G'day from Oz; yesterday I had a look at Taxiing after adding a Pretty Picture (I'm so modest) to the Eurocopter EC120 article of an EC120 hover-taxiing. Leaving aside the overall crappiness of the article, as you can see it only mentions hover taxiing in the context of rotor downwash, but says nothing about what it actually is. I'm sure I could easily write a couple of sentences about it, but I can't find a ref to hang anything from. Do you have something that fits the bill? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I added a section on how it is done to give a flavour for the limitations and techniques involved. Hopefully it is not too much WP:NOTMANUAL. I used your great EC120B photo as well! - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taxiing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ground effect (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.
Thank you for helping better my editing capabilities.
I added the link to the Aviation page because glossaries like the one I linked that are that accurate need to be seen by the public view. Maybe there's a better place to reference that glossary for those who don't know much about private Aviation?Theoryofman (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the snapshot passes the automated testing, it is placed in a directory in the root directory].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://storage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser-snapshots/index.html |title=
Could you please make a user box saying something along the lines of "This user supports copyleft licensing", and the copyleft symbol? Felixphew (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your request! How does this look? Feel free to edit it, or just list desired changes here!
I'm working on getting topics related to Ford Island to GA status. I'm meeting with the Pacific Aviation Museum on Friday to gather material to improve the article about them. I see you've had that article on your watchlist and have reverted them a few times. Would you be interested in partnering up with me on this article?--v/r - TP04:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. It's all about adding material that is supported by reliable sources! That said, sure I'll be willing to help out improve that article! You post and I'll edit, if you like! - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
As I understand you are some kind of a mentor to this user. Please can you talk to Felixphew that barnstars are not to be used this way. You are not suposed to give a barnstar to yourself and you are not suposed to use them this way either. This is not Wikilove but it is mockig. He/she put this on my talk page, but that is not enough, put this weird barnstar here on my userpage. You are not supposed to edit other peoples userpage, and especially not in this way.
Also he/she removed one of my comments from a disscussion page.
He also edited other peoples edits, here. You are not supposed to edit other peoples edits. And I am further hanged out on his userpage. [1]. I am the certain person, who is hanged out there: I pity you. ... Feel free to use my talk page for the massive flame war that ensues... You are not suppose to make a personal conflict about a discussion. Please talk to him so he removes this from his userpage? Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really mentoring him in any formal sense, but let me have a look at what is going on there and see if I can help at all. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I went though the whole history and it looks to me like a bit of an WP:AXE issue combined with perhaps an "English-as-a-second language" problem, too. He seems to have been well warned by other editors so far, but I'll keep an eye on it and see how it all progresses. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The nav box addition merely says it is available for Debian, and Mate is available for Debian. It doesn't have to be in Debian stable to be included in the nav box - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hi!
Received a note regarding Kestrel Aircraft. Please know I have absolutely no idea what I am doing and wish all the help I can get. First of all we need to change the Title page, and any help I can get would be most helpful. KateKestrel20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateKestrel (talk • contribs)
Hi. I want to say sorry becouse i deleted your article "Allstar SZD-54-2 Perkoz". It has many mistakes and false data. I hope our specialists will write it again soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.225.54 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for the company then you will want to read WP:COI before you make any edits to this article. The text in that article is all based on reliable sources and all cited. If you work for the company you should make suggestions for changes on the article talk page at Talk:Allstar SZD-54 Perkoz and cite other published sources that show that the sources already referenced are incorrect. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've restored the redirect for now since the redirect seems to be an alternative spelling of the target article. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to in the source. Could you point out the exact section you're referring to? Thanks. KJclick here00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there was a well-known company called Aero Designs, but I have turned the redirect into an article on the company now anyway. I'll add a hat note on the other, less well-known company. - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certificate of Registration
I have a non Wikipedia question. What happens if an aircraft is flown when the Certificate of Registration has been cancelled? I did find this but it doesn't say what happens. This happened here several years ago but it was never reported. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that is a good question! CAR 202.13 says:
202.13 (1) This section does not apply in respect of an aircraft that is
(a) a hang glider; or
(b) a parachute.
(2) Except as otherwise authorized under subsection 202.14(1) or 202.43(1), no person shall operate an aircraft in Canada unless it is registered in Canada, in a contracting state or in a foreign state that has an agreement in force with Canada that allows an aircraft that is registered in that foreign state to be operated in Canada.
and then CAR 103.18 Schedule II lays out the penalty of $5000 for an individual and $25,000 for a corporation for failing to comply.
Adam, would you have time to help put together a new article on Textron Aviation, the merger of Cessna and Beechcraft announced today? I can add the infobox, work on article structure, and so on, but writing copy from scratch is my weak point. If you aren't able to help out, I can probably manage to do something over the weekend. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. I assume you're still going to correct the first flight dates in the table? It currently vlist them all as 2014. Also, have y'all seen anything on whether the Hawker jets are still to be discontinued? I know that's what was announced in Dec, but that Textron would still provide service for the existing Hawker jets. - BilCat (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well my thinking was that the first flight of the Textron Aviation models of all of them will be 2014, but I have clarified that in the table, by changing "first flight" to "produced from". Hopefully that makes more sense?
The press release seems to imply that the Hawker jets will be produced, as it says "Textron Aviation brings together a unique combination of businesses with class-leading, complementary general aviation products including Citation and Hawker business jets, King Air twin-engine turboprops, Caravan single-engine utility turboprops and a great line up of piston-engine aircraft representing the Cessna and Beechcraft brands." It doesn't sound like they will only be making parts, but perhaps the PR people who wrote the press release misunderstood? As of today the Hawker 400 and 800 are listed on the Beechcraft website as being in production. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thouht that might have been your thinking, but since all the existing products became TexAv products on the same day, is it necessary at all? Perhaps the actual first flights would more infomative. On the Hawker jets, I noticed that too. We should find out one way or another soon enough. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think first flights would be more useful I can change it to show those instead! I agree on the Hawker jets - if the sales copy gets pulled from the website and is replaced, by "for parts" call, then we can remove them from the table too. I just listed each type that the two websites show as in production today, but that can change. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the only Hawkers on the Beechcraft site are the 400XPR and 800XPR, which are upgrades, not new-builds. The upgrade is a "product", but we could clarify that in the type comments column. - BilCat (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked to see if we had an article on Scott Ernest, the new CEO of TexAv, but we don't. However, there are two deleted pages. Milb1, are either of those relevant or salvageable? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The XPRs would be aircraft then that were traded in or returned to the factory and "re-manufactured", so I would still count these as products, personally. - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First I have ever heard of the article of the distro. That needs some work, though! I may get to it over the weekend.- Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note. Yeah I see that. It is very marginal for notability at this point with really only one third party ref worth mentioning, but I am inclined to not send it to AfD at this point and wait and see. What do you think? It certainly needs a complete rewrite into English if we are going to keep it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your reply. In my opinion this developer uses wikipedia for promotional purposes. Thank you for your patience with him.--Ideefixe (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you think the work we have all done there has helped! I think it is looking much more like a proper encyclopedia article now! There are still a few things that need referencing, like the number of users, but it is coming along! - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanisms and Cumulative Effects of aviation on Climate
The article has been broadly quoted, where the referenced contribution of aviation Carbon emmissions was pegged at 2% (two percent) This data was from 1992... Worse, the data point was being referenced as a current statistic, and cited as rationale for it being relatively unimportant or immaterial how much people travel by air etc. etc.
My reason for not following the protocol was to deliberately call attention to this.
The true estimated range, I found after some extensive research is estimated that Aviation makes a 7-9% contribution to global warming.
Already this update is making a difference.My hope is that we can judiciously adhere to the rules, in a way that best communicates. I hope you agree. I'm not sure I would remove the call for an update, or at least some note to advise people that there was a big gap.
Also, the diagram on this page obsfucates the data with irrrelevant complexities so as to render it unintelligible. (humor here)
I may try to find a better alternative for the representation of the data.
That that is all no problem, you can add a tag or fix it, but in general we don't put comments in articles as a matter of policy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
general queries
Hi Ahunt,
how do I find out who the moderator and administrator of a page is? for me, it feels easier to mail some content to a moderator for review. (even if it sounds old school). we last chatted back in 2011 after an update to "Earthstar odyssey" which thou corrected
eg, i'd like to add to the Detoxification page; with a thought about how Vipassanā may be considered as a scientifically proven detox method. to summarise, 10days of silence with simple food, in a center surrounded by woods, eyes closed most of the day in the lotus position; it is well known to help the mind let go off cravings; addictions like alcohol, smoking and worse habits
also, this "\[\[" . . "\]\]" thing seems to be needlessly repetitive, like user:a|a or is that an ell in between; or user "talk":a|"talk"; and then an ios keypad needs two shifts for an |(or symbol) and [s
Hi, thank you for your questions. There are no administrators or moderators for Wikipedia article pages. Each page is just written by people interested in that subject and it is intentionally non-hierarchical. Everyone contributes on a equal basis and conflicts are resolved on the the article talk page by discussion and consensus. It actually works!
I would suggest just add the text you think should be on the page as explained at WP:BOLD and make sure you cite your sources (add refs) and then see if anyone changes it or objects. As per WP:BRD, if they do then you take the discussion to the talk page to negotiate.
You can note that other editors will take you more seriously if you open an account and edit from that rather than as an IP address. It just lets people know who you are and that you are seriously here to help build the encyclopedia.
As far as the page coding goes, it can be a problem if you don't have a regular keyboard on your computer (phone, tablet). You can always suggest text on the talk page and let someone else insert it and format it, or just put it on the article page as best you can and other editors will usually come along and fix any errors. It's all collaborative. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt. Sure, the refs only mention Windows, but it is obvious that this could also easily happen on any other OS, or happen to other software packages. Heck, that section itself mentions MSE nuking Chrome; if that's of your company software, you're screwed. I think wording this to specifically mention Windows and nothing else is disingenuous, hence why I changed this. --DanielPharos (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no connection to Windows, haven't used it in years, but it seems to me that taking two refs showing instances of antivirus corrupting Windows installations and generalizing that to all operating systems is not supportable. MSE removing Google Chrome was in Windows, though. I have been running antivirus on Linux for years and never seen an issue like this or even heard of one. Linux file systems are very different from Windows ones and I suspect not as susceptible to this problem, which is probably why I have never seen an instance of it. As per WP:V, all claims need to be supported, so to make the statement that this applies to all operating systems, you would need to provide at least one ref that indicates that this is the case. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Not susceptible"...! Of course they are! Whenever a program deletes a file, that file is deleted. If that file happens to be critical to system operation, the system stop to operate (possibly only when trying to reboot, sure). It's really that straight forward. I can *manually* ruin a Linux install by deleting files (as root, I grant you that), so why wouldn't an antivirus suite be able to do that? The fact we both know of no case where this has happened doesn't mean it's impossible. (In fact, Windows has the ability to possibly recover from such an event with System Restore, but most Linux distro's don't have something like that in place, to the best of my knowledge.)
That forum post actually brings up a good point. Many Windows antivirus programs automatically remove the offending file, which is what causes all the problems in "Windows false positive" cases, as cited. This Android case with AVG for Linux (which I have run) is similar to my own running of ClamAV on Linux. Occasionally you will get a false positive, but there are no Linux antivirus programs that I know of that automatically remove files. Both AVG for Linux and ClamAV just flag the file and nothing more, so there is never any harm done by a false positive. On Linux you can do this because real Linux viruses are so hard to find, download and install that, as in my experience, almost all flags are false positives. This actually very much strengthens the case that automatically removing false positives and disabling the operating system or applications is strictly a Windows problem and explains why all the refs are for Windows events only. I notice you have removed the reference to Windows again. I think based on all this evidence that it should be noted that this is a Windows-only occurrence - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Many Windows antimalware suites can be configured to delete files either, or ask what action to perform.)
I just don't agree explicitly mentioning Windows in this context, when the problem is fundamentally not tied to a specific OS, or any OS at all. It's not "strictly a Windows problem". Even if in practice this has never happened on any other OS, this still doesn't excuse the unjust targeting. That the problem hasn't happened elsewhere doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Noting that this is "a Windows-only occurrence" can only be done if it's made clear that this is not a fundamentally Windows-only problem, and that in practice there are only confirmed cases on Windows. Which to me feels like original research, and unnecessary detail.
Here's a question: why should we mention the only cases that we can find refs for are Windows-only? Fundamentally this isn't a Windows-only problem (I think you agree with me on this; this *could* easily happen elsewhere), so why is it important to note that in practice this has only happened on Windows so far?
In fact, part of my argument is that this isn't even an purely OS issue at all! If antimalware suites started deleting installed office suites, the same text applies. So in fact, why mention any OS at all? (Hence my "critical software infrastructure" wording.) --DanielPharos (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good! Collaboration works! If I can find a report of another operating system that has had false positive files removed I'll certainly add that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Rotorway International Logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Rotorway International Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:CF100Crest.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)14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have a page called Paxman Viper. Thank you!
The viper is my dads plane. He and my grandpa designed, built, test flew, rebuilt, and flew again many times over. It's great to see that his work is on the internet.
He has been out of the business for sometime now but when I get my pilots license we will get things going again.
Again thank you for the recognition!
-Mepaxman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mepaxman (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you enjoyed the article. It was limited in detail by the refs I had to work from, so if you have better refs or can donate some photos that would help make the article even better. I am part of WikiProject Aircraft and our aim is to have articles on every aircraft type ever flown. We are slowly getting there! - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PSA Airlines
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at PSA Airlines, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. March has already long passed. PSA Airlines is an affiliate member of Oneworld since March 31, 2014. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
I don't believe the external link provided were in any violation of the guidelines (correct me if I'm wrong). The *Factory-Built RV-12 site is the official rv-12 website of Van's Aircraft that was recently launched. It is meant to be the new source of information for the S-LSA model and is an official site of Van's Aircraft. You can verify this by going to the RV-12 tab of the *Van's Aircraft site and you will see the link to the new website for factory-built RV-12's.
As a fellow regular contributor to opinion polls sections on various Canadian election pages, would you care to weigh in on this debate over whether to show "all voters" or "likely voters" results for polls in the ongoing Ontario election? Cheers. -Undermedia (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Learjet 70 Artist's Concept.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, Ahunt. Thank you for your advice, I'll check the articles you gave me. By the way, I'm aware of the GNU/Linux naming controversy article. I'm starting to collaborate these days, so I'm still learning. But, according to the information you gave me, your revert change was also incoherent because the name of the distribution is BLAG Linux and GNU, then we should change to "...is a Linux and GNU Distribution made by...", right? My change was made considering also that the right side bar says "Kernel type Monolithic(Linux-libre)" plus because we generally also see "Userland GNU" or "Userland GNU Core Utilities", on distributions that use the GNU userland as BLAG does. By the way, we(can I?) should add the userland info on the right bar, right? So my motivations are not about how people want to call it, but because of coherence on technical details and on the article itself.
Thanks for your note. That is all well and good, but it doesn't overrule the long standing consensus that the term GNU/Linux is not used except as part of an official name of a distro and even then it is described as a Linux distribution. - Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another completely unrelated to Wikipedia question
This came up at shift change the other day. When you are flying in Southern Domestic Airspace and the winds are passed to you from the FSS or FIC are they given as degrees "true" or "magnetic"? Thanks. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper?19:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question and the AIM doesn't seem to specify. Normally winds would be for landing and would be magnetic. Upper winds are true. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Up here in Northern Domestic Airspace we pass the winds as true. In fact we have to specifically say that as in, "110 degrees true". This came up the other day when I was updating one of the manuals. I noticed a line that said if we were passing weather from a southern station to convert the winds to magnetic. This surprised me as I thought winds in the south were passed as magnetic. After some digging I found a WMO file that said winds were recorded as true. I checked the weather at NAVCANADA for Edmonton and using the plain language and found that they were in true. So this would mean that if you were landing you would get the winds as magnetic but if you picked up a weather package then the winds are true. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper?09:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed that is it exactly! All winds are recorded as true and always given over the radio as true except for landing and take-off winds in the southern domestic airspace which are given as magnetic. It makes sense when you think about it as pilots are referencing the winds for take-off and landing against the compass. - Ahunt (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:3CFFTS01.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:3CFFTS02.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:3CFFTSCFI.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:BHSbadge1982.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:PFStigers02.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:PFStigers01.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hey Ahunt would you have a look at this site. You think these images here are free to use?
Only disclaimer is not to UPLOAD copyrighted images. let me know what you think - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question! The site rules are all DMCA and basically say to only upload images that you have the copyright for, but the site images have no licencing information on them that that I saw, so you have to assume that they are "all rights reserved", which is the default condition, and therefore not eligible for Wiki Commons. Even worse, at least some of the Chinook images on that page look like official Canadian Forces images, which are Crown copyright! .su is an old Soviet Union designator, so that says something about copyrights right there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed it is that these days anyone who does anything at all has a live feed on their website, it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and therefore just not worth mentioning. This is an encyclopedia, so we are not here to promote her website. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the rough outline can be added if there are refs to be cited, but I wouldn't go into much detail. To be honest a pilot flying a big turboprop around the world is very routine, even if she is 31 and female, this is not going to get much press or other attention and is actually not that notable overall in the annals of aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I see you have added the route. That looks okay, just needs a ref cited so I tagged it. You also re-introduced a duplicate para, so I combined them again. That only needs saying once. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a pilot for over 30 years, and I have NEVER seen ANYONE private person have live video satellite streaming from the plane, EVER. Only NASA use to provide that type of access. If all planes were WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as you claim would not all of them have live video feeds? WP:RUNOFTHEMILL would apply if you were talking about rubber tires, but there is nothing run of the mill about the way she is going about this, you seem to be the only person that thinks is just another day in the woods, why not obtain another perspective? talk→WPPilot21:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of additional consideration is the fact that her streams are being webcast of sat phone. While I am a former tech from MS that created much of Video for Windows, I can tell you first hand this is no easy or everyday task.talk→WPPilot21:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in the last 2 days obtained media support from every major news outlet in the biz"? Really? The leading aviation news source, AVweb has had nothing on this in 2014 at all. You seem to be very enthusiastic about promoting this, so go ahead and do so. If it reads like an ad I'll tag it as such. - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AV web is considered main stream media, since when?
AV web, (from when I meet the guy at the SS1 launches) is just 1 guy from what I recall. The list here is just a few that posted in the last 48 hours. You might want to consider reading other publications (then AV Web) "Time is a good place to start" from time to time to keep up to date ;) Funny but when Space Ship One went into space, the guy from AV web was doing photos, yet it was my shots that made all the national news and aviation publications. talk→WPPilot22:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is funny, yes it was Tom Bliss that I was introduced to by one of the SpaceShipOne team, [http://don.logan.com/SS1/default.html} back then it was just him (poor guy was allowed to do inflight shots stuffed into the back of one of the chase planes and was almost passed out from the heat as I helped him out of the plane :) never the less, do you really think that AV web ( "the world's premier independent aviation news resource" a self serving claim) is of the same caliber as Time, Newsweek or Smithsonian? Thanks for the laugh! talk→WPPilot22:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in the environment that we live in today, young people need more role models that are willing to motivate the youth. Her goal is and has been nothing more then to do just that. She is and has been kind enough to share this with the world, its a good thing that Wikipedia's editors are not all as pessimistic as you. The world is equipped with post college age youth that have not much more then the mastery of an "I phone" to show for the efforts. Here is a self starting bright young lady, who want to do nothing other then inspire other young peoples interest in Flight. The FAA database shows 60k female pilots, and back when I was born in the 60's it was a single digit number. She has built a team around her, of support people that is top notch, and hats off to the young ladies that will follow her and become inspired by this. Your dismissal of the efforts that went into creating a live cockpit is truly state of the art, I do consultations professionally in this exact business place and her combonation of technologies could make things like the vanishing jet MH370 something that could never happen. Her objective is to give young people a future, I would stand and stand firmly behind any person that is will to do just that, it is easy to poke at something you do not understand. The fact that woman have great opportunity in Aviation and should embrace it, don't stymie it by keeping it out of the hands of the public. I hope you have a Happy day: https://vimeo.com/92345954- ℅ ✰WPPilot✰ echo00:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing an encyclopedia here, not participating in anyone's PR campaign. Your promotion of this subject and the insertions you have made of PR-style text lead me to recommend that you review WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO! Your a HOOT! Yes I have a COI as I too am an adult pilot that was lucky enough to grow up following NASA as a kid. Your claim of my creation of some kind of PR style leads me to sugguest that you review: *Meta:Don't be unpleasent. Hope it helps. talk→WPPilot13:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should reference anything that truly drives technology. This flight, in the facet that you feel a "live cockpit" is non notable, is in fact doing just that, driving technology. While your profile states you are a pilot yourself, I would think that you might be more observant and considerate of her willingness to drive it. I was in no way "trying to create a promotional page", but bring attention to the facets of her flight that make it truly notable. Sometimes it takes a girl, to show us men how its really done. I suggest that WE use Jessica Watson as an example, as she is in many ways in the same boat (no pun intended), the media had its critics but today she has in fact evolved into a inspiration to every youngster Down Under and made them all sailors to contend with. Excuse me if you thought I was being rude to you, that was not my objective. Have a nice day. talk→WPPilot13:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
none of the refs cited mention that she is a "philanthropist", removed
You are being silly yet once again. Why are you so intent on being silly?
Amelia is the President of the Fly With Amelia Foundation (501c3), which grants flight-training scholarships to young women, ages 16 to 18, and fosters aviation and aerospace opportunities for people off all ages through aviation based educational curriculum.
FYI: Philanthropy etymologically means "love of humanity" in the sense of caring, nourishing, developing and enhancing "what it is to be human" on both the benefactors' (by identifying and exercising their values in giving and volunteering) and beneficiaries' (by benefiting) parts. The most conventional modern definition is "private initiatives, for public good, focusing on quality of life". This combines the social scientific aspect developed in the 20th century with the original humanistic tradition, and serves to contrast philanthropy with business (private initiatives for private good, focusing on material prosperity) and government (public initiatives for public good, focusing on law and order)
Instances of philanthropy commonly overlap with instances of charity, though not all charity is philanthropy, or vice versa. The difference commonly cited is that charity relieves the pains of social problems, whereas philanthropy attempts to solve those problems at their root causes (the difference between giving a hungry man a fish, and teaching him how to fish for himself). A person who practices philanthropy is called a philanthropist.
If she runs a non profit that by definition practices philanthropy, her website states that is what she does now is she still not a philanthropist? talk→WPPilot18:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahunt. I was wondering if putting a line above the TOC box about a Wikipedian posting a new section to the Parks' talk page if they would like to have a userbox (or boxes) for a particular national park would be a good idea? I know there's the New Userboxes page, but this would be specific to parks. I've made a few in addition to the US ones, but have started to think that making ubx that people want would be a better use of the space on the page. Thoughts? Thanks and regards, OldBeeg··warble··22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can hurt to do so! Some users will post requests for new user boxes, especially if it looks like that is encouraged! - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:Eagle's Perch Prototype N501JH.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Eagle's Perch Prototype N501JH.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
Thank you for welcoming me to the Wikipedia editing community by deleting my work and providing a perfunctory explanation linking to an (to me) obscure editing convention. This is certainly a great encouragement for me to continue making useful contributions to Wikipedia.
While you state it is the policy of Wikipedia to include only one set of statistics per aircraft, this seems an odd position to take in reference to a page which combines all the various Piper PA-28 aircraft variants into one entry. I made the edit in a good faith effort to include additional information about a type of aircraft that has many variants, each with significantly different physical dimensions and performance characteristics.
Perhaps a better way to go about this would have been to create (or suggest creating) a separate page for the PA-28-161 variant, rather than delete my work unilaterally and imply that the specs for the 1964 PA-28-140 are representative of all variants of this diverse type of aircraft. I spent a not inconsequential amount of time learning the "aircraft specifications" data type and calculating and transcribing data from the performance charts in the manual for my aircraft. I hope these aren't lost permanently.
Thank you for your note here. We have a longstanding and well-considered consensus to not include more than one set of specifications per aircraft type, as explained in that link I noted. If we put up specs for every model variant for the PA-28, the article would have dozens of specs included. Because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not a specialist publication, like Janes, the consensus is that this would not be appropriate. Since the PA-28-161 is only a very minor variant of the PA-28 it would probably also not be appropriate to have an article about that one sub-model, although that might be a good topic to discuss in detail. I gather from your comment that you own or fly one of these, which is why you thought the specs for your model should be added. In the future before you undertake a large amount of work that is against existing consensus it would be wise to discuss that first on the article talk page, or, if you are going to do this over many articles, then on the appropriate WikiProject page, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I do think it would be appropriate to create separate pages for the various PA-28 variants, as the differences between models are not as minor as you make them out to be. For instance, the PA-28 type includes models that carry four or six passengers, have engines producing anywhere from 140 to 235 horsepower, have retractable or fixed gear, have straight or tapered wings, and many other details including significantly differing performance capabilities.
One reason people may visit Wikipedia for information on aircraft may be (as I did in the past) to learn more about and compare various models and types when making a decision on which aircraft to purchase. I think it would be helpful and appropriate to have separate pages for differing variants for this reason. Scintillus (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have flown a few of the different models myself. If you think it is worth creating articles on the sub-variants that I suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. That way you can gain consensus and probably some help with it, rather than just having someone merge it back into the main article and redirect the link. If we are going to do the sub-models as separate articles then we should plan on doing all of them and not just the PA-28-161. It would help in your discussion there to propose a list of models that should have their own articles. For instance the Piper PA-32 already does. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill. I agree with you it is too minor to be mentioned. The same guy kept trying to add the same incident to Search and rescue as well, even though it had nothing to do with SAR. He just seems to have a thing for that one incident for some reason. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw that, but someone else reverted it. The person must be personally involved in that incident as no one else thinks it is that interesting! - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about Google, in particular, these articles
Putting {{WikiProject Google}} on the talk pages of articles involving Google, and assessing articles with the template. This helps to categorize articles!
As fas as I can tell this template has actually not been nominated for deletion. What gives? I can only assume you changed your mind on this one and will remove the template. - Ahunt (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As fas as I can tell this template has actually not been nominated for deletion. What gives? I can only assume you changed your mind on this one and will remove the template. - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
