moved. - Ahunt (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt, I'll move it tonight. Samf4u (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a link to in the Death and commemorations section of Audie Murphy and it was quickly reverted. The editor (talk) posted my talk page accusing me of overlinking. Is it wrong to link this way? I've done it before in Bill Graham helicopter crash. Every similar article I can find has such a link. Maile66 insists the link belongs in see also section. Possible WP:OWN issue. What do you think? Samf4u (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The link shouldn't be buried under "see also". I have added it in with a "Main" template instead. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Good deal, thanks again. Samf4u (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Wikiwings 2.0

Wikiwings are the official award of WikiProject Aircraft. Styled after military flight wings, they are awarded to anyone who makes extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to the area of aviation on Wikipedia. They can be awarded by anyone, to anyone, in a barnstar-like fashion.

The wikiwings award is modelled after Rlandmann's wikiwings award, and were officially adopted by WikiProject Aircraft on October 29, 2005.

... for all the excellent articles on paramotors and the like. Good stuff! Cheers.TSRL (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I wasn't sure anyone had noticed! It isn't a very high-profile part of aviation, but needs some attention since we are working on completing all aircraft every flown at WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Deborah Coyne

Thanks for the feedback! She was one of the more difficult ones, as you rightly say it would be silly to list every candidate for a given party. I figured it might be worth it since she's generally associated with the Liberal Party but on reflection I think you're right to enforce some rules.Fsbarnum (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I am glad that edit was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Links to copyright violation videos"

Sorry, but your opinion of "obvious copyright violations on external websites" does not suffice here. Do you have any objective evidence that these videos are in breach of copyright legislation? If you don't, under what basis are you asserting thusly? Kezzer16 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The person who uploaded them on You Tube does not assert ownership of the videos, nor give any reason why they own the rights to the videos. In the single case of the "Ride of the Valkyries - Quick March of the Parachute Regiment" the music is listed as being performed by the The Band of the Royal Corps of Signals and this would be under Crown copyright or that of the record company. As WP:COPYLINK explains we cannot link to copy right violations. As that states "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry". By doing this you are leaving Wikipedia open to law suits for copyright infringement under US law. Furthermore these links are not required for the article and all the links seem to point to the same You Tube account, which is a person soliciting money. It all looks very badly legally and seems like WP:SPAM links to benefit one person, so please stop. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia, there are articles about a variety of musical pieces with links to various Youtube pages. Many of these links have been up for some time without people asserting direct ownership of them. I don’t know if you understand how Youtube works, but you can’t just “solicit money” out of videos just like that, there is an automated process as well as admin controls that prevent copyright violations. To refer to the video in question, it says at the bottom “I recieve no monetary remuneration for my videos, those of you who like what I do can support me through”. So by definition, that individual is not soliciting money out of copyrighted material. If Wikipedia is open to law-suits so too is Youtube, yet some of the videos have been up for up to a year without Youtube (seemingly) having any issue with them; despite their far more strident copyright controls. Links are not required for an article, but they do provide some informative benefit for viewers. It goes back to what I said originally, unless you have some objective evidence that these videos are breaking the law, you have in my mind no basis to remove them on those grounds. If you have some disagreement with those particular videos in question, perhaps you would like to take the time to provide some more appropriate ones? Kezzer16 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Under court agreement Google removes videos every day that copyright owners have asked to be taken down as copyright violations. WP:COPYLINK is very clear that we cannot link to even suspected copyright violations as it is "contributory infringement". It doesn't matter how long copyright violations have been up on You Tube or up here on Wikipedia, US law requires that they be removed. It isn't a matter for debate, it is a matter of policy and Wikipedia takes this very seriously. I'll ask an admin to review your link posts. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you have no evidence that any of the links are breaking any law; you are just assuming guilt before guilt has been proven? Kezzer16 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Responding at your talk page as an uninvolved administrator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for welcoming me Ahunt. And you inferred correctly that i was new to editing wikipedia. Also, thank you very much for introducing me to talk and other aspects of wikipedia. Matwva (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, glad that was useful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Dynamic Sport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dynamic Sport 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/Dynamic Sport 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction BDC Aero Industrie and on Puma

Contac me to fix the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAI73 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The information on that article are not correct or/and imprecise, the one I wrote is correct you just have to adjust the references as well as the title BDC Aero PUMA is incorrect, BDC Aero Industries Inc is a company Puma is the name of one of the two product the company make. If you need further explanation just email me I will be glad to correct the page with you

The Puma Aircraft is a Canadian aircraft, originally designed and named Pluto by the Italian designer Antonio Bortolanza in the mid-1980s. The Pluto was an Ultralight designed according to the European standard under ultralight regulation to meet the max takeoff weight of 990lbs. In 2005 BDC Aero Industrie Inc. redesign the aircraft size, structure, and make a systematic production procedure with quality control system to fit the North American market requirements for Canada and USA. Although the airplane resemble the Italian made, the new PUMA, has a complete new structure, components, interior, and it is engineered to have a max gross weight of 1320 lbs and 1420 lbs on floats. The Puma is equipped with Rotax 912 UL, 912ULS, 912iS, 914UL and currently produced by BDC Aero Industrie of Lachute, Quebec. The aircraft is only sold as factory build under three different categories: Light Sport Aircraft (U.S.A only) VFR day/night

     Experimental (U.S.A only) VFR day/night, IFR
     Limited Class (Canada and other countries) VFR day/night, IFR
     Advanced UltraLight (Canada) VFR day only
     At the moment BDC Aero Industrie do not offer home build amateur construction [1][2][3]

Contents [hide] 1 Design and development 2 Operational history 3 Specifications (Puma Advanced Ultralight) 4 References 5 External links Design and development The Puma was originally called Pluto by Bortolanza when he first designed it in the mid-1980s as an Ultralight with 990lbs max takeoff weight. Later it was renamed as the Drakken (Swedish for "dragon"). In 2005 BDC Aero Industrie redesign the aircraft according to the LAMAC regulation to fit the Advanced Ultralight Regulation at 1230lbs max takeoff weight. In 2012 BDC Aero Industrie complete the first Limited Class Category with Transport Canada where the size, structure, production procedure, and quality control were implemented to meet the standards for a max takeoff weight of 1320lbs on wheels and 1420lbs on floats. Although the airplane resemble the Italian made, the new PUMA, it has a total new structure, components and interior, and it is engineer to have a max gross weight of 1320lbs and 1420lbs on floats, as well as new engines power and configuration. Today the Puma comes with Rotax 912 UL, 912ULS, 912iS, 914UL all of them mounted on a dyno focal engine mount and no longer bed engine mount. [1][3] The aircraft is made with an aluminum wing and composite fuselage. Its 28 ft (8.5 m) span wing has an area of 124 sq ft (11.5 m2) and flaps. The Puma is approved by Transport Canada as an Advanced Ultralight and Limited Class, but, as of September 2015, does not appear on the Federal Aviation Administration light-sport aircraft list.[2][4] Operational history In September 2015 there were five Pumas registered with Transport Canada, four Advanced Ultralight and one Limited Class all built by BDC between 2010 and 2013. There is one Puma LSA registered in the United States with the Federal Aviation Administration in 2013. Specifications (Puma Advanced Ultralight) General characteristics Crew: one Capacity: one passenger Length: 20.8 ft (6.3 m) Wingspan: 28 ft 0 in (8.53 m) Wing area: 124 sq ft (11.5 m2) Airfoil: Modified NACA 4412 Empty weight: 662 lb (300 kg) Gross weight: 1,232 lb (559 kg) Fuel capacity: 24 U.S. gallons (91 L; 20 imp gal) Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912UL four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke aircraft engine, 80 hp (60 kW) Propellers: 2-bladed, 5 ft 9 in (1.76 m) diameter Performance Maximum speed: 138 mph; 222 km/h (120 kn) at sea level Cruising speed: 132 mph; 213 km/h (115 kn) Stall speed: 43 mph; 69 km/h (37 kn) @max gross weight and full flap Never exceed speed: 161 mph; 259 km/h (140 kn) Range: 575 mi; 926 km (500 nmi) Service ceiling: 12,000 ft (3,658 m) G limits: +4g/-2g Maximum glide ratio: 11.1 Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s) Rate of sink: 350 ft/min (1.8 m/s) Wing loading: 9.9 lb/sq ft (48 kg/m2) Avionics Analog and digital References ^ Jump up to: a b Bayerl, Robby; Martin Berkemeier; et al: World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2011-12, page 71. WDLA UK, Lancaster UK, 2011. ISSN 1368-485X ^ Jump up to: a b Transport Canada (15 August 2012). "Listing of Models Eligible to be Registered as Advanced Ultra-Light Aeroplanes (AULA)". Retrieved 27 August 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b "Puma-Aircraft History". Puma-aircraft.com. Retrieved 28 September 2015. Jump up ^ Federal Aviation Administration (11 September 2015). "SLSA Make/Model Directory". Retrieved 28 September 2015. External links Official website Categories: Canadian ultralight aircraft 1980–1989Homebuilt aircraftLight-sport aircraftSingle-engine aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAI73 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your post here makes almost no sense at all. You seem to represent the company involved here, so you should read WP:COI, stop editing the articles on the company and the aircraft type and discuss desired changes on the respective talk pages. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Explain please what does not make sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAI73 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What part do you not understand or is unclear, you writing false statement and I'm here to correct your miss information, so if you think you are right tell me which point do you need clarification? If you need references I will give it to you, the real question is do you want to correct your miss information? I already wrote to you the changes the only thing you have to do is to put back the references. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAI73 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You have posted a bunch of text from your website and the article, but have not indicated what needs to be changed and what refs there are to support the changes. We can't just go removing text that is in the article that is supported by reliable refs and replace it unless we have new refs to support the changes. You need to make your requests on the talk pages for the the articles as well and not here so that other editors can see what you are requesting and participate.

If you check both articles you will see I used the revised company history page to updated the articles with information about the limited category, etc. Everything you seem to have tried to add is now in the articles.

It is important to understand that Wikipedia is an independent publication and is not your company website. We are not here to conduct your marketing for you or promote your products. Everything we put into articles has to be neutral in tone and supported by refs.

Incidentally aircraft type articles are named in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and this is "manufacturer-designation-name". Hence the aircraft is the BDC Aero Puma‎ and the company is BDC Aero Industrie. - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

For the aircraft this is the corrected information

Correction #1 The title BDC Aero Puma does not exist, BDC Aero Industrie Inc. is a company Puma is one of the product so the title should be Puma Aircraft References are on the Government of Canada

Correction #2 Under the title The Puma Aircraft is a Canadian aircraft, originally designed and named Pluto by the Italian designer Antonio Bortolanza in the mid-1980s designed according to the European standard under ultralight regulation to meet the max takeoff weight of 990lbs. In 2008 BDC Aero Industrie Inc. redesign the aircraft size, structure, and make a systematic production procedure with quality control system to fit the North American market requirements for Canada and USA.Although the airplane resemble the Italian made, the new PUMA, has a complete new structure, components, interior, and it is engineered to have a max gross weight of 1320 lbs and 1420 lbs on floats. The Puma is equipped with Rotax 912 UL, 912ULS, 912iS, 914UL engines. The aircraft is only sold as factory build under three different categories: Light Sport Aircraft (U.S.A only) VFR day/night Experimental (U.S.A only) VFR day/night, IFR Limited Class (Canada and other countries) VFR day/night, IFR Advanced UltraLight (Canada) VFR day only At the moment BDC Aero Industrie do not offer home build amateur construction References are on the website, Transport Canada and widola

Correction#3 Design and development The Puma was originally called Pluto by Bortolanza when he first designed it in the mid-1980s as an Ultralight with 990lbs max takeoff weight. Later it was renamed as the Drakken (Swedish for "dragon"). In 2008 BDC Aero Industrie redesign the aircraft according to the LAMAC regulation to fit the Advanced Ultralight Regulation at 1230lbs max takeoff weight. In 2012 BDC Aero Industrie complete the first Limited Class Category with Transport Canada where the size, structure, production procedure, and quality control were implemented to meet the standards for a max takeoff weight of 1320lbs on wheels and 1420lbs on floats. Although the airplane resemble the Italian made, the new PUMA, it has a total new structure, components and interior, and it is engineer to have a max gross weight of 1320lbs and 1420lbs on floats, as well as new engines power and configuration. Today the Puma comes with Rotax 912 UL, 912ULS, 912iS, 914UL all of them mounted on a dyno focal engine mount and no longer bed engine mount. The aircraft is made with an aluminum wing and composite fuselage. Its 28 ft (8.5 m) span wing has an area of 124 sq ft (11.5 m2) and flaps.The Puma is approved by Transport Canada as an Advanced Ultralight and Limited Class, but, as of September 2015, does not appear on the Federal Aviation Administration light-sport aircraft list References are on the website, transport canada, FAA, and widola

Correction #4 Operational history In September 2015 there total 6 Pumas made, were five Pumas registered with Transport Canada, four Advanced Ultralight, one Limited Class, and one LSA all built by BDC between 2010 and 2013. There is one Puma LSA registered in the United States with the Federal Aviation Administration in 2013 References are on Transport Canada

Correction #5 Specifications (BDC Puma) should be change to Specification Puma Aircraft General characteristics Crew: one Capacity: one passenger Length: 20.8 ft (6.3 m) Wingspan: 28 ft 0 in (8.53 m) Wing area: 124 sq ft (11.5 m2) Airfoil: Modified NACA 4412 Empty weight: 662 lb (300 kg) Gross weight: 1,232 lb (559 kg) Fuel capacity: 24 U.S. gallons (91 L; 20 imp gal) Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912UL four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke aircraft engine, 80 hp (60 kW) Propellers: 2-bladed, 5 ft 9 in (1.76 m) diameter Performance Maximum speed: 138 mph; 222 km/h (120 kn) at sea level Cruising speed: 132 mph; 213 km/h (115 kn) Stall speed: 43 mph; 69 km/h (37 kn) @max gross weight and full flap Never exceed speed: 161 mph; 259 km/h (140 kn) Range: 575 mi; 926 km (500 nmi) Service ceiling: 12,000 ft (3,658 m) G limits: +4g/-2g Maximum glide ratio: 11.1 Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s) Rate of sink: 350 ft/min (1.8 m/s) Wing loading: 9.9 lb/sq ft (48 kg/m2) Avionics Analog and digital

References are on the website

If you need a reference for all this just ask I will give you the right links I already did the research but I don't know how to put it online. I'm just reading this wikipedia article and it bother me when people put mis information on it

For BDC AERO INDUSTRIE INC.

Correction #1 Under the title BDC Aero Industrie Inc. is a Canadian aircraft manufacturer based in Lachute, Quebec founded in 2008. The company specializes in the production of aircraft ready-to-fly under the following categories: For Canada Advanced Ultralight Aircraft and Limited Class with Special Certificate of Airworthiness For USA light-sport aircraft category references are from Government of Canada and transport Canada

correction #2 Products The company's sole design is the Puma Advanced Ultralight, Puma Sport, Puma LSA, all single engine References are on the website, Transport Canada,

Let me know if you need anything else I will be glad to contribute. BAI73 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above this discussion does not belong here on my talk page, so I will move it to article talk pages: Talk:BDC Aero Industrie and Talk:BDC Aero Puma. Please discuss over there. - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok Thank youBAI73 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic Sport

Evening Ahunt, I was in our local library and had a look in JAWA 2016-16 for this company but they were not featured. They were also not in the 10 year look-back index. It may well be (and I should have checked) that JAWA does not do paramotors currently. Their attitude to gliders, homebuilts and the like has varied over the years. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I discovered that as well, though the 2000s they were really Jane's Some of the World's Aircraft as they excluded hang gliders, paragliders, paramotors and all plans-built homebuilts. That is probably more than half the designs that were in production in that that period. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

update quadracycle

dear ahunt, I am new at wikipedia and I appreciate all the advice I can get. at the moment I am trying to update the quadracycle article. it so happens that I am riding a quadracycle called 2-Rider (manufactured by pacific cycles) since 2011 now. I am very enthusiastic about this 4-wheel bike. not a lot of people know about its merits though, probably because it's name is hardly known. searching on wikipedia sites I have found some information about various more or less practical quadracycles but this bike is not listed at all. in my first attempt to just list the name I received your message, quote "We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Quadracycle, you may have a conflict of interest." well, yes I do have a relationship to this bike and I may be somewhat of an expert on the subject. just out of interest I have looked into the quadracycle page and I have found your name often and also found that you are riding the rhoades car that is pictured in this article. so obviously you don't have a conflict in interest writing about your bike. I would very much like to update the quadracycle article with a picture of what I consider is the best possible 4-wheel bike two-seater bike on the market right now and to have the 2-rider mentioned and since you seem to be editing this article I ask your assistance. thanks, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahunt&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallhase (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. Owning a product and writing about it isn't a conflict of interest, but being a dealer or distributer and writing about it is. The reason I removed it from the article was just because your entry was lacking references. I can put it back in if you can supply a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I found the Pacific Cycles website, but didn't see the 2-Rider there. Do they still make it? - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

how can I answer? like this? please excuse, I'm new to wikipedia but already thrilled by how it works and eager to learn. the 2-rider is hidden on the new pacific cycle website, under adaptive bikes, which is a shame! here is the link http://www.pacific-cycles.com/Product/SpecialNeeds/2RIDER

I am not a distributor myself but I am helping in getting the produkt 2-rider publicly known. please check out the website of the austrian distributor, especially this page: http://www.2-rider.com/about-us.html. it gives you a little bit of background information. in my case I am maybe in a conflict of a conflict of interest. the 2-rider is a very good bike for 2 people who want to ride sitting next to each other but it is hardly known. even the manufacturer has placed it rather awquardly on his website. whereas other bikes like the rhoades car, the whike, the birdy... just to name a few have their own wiki article which are linked to their distributors. to my opinion, the quadracycle article is incomplete without mentioning the 2-rider. so please help me reference it, how do I do that?

for further information please also read: http://www.2-rider.com/product-history.html thank you for your time and expertise. Metallhase (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the info and links. I have added it into the article listing. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Ubuntu releases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page X.org. 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) 10:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a change

Hi, I made a change on Gmail Account by removing a link that no longer works to a working one with accurate information; however, you removed the changed and kept the link that no longer works. I would like for you to reconsider. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbt0424 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Aériane Swift

Hi, I've been editing the Aériane Swift page. I don't suppose you know where there are any usable photos that could be put on Wikimedia Commons? By the way, I see that one of the Barber Snarks caught fire in New Zealand and was destroyed. Very sad! Arrivisto (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note! Sorry, but I don't know of a source for freely-licenced photos. Perhaps you can write to the company and ask them to upload a few to Commons. That sometimes works! Sorry to hear about the fire, I hope no one was hurt! - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

H-3 airstrike

Hello Ahunt,

English is not my mothers tongue. So I have indeed a question. In the article is written: "Nevertheless, the Phantoms could not reach their target without a number of aerial refueling."

Doesn't the "refueling" need a trailing s?

Thanks in advance --S12345678901234567890 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your question! Yes, that needs a trailing "s" to make it plural in English! - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for yours fast answer. I've changed it now. --S12345678901234567890 (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, if you have any future questions please do leave me a note. I am on here most days and can usually answer relatively quickly!! I'll give that article the "once-over" for grammar later on here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume, that "once-over" is an idiom - does it mean: "I read it once"? Or has it a more specific background? --S12345678901234567890 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have used clearer language. In English to "give something the once-over" means to go through it once and and fix things that are seen during that pass, which I did! - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. --S12345678901234567890 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)