You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on PowerTrike II, 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. FiddleFaddle20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information I have declined the speedy deletion of these three articles as they dont appear be promotional in nature and conform to what would be expected for this type of article and clearly do not need a fundamental rewrite. I have suggested to Timtrent that if he has other issues with the article they can be raised on the article talk pages or they can nominate them for deletion at AfD, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vote of support! Well over zealous people can make trying to build an encyclopedia more "fun" than it should be! - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reason
The replacement was not done for "no reason". The new image is of much higher quality as a quick inspection should show. Feel free to revert your revert. --Dschwen21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I tried to toss from the userbox list a very low quality userbox that isn't being actively used and created by a user who hasn't edited for years - and you reverted. Didn't want the drahmah of an RfD because the box is userfied, so what's the next step per BRD if it can't be tossed from the list? Montanabw(talk)18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well my first question would be why bother trying to delete it? Userboxes are not encyclopedia content and so different rules apply than for articles, so perhaps someone will get some use out of it if they can find it on the page there. You say it isn't being actively used, but this shows that it is actually being currently used by 51 users on their user pages. If you think it is really worth pursuing then as per WP:BRD I would suggest taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes, suggest removing it from the page there and see what others have to say, if anything. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best. It's just ugly and redundant. And no one using it is an active user any more as far as I can tell, certainly no one active at wikiproject equine. I suppose I could just edit it so it is identical to the other horse userbox and see if anyone yells at me about it. The user is clearly no longer editing wikipedia. Montanabw(talk)20:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There already is an alternative one. ;-) Just want to get rid of one on the page that has the "collection" Let the people who care ask to restore it. ;-) Montanabw(talk)23:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup, mostly, and to make it easier to track people interested in horses for an invite to Wikiproject equine. Toss inactive cruft, that wort of thing. Also trying to tone down the 14-year-old girl-who-is-giddy-about-horses element that is our second-highest level of vandalism to articles (the first being the 14-year old boy inserting assorted words for genitalia, like everywhere else on wiki...) Montanabw(talk)19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Infinity Ward Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Infinity Ward Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently someone else uploaded a new version as a new file instead of replacing this one, so this logo can now be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sunward UAV 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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
own design, but also produce light sport aircraft such as the two-seater [[Sunward Aurora]] SA60L] and flying boat [[Ramphos Trident]] for other firms as their [[original equipment manufacturer]].
Orphaned non-free media (File:TAI Hürkuş artists concept.png)
Thanks for uploading File:TAI Hürkuş artists concept.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the aircraft has now flown it is at least theoretically possible that a free image might be taken, so this image is probably no longer justifiable at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for your note. We do have Moyes Litespeed done so far. Creating an article on the company is on my list but I have been looking for some good references that outline the company history, do you have any? - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redfern Fokker Dr.1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Bowers (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.
Hello Ahunt! I noticed the quadracycle page had much debate and you seemed to know a lot about the subject. I am new to wikipedia and I was wondering if you could help me contribute to the article; I am becoming very interested in these machines. (I'm thinking about building one, actually)
Great to hear from you, no problem asking that here! I can help you, what information and references do you think ought to be added to the article? - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chromebook
It was only in the talk section? As per Wikipedia's guidelines for new users I corrected and made information more concise and readable in addition to adding current and actually relevant information to the main article (Which is horrible in comparison to any other wiki on the topic). If Wikipedia is like other wikis you can look at the change history. One of the areas I removed from the :Talk section was speculation about the Google Pixel being a rumor or not. Should something that is confirmed still stay in :Talk? I don't believe so. BotOrNot (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For purposes of following conversation history by later editors coming along we don't delete conversations from talk pages. If a thread turns out to be overtaken by events or shown to be not correct then we can add a note to the conversation, but we don't delete conversations. If there page gets too long we create archives to preserve talk page conversations. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northwest Ranger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycoming (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.
Package: Why Chromium Isn't in Fedora |publisher=Ostatic.com |date= |accessdate=2013-10-03}}</ref>] See the related situation with [[Android (operating system)#Linux | upstream contributions from
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:408LOHFltBadge.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)19:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of your uploads, File:417SqnBadge.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)11:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)I was there with you and I recognize a couple people in those photos. Bob the FE on top of the huey and Randy, receiving tea, a great test pilot who was a great guy.[reply]
Another one of your uploads, File:3CFFTS01.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)11:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)It was a good tour and it remains in my memory as a fun time.[reply]
Another one of your uploads, File:3CFFTS02.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC):Thanks for your note here - it is amazing who reads Wikipedia! - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I redid it. I am not trying to change the consensus, just correct factual information. See GNewSense and Parabola GNU/Linux-libre. Both of them use the term "GNU/Linux" because its the official term they use. The same way Trisquel does. If you look at GNU section, those three seems to be GNU/Linux distro. The consensus seems to be GNU/Linux is fine for GNU/Linux distros that officially call themselves GNU/Linux distro but not for distros that call don't officially state themselves to be GNU/Linux. 24.21.185.255 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that it doesn't work that way on Wikipedia. You can call it "Trisquel GNU/Linux" because that is what they call their own product, but you can't call it a GNU/Linux-libre distro, because the consensus here is to call that a Linux-libre distro and you can tell because you have to pipe the link to make it point at the right article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trisquel is the name of the distribution, but they are distributing it as "fully free GNU/Linux based operating system for home users, small enterprises and educational centers". Saying they are linux-libre distribution is incorrect, especially when the official linux-libre also states they are GNU/Linux-libre. I am not saying every Linux distribution = GNU/Linux, I'm saying those that officially state they are GNU/Linux should be presented as such. I don't see a point in hiding this. I'm new to wiki so I don't understand how it works, but I'm pretty sure factual information/truth > status quo. If you read the Trisquel citation links, many of the articles also state its a GNU/Linux distro. 24.21.185.255 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One last, I read the Linux/Name, GNU/Linux controversy, there doesn't seem to be any consensus. The consensus seems to be no consensus. I haven't changed yet, but will tomorrow. 24.21.185.255 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I posted on your talk page there is a very long standing consensus on this issue, predominantly at Talk:Linux and especially Talk:Linux/Name. This consensus says that we will use the actual name of a distro, so that if they call themselves "Trisquel GNU/Linux" we will mention that once, but all other mentions of GNU/Linux are not used, even if they call it themselves, because it is POV. For example the consensus is that we can say "Trisquel GNU/Linux is a Linux distribution, but not "Trisquel GNU/Linux is a GNU/Linux distribution". Look at it this way: if Ford started calling their products "autodynes" to differentiate them from the competition, Wikipedia would still call them "cars" because we doesn't use company marketing terms here, we use WP:COMMONNAME instead. The commons names are determined by consensus specifically to avoid POV bias in articles and to avoid confusing readers by calling the same things by different names in different articles. As a result "GNU/Linux" is called "Linux" on Wikipedia. As I noted if you want to change this you don't try to change one reference in an article like Trisquel, you go to Talk:Linux and make your case there that all articles should be changed. You can note this has been tried many dozens of times, but the consensus still stands. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chitwanix_OS
Hello Ahunt, the article Chitwanix_OS is not for promotional, we wanted to provide some information of the distro in wikipedia only, As the links that are provided in the deletion page of the article are the reference. It must be a reliable source for Notability. Thank You --Pyasi.arun (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please make your arguments on the Articles for Deletion page rather than here so the whole discussion is in one place. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that your beliefs regarding this word stem from a north american view of its usage; however as most English speakers do not hail from that continent then there are grounds for contention over its placement next to such a widely understood adjective as audacious. It should be qualified with an explanation that specifically references its use by the above English speakers. 81.158.225.255 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest the largest number of English speakers are in North America and the word is well understood here. I don't think you can make much of a case for removing it on he basis that some English speakers aren't familiar with it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there we a little bias creeping in. Look at the countries of the world who list their official language as English, and then repeat the above without resorting to credulity. That is an appalling admission of perceived dominance over the development of the English language. This aside, the majority of viewers of the English language version of Wikipedia will certainly not hail from North America, and thus I repeat: the association with audacity should be qualified to reflect the international nature of the readership, irrespective of the majority of first language speakers living outside of the aforementioned continent. 5.81.157.178 (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"1892 I. Zangwill Children of Ghetto I. i. vi. 148 The national Chutzbah, which is variously translated enterprise, audacity, brazen impudence and cheek." Oxford English Dictionary. Hardly a North American publication. And a publication which records language as used rather than trying to influence its development.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the OED records all language, irrespective of usage or origin, because it is concerned with developments of the English language, with absolutely no relevance regarding geographic location; there can be no bias thusly. For instance 'Mufti' broadly a British colloquialism, would have to be qualified when presented outside of its specific article, due to the nature of the viewers of the English language article, as noted above, and the ubiquitous use of English as the working language of the world. 5.81.157.178 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word is linked on the page there, so anyone who doesn't know what it means can quickly find out. Consider too that the page in question is a disambiguation page, not even an article and this is probably not worth spending a lot of time debating. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aircraft in fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Jackal (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, I am new to editing things on Wikipedia, so excuse me for contacting you directly, I don't want to mess things up on the page.
On your Chromium page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)
), I would add two things:
this text: After it was acquired by Yahoo
on the ending of this sentence:
RockMelt was formerly a release of Chromium for Windows Mobile and iOS under a commercial proprietary licence. It integrated features from Facebook and Twitter, but was discontinued in April 2013, and fully retired at 10am PT on July 31, 2013 after it was bought by Yahoo.
I would also add this in the list of chromium browsers:
MakeMyBrowser is a web platform based on Chromium that allows any user to create its own customized browser. The browser supports any chrome extention. The site was launched on September 2013
Thanks for your information here. I have added the Rockmelt update to the Chromium article, with the ref you provided. The second part about MakeMyBrowser sounds far too promotional in nature. If a third party ref can be supplied explaining what this is and how it works that would be better. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing
I wasn't aware I couldn't use Wiki as a reference for an article.
Does this mean Wiki doesn't see itself as reliable?
Yes, exactly, as outlined at WP:CIRCULAR, "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." So Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. You can however take the references cited in one article and use them to support statements in another article, even if the refs are not in English. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vampire Jet
Hi,
While I appreciate the work done on the list of aircraft used by Canadian Forces, I am surprised to see a complete omission of the DH Vampire Jet.
Thanks for your message. I am new to Wikipedia so will read the references you sent carefully! I am sure I will still make mistakes so please bear with me!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Worldwide Ultralite Spitfire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Side-by-side (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 Ahunt! Thanks for the welcome message on my Talk page after you reverted the change I made to the W3C page. I am a W3C employee. I don't understand very well the editor's summary left after the reversion: "Not on the list cited and no need to list them all, external links are not used in article text as per WP:EL", particularly "Not on the list cited". But I understand "no need to list them all" well and I'd like to argue that point. The W3C is hosted by four entities. Three were listed on the W3C wikipedia page. I added the missing fourth. Can you please reinstate that Beihang University is a W3C host? Secondly, the words "and many other offices around the world" in the current version are misleading, I had clarified by replacing them with "with recruitment". I don't mind if the link to the W3C Offices is not present. The third edit I had made (which disappeared after you reverted) was to document that the W3C is headquartered at MIT. I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia and appreciate that people will correct my contributions. So thanks in advance for either discussing the reversion, or reinstating the changes as described here. -- Coralie Mercier
Thanks for your note. I have reinstated the MIT link. The biggest problem there was that the external link you left didn't support the claim, as it doesn't list Beihang University, as per WP:V. Is this written down somewhere else as we need this to be verifiable? Also if you work for W3C, which is the subject of the article you will probably want to have a read though WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt. Like I wrote, nevermind the link I initially provided, as it concerns W3C Recruitment Offices, which are not the institutions that host W3C. I thought it would make the distinction clearer between "host" and "office", but neverming. Yes, it is written down that Beihang University became last January the newest of the 4 W3C Hosts, you may check the press release. I have perused WP:COI, and since the facts I submitted are easily verifiable, I don't feel I have a conflict of interest. -- Koaliemoon (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hoi, its my personal opinion that errors should be corrected, however correct representations of [SiC] is also a very valid argument, feel free to revert it again :) Cheers Mion (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Navarro Chief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air brake (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.
I wanted to express my appreciation for your help and patience with the Veteran/Combat Veteran infoboxes we've been discussing lately. I frankly hadn't expected anyone to take up my request at all, so your kind offer to whip up a couple of boxes was indeed welcome. I've just posted links to several graphics I found in the Commons that might serve, so please signal back if they're lacking or unsuitable in some way. Warm regards, 72.0.15.8 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Epic Aircraft is boosting the economy in Bend by manufacturing awesome aircraft and hiring local people who need work. This is very exciting! I would like Wikipedia to reflect what the company is doing, who they are and the direction they are moving to. The historical information on Epic Aircraft page is overwhelmingly negative for such a short time period when you compare to the positive impact they have made the last few years. This is public information the company has announced in Bend and in the aviation industry. Lets share this with viewers of Wikipedia! I appreciate if you would allow me to change the company information to reveal who the company is now in 2013. Bankruptcy is old news, old times. They are owned by Engineering LLC a Russian company.
You tagged my changes as conflict of interest. My intentions are only good. Please advise why you object to including the information on the positive direction the company has evolved to.
Wikipedia is not your company website. As you have indicated that you represent the company and are here to sanitize the article, you are in a conflict of interest. You should read WP:COI and stop editing the article. Make suggestions for changes on the article talk page where they will be considered for inclusion by neutral editors. - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill: I just saw that from your post and sent it off to my industry contacts to check up on!! Thanks for posting all those links! Yes, indeed, if that is true it will be interesting to see how they rationalize Cessna and Beechcraft!! - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they'd keep the King Air series, and the T-6. I don't know enough about rest of Cessna's and Beech's prop line-ups to even hazard a guess! The Hawker jet line was dead anyway, so the Citations are safe. Though with the T-6 in the Textron stable, whether or not the Textron AirLand Scorpion would be seen as cutting into the T-6's market will be an interesting question too. - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eurofly Fire Cat, 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thatcher CX5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dihedral (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. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed in a revert on New York Air Show that you used an edit summary stating "unsourced - all substantial additions MUST be sourced to reliable refs as per WP:V", and I've seen you make similar statements in other reversions before. However, this isn't exactly an accurate statement.
While WP:V does indeed state that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed", it only requires that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" must be attributed "to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Indeed, in the "Original research" section of WP:V, it explictly states "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article" (my emphasis).
Now, as good policy, inline sources should always be included in additions, BLPs or not, and "big uncited chunks" being added without a source is a concern. But stating that WP:V requires something it doesn't in reverting them doesn't help inform the editor who made the original error. - The BushrangerOne ping only01:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note note here, I appreciate your pointing that out. In future I'll just delete text like that as unsourced.
As you probably know New York Air Show has been subject to large, unsourced and non-encyclopedic (blog-like) additions in the recent past and, in fact, just finished being semi-protected for just that reason. Perhaps it needs semi-protecting again? - Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my edit to Lucas L-6B just now. Sorry, I messed that one up – and I can't even blame AWB, because it was me that clicked the button! It's getting late here, and obviously time to stop and get some sleep. Apologies again. — Hebrides (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Ahunt! I am Sebastianpin from romanian Wikipedia. I wanted to tell you that of my fellow, XXN, didn't want to vandalize the page; actually, what he did was to correct the (wrong) information there, adding a reference, too (because for the actual information you don't have one, I think his edit was very good). That means he did nothing but correct the page. There was a strong source that said George was born in Iasi, Romania, and not in Saint Petersburg (remember, you don't have a reference or proof for that, but we have). So just think about it and tell me what should we do.
This has been carefully discussed before. The Romanian references are widely accepted globally as intentional disinformation propaganda left over from the communist era when the Romanian government tried to claim that every famous inventor and every famous invention was Romanian. This Romanian references are not accurate and cannot be used on Wikipedia. That era is over and it is time for Romanians to stop pushing that old outdated propaganda here on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not such a nationalist (so I don't think Romania is always the best), so I think we should discuss this better. The site where the reference came was a very good and trusted site, here in Romania, that would be translated like ″Discover″. We don't claim every invention was ours, we say (actually) we have a deserve for dicovering that etc., like Henri Coandă made the base for the jet engine. Well, if you think that we are a very communist nation even now, you are wrong. But you can keep you idea and let the article as it was and as it is, I don't have a problem. I said that in a friendly way. --Sebastianpin (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Coanda reinforces AHunt's point. Coanda's aircraft is almost universally accepted as a ducted fan machine rather than a jet engine in the modern sense: the principle of a reaction drive had been established by Hero of Alexandria in the second or third centry AD.TheLongTone (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that George de Bothezat was born in Romania instantly discredits any reference that says he was as propaganda because he wasn't. There are many more refs from other sources that show he was born in Russia. - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, I will say you are (maybe) right and I will stop this discussion. Thanks for answering and caring. Let the article just be the same as it was and is. --Sebastianpin (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because my last message was quite ambiguous, I will say that again. I think we should let the article as it is now. Just forget about what I told you. If you don't trust romanians, even if I told you the reference was a good one, it isn't a problem. P.S. The articles you made (with lots of airplanes) can be translated in ro.wp, so thanks (I think I will have some work to do). I am a beginner at English (I am quite young, 12 years) so, please, tell me if I have any spelling/expressing mistakes. Thank you! --Sebastianpin (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Columbia Aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia 300 (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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Meger Heli-Star may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
The '''Meger Heli-Star''' is a Homebuilt aircraft|homebuilt]] [[helicopter]] developed in 1969.
Yeah this is politically motivated. He has taken the text from the article that was deleted at Decade of darkness and also deleted at Decade of Darkness (different capitalization) several times, that also went through AfD and was voted "delete" as completely POV and SOAPBOX at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. It currently losing a DRV appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decade_of_Darkness and so this is his attempt to shoe horn this POV text in somewhere. Since it was deleted several times as inappropriate for an encyclopedia it is still inappropriate in that article. I would suggest you delete it and cite the AfD decision. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I had no idea of the history behind it, or your involvement in it! I just asked since you're Canadian, meaning you might be aware of some of the issu,es and you're also used to dealing with POV issues in other contexts, especially aircraft articles. WP is a small world indeed! I do expect the content to come back in the article, though. Would you mind mentioning this incident at DRV for me? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed all the "excitement", as I was asleep. I note that BR entered the fray and reported JOttawa for 3RR. He's been blocked now for 24 hours for 3RR, so we'll see what he does next. - BilCat (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, you go to bed and all kinds of exciting things happen! He will do what he has been told to do, insert the text, so I guess there will be further blocks to come. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I love it when I go to sleep, and wake up to find that the problems have been resolved in my favor! :) I've re-read the DRV discussion, and I can't find any suggestion there of placing the content elsewhere. Where is he getting that from? The original AFD? Anyway, while I am somewhat politically sympathetic to the issue he is trying to present, he is doing the issue harm by writing it in such a political manner. I frankly don't know enough about the issue (nor do I care to investigate it at this time) to write neutral content for the CF article. Of course, if he continues to insert the material as-is anywhere on WP, he will earn himself a block, and it will be richly deserved if he cannot remain neutral. - BilCat (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well he is just trying to spread political apologism for his party, that recently made drastic cuts to the military, are being unfavorably compared to previous governments and are at record lows in the polls, hence the attempts to create a new message all over the web, including here. It might work if they had people with better skills and not so obviously heavy-handed at it. As for where the idea to move the text to key articles came from, it looks like he just made it up, as far as I can see. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CAF/CF
On a tangental issue, what do you think on the article's title, Canadian Forces vs. Canadian Armed Forces? From Ghits, CAF seems to be slightly ahead of CF, but I don't know how it's used in non-internet media. I always lean towards official names in these matters, as I think COMMONNAME has much too much weight. (Forgive me if I've asked this before - bad memory!) - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Department and the public most often use "Canadian Forces", although it is officially "Canadian Armed Forces". Because the old "Canadian Air Force" (1919-24) was the CAF, prior to the RCAF, the official abbrev for "Canadian Armed Forces" is "CF" and not "CAF". Confusing, eh? - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RCAF
Adam, do you have any idea what these edits are about? All they seem to be doing is removing the older RCAF flag. Am I missing something else? And what master article is he talking about? I'm clueless here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure what that is about, it looks like deleting the historical ensign, but I have no idea why. I guess you would have to take it up with him! - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all 3 replies. On this one, I just wanted to be certain he wasn't doing something more than removing the ensign that I was missing. It can happen, especially with all the markup that is used. - BilCat (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mirage Marathon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycoming (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.
Well basically you can't. If the only place that the 8% number shows up is in a self published article then we can't cite that and if the Linux today article doesn't support the text, then you can't cite that either. Linux Today is just an aggregator anyway, they don't fact check self-published text, so it isn't a reliable source either, even if it did mention the number in the summary, which it doesn't. The 8% number has to be cited to a reliable source and if it can't be then it has to be removed. I have tagged it as "Failed verification" and I'll give you some time to find a better source for the number. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is just another quote of that same self-published source. Since this is so contentious there must be reliable sources that have published their own research on this same subject. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the article would have to be covered by CNN or Nature to be counted as relevant? Or do you have to do it like Stallman and start organizations like FSF to make your information "reliable"? --RicardAnufriev (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, as per WP:RS it doesn't have to be a major news outlet, just not self-published. Any source with editorial oversight is pretty much acceptable. It is all about making sure that the information on Wikipedia is verifiable and reliable. The problem with blogs like the one you cited is that the guy may have done the work or he might have just made a up a number and then published it, but without any editorial oversight the claim is not reliable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem with blogs like the one you cited is that the guy may have done the work or he might have just made a up a number and then published it"
The article even links to the project source code ( https://github.com/pedrocr/codecomp ). It is open source. You can look into it / compile it / run it / reanalyze it. How much scientific rigorousness do you want? I mean wtf, man... It opens and explains the method, does it in a very transparent way, gets cited by at least two articles, gets 840 google hit rates. Not many sources here do so much and yet they remain. On the other hand I don't believe your "failed verification"-tag on the ref, because I don't think that you compiled, ran and looked into the data in the few minutes it took you to set the tag. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to read though WP:RS. The "failed verification" shows that the Linux Today item doesn't mention the number that the ref is supposed to be supporting. I can't compile and run his code and say that I have verified it and that his ref is good, as that would be original research, which is specifically prohibited here on Wikipedia. We don't publish original research and we don't accept self published refs, it is really that simple. The 8% claim needs to cite a proper, reliable ref, that's all there is to it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just found an image on Commons of Bushmaster Javelin C-GFKZ, and provisionally categorised it in Aircraft of Canada. Apparently, it is primarily related to Piper PA-20/PA-22, but possible connections with Sylvaire Bushmaster, Husky Norseman, WagAero 2+2, Bushmaster Super 22, Bushmaster II, Bushmaster 300, Producer (PA-18?), etc. I think you might be better placed to take it further.PeterWD (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a PA-18 Super Cub, so it is either a conversion or a Cub-clone kit. I am not sure that you can categorize it much better than that without knowing more. I added "Category:Homebuilt aircraft". - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that most Bushmasters, over 100 in Canada and over 30 in US, are constructed from PA-20 or PA-22 fuselage (2-4 seats side by side) mated to PA-18 (greater span) wings.PeterWD (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They can be made from all kinds of pieces and the fuselage on that one looks a bit long for a PA-20/22 one. You would probably have to ask the owner how that one was built. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit of the Pipistrel Virus page
Dear Sir,
I am contacting you regarding the edit of the Pipistrel Virus page. As you know, I have deleted the paragraph quoting the review of Mr. Bertorelli. I would like you to know that the paragraph quoted is in the interest of a person who harbors very negative feelings towards the company Pipistrel. In the past it has been used several times to post slander and negative information (for which the user has no other proof but his own personal opinion) in several location/media with the purpose to discredit the good name of our company.
I quote your post on my talk page: "All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging." This is precisely my point. Tha author of the aforementioned paragraph has very negative feelings towards Pipistrel, that's why we do not want his opinion (which is NOT based in factual research!) to be used on a public source such as wikipedia. You will notice that the author uses phrases such as "In my view", which mean personal opinion, not based in fact.
I kindly ask you to keep the aforementioned paragraph off the Pipistrel Virus page, unless it can be proven with objective crast-test results, not just a letter quoting an opinion posted in a blog. The actual tests for the aircraft: Pipistrel Virus (such as for example 45° Nose-down Drop test to the ground for the Spanish certification - video exists in the archive of Pipistrel company and can be viewed on demand) have shown no higher risk of head injury because of the wing spar compared to other similar aircraft; in fact, they showed that the roll-cage with the wing spar offers higher protection against protrusions of outside objects such as trees. If you, however, insist of keeping the paragraph on the page, I politely request that you include the clarification by the Pipistrel engineer Tine Tomazic also, for the sake of objectivity. Thank you.
Please read WP:COI. Wikipedia is not your company website and you cannot just remove well-sourced criticisms that have been published in reliable refs, just because you don't like them. . - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It has been a difficult couple of years, but at least time spent on Wikipedia has been time that I haven't had to think about cancer. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read through your diary and feel drained and crappy and hopeless about the way we've interacted in the past. No excuses, but my thoughts are with you and your family. Ruth will forever be an inspiration. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am glad you found the diary Topic of Cancer of interest. She started it, but couldn't finish it and had me complete it for her instead and put it out as a free book once she had gone. We were always a close writing team. Almost all her edits on Wikipedia are of articles that I started. When we were housebound with her illness I would often start a new article on an aircraft type when she was sleeping off her chemo or radiation effects and then send her the link to it. Later when she woke up she would read my article and fix my spelling and grammar as well. She often worked from bed or the sofa on her laptop. She was a flight instructor for many years and loved airplanes. You probably saw that we owned four aircraft together over the years. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is no SPAM. we have the only once flightsimulator Piper Cheyenne P31T1 in Europe. In my page I describe a lot of interest details of a real simulator. please reactivate my link.
Sorry but your spreading this link all over Wikipedia is prohibited by WP:EL. As you indicate above that you represent this company you are also in a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not the right place to advertise your company products, that is why you have your own company website. - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vidalinux
Hello,
do you think it takes to keep this article VidaLinux
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
