Hi, I noticed you were involved in the discussion regarding the relevance of Parabola GNU/Linux. I'm currently working on an article about Cinnarch over at my user space (translating from spanish and adding some info). Do you think it has the notability to warrant an article or shouldn't I even bother? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note. It all hangs on WP:V, in other words the existence of independent third party references that show notability. Right now your article doesn't have those, just primary refs (from the Cinnarch websites) and one wiki, which doesn't make WP:SPS. I would suggest you find and add refs from third party reviews and such or wait until you can locate some of those before taking it "live" in mainspace. - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your quick reply. I have several links from popular tech-related sites commenting on this distro so I guess it should be alright, we'll see. Regards Gaba p (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ahunt. A few weeks ago I came across WP:ER. As you probably know, it is an optional step in helping on the users noticeboard. It looks like a good project to me, and I've made some suggestions for improvements in order to attract more business. (Among other things I added it to the help navtemplate.) One thought I had was to have a "Editor Reviewer" userbox. Here is their ER image File:Wikipedia Editor Review.svg. I'm thinking of a userbox that says "This Wikipedian conducts Editor Reviews." along with the link to ER project page. I would think a category of such volunteers could also be established. This would be different from the "Category:Wikipedians on editor review" (which interestingly refers to Wikipedians in editor review). I thought about working up such a userbox with tl:Template:Userbox. But my technical knowledge in the area is less than zero. Would you help please? Thank you so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so very much! My two-bits: The black background obscures the 'W' and 'ia' of 'Wikipedia' which extend beyond the edges of the jigsaw puzzle piece and I'd personally prefer a brighter background coloring and/or typeface. (My objective is to add some cache to being a Reviewer.) The wording is great in that we keep the proper noun capitalization of Editor Review and it looks like you've got the link built in. For me, I'm going to post it on my userpage. (I assume the appearance will change if you change the color.) You are the artist and technical craftsman for this creation, so you've got the final say. Let me know, and then we can post it somewhere on the appropriate Project pages. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me lighten the background colour then and see what you think! It will automatically change on all transluded versions. - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Next step for me is to post it on the Projects. (BTW, how are you at Barnstar creation? Care to create one for ER?) Thanks so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this. I was running out of time and furious when I saw I'd broken it and couldn't see the immediate fix. (Old dog, no tricks.) That's great - many thanks. I have another minor edit coming up but I might manage not to mess that one up! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was going to offer you a barnstar for all your good work in computer-related articles, but it seems that you already have every possible barnstar there is in this field ;-)
I've been improving some security-related articles that get a huge number of pageviews, and a new user GA-nominated one, which I think is overly generous. Much of the Computing and Security-related project space seems to be dead—most of the user names on these projects seem to be inactive users. I don't know if there is any easy way of cleaning out inactive users and encouraging new people to participate, and I'm wondering if you know of anybody who might be interested in going through the more important (most viewed) articles in this space and reviewing/rating them. I should not be reviewing/rating articles that I've substantially improved. =Best regards LittleBen (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here, it is great to hear from you. I agree that many of these articles seem to have been started and improved by editors who are no longer active these days, leaving the articles to get out of date. Part of the problem was probably some political issues in some of the associated WikiProjects a while back, which drove many users out. Personally I quit one WikiProject over silly behavior there, but kept working on the articles on my own. I think the best course of action is just to adopt an article you are interested in and then work on it. If others get interested and help out that is great, if not then you have go it alone! As far as page ratings go I never get very wound up over those. I don't think the average casual reader ever sees those or cares much about them, they are more to flag articles to project members to work on and if no one is working on them then they really don't mean much. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for your input on a matter
Over at the Wikiproject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page [1]. You were chosen by myself because of your past work or input on aviation crash articles. Thank you for the help....William11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that was helpful - sometimes it takes a bit of back and forth to come up with something that works for everyone! - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all files and information should be free. Why are non-free images not allowed in userboxes? Userboxes are one of the greatest innovations of all time and should not exclude anything. -FerociousFlyingFerrets19:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that all information should be free, too! The problem is that using copyrighted images in user boxes does not comply with US copyright law (Wikipedia's servers are in Florida, so they have to comply with US laws). Copyrighted images can only be used in accordance with the "Fair Use" provisions of US law and the legal opinion is that using copyrighted images in user boxes doesn't come close to "fair use", making their use in userboxes actually not just against Wiki policy, but illegal. That means if people put copyrighted images in userboxes Wikipedia can be successfully sued by the copyright holder, as can the person who put the image there as well, hence the tight policy on making sure that no copyrighted images get used in userboxes. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria explains in more detail. As I noted this is not how I would run the planet either, but copyright holders have an undue influence on the laws written to protect them, especially in the US. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that was weird; I just about had my post to you complete and poof the wiki window spontaneously goes to a "?" in the URL and blanks, then tells me my internet connection isn't working (often here anyway), when I reloaded the page all was gone, which isn't usual in chrome.....anyways just to comment that "[hide]" indicates that's partly wiki boilerplate; and the claim of "fictional topics" is part of Tory trolltalk, I know it well from forumspace:
"Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective."
That and "contains material that is irrelevant" are recognizably part of the talking points I've been hearing for months upon months in news space/forums; dressed up in wiki language; that "[hide]" makes me wonder if it's a bot, and the article page got misaddressed instead of the talkpage by a lazy programmer....otherwise why was this put on the article page at all? There's no CAnadian equivalent of the Wikiscanner list, not that I know of, but it's stuff like this which makes me believe it's needed, especially with what we know from the news and the newsblogs that money and staff have been assigned to get out there on the internet and "correct facts". I've seen edits on Canadian political articles from military bases, here and in the US from military contractors; and some IPs just semi-anonymous in Omaha, so it's not like a Canada-only list is what's needed. Food for thought anyway; all Canadian political articles have been having weird shit from weird IPs this last while; might be time to track/record/investigate some further? there's no such thing as real wikicops I guess? I know CHECKUSER can be used on SPAs; but some very professional edits like this one (despite its obvious flaws) come from IP-only users. Best post this before the page blanks again LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rutan quickie includes 2 models : Q1 and Q2... please leave Q1 caracteristics , especialy because this is the "true" Quickie ; Q2 is the derivate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.137.192.110 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note here. By WikiProject consensus we only put one set of specs. I don't have a problem if you want to remove the Q2 specs and replace them with Q1 specs, but your Q1 specs were unsourced (the refs were copied from the Q2 specs and were not valid for the Q1). To make a major change like that you should gain consensus on the article talk page first and show the refs you would use. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with File:DragonFlightBadge.JPG
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.
Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Just saw your addition and am reading the CBC ref......it doesn't say that it's the calls that these charges are for.....Sona was the guy who came into the student polling booth area of the SUB at Guelph and tried to carry away a ballot box......that could be what the charge is about, it's like the CBC is saying they're to do with the voter supression calls, which Sona says he had nothing to do with.......should be interesting when he hits the stand, as he's made it clear he's got nothing to hide, but other people do......I know it would never last but List of people thrown under the bus by the Harper Tories would certainly be a fun page. Damn it would be a long list.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point there about what the charges are all for. I guess we will see! I like your red link, too, As soon as you wrote that article there would be calls to split it due to excessive length. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't begin to tell you what fun we had with Erik Bornmann and Mark Marissen and BC Legislature Raids, and Bornmann's article is still empty, really, and it's watched; so's Marissen's and there's an article for his brotherMike Marissen; two other red-flag redlinks I'm keeping a twenty-yard pole from, though they're very necessary, are Dave Basi and Patrick Kinsella. Too much stress/warfare and silly games; Sona himself I don't think will be a problem; as this case unfolds and he says more I'd think it's those who have more to hide/suppress are the ones who are going to be trouble; Bearcat's right, IP posts are a nuisance; but any of these, especially any new one like Sona's, whoever writes it, needs at least a semi-protect or like the Bornmann article it's going to get ugly......Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, just got your joke right now about people complaining such a page would be too long; my previous ramble was thinking maybe I'd redlinked Michael Sona and I know I linked RackNine. All the stuff about US teleconferencing companies and call centres isn't directly related to the title but it's not like it's not connected....somehow; but this is not a tribunal I guess huh? But is avoidance of pertinent facts not POV?Skookum1 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Czerwinski-Shenstone UTG-1 Loudon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spar (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.
Hi. Thanks for the welcome. Regarding the Cessna_172TD Skylane, which I labeled as outdated, I found these for sale here, with 8 results from two different sites. Would you mind having a look, perhaps these are fake ads? Mikaelwikman (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for your note. These are all model years from 1975-82 and so far predate even the incomplete prototype work on the 172TD, which wasn't started until 2007. From looking at the ads themselves they seem to be Centurion engine conversions using the STC as described in the Cessna 172 article text and not real "TD" models. As noted the TD was never certified and none were never sold, but you can take an older 172 and put the Centurion engine in it to produce something similar to what the TD would have been. As it is currently written the article text seems to cover all this and is as up to date as refs currently allow. As is typical, Cessna announced when it was starting development, but never indicated what happened, whether the project was suspended, is progressing slowly or just canceled. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note here! That is a very interesting light plane! Not sure what it is! I did have a look through the original Flicker page to see if I could find a registration "N-number" for it to look up, but no luck! - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, collaboration works! (Appropriately enough the photo you used for the article was one I took! It is nice to see it used there!) - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP benefits from a wide variety of editors, including certain well-advised deletionists, but it is inappropriate to simply delete information from a page, and then subsequently use that deletion to justify further deletion. A middle school student may be assigned to do a research paper on "utility helicopters" and then may benefit from the list of utility helicopters. Because you yourself are an expert on utility helicopters and can list them off in your head without the WP list, doesn't mean you should delete the list of utility helicopters. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off please read WP:AGF before accusing people of things. Second watching pages, improving articles, removing unsourced text and requiring references to be cited for additions is called "editing". If you want to start a list of utility helicopters then it should be located at List of utility helicopters. If you would like to discuss how the Utility helicopter article should look then the place for that is Talk: Utility helicopter. - Ahunt (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is found at WP:LINKSTYLE, which says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is very helpful. Would the same link be acceptable if placed in the immediately adjacent editorial insertion? It is within the quotation marks, but, obviously not the quoted words of the speaker. Your patience with this trivial question certainly illustrates the cooperative attitude of longtime wikipedians. 68.111.156.113 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are all here to build an encyclopedia!! The ideal thing is to work the wikilink into nearby text outside the quote. The main intention is to not distort the meaning of the quote. - Ahunt (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, do not be afraid to be WP:BOLD when editing, although your change may get reverted you can learn from whether the edit remains or is reverted, in the latter case from the edit summary left. Wikipedia is a pretty nature project these days, so it takes a while for new editors to figure things out, but ask people questions and you will find most of us are pretty friendly! As I mentioned we are a trying to build an encyclopedia here and it is a big job, so we need everyone's help! - Ahunt (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox template
Hi! Please take a look at my user page, the userbox template is not inside my userpage border, how can I put it inside the border?? --Zayeem(talk)10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here! It looks okay to me when viewed in the Epiphany browser. I do note that the userboxes overlap the User:Kmzayeem/Header - is that the concern? I can fix that if it is! - Ahunt (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not fixed yet! :( I want to have the userboxes inside the userpage design, for example in this revision, the userboxes are inside the userpage design but on the left side, I want it on the right side and within the design. --Zayeem(talk)14:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems it be a tough one! The two templates don't seem to play will with each other! The best bet may be to look around at other people's pages until you find something that works and then copy the code! Personally I keep it simple on my user page, just one row of boxes and then plain text, which formats well at all screen widths! - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Ahunt,
I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Aviation talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I would be happy to do that, but you didn't leave a contact e-mail. Regardless you can post how to participate here if you like! - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt,
sorry for messing around with the article. I'm completely new to editing here, and I have just started to read the rules. There is obviously a COI here and you might consider me/us as an unreliable source, so I will contribute on the articles talk page. In addition, I'd like to change the account name or remove the account FD-Composites but I couldn't figure out how to do that yet.
Our goal is to provide correct information here and not to advertise. The article says that one aircraft has been registered yet with the FAA. This is correct, but it is incomplete information that might create the impression that we have sold 1 unit in the last 3 years and that could create the impression that we are struggling to survive. I hope you get my point, all we want is to be treated in a fair manner.
Best regards, Lukas, FDC
Thanks for your note here. No problem, we all just want the encyclopedia to be as accurate as possible, but we have to base everything on reliable sources. Let's take this to the talk page for the article and sort out what we have references to put in there. - Ahunt (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D-motor: (→Design and development: tense agreement)
You reverted my recent change to the A-26 Invader article. The "unsourced" bit I can understand (it was contained in a TV programme, which I'm unsure of how to cite), but "not notable"? There were is a mention elsewhere that visibility had been a serious problem in the Pacific War, and my addition added to that. I didn't add the various issues that were reported about handling problems, as these were not already mentioned. I would argue that the issues that aircrew had with the A-26 - and their fixes - are notable and might be worth a separate section. Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have in my temporary possession a Chromebox, which I was thinking of photographing for use on Chromebook via upoload to Wikimedia Commons. Are logos permitted? The top of the device has two or three of them: Chrome, Intel inside, and possibly Samsung, though not sure if that's just the name or itself a logo. Can't find anything on this on the WMC help pages. Thanks! Barte (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there: Good question! I am no copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that as long as the logos are in the photograph only coincidently and are not the focus of the photograph then it is considered De minimis and is thus okay! - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. I just wanted some sense that the image had a chance of survival before actually taking it. Thanks! Barte (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you call you back into what appears to be nothing more than a personal spat between two editors, but I noticed that in this AfD you stated no RS was included, but it appears I have found several. Do you mind dropping back in and passing judgement on the link I posted, in light of NSOFT's statements on FS? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted some editings in Desktop Linux Consortium and Desktop Linux articles as if "Linux" was a whole Operating System, and not a single program in it. The only Linux scenario where it's not GNU operating system is Android, and that's not a target for the projects described in these 2 articles. And more: the content of the articles talk about desktops applicable to the different GNU variants: GNU/Hurd, GNU/Linux, GNU/NetBSD, GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/OpenSolaris. Please, undo revertions. --Actiuinformatica (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution to these articles, but by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. The term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux" and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into random articles. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help in edit dispute for Manitoba future election page
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tecnam Astore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (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.
Thanks for uploading File:Technam Astore.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk)14:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this talking about the long red-and-white stripe? It was so badly written that it took me a while to figure out what it even meant! - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah they mean the long red and white "cheat stripe" that used to be used. It is uncited and belongings in a modeller's magazine, too trivial for Wikipedia! - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought at first they meant some sort of insignia or logo on a tail fin, but later I realized they must have meant the cheat stripe, though I couldn't recall the name. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their statement wasn't correct anyway - it was only used on a few transport and patrol types as well as a few others like the Voodoo, but was never used universally. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Operating cost discussion
Hmm You cited that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Operating_costs. Yes I can I agree that Wikipedia is not us-, india-, Africa- etc. centre. But - operating cost is something central that most of aviation is flying as satellite of. Yeah Concorde end and still producing mostly under-Mach planes is the best example. Just not inserting on Wiki(and especially in very light jet category) info, it look something lacking of. Just like writing this plane is the fastest in the world, but not saying how fast it is. If You think, that there is too less info about possible cost views there also can be used templates - like in Wikipedia articles "This part of article shows only US perspective view, feel free to add World view", Or "Operating costs are ongoing event, and this info may rapidly change depending on the location".
The consensus there was agreed at after a pretty detailed debate. The main problems with operating cost information are:
They are only accurate for one time and place and inaccurate everywhere else
Most of the numbers come from people selling aircraft or type clubs who are highly motivated to low-ball the numbers, making all of them of very dubious value
Costing numbers are often used as an excuse to spam articles with links to dealers trying to sell aircraft.
Overall the operating cost numbers have been found to be so time and location dependent and so overtly biased that we have a WikiProject Aircraft consensus to leave them out as being "non-encyclopedic content". - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-adding that against consensus. The ref is not reliable, is biased and constitutes WP:SPAM. The number are dubious and we have an existing consensus to not put them in. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"removed hidden comment - adds nothing"
Thank you for your expert opinion. The comment that you deleted replaced a "[citation needed]" for someone who apparently didn't know how to click the hyperlinks to read the main articles on the subject. 75.208.127.252 (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AS per WP:LEADCITE citations for general statements are not generally required in the lead paragraph, but if challenged are required. The hidden comment was a mere statement of the obvious and didn't make the article better for readers. - Ahunt (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it appears that you didn't put your reason on the Talk page for challenging the statement. Nothing is stated that couldn't be easily found by doing the obvious. What references are required for the statement "Turbine and diesel engines are designed to use kerosene-based jet fuel." in the lead? My problem is that you said "ref needed" without explanation and I am too dumb to figure out what needs a reference here. 75.208.197.7 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole paragraph has since been shortened to the minimum by other editors, so I don't think any more action is now required on this. - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, I've sorted it out now and withdrawn the nomination. I just wanted to check that it wasn't somehow your own work before adding non-free tags. Thanks :) Acather96 (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
I had a read though all the documentation and the tutorial and I have to admit that it made no sense at all to me. Perhaps when I see people doing this on templates it will be clearer what work is needed, but until then there is nothing I can do to help out. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
]-A4J engine of {{convert|180|bhp|abbr=on}} starting with the B23 Musketeer Custom of 1968. In 1970] the C23 version was introduced also under the name "Musketeer Custom". In 1972 the C23 was renamed
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lublin R-VII may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
That was as much luck as wisdom or judgment, after I traced the type to the correct name 'Golden Avio', then found your contribution under the bizarre title 'Golden Car'. It looks to me
like the article needs renaming to align with the WP:it version; same goes for mentions in Stelio Frati and Rotax 512. PeterWD (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here, it is nice to hear from you. When I wrote the article the paper ref cited and the official website all indicated the manufacturer as "Golden Car", but it looks like the manufacturer has spun off a new subdivision to produce the plane, so I have moved the article. Thanks for pointing it out! - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. On English Wikipedia we name aircraft articles as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming which follows the "manufacturer-designation-name" scheme. The term "ULM" is of course French for "ultralight" and is really more a class of aircraft than the name of the actual design, although the manufacturer classifies the F30 FG and F30 RG both as F30 ULMs. I think this is more an expression of a class than a model. That said we can easily create a redirect from F30 ULM and Golden Avio F30 ULM. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PWS-35 Ogar
Regarding this edit of yours: dear Ahunt, when checking a source written in a language you apparently do not speak, could you at least try to Ctrl+F the thing you are looking for before you tag something as "not in a ref"? The reference says explicitly:
“
Silnik- rzędowy PZInż. ”Major 4” o mocy nominalnej 88 kW (120 KM) i mocy startowej 96 kW (130 KM),
- PWS-35/I- De Havilland ”Gipsy Major” o tej samej mocy.
”
In English this means:
Engine: in-line PZInż. ”Major 4” of 88 kW (120 KM) nominal power and 96 kW (130 KM) starting power, PWS-35/I- De Havilland ”Gipsy Major” of the same power.
Yup, my mistake. Firefox didn't find it with a page find and in reading the page myself I missed it as well. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D.XV rescue
Thanks for that! I meant to delete the redirect page. Must be the heat - summer has finally arrived in the UK.TSRL (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I figured it was a "nut holding the stick" problem! Collaboration works, we all check and double check each other, just like on a crew aircraft! - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback of Mozilla Corporation software rebranded by the Debian project edit
In the software articles on Wikipedia there are a lot of these sorts of articles in the form of tables of matching parameters, like Comparison of Linux distributions. They really don't "compare" the software, but rather just list features and such, so no one has seriously challenged them as WP:OR that I am aware of. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I was off-line most of today and that I missed your request! Usually I am pretty good at identifying aircraft, so if you have more in the future please do ping me again and I will try to get back to you more quickly! - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please check carefully before undoing
Hello, Ahunt. I found that you had undone my edits to Guizhou Soar Eagle. I am afraid that the name of the UAV was misunderstood. It has only one name, "翔龙" ("Soar Dragon" in English, literally) , which was written on the fuselage. "Soar Eagle" must be a misreading of those Chinese characters. --Baiweiflight (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that your reading of what the Chinese characters translate as is WP:OR, whereas the cited refs say it is "Soar Eagle". As per WP:V we have to go with the cited refs, unless you can locate better ones. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can read Chinese, so I can tell which translation is correct. The translation "Soar Dragon" is not an original research. Soar Dragon's model was displayed at the 6th Zhuhai Air Show in 2006, and a board was with it (pic 1). We can see the official name "Soar Dragon" on the board (pic 2). There is one of two cited refs using the name "Soar Dragon". As these UAVs were designed and manufactured by China, I think reports in Chinese might be more reliable -- "翔龙无人机" (literally "Soar Dragon UAV") has 10,100 Google results while "翔鹰无人机" (literally "Soar Eagle UAV") has only 1 Google result. --Baiweiflight (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted a compromise, absorbing the new data into Specs, with an awkward cite which I will try to improve. I distrust the company data, given their desire for finance, but we (and Jane's, Aviation week, month etc) have no better. Are there other issues?TSRL (talk)
Thanks for looking at that - that was it! I agree with your compromise to incorporate the data, makes no sense to have separate lists of questionable data, but I was getting tired of removing it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Powerfin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. LGAtalkedits09:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your removal of the Notability template is premature, none of the sources you have added meet the "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" "that cover the subject directly in detail" tests, for example Recreational Power Engineering is a link to a retail outlet for engines; the Ultralightflying.com is a reproduction of a press release (note the contact details at the end) and the other from Light Plane World is issue one of a on-line news letter. Please re-add the helpful maintenance template so others can find sources. LGAtalkedits13:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. Both the Experimental Aircraft Association and Homebuilt Aircraft Sourcebook references meet that standard and so the article has the multiple independent third party references required for WP:N, so the tag is no longer applicable. As soon as I can get to the public library I will be going through Jane's All The World's Aircraft, back for the last few decades and adding even more independent third party references from those volumes, as I noted on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an editon war between OsmanRF34 and me. He is trying to continue the AfD debate in the article talk, although it isn't the right venue to do it (isn't the AfD debate instead?). How can we solve this editon war? Richiguada ~ усилий и слава13:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question. I have been watching that going on. I would suggest just leave it and ignore it. If the article is deleted as per the AfD then the talk page will be deleted as well. If the article and talk page are not deleted at AfD then it can be simply archived. I think right now the edit warring itself is causing more acrimony and harm than an irrelevant discussion on the talk page that won't affect the AfD outcome, but that is just my opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all the trivial reverts.
I have contributed days of research to the F3D Skyknight and added about 40 percent more info to it and all of a sudden someone who has never contributed to the subject in it's over nine years of existence shows up nitpicking. Bzuk has been involved for a long time and adds good information and is appreciated. I see you reference many articles you work on and that's great. Please respect the hard research others have done and their field of expertise. Many get turned off from wiki because of such editing and wiki loses these people who have experience with a particular aircraft or a field. Most are no style/wiki experts but are very knowledgeable about the aircraft or field they are or were in. They contribute real world experiences that are not found reading books full of stats and have a passion for the subject. Please consider that before jumping in.
P.S. I learned radar on early airborne naval fire control systems as they were our training aides in advanced avionics school. That is why I choose to improve the Skyknight article as it was a pioneer in the Airborne Fire Control Field and used by the USMC as an early Electronics Warfare platform and deserved more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheasantpete (talk • contribs)
No, your point is pretty clear - you think that you have special claims to this subject and you don't want anyone else editing "your article". WP:OWN is a Wikipedia policy, which means everyone here has to abide by it. In brief anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia and your objections to my editing this article indicate that you aren't interested in abiding by this policy. I would suggest if you aren't going to follow Wikipedia policy it is probably time to take up a new hobby. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadair CF-104 Starfighter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langley, BC (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.
The article Sunrise Aviation has been proposed for deletion by you. I have removed the request. Wikipedia has a sub cat ALREADY filled with Flight Schools that teach Aerobatics, [2] and after reviewing them I see no reason for your nomination of Sunrise for removal unless it is personally motivated? You seem to spend a lot of time in Aviation related Wiki's yet your edit count shows that you seem to be targeting this FBO, any reason you did not tag all the Flight Schools listed here: [3] --WPPilot 05:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF. As you can see on my user page, I am from Canada and I have no connection to this school one way or the other. I had never heard of it before yesterday, but came across this one article and upon reading it, it obviously does not make WP:CORP and reads like it was started by the company's own publicity department. The argument that if I tag this article for deletion I have to tag all similar article is fallacious, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although it may be a good idea to review all those articles in the future for notability as well. We can have a full debate on it at WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my earlier tone, it had been a long day and I get frustrated when people do not use the Talk page before tagging. In regard to notability, this flight school was featured in the Orange County Register, it is cited in the refs but it looks like the Newspaper has now restricted access. I will post some more refs, as mentioned before over the weekend, but this is one of the FEW that provides this level of Aerobatic training. The fleet was ref'ed from its own site, and I did take the photos for the page, of the aircraft, but the simple fact that this is ONE OF THE LARGEST Aerobatic schools in the USA makes it notable via as organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources as the Orange County Register story made it clear when it published its story on the school. IMHO the simple fact that few if ANY flight schools have the type of rental fleets that this one has also lends to credibility issue, those aircraft are listed on the page. To a pilot (I am a SEL & MEL pilot) a school with this type of training notability. As far as WP:AGF I do not understand people that simply tag and do not make any effort to explain the TAG on the Talk page before or after tagging.--WPPilot 23:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)(talk)
The article's future in the debate at AFD will hinge on independent third party references that are profiles of the company. I couldn't find any, but if you can that is great! The cited Orange County Register article isn't about the school and in fact only barely mentions it in passing once, plus once in the photo caption. It isn't about Sunrise Aviation, it is about Bill Hill. A far as use of the talk page goes, this article had no talk page when I tagged it, just a red link. Even so I would have just tagged the article for notability or similar if it didn't seem to be a such a clear case of not meeting Wikipedia policy. Regardless, that is why we have AfD, to give a complete week's worth of debate on the article and perhaps improve it and keep it or else not, based on consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying userboxes in a template
Hey Ahunt! I want to know how you display all your userboxes in a template like you said on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroc (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but what about the other space left? I was going to use that for userboxes. What do you think I should do with it? Philroc (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good question! You can get some ideas from other people's user pages. On mine I list articles I am working on so I can find them quickly again! Keep in mind that the point of Wikipedia is not necessarily to have a nice looking user page, it is to build a free encyclopedia that people all over the world can use for free! - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note! I have undone your taking it back to AfD, you really can't re-open a closed debate. Instead the appropriate thing is to take it to WP:CSD as G4, which I have done. A admin should be along shortly to assess it and see if it is close enough to the original deleted article to delete it again. If it is accepted then it will be deleted and if it is declined then you will have to start a new WP:AFD on it if you still want to have a debate about deleting it. Let me know if you have any questions! - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info I have declined the CSD G4, although it is the same guy the content is different from the 2005 article (which basically just one paragraph), suggest Oremiter raises a new AfD if it has issues. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your decline - I was declining it at the same time and re-formatting the AFD. The debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Allman (2nd nomination). The old AFD doesn't bother me, if the new article has the same problems. The trick is that the old AFD ended up with the article speedied as an A7 (no claim of notability). Speedy deletions don't trigger G4 (though they can be re-speedied). So I just threw up the templates and re-added it to the AFD log, then copied over Oremiter's rationale and criticized the sources. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did13:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - thank you both for checking and actioning that. I think a fresh, and hopefully complete, AfD debate would be the best course of action on this article! - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the text "Although controversial ..." - The Malware blocking module of Google Chrome is controversial and my citation is pertinent. I can add 10 sources in citation area if needed, all say the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.85.158 (talk)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on PowerTrike Light, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. FiddleFaddle20:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. FiddleFaddle20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
