I had a look though it and what is there looks okay, I just made a few small changes for formatting. It certainly has good refs. Not much is known about the project at present and so there isn't a lot of text that can be added right now, but I am sure as the project proceeds and more results are released that more tech media refs will appear with updates. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Ahunt. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Sorry I tried completing it, but the survey is badly designed and wouldn't accept my answers. It insisted on answers that I was instructed to leave blank if I had not participated in that mechanism. - Ahunt (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. That wouldn't belong in the Dragonfly article, but in an article on Bailey-Moyes Ultralights or in a biography article on him, if we had those. As far as "As for a citation for the 50L tank, Bob has just built a Dragonfly for me with a 912UL engine and a 50L tank" goes, please see WP:OR. We need to cite reliable references for factual information added. "I know this is right" is not a reliable source that can be verified. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to to the 'Variants' section, I don't think it is right to say that the Dragonfly C is the up engined version. The original version and the B have been superseded. The base model is now the C airframe with the Rotax 582 engine.
I don't know what citation is appropriate for this. The LiteFlite website doesn't mention any variants with respect to the airframe; the only choice mentioned is the choice of engine. In practice one can also choose the larger fuel tank, which instruments to fit and also the option of wider tyres but these are perhaps too trivial to mention.
Thanks for your note. The only ref I have for the "C" model is Downey, Julia: 2005 Kit Aircraft Directory, Kitplanes, Volume 21, Number 12, December 2004, page 69. Belvoir Publications. ISSN 0891-1851. Let me rework the article on the basis of what that ref says and see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: I have a pdf copy of the aircraft flight and operation manual. Is that acceptable for citation as a source document (given that it is not published in the public domain, it is only available to owners)?
Konrad6da (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
You need to cite a reliable ref, not a forum. See WP:SPS. The Google link has no useful information that can be cited - there was a problem they fixed it, it doesn't indicate how many people were affected. Regardless of all of this, temporary outages are normal in all web services, they are not encyclopedic events unless noted in third party reliable refs as notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
He he, actually I often miss updates in watchlist! And adding a note quickly alerts a user (email notification, yellow message bar at top) that he has got a reply! And is is friendly too, since it indicates that the editor is requesting you to participate in the discussion! I do not use talkback template, so manually type the message "I have replied here" etc! BTW, I have replied once again! --Tito DuttaMessage14:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sabre Aircraft
I couldn't figure out how to send you a message. I have never used Wikipedia before. I made some changes to the Sabre Aircraft page and you changed them back. I was just trying to correct, and add info. I have a lot more pictures if you want them. In any case, Sabre started production in 1991. Sun-n-Fun 92 was the first public showing, however it was advertised in Ultralight Flying magazine prior. We produced almost 1000 fully built and test flown trikes, and over double that in wings. At the time, many US and Mexican manufacturers used our wings. We were easily the oldest and largest US manufacturer. Northwing may have overtaken us by the end, I am not sure about that as all trike manufacturers were hurting, but it would have taken them years to catch up with our numbers. By the year 2000 we were up to about 100 trikes per year. However in 2002 they announced LSA and, like most manufacturers, our sales tanked. We still had good sales to Mexico, but the writing was on the wall. We stopped manufacturing trikes in 2005, and I sold the Factory building that year. That message on the web site was put there by the guy who did the site, not by us. I was on the ASTM committee to come up with the standards for Light Sport Weight Shift Aircraft. I was at odds with the committee, because I thought their rules were lacking in many areas, and simply not correct in others. I went on to start Helm Navigation LLC to produce the X650 www.helmnav.com
The Sabre Trike was a beautifully simple trike that was a joy to fly, and had a safety record that is still tops in the industry.
Hopefully this will give you the information you need to update the site. By the way, I have a picture of the very first trike that I designed when I was 15 years old. I have a picture of me at 15yrs sitting in it just before a practice taxi run. I test flew it off of a frozen lake in Northern MN that winter. Let me know where to send the photos and I will give you all you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhelm22 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, this is fine to communicate. We can't update anything in the article unless we can cite reliable references that say this. Your own personal recollections are great, but they are original research and therefore not verifiable and can't be included. If you can point out a reliable reference that says this we can put it in, otherwise we are stuck with what the published refs do say. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
You commented on my page that it is very odd to award yourself?
I was just testing what WikiLove actually was.
I will be sending you one soon for your good advice.
Felixphew (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I had wondered if it was a test! I just saw it and thought it was odd! No problem, you can experiment on your user pages all you like.- Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha-ha, I didn’t know it's a template under a user page, otherwise I won't edit it :). In Chinese Wikipedia, this kind of template are always belongs to "template" instead of "user" (e.g.: zh:template:User GIMP). In addition, there isn't an "Audacity" template in Chinese Wikipedia, maybe I will create one.
Greetings, and thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia. I see we have a common interest in aircraft - your efforts in that regard are mighty! Flymow (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you! Setting up a user page? The best way is to find one that you like and then click "edit" and copy the page's coding into your own page and then modify it to suit. Everything here is freely licenced! - Ahunt (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahunt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cyclone Airways, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 is not about notability—it is about whether the article makes an assertation of importance. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Diamond DA42-VI (roman numeral 6, ie. "dash 6") is now the official name of the new DA42. The previous "V1" was retired due to the unfortunate historical reference.
Here's the press announcement from Diamond Aircraft (at 15:20):
Sorry for the mixup but people are using the One Ring. How does it qualify as a non-far image and there are not complains about the ring. Sorry but I don't get it. It's absurd point of view, I don't think it makes sense. Sorry, but I am bit frustrated.
The image file data indicates that it is a copyright image and therefore can only only used on Wikipedia under US Copyright fair use rules. Wikipedia lawyers have indicated that the Act's fair use rules do not include the use of logos and such in user boxes thus rendering the use of copyrighted logos illegal under US law in user boxes. This means that you need to use a free image or lettering in the user box instead. I hope that makes sense as I am not a copyright lawyer. Wikipedia:USERBOX#Caution_about_image_use has more guidance on this. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is anything cynical about it
Unfortunately, I suspect I'm being realistic, not cynical. As, apparently, paid editing is the new accepted norm on Wikipedia, editors who are interested in improving the encyclopedia without taking payment will be forced out - cetainly anyone who expreses any opinion other than complete acceptance seems to be shouted down very vigorously by its proponents. In addition, being attacked for having the nerve to try to improve an article found during a CCI clean-up, being told that I should not edit anywhere on Wikipedia because I referred to redacted instead of redacted for a British Naval Base in Northern Ireland, does not improve my mood.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not. I did read the new TOS and WP:COI and didn't see anywhere that this has changed. I was offered money to edit, but refused that because it would affect neutrality, I am sure others have done the same. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BATS Chi-X Europe
Hi Ahunt. As an above-board COI editor I take personal offense when I see edit histories from presumably COI editors like this.[1] The edit is described as "cleanup" but removes some controversial content. On the Talk page I saw you had previously worked with a COI editor on the article and I thought you may have been the one that took the time to improve the article and may be interested in policing it.
Just thought I would give you a heads up. I have a very distant COI in this matter, so I won't touch it. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't dig into it in incredible detail - just came across it in research. So I could be off here. :-D User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I actually starting helping out on that page at the request of someone else and my lack of expertise in that area made it hard to evaluate those edits made. I can have a careful look and perhaps re-instate some of the removed content. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think you are doing
I got a message from you about not editing Stellarium, if you look on their bloody website then you'll see there is 0.11.4 coming out in around November and also 1.0.0 which I would imagine would be released sometime next year.
Quit removing my perfectly accurate edits because this is getting annoying!
If done something wrong then please don't hesitate in sending me a message and I'll apologise profusely but I hope you understand that this is annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxRiley (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding substantive information requires citing references as outlined in WP:V. As explained at WP:ONUS it is up to the person who adds to text to provide the refs required. Now that you have provided some refs above I'll add them for you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seizing, a 2-stroke could seize/sieze from lack of fuel as the lubricant is the fuel, but you are right, I stupidly wrote the terminology used in the reference.Petebutt (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Though maybe more input than you wanted. ;-) BTW, I never did get a Chromebook. After searching around for a replacement to a broken Dell laptop running Joli OS, I wound up buying my first and so far only Apple product, a MacBook Air. And thereby going to the opposite extreme of open source--the cathedral, not the bazaar. About three times the cost, but in this case, at least, I thought Steve Jobs had made his point. Barte (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we didn't get one either. My wife looked at the laptop options carefully and bought a System76 Pangolin running Ubuntu and has been very happy with it. - 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Iowa Air Museum Edits
Thanks for the heads up and the corrections. The museum in question in Sioux City is actually called "Mid American Museum Of Aviation & Transportation" Edits have been made to correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.116.11 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "do not edit" statement was made exactly because the original text had been altered without discussion or consensus on the talk page as requested in the original edit summary. This item had been up for discussion without any comments made for a week. The quick diminution of the text appears to be a form of tagging, vandalization to mark an area as the property of an individual. This is an on ongoing problem in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stodieck (talk • contribs)
Hi there, Ahunt. When you have time, can you take a look at the Synergy (aircraft) page? I'm too new at Wikipedia editing to give proper guidance to the recent contributor, however the article doesn't read as objectively as it probably could/should. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inverted22 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it over. We have a lot of people watching it now, hopefully we can keep it less spammy. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Mister Ahunt, first of all hats off to all your contributions on Wikipedia! I noticed your AEROANDINA article, and the MXP 150 Patriot is not part of it. I tried to edit your Kimbaya entry, as they are basically the same plane; but you revoked my (correct) information. Naturally I have references to back everything up.
Are you going to add the MXP 150 Patriot to the Aeroandina page, as it is incomplete as it is?
If you have the refs then please add those to the article or list them here so we can update the article! - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once the speedy tag is removed it really can't be re-instated so I have just endorsed a speedy at AFD. I'll ask an admin to have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, while you are in the mood, you should probably go through en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Software and tell the hundreds of other userbox creators the same thing as you are telling me.
MrZoolook (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before you accuse other people of hypocrisy you should do your homework. If you actually checked the files for the Google boxes and the Opera letter "O" you point out above you will see that those logos are not copyrighted, because they consist only of text and thus fail to meet the threshold of originality required for copyrighting. Likewise the Chromium and Firefox logos you point out above are both freely licenced. All the other logos used on the software boxes page are all regularly checked and they all comply. That contrasts with the copyrighted logo you have tried to put into a user box multiple times in contravention of Wikipedia policy and US copyright law. You can apologize anytime. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you cared to check it, the licence on that image file specifies "Since a single letter in raster format cannot be copyrighted, this image is in the public domain" and "This image consists entirely of a raster rendering (e.g. PNG) of characters from one or more typefaces. As such, it is ineligible for copyright in the United States and therefore is in the public domain." It would be more productive if you just admit you were wrong, promise to check the licencing on any image before you try to use it in a user box and just move on, having learned something from this. - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Complete with shadow, ergo NOT a simple letter. All I have 'learned' from this is that some things are overlooked, others are vehemently denied, and yet others are in a state of limbo. *shrug* For instance, you just stated that a single letter is allowed since it is declared PD. Entire words would therefore NOT be considered the same correct? MrZoolook (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we are down to you (and I presume Wiki in general) saying that a simple typefaced raster characters are allowed, then allowing simple typefaced raster characters with extra artifacts. I am just wondering where the "extra artifacts" stop being allowed and start to constitute infringement? Thanks for not clearing the issue up! MrZoolook (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tags you are quoting from on the letter "O" image are very specific cases and very specific policies. There are much more general principles in US copyright law as reflected in tags as found on files like this one, which says much more generally: "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." As indicated I am not a copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that simple shapes and text of any kind, yes even with shadows serifs or any other embellishments, does not come even close to the level of originality to be copyrighted. - Ahunt (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jdaniels15 (talk) has presented you with the Donut of DOOM in the spirit of WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little more gothic. Bon appetit! Spread the smell of DOOM by adding {{subst:Give doom}}.
Hi Ahunt; re this edit, today's RCAF is the same entity as the 1975-2011 CF Air Command so it is the same thing, there's no point in linking twice to the same article. Referring to today's RCAF by its 1975-2011 name is incorrect because it was simply renamed, not disbanded : last year's name change did not reinstate the original RCAF (for which the link would probably be "History of the Royal Canadian Air Force", though there is no point in linking it considering the current RCAF article summarizes the pre-1968, the post-1975 RCAFs and the mess in between). Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 11:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the current name for Air Command is RCAF; it doesn't make sense to call an entity by its former name, it's like calling AT&T Cingular or Ottawa Bytown. If you want to clarify that the Buffs were purchased under the pre-unification RCAF, which is a different entity, then I don't really have an objection, but it should link to "History of the Royal Canadian Air Force", not to the same article... Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that the "Operational history" section covers that adequately, although it should mention the re-naming, which I will add. Otherwise it is probably too minor an issue to spend any more time on. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to discuss the Dart Skycycle wiki page. I saw that you removed my edits stating that Emerson Stevens was the actual designer of the ultralight, which is the truth. You state "I have become rather fastidious about references in Wikipedia. For anyone who doesn't think it is important for Wikipedia to be scrupulously referenced, I suggest that you read this CBC article and this Globe & Mail article. A lack of references can cause real damage in some cases". The only problem with the citation you used to create this page is that it is incorrect. Bob did not design the Skycycle. I have paperwork documenting Emerson's design process of the skycycle. If you would take the time, you could call Greg Dart, Bob's son who lives in [REDACTED], and validate my statements. Unfortunately, Bob passed away a few years ago. I do not recall my wiki username but you have my IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.174.224 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cited reference Cliche, Andre: Ultralight Aircraft Shopper's Guide 8th Edition, page B-53. Cybair Limited Publishing, 2001. ISBN0-9680628-1-4 says "The availability of the Dart Skycycle has been announced recently. In fact, it is not a new ultralight, it has first been introduced back in 1985. Production ceased for a while until its designer Robert Dart, decided to put it back on the market." Now it is possible that the author of the book is wrong in this regard, but as noted above, we need a reliable reference to change this. Phoning someone and asking them is not a reliable reference and is specifically prohibited as a citable source as it is original research and cannot be verified by anyone. If you can show a published reliable source to change this then we can change it, otherwise we have to go with what the one published reliable source says. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
for the Wikiwings for "Drag Polar", as it again after an excursion through another name. I noticed the absence of cover whilst writing up a particular aircraft; it was quite fun to do, partly because it reminded me that I was a physicist. I hope one day Wikipedia comes up with a better maths editor: Latek, as implemented here with oversized characters and lack of context awareness, seems to my (reasonably experienced) mathematical eye to isolate the algebra from the text when they should both be part of a continuous narrative flow. I'll not hold my breath, though. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically on Wikipedia you can only do a comparison of things like different aircraft types if you have a single ref that actually compares them and you cite it. You can't take one ref about one aircraft type and another ref about another aircraft type and come up with your own comparison like that as it runs afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posting of personal information
WP:OUTING
Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, . . . information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.
I need someone to remove the text that associates the two usernames violating my families privacy. If it needs to be referred to an admin please to so ASAP. I don't know who to contact. --Steelpilloe 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stodieck (talk • contribs)
Hi, as the accused I would mention that I have just updated the above request in the light of recent activity - see the bit marked Update. A while ago you were one of several editors who could find no fault with the notion that a foreplane is sometimes called a "horizontal stabiliser" and that this usage is borne out by reputable references. I don't know if you feel able to help enforce this apparent consensus among editors, but Stodieck's latest contrary edits may be found here and here. My apologies for bothering you but it seems my efforts are not being accepted, rather - if you check the edit comments - I am being openly accused of vandalism. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can have a look there, but basically the sockpuppet case needs to addressed by an admin soon to clear the air here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am really not sure that I did anything worthwhile in this case, but maybe Lao Tzu was right "Do nothing and everything will be done". I see the sockpuppet case is resolved and the outcome seems pretty fair to me. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hi,
(1) I'm a newbie.
(2) Information in article to date based on personal knowledge and web research. I acknowledge that I need to provide references/citations to bring the article close to wiki standards.
(3) You would need to address your comments re table formatting to the user who made the edit. I have a number of questions outstanding with that user re their edits.
Cheers,
Simon Woodhead (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited G1 Aviation G1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thrush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
G'day from Oz; I've been trying for ages to find a RS for the Wirraway in The Thin Red Line. The movie actually used a Wirraway and a T-6, both masquerading as Dauntlesses; and a DC-3 from a museum in Mareeba near Cairns in Queensland. I remember visiting the museum in about October '97; the DC-3 wasn't there, but a few minutes after leaving I saw it on the road on the back of a truck - I had to pull off the road to give it room to pass. I knew Owen and Phil, and flew wih Owen in 'WRX - the second-noisiest aircraft I've ever been in and bloody cold too. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery email / extra security and Support sections in Gmail article
Thanks for changing my tech. writer writing style to passive in the Recovery email / extra security section of the Gmail article.
Re. your deletion of the section on official support for Gmail: As far as I know, this official support is a unique new feature for free public web mail—but have you heard of other webmail competitors like Yahoo or Hotmail providing such official support in forums? There are always users who say, "I've deleted my account and lost all my mail and contacts, can I get it all back?", or "I've forgotten my password/My account has been hacked, what can I do?" And now, for the first time it seems, people can get answers and help from Google. I believe that this support is new and unique among free webmail providers—but have you heard otherwise? LittleBen (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unique or not I didn't think it was particularly notable, but feel free to discuss on the article talk page if you think it warrents inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: On a completely unrelated topic—aircraft—there's a reasonably big (for New Zealand, that is) aviation museum in Auckland, New Zealand, and a smaller one in Christchurch. But they are a long way from Canada, and there are surely much bigger and better ones in North America. LittleBen (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question. Those warnings are from quite a while ago and were made to that IP address when it vandalized an encyclopedia article. If you have a dynamic IP address then it probably changes every few days, or whenever you reboot your DSL modem. Read the note that is on the bottom of the talk page (in the little box there) as it explains. I am sure that the address has more recently been re-assigned since then, so not to worry! - Ahunt (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMG Ubuntu
Of 14 references, 9 are directly to the website (i.e. a primary source, or affiliated with the source). At least one other (the Twit), and possibly two (if you count the Android thing as affiliated) are also affiliated with the source. I.e. the template is appropriate.
Discuss it with you on the talk page?41.204.73.252 (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks
You seem to have come into a conversation in the middle, ignorant of prior exchanges.
It was Guy Macon that suggested to me that I should create a reddit subreddit for my opinions. What you see as an insult, is merely me suggesting to Guy Macon that he take his own advice. That you see it as an insult says nothing about me, as I am merely parroting his original suggestion. I look forward to you scolding him from your assumed position of superiority.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I have followed that conversation from the beginning and your comment on that page fits exactly WP:NPA. The warning is intended to give you the information you need to avoid a further block. It is up to your whether you heed it or not. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tri-State Warbird Museum
Holy [swear word redacted]! - My initial reaction to the edits you made on the above page
Pardon my French but your edits to the Tri-State Warbird Museum page really surprised me! I start updating an article that hasn't been touched in 2 years and [counting me] it has 2 people working on it in a single day! I can only assume such a quick reaction comes from someone (i.e. you) having the page on their watch list.
Lest you get the wrong idea, I appreciate the help. I happen to have recently started volunteering there, and I decided to help flesh out the page so that it was less of a stub. I started working on it earlier today with a simple, unfinished list of aircraft - with the intent of coming back later in the day to keep working - and lo and behold some of my work has been done for me!
Nice to hear from you. Yes indeed it was on my watchlist and your edits popped it up on my list. I had a look and saw it needed some refs and links, so I added them. Collaboration works! Sure please do keep adding material and references and I'll drop by and see if I can add anything to your edits. Here is a thought if you are at the museum - how about a couple of photos, like the outside and inside of the building or at least a couple of the aircraft exhibits? That would add a lot to the article. Let me know if you need help uploading them to commons and I'll provide some pointers. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some notes on the article's talk page, I as a current volunteer I happen to know the correct information, however I cannot add it to the article if/until I have sources to back it up. I felt the information is better served on the article's talk page than yours, because other people may not read it here.
As to your suggestion for photos, I'm not sure whether I'll follow through with that or not. I did, however, want to thank you for the suggestion as wells as the offer to help with uploading them - I have never done so, and your offer to help with the process goes a long way toward making me more willing to do so. --Noha307 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but I have something else you might be able to help with. While browsing the C-124 page I came across a claim to being the first American military aircraft to have an APU. I remembered that the YFM-1 page made a conflicting claim so I went to the source: the APU page. That brought up even more conflicting claims and well... To make a long story short (you can see the long story on the APU talk page) there are so many conflicting claims as to having the first APU it's a nightmare. I thought you might be able to help. Man, was I right. I seem to have coincidentally just talked to one of only 6 people on all of Wikipedia on the aircraft engines sub-project! What are the odds!?! Anyway, I have to apologize for "dumping this on you", sorry. --Noha307 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the primary contributor, the best thing will be if you work here too. I can help. (The article is not GA ready currently)! I'll be very happy to see GA (or FA) status in this article!
Just to clarify - I don't like the GA process as I have seen it take some fairly good articles and make them far worse, so I don't participate in GA procedures. If other editors want to do that, that is fine, but I stay out of GA. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but I found the whole S-76/S-70 brouhaha rather tiresome, as well as a distraction and a complete waste of time. It's nice to do something constructive again, instead of just reacting to other forces. YSSYguy (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BMW M2B15 is a motorcycle engine, BMW's very first one in fact. After WW1 the company was forced to abandon aircraft production so turned its attention to motorcycles. Until yesterday the article had long been tagged as an aircraft engine as well. Knowing your interest in all things aviation, I wondered if you could find any evidence that the engine was indeed used in any aircraft, or whether that was a mistake and it really was just a motorcycle engine? Thanks, --Biker Biker (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch what I just said. General Books LLC is a Wikipedia article reprinter. If you look at the text on the B&N website page given above it is lifted directly from a Wikipedia article. I think the question is whether inclusion in the museum's collection is enough to prove it should be listed as an aircraft engine, as opposed to a motorcycle engine which happened to be used once on an aircraft, which as you know happens to modern BMW boxer engines in some microlight/kit aircraft. For now I would prefer to err on the side of caution and keep it out of the aircraft categories & templates. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of aircraft (P), but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, N2e (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize citing a forum may not be 100% however, the forum is owned by the filezilla admin, and it is the admin himself making the comments.... so wouldn't that make it relevent since it's a statement on a form the admin posts/blogs/whtever in responseto critisism about the plain text storage of passwords? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.152.14 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! thank you for the welcome, I see that you have a interest of airplanes just like me :D. I do have 2 question's, it's about the Project aircraft: I recently edited some air force articles (plane updates & etc.) and the Cessna 162 as you saw, how does that affect the project and how do I get more involved with the project ? Redalert2fan (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, it is nice to hear from you! Anyone can edit aircraft articles, but some of us got together to form a project team to set standards and collaborate on making the articles a bit more uniform and organized, as well to communicate with each other and encourage each other. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. You can sign up by adding your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Participants Then you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this new information it really helped me, I added my name to the list. 11:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
No, it was Mason as you thought, Lewis is British Aircraft 1809-1914. An autopilot malfunction. And thanks for the cleaning up, not just on this article but all the other articles I've created that you've done the same for.TheLongTone (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that! No problem on the editing - that is how it all works, we write, we check each other and build an encyclopedia! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Filezilla controversy references
I noticed you added back a "citation needed" tag onto Filezilla>Convtroversy, since an open wiki does not qualify as realiable source.
In this particular case, the software has no formal documentation, and the wiki is all that exists (it's also maintained by the developers).
The only actual way to verify the paragraph's claims, is to download the software, and verify yourself that this feature still exists - or alternatly, I could link to the source as a reference, since the filezilla's source is quite irrefutable evidence that a feature exists. This does, however, sound rather extreme.
How do you propose we solve the current lack of qualified citation? Wouldn't a software official wiki qualify enough?
HuGo_87 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page is List of racing airplanes
Wondering if there is a proceedure for adding the aviation project infobox on the talk page?
As the creator does someone else have to add it or can I do it - and are there other pages needing editting to add a page to the project.
In short is -> {{WPAVIATION|class=list|Aircraft-project=yes}} all that is required?
thanks, NiD.29 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Of course aeroplanes and airplanes and planes (and already has some, though by no means all)- just not balloons which should have their own list otherwise I would have avoided the controversy and used "aircraft". Not really sure about sailplanes and helicopters but I suspect they are few and far between. I was anticipapting the list being dominated by a lot of one-offs of US origin (still only have a small fraction of them - most lack pages) NiD.29 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
