User talk:Ahunt/Archive28

Please change our "The Airplane Factory" to Sling Aircraft (Pty) Ltd

Hi Adam.

I am the Marketing Manager for The Airplane Factory, now known as Sling Aircraft. We have legally changed our company name as of 3 weeks ago. I have tried changing what I can on The Airplane Factory page you apparently created but I am unable to change the page title or upload our new logo. All terms stating "the Airplane Factory" need to be amended to Sling Aircraft. Can you please assist with this asap as this old branding goes against our new corporate guidelines. Your assistance in this regard is highly appreciated.Shanellemc (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue here. The main problem there was that when I checked your website to see if The Airplane Factory (Pty) Ltd had been renamed, I found thus page: https://www.slingaircraft.com/about-us/#manufacturing which says "The Airplane Factory, situated at Tedderfield Airpark, Johannesburg, South Africa, is a hangar complex (2 880 m2) where Slings are designed and manufactured." I also found this page: https://www.slingaircraft.com/airplane-factory/ which says "The Airplane Factory (Pty) Ltd (TAF) is a light aircraft development, manufacturing and maintenance organisation. Based in Johannesburg, TAF designs, manufactures and markets the highly acclaimed Sling range of light aircraft. They are sold as Production Built Ready-to-Fly (RTF) aircraft, Quickbuild kits and as full construction kits." There are also TAF logos on each page. I could only conclude from this that the business is still currently called "The Airplane Factory (Pty) Ltd" and that the use of "Sling Aircraft" is just some marketing initiative or similar. Before Wikipedia makes any changes the company website really needs to be updated so it isn't so confusing what the legal business name is. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please can you refer back to the pages mentioned above. These have now all been updated to reflect Sling Aircraft and not The Airplane Factory. Our logo needs to be amended, our website, all terms that reflect "The Airplane Factory" as well as our "Numbers Built" information. Please confirm as soon as this has been completed. Many thanks. Shanellemc (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for updating those company webpages. I'll update all the Wikipedia articles accordingly. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done:

• Sling Aircraft
• Sling Aircraft Sling 2
• Sling Aircraft Sling 4
• Sling Aircraft Sling TSi
• Template:Sling Aircraft

- Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Good morning Adam. Many thanks for your assistance on this. Is it possible for you to send me a mail at shanelle@slingaircraft.com. The reason being is I am wanting to supply you with a few more updated facts such as staff titles, updated sales figures, updated specs etc. Thanks again for your help. You are saving me a ton of time! Shanellemc (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There is really no point doing this by email, as I will need publicly available references to add that sort of information. In general it is better to create a public record here to maintain transparency in these matters. So if you just want to leave your suggested changes and the references here or on the talk page for the article in question that would be better. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Electric tail rotors

Hi, I was just curious what you thought about this story, "Bell reveals 429 demonstrator with four electric tail rotors". Sounds like a good idea, though four tail rotors seems like a lot, but what do I know? - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. The article doesn't explain why Bell went with four; two would seem like enough for redundancy! I can see the advantage of going electric over shaft-driven off the transmission, which is the traditional way of powering a tail rotor, as it would eliminate a lot of hardware and weight. All you need are wires for power and control. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that would be beneficial. Whether this will be a game-changer or not remains to be seen. NOTAR certainly didn't catch on, and the fenestron still isn't very common. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I think much will hinge on the software, since I assume these are software controlled. One DDOS attack away! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This article has a little more information. - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Fly-by-wire, thought so! - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Landfall 35

Hi Ahunt,

I have had my sources, these are from my C&C LF line research. This information have been verified two time before publishing One sources is the actual responsable of the Images 1 construction to test the market in 1982.

Have a great day LF35 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I have checked your refs cited and those are not acceptable references for Wikipedia as they are not verifiable. To see what kind of sources you need to cite, please have a read of WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:OR. Furthermore, from what you have written I can't see how the information you are providing is the sort of thing that we would include in an encyclopedia article, as it just does not seem all that notable. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I'll be hanging around as before, just not doing full-time editing again. I was hoping I could hack it, but I couldn't. - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I recognize that you are in a "can't stay-can't leave" sort of dynamic and have been for a while. Your contributions here are greatly appreciated and are helping build the encyclopedia, so I hope you do miss it enough to come back in a few days. My way of avoid the drama and idiocy that can be found here is to stay away from all controversial subjects and work on really obscure topics that almost no one else cares about. Having pretty much run out of aircraft references after starting about 2500 new article there, I have been writing articles on classes of sailboats recently and it is almost lonely there. 95% have never been edited by anyone else and probably have never been read by anyone else, either. It makes for low stress and low drama work through. Which is probably why I am still here and still enjoying it after 15 years. You might try it, as soon as a subject gets dumb, just unwatch it. It gets quiet fast. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate the advice, and I'll take it under consideration. - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I recognize "advice" probably isn't the most helpful thing to offer, but I am being selfish. You are one of the good contributors here and I would miss you if you really did leave, so I am trying to find a way for it to be less stressful for you, so you will stay. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

During the last year I lived in the Caribbean, as a teenager, I had a 20-year-old World Book encyclopedia set. We had only one channel on TV (evening only), and no cable or VCR, so about all I could do was read. I read that set almost everyday, just bouncing from article to article, volume to volume. I did that at libraries after returning to the states also. Wikipedia has been like all those encyclopedias, instantly available, so I'll always be a Wikipedia user. Along with that, I'll still edit a few articles here and there. Perhaps later on, if I get to another stage in my life, I'll try to be more active again. But right now I just can't. - BilCat (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I do know you have some health issues to deal with too. I hope I will see you here, at least now and then! If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate that, and I will. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bill, just to support the comments here, the advice to find a dark corner of wikipedia to edit where nobody else bothers much (and the nutters have not found it) is a wise idea and I have done it myself when the stress levels rise. Hope you decide to help out here when you feel it is right again. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Buk missiles

Thanks for the correction, yes, you are right, it didn't belonged to that section. Moved to a relevant location. Thanks again and best regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you; thanks for your fix! - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you: placing my edit in that section could have given the (false) impression that it was a statement contained in the Dutch Safety Board report: your timely warning was most useful to avoid a potential source of misunderstanding. Where it is placed now it just provides the factual context of the deployment of the system in the area, i.e a fully neutral, factual, non-POV element of further understanding in the matter. I'm very puzzled on *why* it should be considered a controversial or inappropriate edit by some other users ... go guessing ;). Anyway, thank again and best regards. --Arturolorioli (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful. I think the main objection is that including the information at all is not seen as relevant. In the past editors working as Russian agents have tried to add information to make it look like it could have been Ukraine that shot the airliner down, as part of a a concerted disinformation campaign. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ahunt, thanks for the reply. I see. Well, I'm not a Russian agent, neither I'm running a disinformation campaign, and anybody willing to check my years-long contributions to the Wikipedia project (both in Italian and English) could see it perfectly clearly. Not nice to be targeted as such, by the way. Neither I see how my edit could be considered not-relevant ... the ownership of the firing missile have been the *main* element of discussion for at least a couple of months until the JIT published its findings, and the whole discussion would have been utterly meaningless if only one side had the weapon. So addressing *why* it was possible that there was a discussion at all (i.e., both sides operated the same weapon, an information missing in the article) is *entirely* relevant in an encyclopedic context. Provided, of course, that it is presented in proper WP form, i.e. in a neutral, not-POV, factual and referenced way. The edit is not controversial in any way, it just add in proper WP format a fact perfectly well known to anybody who followed the matter but that could be unknown to users looking for info on WP, and do not negate or challenge or distort in any way any other information provided in the article, neither does it put in discussion any part of the subsequent JIT findings (that were, by the way, almost entirely focused on this specific point, i.e. who owned and operated the firing SAM launcher). Well, not that it matters so much, I suppose. Thanks for helping me better understand the background of this apparently meaningless discussion. Looks like the crossfire is aimed at past targets, and I just get some leftover stray bullets: it happens when an innocent bystander walks unaware into a warzone ... even if WP *should* be a factual, neutral, no-war area to star with ...  ;). Thanks again and all the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)--Arturolorioli (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As you can see at Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Consensus there are lots of objections to the addition, but yes, mostly because of past attempts by Russians to use the article to blame Ukraine for the shootdown, as part of an organized campaign. So, indeed, it does look like your edit was caught in the "crossfire", as you so appropriately put it. The article has an entire section on that campaign, plus the JIT investigation concluded that it was a Russian-operated missile and even which unit fired it, so it probably isn't that critical an addition to generally indicate that Ukraine uses Buks as well. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Template Questions

Ahunt I have a three questions about how you use templates. You obviously know alot about the history of Grumman Aircraft. I am interested because my uncle Girard B. Henderson was an investor in American Jet Industries and helped produce the Gulfstream American Hustler.

I am trying to understand the history and have come up with this timeline. Please correct if wrong:

Grumman - produced the Gulfstream I and Gulfstream II

Grumman Aerospace Corporation (1969 name change); produced Gulfstream I and Gulfstream II

American Aviation Ohio - 1960’s

Grumman American Aviation Corporation - Grumman Corporation took 80% share in American Aviation; in 1972 the company was renamed the Grumman American Aviation Corporation

American Jet Industries - the Gulfstream line and the Savannah plant were sold to American Jet Industries headed by Allen Paulson 1978); he and Girard B. Henderson produced the Gulfstream American Hustler

Gulfstream American (name change) produced Gulfstream III

Gulfstream Aerospace (name change in 1982), produced Gulfstream IV

I noticed that you want the template "American Aviation" for subjects related to the now-defunct company American Aviation. If this is true, would it make sense to add the company American Jet Industries (or any of the above)?

How are you using your Templates; they look like "outlines" for aircraft and boats?

In addition, there was a boating company called "Dawson Yacht Corporation", which was owned by Henderson, with a boat "Dawson 26". He also bought a boat called the "Roosterfish", which was owned by the Alexander Dawson, Inc. I suppose I could create a template for the Dawson Yacht Corporation, right? --Greg Henderson 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here! From my reading of it, I think you have the Gulfstream linage correctly there.

We use these templates as "navigation boxes" at the foot of the articles linked in the boxes and so they work best for readers when gathering related subjects together. The intention of the Template:American Aviation is to gather up just the light aircraft series that were produced by the succession of companies, and nothing more. For instance we have left the Gulfstream jets to another nav box Template:Gulfstream aircraft to keep it simple and also to keep the nav boxes from becoming too large and unwieldy.

As far as Dawson Yacht Corporation goes, the company seems to still exist: http://dawsonyachts.net/ although we don't have an article about it yet. You don't need a nav box to create the company article, just multiple independent references that show the subject is notable and then write the company article. Normally what we would do is first write an article on the company and then several of their boat designs and once there were at least three boats covered then add a nav box at that point. Then when more boat type articles are written they can be added to the nav box to aid readers finding them. You can see how I have done this at Tanzer Industries. The nav box at the bottom shows the founder's bio, the company article and the boat designs produced, making it a neat package.

I hope that helps explain how these navigation templates are used? - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about Aveko VL-3 price

Hi Ahunt, I would like to update de price of the Aveko VL-3. The value given on the wiki article is from 2011 (€78,300) which looks absurd to me. From what I heard this plane costs more than double. I can't find the price on the website of the manufacturer (http://www.jmbaircraft.com/index). However they have a second website (https://www.vl3aircraft.com/vl3-aircraft-packages/) that gives $160.000. I guess this second website is dedicated to the US market. I want to have your opinion if it is reliable enough to update the price on the wiki article.

Thanks for your help. WSgaT (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the really poor English there ("Get more informations from our dealers") it seems to be the US distributor's website, so should be WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Date Linking

Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize date linking was deprecated. I'll have to go back an remove the links from the previous tables I did sometime. I guess that's what I get for continuously copy-pasting an old table! –Noha307 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. The issue was sorted out more than a decade ago, and is summarized at WP:DATELINK. In the case of the "year in aviation" links, it confuses the reader. They click on it thinking that there is more on the aircraft in question and find themselves in an article that doesn't mention the aircraft at all. - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mooney International Corporation

Hi Ahunt, the disruptive IP is now blocked for a week. If you notice them returning with same disruptive editing, you can report them to AIV. Some of their "favorite" articles are now on my watchlist so I will keep a look out as well. S0091 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Super, thank you. On WikiProject Aircraft we have had a perennial problem with these sorts of "nationalistic" vandals before. They seem to think they can change reality in the "real world" by editing Wikipedia to remove undesirable facts. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

trimarans

could have been made on mars for what the stubs identify notoriously empty on where or whatever, please check, my assertions could well be wrong, in rumsfeld territory here - unknown unknown... JarrahTree 03:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but not sure what you mean here. Can you link to an example? - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tractor vs. pusher tail rotors

Hi A, the Tail rotor article doesn't even mention tractor vs. pusher configurations, much less explain why. I was wondering if you could give me a short layman's explanation of why some helicopters use one configuration over another. IIRC, the Hueys/Cobras even switched from one to the other at some point in the long production history. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite true. The UH-1H has a "pusher", too, while the UH-1N has tractor config. I don't have a ref on this, but in general, in the hover, where it is most critical (the tail rotor is largely unloaded in forward flight) the tractor config is more efficient, because the pusher has its intake airflow blocked by the tail fin. This does depend to some extent on the design, though, and where the fin is located with regard to the tail rotor. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

CFB Moose Jaw-reversion

I just wanted to touch base about a reversion you did to my edit on the CFB Moose Jaw page. I have added reference and information to the Moose Jaw Municipal Airport page justifying the link. When the land discription on the site plans is cross referenced through the Saskatchewan land titles maps the site location for the Former R2 at Burdick is at the Same Location as the new airport. I only got through half the editing last night. Sorry for the confusion, I hope this resolves the issue. (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Mech1949 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this. Okay, if you have the refs. When I flew there I had been told the muni was a new build airport and that the Burdick site was north of there, but it is possible that info was wrong. We always go with the WP:RS! - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Cessna names

Thanks for helping out there. Them light aircraft sure do have a ton of names. I didn't try to add every variation or the letters tagged on to some of them just the major ones. Not all our navboxes have a Names section, but most really need them for readers who may not know or remember the designations. I was looking for the Caravan II today, but it took me a while to find it, partly because I confused Reims with Rheims. Do they rhyme? I don't know :) - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is a little trick we call "marketing". In all seriousness, I think it will help the readers, which is all that counts in the end! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Made worse by the fact the many Cessna articles cover several types, only some of which have names, and so they're listed only by model number. Feel free to add any more that you think might be noteworthy. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If you mean "it is a confusing collection of names", then "yes, it is!". - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of marketing, I do wish more editors understood the role of a "beauty shot" as the Lead image, and focused less on having "representative" models and airlines. But that seems to be a minority view in WP:AIR. Sigh. (I'm one of the biggest aviation and computer geeks there is, and I get it, so it's not a difficult concept.) - BilCat (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Me too! The lede image should show the reader what it looks like! - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Another problem is newer users who don't check the history to make sure the "new" photo they're adding wasn't in the infobox for five or 10 years before it was mercifully replaced. ;) - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

and that is the advantage us old timers here have - long memories or at least a tendency to dig through the article histories. I spend far too much time here "reverting". - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Collins Aerospace Logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Collins Aerospace Logo.svg. 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) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Databse error

Talk pages seem to still be working, but I'm unable to view many articles. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to working now. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that too at NOTAR. Musts have been a server down somewhere, but it seems to be okay now! - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Musts have been. Anyway, About an hour or so ago, I was trying to create a navbox, and even though preview-saved it (but not "published") a couple of times, it disappeared on me five times total. After the third time, I switched to another tablet, and it still disappeared twice. I finally had to create it on userspace, and then copy it into mainspace. I created two navboxes yesterday without any trouble at all, doing all the work before publishing it, and had absolutely no trouble at all. Strange. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Very odd, indeed. These days I write new article off-line in my text editor as an .html file, so my work is all locally saved, before trying to post it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I'm still not sure what happened, but I'm thinking more server issues. I do most of my Wiki-editing on my tablets, so an off-line editor isn't a convenient option for me, but it's a good idea nonetheless. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen it again, so hopefully they got it fixed. I blame the virus... - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Me too. In fact, I stay off Facebook to avoid getting such viruses. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

More proof an IQ test ought to be needed to edit Wikipedia!

See here. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi explains this well. - Ahunt (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And I have no idea what this was supposed to be! - BilCat (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

On a hunch I did a G-search, and found this. Copyrighted, of course. I guess I'll have to ask to have the diff deleted. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's gone now. User:The Bushranger took care of it. - BilCat (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Great that BR got rid of it - the article itself looks like basic clickbait. While overall during this odd period in history the encyclopedia is getting better fast through the work of dedicated, but housebound editors, there are some others who are just adding garbage. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for information

Thanks for the guide about redlinks in wikipedia. Zebuready (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful. Getting started on Wikipedia these days can be a bit daunting, so if you have any questions please do drop me a note! - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

VL3 Aircraft

Hi,

I was trying to update the article of VL3 Aircraft with lates and most relevant data such as production location, price, performance, availability (mainly for USA market), certification etc. After hours spent on these updates I have been notified that you deleted everything we have just updated. Why? Why can't we keep that article up to date and relevant to 2020? I believe that your intentions were good but we, as well as everyone else would appreciate to have relevant and correct data especially in open "encyclopedia". Shall we write new article about VL3 Aircraft itself as the Aveko Sprint is not existing anymore?

Thank you very much. Have a great day ahead.

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcALION (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I reverted your changes because you added links to your website and added promotional text. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:COI as to why this is not allowed. I would advise you not to waste your time writing an alternate article on the same aircraft type, as it will just be removed. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your business interests and products. - Ahunt (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

WE ARE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE INFORMATION ACCURATE AND UP-TO-DATE. AVEKO SPRINT IS NOT EXISTING ANYMORE. VL3 AIRCRAFT IS USING NEW MOLDS, NEW WINGS ETC AND ITS NOT AVEKO. IT IS NOT ABOUT PROMOTING IT HERE ITS ABOUT CORRECTING THE FALSE AND WRONG INFORMATION THAT ARE PRESENTED HERE SUCH AS MAKE,TYPE,PERFORMANCE,SPEED ETC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcALION (talk • contribs) 07:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You have already indicated that you are in a conflict of interest and your edits keep persistently add links to your own website, the US distributor of the aircraft. This is not permitted, as I have outlined above and on your talk page. As outlined in WP:COI you need to stop editing the page and make suggestions for changes on Talk:Aveko VL-3 Sprint where they will be evaluated by neutral editors who are not in a conflict of interest. You can note that Wikipedia is not your website to promote your business, you should be doing that on your own website. Repeated addition of external links is considered Wikipedia:Vandalism and will be responded to as such in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Avro Canada C102 Jetliner

I've reverted a "nationalist" here, but some of the information is useful, if less enthusiastically worded and properly placed.

Btw, the US often gets a lot of blame from "up North" for killing off Canadian aircraft programs, especially the CF-105. In the Jetliner's case, several US airliners were very interested it it, and a few American companies want to build it under license. I have no idea if the C102 was susceptible to the Comet's issues, so maybe in the end the Canadian government made a good decision. For once :) - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a good revert. The information is correct, but, as you noted, far too WP:PEACOCK. The Jetliner probably could have been a great thing for the airlines and for Canada, but it was the Canadian government that ordered it "off", in favour of defence production. Probably a bad decision in hindsight, but we can't blame the US for that one. We still have User:The Bushranger/Planewarrior that can be used too! - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I've never seen that warning before. Thanks! As to affecting Canadian defense needs (as odd as that seems from a Canadian gov't!), licensing would have lessened that dramatically, yet even that wasn't allowed. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but shortsightedness is dangerous, and Canadian governments seem particularly prone to it. Over the years, I've heard "buy American" blamed for many things, but from WWII on, the US military has probably bought from Canada more than most other nations combined, sometimes as a second source like Canadair Sabres. We still buy from Bombardier and Viking, though these are relatively small orders. Granted, the US industries will fight tooth and nail for the bigger contracts, but they do that to each other too. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, The Bushranger's warning can be transcluded as a template, indicated there, so a useful ready-made warning. It is sad that we even have to consider that on a regular basis here!

I spent my military career here flying US-made equipment from Bell UH-1Hs and Ns, to OH-58As and even Musketeers! Did get to fly Canadian-made Tutors, T-33s and CF-5Ds a bit, but the latter two were US designs made here.

Present dumbness notwithstanding, our two nations have got on better than any other two anywhere, at least since 1814! - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember Canada being a country in 1814, but that's never stopped some Canadians from bragging that they "won", when it was just one campaign in the larger war. If the US had lost The War of 1812, we would speak English today. Uh wait, British English. ;) - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Canada as a country wasn't formed until 1867, but the people born here have been "Canadians" since the early days of New France in the 1500s, which is why when the French lost in 1759, they packed up all the French people and departed, but left les Canadiens behind. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, when my nation beat the French in the French and Indian War. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Back to what you flew, at least your UH-1N/CH-135 had Canadian engines. And most Bell commercial models, plus your CH-146 Griffins, are made in Canada. Both Bell and PWC are US-owned companies, but most PWC engines are designed in Canada.

I think it's safe to say that the US and Canada have a big brother-little brother-type relationship. As with most sibling relationships, it has its ups and downs, but we do get along fairly well overall. At least better than some other nation-families out there. (Insert India-Pakistan here. And read the Tejas and JF-17 article histories for examples!) Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I think we do better than India and Pakistan do, at least most days. Hopefully we will see a time when the border is once again open, too! - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Everyone's borders are mostly closed right now, so it's not unique to us. There does seem to be an end to it coming soon. It takes me about 3-4 weeks to go stir crazy when I'm stuck at home, and I was on about my third week already when the Shutdown began. (My little sister feels that way in three days, so this has been really hard on here. She lives on the other coast from us.) - BilCat (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"More meditation!" - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Double-check

Hi A, can you double-check this edit and the user's other contributions? I've reverted this edit and Welcomed for COI. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted all his article edits that you didn't. It is all WP:COI WP:SPAM. Plus have a look at User:Heliflitenz/sandbox for future spam plans. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see he's been busy since I posted this. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

And now he's gone. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That was quick, looks like an admin saw our user page flagging! Good call. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I had reported it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA) using WP:Twinkle. :) Twinkle really makes those things go much easier, and it works on my tablets. I'm even able to file AFDs with it, which was always extremely difficult for me to do manually. I usually just begged another editor to do it for me. :) - BilCat (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good deal! I still do almost all of this manually. Trying to make it a "cottage industry". I was using ReFill for refs, but it isn't as good as manually formatting refs, so I often still just do them by hand. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle makes a lot of things so much easier. I had stayed away from it for years because It didn't run on my old Internet Explorer on Win XP/7, but it works fine on my Fire tablets, which use a version of Chrome browser.) - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That is good to know! - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

New type of spam links

This is one type I don't remember seeing before. but you may have. I didn't think Bombardier would change their website to something like that, and they didn't. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted another one here. This one also seems to be from India. I guess the link-spammers are cooped up to, and having to invent new spam methods. Double sigh. - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It certainly lacks the subtly of ref spamming! - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

welcome!

Your most welcome dear for thanked me on WikiProject Userboxes. Regards-Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And another help .......... I just wanna know how you are creating all these userboxes , I mean what are steps to create an userbox? Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful! User boxes are just created with markdown code, one at a time. The best way is to find one that you like and then modify the code and save it as a new page. You might find good coding examples on my page: User:Ahunt/Userboxes. Let me know if you have questions! - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

North East Land, Sea and Air Museums

Adam,

You have undone the changes made to the North East Land, Sea and Ar Museum in the list of Transport Museums.

These changes were made by two of the Trustees David Charles (Thunderbird167) and JPallis (Jamie Palliser). Why do you feel the need to remove the changes ? {{Susbst:Unsigned}Thunderbird167}}

Thanks for your note and your declaration that both of you are in a conflict of interest with regard to this article. As that policy explains you are required to stop editing the article and instead make suggestions for changes on Talk:North East Land, Sea and Air Museums. Your edits consisted of "sanitizing" this article to remove negative information, and you can note this is considered vandalism. Please take this to the article talk page if you want to see changes to the article, where your requests wil be considered by neutral editors. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Adam,

The edits are not to sanitize they are to correct items of fact that are wrong.

The section on vandalism has no relevance to the current status of the museum and happened in the days of the North East Aircraft Museum.

There is no COI as we are not paid by the museum

The other changes are to accurately reflect the current collection. The list on the page are outdated and hardly a reflection of keeping wiki accurate.

As you state yourself it is your desire for accuracy.

Now will you kindly please reinstate the changes

Regards

David Charles

You have said you are trustees of the museum, so clearly in a conflict of interest. It is not necessary that you be paid to be in a conflict of interest. Please take your requests for changes to Talk:North East Land, Sea and Air Museums and explain there what you think should be changed and why, and it will be assessed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Adam,

We have taken it to the talk page and I have read the COI page.

There is no COI just a desire for accuracy.

I fail to see why you consider reverting to an incorrect version is the correct course for Wiki.

I have never had a problem with anything else I have contributed to Wiki

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbird167 (talk • contribs)

Thank for taking it to the talk page. We can address each item there, as I have indicated. Everything is explained in our policy at WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of Sailing yacht

Hi Ahunt, You may wish to look in on Sailing yacht, which I've substantially expanded. I've included one of your images! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! Glad that you found one of my photos of use. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

CAF page

Where does it say that Branches must be in alphabetical order? The template doesn't say it, and if you look at British Armed Forces (the closest example) the service branches are listed by precedence as in the normal way. trackratte (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Each article is free to handle it the way it wants to. The consensus on the CAF article is to use alphabetical order, as other orders have been subject to contentious edit warring. If you want to change the consensus, you're free to open a discussion about it on the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Canadian Armed Forces#Senior Service for the relevant discussion. - BilCat (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Basically as User:BilCat says. You can note that the CAF only uses that for certain ceremonial purposes such as parades, and then only the navy seems to insist on it, despite having been formed decades after the army (1910 vs 1867). The army and air force (both of which I served in) certainly don't acknowledge it. Hence we use alphabetical order here. As User:BilCat noted this is the last discussion and the current consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks to you both for the background and for taking the time to link to the discussion. I agree that 'parade precedence' is irrelevent, but the issue I think is what is the official convention within Canada as this is generally what pages go off of, although don't have to obviously, but is generally what is verifiable vice simple editor preference. I'll post something to the talk page. Thanks again! Cheers. trackratte (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Several reversions

2 hours ago you reverted several of mine editions, with no reason or utility. I hope you rectify your action. Jmarchn (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Each reversion was properly explained in the edit summary. In all cases it was because you violated WP:NOTBROKEN, as the edit summaries linked. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Is old-fashioned the new weird?

Hi. Weird words on Volocopter 2X? Flight-worthy condition seems perfectly common a phrase to me in that context. (Just wondering... does the wording make my but! look aged?) PythonGraham (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. It was just quite non-standard, more than dated. The normal term is "airworthy", but these terms normally refer to maintenance activities, not new production aircraft. New aircraft are usually termed as "ready to fly" or else supplied as a kit for amateur construction. - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank for answering. I learned something, too.PythonGraham (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Helpful, again, catching of my mistakes... teach me to edit sleepy. I think had about five editing pages open (from a WP pg list) and got somewhat confused about which one I was editing. While fixing my errors, I saw you were, too. I'll be more careful. PythonGraham (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Frank W. Caldwell

Hi A, could you take a look at Draft:Frank W. Caldwell once the the current edit session there is done? There's some technical information on propellers that I'm not qualified to review. The page is a draft version moved from mainspace due to sourcing issues after being gutted for copyvios. The creator is a new editor, so I'm trying to avoid biting too much. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks generally okay, although it needs a couple of terms fixed and ref and punctuation fixes. I can make those changes, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's still being worked on, but once he's done, you can have at it. I'll do some reorganization of it later on. - BilCat (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it got done late last night, so I'll make a some changes. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi A, Thanks for all the editing work on Draft:Frank W. Caldwell User:Peteschulz210 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful, too. It looks like a good article and worthwhile subject. Hopefully it can now be moved to mainspace. - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's ready, I can move it. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think so. There is more that could be done, but no need for it to be there in drafts as it is. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Y It's live now. - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Partial ban

I am not sure a partial ban applies to talk pages [[1]], I think we need clarification.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that may have been an oversight. I'll ask the blocking admin. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Queried at User_talk:El_C#Block_question - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like letting him continue on the talk page was intentional. If he continues to be disruptive there you can add that to the original ANI thread, or you can just ignore him. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ungoogled Chromium and Iridium added to the Chromium page

Hello Ahunt! Thank you for your welcoming message in the English Wikipedia! As you can see, I am also a Wikipedian in its French version.I am quite a bit disappointed that you deleted my modifications on the Chromium page... You wrote indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chromium_(web_browser)&action=history: "we don't list non-notable browsers here (meaning ones with no Wikipedia article) and we don't use external links in article text, see WP:EL. You can noted that anyone can download the Chromium source code, change the logo and call it a new browser, it is trivial to put one out like that." How can you tell what is a "non-notable" or a non noteworthy browser? According which criteria? You add that there is no Wikipedia page available for these browsers but they could be created? Had all browsers at their beginning a Wikipedia page? Furtheremore if you a search in web machine like Duckduckgo, you will see that these new browsers are quite often cited by people who give importance to privacy... In Linux OS, you will also find packages for Ungoogled Chromium for example. If there is no external link in article text, what would happen if I would reimplace the links that I wrote by links to their new Wikipedia pages? Would you delete my modifications too? Thanks in advance for your answer. All the best,--Miladioudediou (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it is so easy to just re-badge Chromium, there are thousands of browsers out there. We don't list them unless they are notable enough to have their own stand-alone article, to avoid people using the article for advertising purposes. To create those stand-alone articles requires independent, third party references, that establishes notability as per WP:GNG. If the articles created lack independent, third party references they will be deleted as "not notable". If the articles are written, then sure they can be linked in the Chromium article, because they would meet WP:GNG. Your insertion of external links into the article is covered under Wikipedia:External links which says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone

Hi Adam, could you keep an eye on Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone? It's getting a lot of attention because of the recent incident near Greece, including edits like this minor addition. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

See also 2020 Ionian Sea helicopter crash. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Will do! - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always useful to have a informed, local eye on such topics, especially when it's a military related topic. I find that Canadian popular media seems to be as ignorant as American popular media is on the military, and even more sensationalistic, if that's possible. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the outlet. CBC is pretty good, avoiding most sensationalism, but, being general media, often get the aviation details wrong. Their coverage on this story has been pretty good, though. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Message from Ahunt

Thank you for your welcome and encouragement to stay. I have read through most of the Wikipedia "How to" articles, and downloaded the style guide and a host if other resources. I have also acquired a few books on Wikipedia. I am very keen to contribute more substantially, and especially want to edit articles on South Africa and contribute content where there are gaps. Would appreciate help and guidance from someone with your depth of experience. Please advise how best to use talk pages. HowardMaggott (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Only realised now that I should reply here. Thank you for your welcome. I would appreciate guidance and mentoring from an experienced Wikipedian like yourself. I would like to edit more substantially and also write content. I am taking baby steps and am currently working through some books and published Wikipedia manuals. Also teaching myself web development and would like to gain the technical know-how to edit and create content with ease and track published contributions. HowardMaggott (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. Please feel free to drop me a note if you have specific questions. As far as using talk pages go the most important thing is to use them for discussions about improving the article and remember to sign yur comments with ~~~~. There is much more guidance at WP:TALK. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hey, Thanks for your help in bringing my first article Pop! OS up to Wikipedia standards. I've realised the scope of improvement of an article. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejose1 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that you thought that was helpful. I was building upon the core of the article that you started. Hopefully many more editors will drop by and make improvements to it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Europa Elite

"I would argue that because the Elite is a completely new design, it doesn't belong on the Europa XS page, but does belong on the manufacturer's page". I don't agree. This new aircraft seems to be "Son of Europa". Details are scarce, and until there is enough for a specific Elite WP page, I would suggest that my recent edit adding Elite to the Europa XS page should stand. After all, WP is about passing on information, and if the information isn't there, readers will be none the wiser. Arrivisto (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a new design (the manufacturer says that it is "brand new"), so let's gather information on the manufacturer's page until there is enough info on the design to split it off to a new article. Given the WP:RS coverage and the fact that this is an established manufacturer, that new article could be started now, which is why I put in a red link to Europa Elite. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

OK; red has turned to blue! Arrivisto (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Super, ideal solution. I'll keep an eye out for more refs to expand it. Could be an interesting study, watching a company trying to develop and market a new kit plane this year, with the virus and economic situations we are facing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! How did you manage to get the image as "fair use"? I couldn't see it on Wilimedia Commons. Arrivisto (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It isn't on Commons, it is on en.wikipedia. I uploaded it as "fair use" because it came from company PR info and because there are no free images available. It is allowed under the rules, at least until they build one and we can get a free image taken. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Inactive project guidance

Hi Adam, sorry if I misunderstood when is ok to consider a distribution as not active on Musix GNU+Linux. Could you point me where is the info where it says is still active, or what are the variables to take into account? I checked that the last post from the official website is from 2017 (asking money to be able to keep working on the poject), the last release is from 2014 and most mirrors don't work anymore. FSF claims the maintainers told them the distro is no longer maintained ″Removed March 2019. Removed at the request of the maintainer, as they had stopped maintaining it.″ , Distrowatch also shows the status as "Discontinued" and I thought all this was enough to change the article. I hope this is the place to discuss this. DMzlC (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Just changing one word in the article doesn't really explain what is going on. For one thing the distro is still in use by users right now, the website is still "up" and the main dev is seeking to continue, while looking for funding. If you want to add those refs and some text to explain the nuances of the situation to the history then that is fine, but you can just change the tense of one word and "call it a day". - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the input. So with the references that I have put here (maintainers asking for money to keep the project alive 3 years ago and FSF and Distrowatch claiming is no longer maintained 1 year ago) it would be ok to update the article with theses refs and some more redaction. Your comment in the undo actions make me believe I have over-sighted something about the project. Thanks for your time.DMzlC (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Well just that the project isn't exactly "past tense" yet, although it is on "life support". The main thing is to just add what the refs say, without drawing conclusions that the refs don't draw. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the guidance.DMzlC (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions! - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Google Chrome Enterprise Deployment section

Hello, on February 11 you reverted an addition that I made to the Enterprise Deployment section of the Google Chrome article. You recommended that I suggest edits on the talk page because I've declared COI, which is understandable. All of the sources for the section are between 8 - 12 years old, which is quite dated for anything discussing software and computing. My question for you is, after I make the suggestions, what would be an acceptable waiting period with no response before I make the edits again myself. If no other editor moves to update such an outdated section, I think it's fair for the next discussion not be about my COI, but about the content itself and quality of the sources. Thanks and please let me know your thoughts on this. - SBCornelius (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well for one I will committ to assessing your proposed edits on the talk page and responding there, so that should address your question. - Ahunt (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

USAF T-41A

Hi, Adam I tried to add an addendum to the description of the T-41A's to note that there were a few of them (1967 models) with a different powerplant than the originals. I know the information is factual because I flew the T-41's from 1966 through about 1971 as a flight instructor for something over 3000 hours at Del Rio, TX. The students were from near-by Laughlin AFB. If personal experiences are not enough, I'm not sure what else I can do. Any suggestions?

PaulLoyd (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Paul Loyd

Thanks for your note here. No, we do not accept "personal experiences" on Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Everything entered has to be verifiable and referenced to reliable sources. There is no way to verify "personal experiences". To add the information that you want to add you will need to find it in a reliable, published source and then cite that source. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

I understand that my edits may have been seen as biased and I misinterpreted/misunderstood some of the things said on the citations. I apologize for doing that. I did not intend to mislead readers or cause any harm at all. Moving forward I will read the Wikipedia Editing Rules more careful and I will thoroughly check my edits with the rules before publishing. I do not work for any campaign office of any of the candidates in the 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. Again, I apologize for my edits and previous mistakes. Editorinchief1999 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your remarks here. You can note you have been blocked from editing the article for six months for disruptive editing. You can still make requests for things you would like to see changed in the article, by making requests on the article's talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Leslyn Lewis

Hey, she's Jamaican! Anyway, what infobox should be used on her article, since she's technically not an officeholder? - BilCat (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, born in Jamacia, now a Canadian. Judging by the polls she is unlikely to become an officeholder, too. How about Template:Infobox person? - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictorial Wikipedia

early model P-38

An early P-38 with twin Booms

We already have Simple English Wikipedia, so maybe now we need a Pictorial Wikipedia for people who can't read!!!!! Sigh. BilCat (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So the question now is, will the IP revert me with a long screed about how stupid I am? :) BilCat (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

He obviously had it confused with this, very similar aircraft. Easy mistake to make! - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

LOL!! - BilCat (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

See that is why we need better editors. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Snow Killer Eggs?

MH-6 Little Bird in secret CF camo as a Canadian moose

See my revert here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We even have a photo of them in action, too. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I take it that's a No then? :) - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Would need a very juicy ref, I would think... - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. - BilCat (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Quest Kodiak

Please see this reference: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/05/12/american-pilot-dies-after-humanitarian-group-aircraft-crashes-in-papua.html - 46.125.249.113 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:AIRCRASH for the inclusion criteria. Accidents like this are very common and are not notable. If you check the car article on Ford Mustang you will see no list of accidents there, even though millions of them have been crashed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you want to compare aircraft accidents with car accidents, and "millions of Ford Mustangs crashed", as compared to 250 units of "Kodiaks" built (until 2018), I can't help it. Besides, what was the significance of the former accidents of Kodiaks, with formerly six dead, and now another one, with the airframe totalled?

About a dozen reasons why I posted that addition to the article, of which I mention only half of same here for your better understanding: 1. read that article in the "Jakarta Post", saw the aircraft type "Kodiak", checked Wikipedia and noted that the accident reports ended in 2018. 2. Am a pilot myself, holding an American PPL Single and Multi-Engine, Land and Sea, plus various other Australian and Austrian licences and ratings, having flown four dozen countries and eight states in the US-of-A, 48 different aircraft of 30 different types. 3. Having lived in Indonesia for 30 years. 4. Knowing that, for example, flying in Alaska is a walk in the park, compared to flying the jungles of West-Papua with non-existent airstrips, not to speak of the weather with tropical storms a-plenty. 5. Feeling pity for the American female pilot who did not make it. 6. Did thousands of articles and edits in the German Wikipedia and hundreds in the English language Wikipedia, but stopped five years ago, and forgot my password thereafter. Hope that explains some to you, who seems to be a member of the "deletion fraternity". 46.125.249.113 (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: Oh, and should you check my "user contributions", those few listed there for 2016 and 2017 are not mine! Must have been somebody who held my current IP-address before, a mystery to me ...46.125.249.113 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, IP addresses change. It is not a matter of being in any "fraternity" or not. I am a pilot, too, ATPL, trained as a civil and military air safety officer. We have a standard for including accidents in Wikipedia, which is explained at WP:AIRCRASH and this one does not makes the standard. There have been dozens of Kodiak crashes, all much like the others: no lasting changes, no ADs as a result, no new procedures - we don't list them. If you check Cessna 172, you will see that we have not listed each of the thousands that have been in accidents, just the ones that make the inclusion standard, otherwise it would dwarf the article. As far as providing a memorial to the deaths go, we have a policy on that, too: WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I bow to an ATPL, kudos, especially for the military bit, where I've been a tank commander only. :-))

As for flying: I trained with "American Flyers" at San Diego (the same where Tom Cruise of "Top Gun" fame had his first flying experience on a C-172, after he did the movie. Oh, and he needed a cushion to peep over the dasboard). Was told by a board member having flown-in from Orlando/Florida that I held the record from all of their eight country-wide outfits: 13 days from first initiation flight till soloing, and another 16 days till PPL completed, i.e. 29 days total. Perhaps it has been broken since. Happy flying, and keep the right side up! Regards from Vienna (almost Corona-free, while still "masked"). 46.125.249.113 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, not to brag or anything, but I went from first flight to first solo in five days, our whole class did at Victoria Flying Club in July 1977 on Cessna 150s. Pretty easy to fly. Started on Monday, everyone soloed before the weekend. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha! Soloing within 5 days is extreeme, congrats! But then my 13 days were mainly to write to my envious (dentist) brother who took two years to do his ultra-light licence in bad-weather northern Germany. No, the congratulations from that American Flyers head-honcho was on my 29 days till PPL completed. And, sorry to say: that C-152 was sheer horror, flew it once only, felt like a leaf-in-the-wind in the Californian desert, and parked it after one hour, never to try again. My fave single-engine is the "Commander 114", on which I did most of my one-prop hours, the "Seneca" for most of my twin hours, with the C-310 Romeo (in Australia) being my favourite, though. Funniest aircraft I flew was the Twin Seabee at Lake Havasu, and best-est a Navy-SNJ (T-6 Texan) complete with hook and machine guns, the only time I did aerobatics, barrel rolls, loopings and the lot, surprised myself that I did not vomit against the windshield ... :-)) And those were the days, when we directly overflew the aircraft carriers at San Diego, 100 feet above deck, which of course was before George II and 9/11. Again: all the best! Cheers 46.125.249.113 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: just checked out your many good photos! Seems you are a sailing man. All I can ""offer" in this regard is my meager sailing experience in the Baltic. My brother, however, won a German cup in some tiny boat called "Zugvogel"(English name of which I wouldn't know). My comfort: one of my cars is a special Volvo "Ocean Race" edition. :-))

PP.S.: also saw the photos of parachutes. Hope you are NOT "one of those -ists", as I was told: "how can anybody in his right mind jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?!" :-))

Oh those photos are paragliders, foot launched from hills. I did that for some years in the 1990s along with hang gliding and [parachuting]] too. I've flown almost every class of aircraft from ultralights to jet fighters, but the majority of my 5,000 hrs logged is on helicopters, mostly Bell 212 and Bell 205s. These days, well when there isn't a pandemic on, I sail instead. That is my boat on the top of my user page, a US Yachts US 22. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh my ..., paragliding, pheeew. My nephew, a man of 204 cm (= 6 feet 8 inches), now professor of chemistry in Switzerland, broke his back, literally, when paragliding in the Alpes, or rather with such monster-kite. But he survived, one year in a gypsum corset, then back to normal.

As for helicopters: only flew on them as pax, never myself, firstly, as pretty expensive to hire, secondly because I never believed the story that, when the engine stops, the rotor blades act like wings and let you glide down, and thirdly I suffer from vertigo (no kidding!), since my then 3-years-old-son almost fell off an 8th floor hotel balcony in Sydney, Australia. Forward motion of a fixed wing is perfect. But staaaring down through the perspex of a chopper in vertical motion makes me dizzy. :-))

I did business with Sikorsky, though, and when I called theirs choppers, they objected and said "ours got turbines!", haha! And surely you know the saying "what makes helicopters fly? They are sooo ugly, the earth repells them!" (Sorry!). And/but I - really - HAVE to ask, my last point, promise: what type of jet fighters did you fly, please? 46.125.249.113 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I flew Canadair CT-114 Tutors 155 hours and Canadair T-33s 22 hours, but those are trainers and Canadair CF-5s a few times. It really shouldn't be counted as a fighter, though.

Yeah I quit paragliding after several years of mountain flying. My instructor got killed on them as did several other pilots I admired. They have a an annoying habit of folding up in turbulence. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, and WOW! The CT-114 I hadn't known (but looked it up on Wikipedia: nice!), whereas the T-33, of course, I know, built it as a model (from pre-printed carton paper) and had many such smaller models as a kid. :-)) And the F-5: an extra-WOW, because THAT one impressed me since ever! And did you know that NASA-astronauts got THOSE for PRIVATE use, such as spending a weekend back home, or better: at Las Vegas?! Saw them repeatedly parked at the latter (North Vegas) and at Arizonan airfields. They had the same colours as my then Commander: white, with red and blue trims. That, alone, I thought in those days, should be sufficient reason to join NASA! :-))

Don't think I'll come to fly jets anymore in this life. although I got close some 25 years ago when (seriously) considering to get myself one of those little BD-10s, would it not have been for Mr. Bede never really making it and that fun-aircraft never having been available in built-up condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bede

As for your buddies who came to harm and passed: terrible, and very sorry to hear!

Last, not least: I now picture you at or near Vancouver. Funny enough, after having covered ALL airfields (except military and private) in four of the the South-Western US-states, and MOST in another four states, I NEVER made it up to Seattle and Vancouver, as often as I had tried and bought new charts every time, because of persistent crummy weather and rain, rain, rain ..., always getting stuck in Oregon ... :-(( Also never made it there by other transport, although everybody who's been there told me: Vancouver = best place in the World! And one very last for a chuckle: my co-pilot, a (rather biiig) dog, got her own headset, connected to the intercom, but with the mike bent upwards, because when Vienna Radar is on and they hear bark, bark, bark, they ask: WHO is flying the aircraft??? :-))

Thanks again for our interesting conversation, much appreciated!

Safe flying and sailing! And don't worry about that stupid virus! We had worse in the tropics. Besides, as NATO military men, we've been trained in "ABC", "B" for biological, gas mask at the ready, right? :-)) 212.95.5.56 (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, haven't caught it so far! Stay safe. - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

For removing that un-pheasant-ness. This tablet is getting old, and it can't keep up with the newer browsers. I'm retiring it next week anyway. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it was "garbage day" anyway! - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Today's CIR gem

The plane was first researched and considered upon by US Generals as during the Vietnam war the US needed a more superior Air-Air Multi-role Fighter This was due to the increasing Russian activity in the south of the Vietcong's Territory. The main reason for the upgrade was because The F4-C Phantom & F-18 Had kept on getting Out-manoeuvred by the more superior Interceptor The Mig-23. Due to this the US had to increase their firepower; because of this they opted for the revered Boer Creator and designer, Hans Van Der Toorn This was due to his advanced skill set in aerodynamics this was due to the fact of how long he had been in education for, this allowed him to study more complex structures such as folding wings for use on an aircraft carrier.However he had also studied more advanced aeronautics and aerospace this made the fighters especially suited to low-high flying altitudes this allowed it to make sharper turns at higher altitudes Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"History is written by the victors." The US would have totally cleaned up in Vietnam with F-18s ... - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your Undertale Userbox! WikiMacaroons (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Presse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Canadair CT-114 Tutor Snowbird crash

With a CT-114 having crashed this weekend, the second one within the last several months, is the end near for the Tutor? Can Canada afford to replace them with something newer, seeing that it doesn't even own its current trainers. Just curious. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent questions. The answers are all pretty much political. They have extra Tutors in storage, so they can just dig another one out for now and paint it. The team and its highly-placed supporters have been lobbying for BaE Hawks for years, either purchased or more leased ones. The team is supposed to be a recruiting "thing", so the governments, both Liberal and Conservative have not seen it as a worthwhile expenditure, given the cost/benefit ratio. Since they would need to cut other defence spending to pay for it, the team's options are pretty much carry on with Tutors for the foreseeable future or just hang it up. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's kinda what I figured. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if anything changes. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"Hang it up" probably. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I said, that is a political question. It will depend on the success of "lobbying". - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Things that kill people tend to bring out other kinds of lobbyists: the alarmist media and other professional activists. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly, not here. It's in the British North American Act : "Peace, order and good government". - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Then the activists will protest in front of GE's headquarters in Boston, since they made the engines. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the video I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it was a bird strike. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This article has some numbers pertaining to your original question. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Eggenfellner Aircraft

Why are fixing my edits of the Eggenfellner engine debacle... removing the truth is leading people to becoming victims of his fraud.

Stop pizza Creightonmaxxis@comcast.net Stoppizza (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced original research, falls afoul of WP:PROVEIT, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP. Basically Wikipedia is not the correct place to carry on a personal vendetta against people you don't like, try Facebook or Twitter. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I just want to thank people who truly want to contribute to the wiki!

CatEyes Aerial (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not sure what I have done to rate this recognition, but I am glad that you feel my contributions here are of value. - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia", but I have to say, Hi!!!.

So, I get that, "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor.", but it's been almost 30 years since I've seen you or heard from you, so I'm saying, "Hi!!!". How are ya, you ol' bag of dirt? You wouldn't believe the hours I've spent trying to track you down - I even found an Oz 'Adam Hunt' who wrote an article called "Magic Air" and thought I'd found you, but then I found out he was a hang glider pilot! This is the last place I would have expected to run into you, just because...

Anyway, how are ya? Where are ya? What are you up to (besides being a Wikipedian)? What's your email (mine is BrettA343@gmail.com)? Love your User Page - mine's considerably simpler and shorter. But I have my Starlight 26 canopy near the end of my photos... still looks just like yours and Glen - you remember Glen? - was flying it, for a photo op for me. It's past my bedtime and I won't write more for now, but get back to me, please! BrettA343 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brett: Hey great to hear from you. I'll drop you an email! - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t Puerto Rico considered "domestic" since it’s part of the U.S.?

Hi there Ahunt,

To my understanding, I seriously sincerely thought that all flights going to and from Puerto Rico and the current 50 states of the United States are considered domestic, especially with the growing possibility that at some point this decade Puerto Rico may very well become the 51st state.

Kind regards, NJRobbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJRobbie (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for your note here. The question of domestic or not wasn't the issue there, it was that you didn't cite a reference, so it wasn't verifiable. See also WP:PROVEIT. Plus you put it in "commented out" so it didn't show in the article. Your edit summary didn't give a reason for that, so it was unclear why. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Unbelievably bad!

Hi Adam, I just made an attempt to clean up and organize the Sikorsky S-38#Operators section. To call it "bad" would be an insult to bad articles! :) Could you take a look and see if I missed anything? Thanks. (I tried to link to the diff, but simply copying the URL no longer works, for some reason inexplicable to me!) - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks much better now! I did make one small clean-up, just a lost word. Most of the citation needed tags there are seven years old. When do those entries get axed? - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. On the list, I kept only those with airlines or company articles, which was most of them. I had to correct a few links, but surprisingly there were only a few. I figured wed give it a little more time, and perhaps I'll check the airliner articles for sources. I spent nearly an hour on the article today, and that was enough for now! - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no rush, tackle it another day. Hot here, it hit 37°C today (99 °F). - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Only mid-70s here. We've had a couple of days over 90, but May has been unusually mild for our region. - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is 15C° over normal here! We had a nice day sailing, followed by ice cream! - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine

You undid my recent red links removal per WP:REDLINK that's a WP:POLICY I've never heard but no one is perfect. No more words to explain... Cheers! KMagz04 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, glad that was helpful. I learn new things here every day, that is what makes this an interesting place to write! - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Invisible women??

In the Leslyn Lewis article, it states, She is the first visible minority woman to run for the leadership of either of the two major federal Canadian parties. That just begs the question, what invisible women have run for leadership in Canada?? Seriously, I know what it's supposed to mean (she "looks like a minority" as opposed to looking "white" or whatever, but still being a minority), but are "visible minority" and "invisible minority" actually terms used in political discourse in Canada? I can honestly see some of the Wikipedia readership thinking that it means invisible people run for office in Canada! - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Like this kind of "user"! :) - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually in Canada all minorities are visible and, in fact, they make up the majority of Canadians. It is the majority, who are actually a minority, who are invisible. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, there is an invisible man running for president in the US. Unfortunately, we can still hear him put his foot in his mouth everday! :) - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, well in that race a low profile may be a good thing! - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ted Gozzard

I got a start on this page. Ken Heaton (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, great going! - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a question that perhaps you can answer. who was Hayden Gozzard? He took over the Bayfield Boat Yard when Ted sold the company to him, but seems he was not one of Ted's sons. Any ideas? - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hayden was Ted's younger brother. Based on the research I did last evening I wouldn't necessarily say this statement is correct: "He took over the Bayfield Boat Yard when Ted sold the company to him". There was a rift that arose in the family around that time or shortly after between Ted and Hayden. A quote: "When I heard “then my uncle stole the design” and went behind dad’s back and produced it—I was listening again. He said they don’t recognize the 36. It created WW III in their family and divided everyone. From the way it sounded they are a large family and were all very close-nit with the business and life--but after they have never spoken and from the sound of it never will again." That's from here: TED GOZZARD – June 13, 1933 to May 15, 2014 and some more info here: Sailing's Used Boat Notebook April 2013] I decided to stay away from all that. Ken Heaton (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that makes sense at least. I was going by https://sailboatdata.com/builder/gozzard-yachts-north-castle-marine-ltd and https://www.jordanyachts.com/1607 which tells only a little of that story. I'll adjust the article on Bayfield Boat Yard. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bell CH-139

Hi Adam, File:Canadian Air Force JetRanger.jpg was deleted today as a copyvio. As far as I can tell, that was the only photo of a CH-139 in Canadian Forces livery on Commons. Would you happen to have any photos of them? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A good question! I would think so, as I flew them in 1982 and had a 35 mm Pentax back then, but let me have a look at my old photo albums and see if I can find a couple that can be scanned. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured you'd probably flown them at some point. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

These aren't great, but the best that I have! - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• 
  Bell CH-139 Jet Rangers 139301 and 139306 3CFFTS Portage 1982
• 
  Bell CH-139 Jet Ranger 139301 3CFFTS Portage 1982
• 
  Bell CH-139 Jet Ranger 139303 3CFFTS Portage 1982
• 
  Bell CH-139 Jet Ranger 139301 3CFFTS Portage 1982

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Did those photos turn out to be of any use? - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really, but as you said they weren't great. Someone else may disagree and add one though, in time. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I tried! If I had known they would have actually been useful 38 years later, then I would have taken better photos back then! - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not your fault even the digital cameras in cheap smart phones take better photos than even the expensive cameras did 40 years ago, much less the cheap ones on cheap film! :) We're all so spoiled now. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Because a lot of people were limited by the 24 or 36 image limit on each roll of film only realy interesting thing were photographed so the more common things were ignored. MilborneOne (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That is very true, I mostly used 36 rolls, but the whole mindset was different as each shot cost money! - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Cessna 162 Skycatcher: Production / Sales

In the third paragraph of this article it states, "A total of 192 aircraft were sold...", but in the section titled "Wing modifications of aircraft in service," it says, "...the first 228 Cessna 162s delivered." The latter statement implies that more than 228 aircraft were ultimately delivered, but if only 192 were sold, how is this possible? There appears to be some confusion about production, sales and delivery numbers.

Cheers,

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.15.217.24 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It was a question of wording choice in the ref cited - they were built, but not all were delivered to customers, some were "delivered" to Cessna. Otherwise the numbers are all pretty much consistent. I have changed the wording slightly to reflect this. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A400M

Hi Adam, I just looked at [ https://web.archive.org/web/20151018162055/http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/Aircraft/A400M/A400MSpec.aspx the archived source] for the Specs. I don't see anything about "116 fully equipped troops / paratroopers", or "up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel" either. Did I miss it? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I just checked Airbus's current site, and it does have that information. I've added it to the Specs. - BilCat (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh good. It is also on the About sub page there - or click on "about" at the top. "The A400M can also carry 116 personnel, or paratroops." and "The A400M is equipped with eight stretchers as standard which are permanently stored on board, but it can accommodate as many as 66 standard NATO stretchers and 25 medical personnel seated on troop seats." - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The archive page won't load properly in my browser, so I.was unable to see/find a subpage. I didn't think you'd remove the tag without looking at the source first, so that's why I asked. I've been caught out a few times too many by not checking sources myself, only to find out the other person hadn't checked either! - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is always good to check! - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See what happens when I retire!!?!!

See here. It was subsequently cleaned up somewhat, but the core damage remained. See my edit/summaries for my venting. (Of course, I don't think I ever watchlisted the article, but I might have by the time that crap was added. :) ) - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That would have been funny if it hadn't been in the article for nine months! - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that one I just did was another CIR. I noticed you reverted the same user a week ago. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The price of a world-class encyclopedia is eternal vigilance. - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bombardier Recreational Products

Hi Adam, Correct, BRP did not exist at that time however it has far more relevance than the link to Bombardier Inc., which is more concerned with the aviation business. More context is provided by BRP page -- by the way, all the recreational products were sold to the family, becoming part of BRP anyway, so a correction in context is likely called for anyhow.

(Although the BRP page leaves a lot to be desired anyhow. I was surprised no one had updated it with the May 27 announcement regarding outboard motors.)

Cheers

Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleslanning (talk • contribs)

I did actually research that question when I started both those articles, to make sure the correct manufacturer was named. It is pretty clear that BRP, a company formed in 2003, did not build the Bombardier 3.8 in 1974, the Bombardier 7.6 in 1980 or the Bombardier 4.8 in 1982. We have to go with what the cited refs say, which is that these boats were built by Bombardier Limited's Recreational Products Division and not by BRP. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

First Cut of DC-3 Image 'Description' section, for your perusal and hopeful comments.

Here's the photo I'm putting up on the DC-3 article with NiD.29's approval and I'd appreciate any comments about what I've done with the photo's description, as per my email of a few minutes ago. TIA, Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The description looked fine, there was just a "}}" that was out of place that was breaking the formatting, I fixed it and now the image page works fine. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As always, thank you, Sir (and my using the website 'names' for authors is OK?). Cheers, Brett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Barges on European inland waterways

Hi Ahunt, Thanks for your appreciation! I'm reading Bill & Laurel Cooper's "Back Road to Byzantium" that covers their trip down the Danube, the "barge equivalent of a circumnavigation in a yacht". My next read will be their book, "Watersteps round Europe", which covers their return trip to the UK via the Med and France. (I've been in contact with Laurel Cooper, who is an interesting woman). Arrivisto (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, great to hear from you! Sounds like fun. I noticed that when you put on your user page and figured you would understand a "thanks" as a Like. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

New type of server - a DC-7!!??

See here. Sigh. CIR applies to English skills too. BilCat (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See, we have a guideline on that, too: WP:COMPETENCE. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, CIR = WP:CIR = WP:COMPETENCE. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, see I missed that acronym! Back to school! - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's OK, we all make stismakes. I'm still laughing at the image of a DC-7 being used as a server. Unintentional humor can be very funny! - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen old airliners used as a lawn ornament, but not a server, yet... - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Light aircraft

Why can't a light aircraft be home-built? Its size counts rather than type of manufacture. 700 Europas built incidentally, more than Huskies.JMcC (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That whole section needs cleaning up, it is getting to be a WP:FANCRUFT mess. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)