Thanks for uploading File:NavCanadaLogo.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).
As of December 2014 (possibly earlier), the daily builds have switched to the systemd init system instead of upstart.
With the reason
unsourced and inaccurate, systemd was used in 14.10
However, I do believe systemd was NOT enabled by default in 14.10. For example, [1] says systemd was a feature of the experimental "Ubuntu Desktop Next", which can only mean it was not enabled in non-experimental 14.10.
As for sourcing, the source is in the text itself - just go try out the daily builds, as I did (in a virtual machine). As for the "unsourced", we do not require a footnote for everything, when the claim is obviously checkable by downloading freely available open source software. As an analogy, we don't require an explicit source footnote for every non-controversial statement in a Wikipedia book article summary either, since the source is obviously the book itself, which you can go read. Thue (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am running Lubuntu 14.10 and it has systemd, (apt-cache policy systemd systemd: Installed: 208-8ubuntu8.1 Candidate: 208-8ubuntu8.1) so yes to make a claim like this you would need a very clear ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Installed by default, or did you install it manually? (Also I just noted that you made that claim without a reference, but from from installing the software yourself :P ) Thue (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am pretty sure that 14.04 LTS did not use systemd as init system by default, so I think you are misreading something here. The fact that a systemd package exists in the repository is not the same as being used as the default init system. See for example here [2], [3]. Also, I think I have also been tricked :), and the 15.04 daily build does in fact not boot systemd even though some systemd components are installed; for example, journalctl has empty logs, which I don't think would be the case if systemd was really the init system. Thue (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all we can tell from apt-cache policy systemd and from Launchpad is that it was installed starting with 14.04 LTS, but not what it has been used for. Is it being implemented in stages? Who knows? - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is fun, a check of LXTask shows that while Lubuntu 14.10 has 8 running upstart process, it also has two systemd process running continuously, so systemd is implemented and doing something. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foxcon Aviation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vacuum molding. 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.
Hey! I saw your like. You might also be interested to know that I'm about 1⁄3 of the way through writing a new userscript that may interest you. User:Technical 13/Scripts/UpdateMailingList.js collects a list of users who have edited a page, collect a list of users currently listed on the page in the {{Mailing list member}} template, check the contributions and logs of each user in the list, and return an updated list. This will make it easy to see when the user was last active or if they are blocked and will update the template accordingly. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)15:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Direct Fly sro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — kikichugirlspeak up!21:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ekolot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korczyna. 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! There's a somewhat lengthy content-related discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and partially about the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. If you could provide any input there, I'd really appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Going through the whole lengthy discussion, and especially through the recent article history, was a quite time-consuming endeavor. :) Appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have exercised appropriate care with the information I've inserted into the article, as I do with all my edits and new content.
It is an interesting fine line, however, when, a) the information is important, b) I am connected to it, and c) I'm THE expert. In this case, as the pilot for the speed record flight, I am the only source of information in the world about many aspects of the flight. I'm one of two people in the world who flew the airplane--the other being Professor Strojnik--and the only one still alive!
How does one go about preserving such information for posterity (the purpose of Wikipedia) in the most direct manner possible, at a reasonable cost to one's self in terms of time and effort invested?
Having said all that, if you still believe there is some bias in my edit that is a reflection of my connection to the subject, I will gladly receive your advice!
Thanks for your note here. I just wanted you to be aware of some of the cautions involved in writing about yourself, hence the note on your talk page. The web page you cited, which looks like you wrote it and is therefore WP:SPS and not really acceptable as a ref and is missing a few keys facts about the record flight, like the pilot's name, which is why I removed those sections from the article. Ultimately Wikipedia's policy says that if information hasn't been noted in independent third party references then the information isn't notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Essentially we need some reliable third party sources.- Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By longstanding consensus the term "GNU/Linux" is considered POV and not used not used on Wikipedia
By longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux" and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into articles on distributions. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". Be advised that this has been brought up dozens of times there, including recently and has always been soundly and conclusively opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manjaro Linux (Writing "HACKED!" means nothing to readers.)
Writing "HACKED!" is an attempt to be concise in the infobox. The explanation is evident in the footnoted links,
you did not refer to them before undoing my first edit. "This site may harm your computer" is a higher level of warning. "ref provides an opinion only, no evidence" These are determined by the googlebot system, the most relied upon opinion on the internet. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I did read both your refs and, as I said, it provides no evidence or even an explanation boiler plate text, just . If pages were replaced or altered then it should be trivial for Google to show the diffs as a reason. Writing "Hacked!" in the infobox will be meaningless for most readers, is totaly unclear as to what it is referring to and therefore is not helpful in an encyclopedia. Regardless whether Google thinks the website might have been hacked, I don't believe that possible website issues are notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article, see WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Bearhawk LSA Prototype N289EH.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).
Ahunt, what a strange thing. I won't quibble, but it's odd to me that project guidelines recommend standard phrasing without any regard for verification--or whether it's even true or not. There is no need for a cn tag? The way I read those guidelines they apply to every single aircraft (despite the "specific aircraft types" in the lead), even if only one was ever built. Odd. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a consensus standard wording, but is applied with some discretion and experience by the WikiProject Aircraft editors. In the case of most light aircraft built in large numbers, like the Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 it is really analogous to a WP:BLUESKY sort of statement. For one-off aircraft, homebuilts, microlights, gliders and other types some desecration is used as it wouldn't apply. This measure was put in place a few years ago, primary to stop spamming, as we had people adding links to their small aviation companies operating fleets of light aircraft as a form of advertising. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Netkiosk-CS Deletion
Netkiosk-CS Deletion
Not sure where to type a message for you as like with some many sites Wikipedia is also not that easy to use.
Not sure why you removed the Entire information about Netkiosk-CS as it is all factual. You have other businesses showing that also require citation. That is why I added the citation part to allow a reputable source to add a reference.
I know it is often easier to press delete then to properly verify, do some reading and checking and then edit it.
I am open to all help and assistance in making sure listing are accurate and relevant.
Simply deleting a listing is not helpful to anyone.
You have this one for example
CoolNovo, called ChromePlus prior to January 2012, is a Chromium-based browser for Windows and Linux. It adds features such as mouse gestures, link dragging and IE tabs.[127] (Last version: 29 August 2013 with core version 27.0.1453.110[128]). Jtmkiosksystems (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you are a very experience Wikipedia Editor your help and assistance would be appreciated to make sure jtmkiosksystems and Netkiosk are listed appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmkiosksystems (talk • contribs)
Ahunt, I took the liberty of blocking this editor for their user name and their obvious intent; thanks for reverting them in the first place. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy kids' memories playing at the Manston plane graveyard
First moved to Margate in 71. I was about ten. Me and a kid called Luigi used to make Airfix kits and play on the planes in the graveyard before they were burned. I "flew" almost every front line and transport plane in the RAF inventory from the 50s and 60s. Once a complete Vulcan bomber was there. I stood on Luigi's shoulders but we still couldnt reach the underbelly hatch. We were about 11. One summer day we were "flying" when a big RAF sergeant cop turned up. He gave us a stern but not unfriendly lecture, using highly technical terms, about little boys getting their legs and arms removed by still active "control surfaces" because the "hydraulics" were still functioning. (Had to go home and look the latter up) We never went back. Then moved to Ramsgate which was even nearer, that was 74. Was sad to see the big black plumes of smoke. They would rise what seemed like miles. Sorry to clutter up your T/P, just brought it all back. Cheers mate! Irondome (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey those are great stories! I saw you enter your name on project list. Normally when people do that I drop them this template note I have, but you have been around the project so long and have contributed so much already that I thought that note wouldn't be appropriate in your case, so I just settled for a "like" instead just to acknowledge your official sign up. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I sometimes get worse. While I'm here a question. Do you know much about the HWOS system? We got ours a couple of months ago and will be fully operational by 19 February. One thing is that instead of entering cloud opacity we are now entering cloud amount and that is waht will be seen on the METAR. Other than the manuals that come with it I can't find anything that state this. I want to update the METAR but another source would be good. Also I need to find out if this is a particular Canadian thing (the cloud amounts) or worldwide. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq10:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure at some point he will earn a block for incivility and editing against consensus.
Those are good questions. Back in the SA days we had "cloud amount", but with the switch to METAR format that changed to "cloud opacity" as mandated by WMO and ICAO, although the Canadian weather service was never 100% happy with that. As a pilot I work from the AIM as to what to expect. The current version says "All cloud layers are reported based on the summation of the layer amounts as observed from the surface up, reported as a height above the station elevation in increments of 100 ft to a height of 10 000 ft, and thereafter in increments of 1000 ft." So it looks like it has been changed and that is what pilots should be expecting. I am not sure when they changed that. ICAO makes money off their publications and tends to not make them available for free on-line, so it isn't easy to check and see what the world standard really is. The SARP for this is Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation and they sell it for $165. Doc 8896 — Manual of Aeronautical Meteorological Practice also has guidance on this and they sell it for $173. As you may know any nation can deviate from ICAO SARPS just by filing a difference, although in the past we have tried to avoid that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trying of learning the english, be more patient please
I trying to learn the english by doing the good faith of edit on wikipedia, me is not doing any promotion of edit, nor of the vandelism of the article of editing. I just learn of new language and of hard to learning it. Me studying abroad, so the learn of english be very important of me. Thank you.Johnfromchina2015 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This template should only be placed where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template."
In an edit I made to the "Theism" article, I removed Satanism as an example. This edit was quickly undone. The inclusion of Satanism as an example of theism is at best extraneous and at worst misleading and detrimental to the dissemination of knowledge. Levayan Satanism is fundamentally atheistic and subgroups of Satanism also adhere to atheistic ideas. Satanism as a belief should not be confused with Devil worshipping and is only nominally "Satanic". This is not a biased view and is easily verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deveretts (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt, I am very sorry for that. But I was really intrigued by Special:PasswordReset. Even though I am logged in, the page is allowing me to request a reset of any user's password, and I was also confused with the wording there: Fill in one of the fields to receive a temporary password via email. I stupidly thought that I could get the password of any user on my email. Your username happened to be the first one I thought of. Again, sorry. SD0001 (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. No what it does is send me a new password via email and let me know that you initiated it. Otherwise it would make it trivial for you to hack anyone's account. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the licensing on the images you will see that the Coke logos are text-only and therefore and not subject to copyright. The image you tried to use is more than text, is subject to copyright and is only allowed under US copyright law to be used in situations of "fair use", which doesn't cover userboxes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft
The Engine Testrun was yesterday afternoon.. so give the medias some time until the print it . A "citation needed" tag for a few days would be aceptable. How ever now I have add a referenc (unfortunatly only in german) "Neue Nidwaldner Zeitung"FFA P-16 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the refs. Normally articles don't report minor things like first engine run or first taxi tests as WP:TRIVIA, but just report first flight dates, so I suspect once it has flown this will get removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my Idea was to put in the engine testrun until the first flight of the PC-24. It would have given a hint how far the project is. Well as others think differend about this, its already removed. Anyway the first flight will be next month (I don't knew the exact day yet). And so we soon can put in the first flight. Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UL-Jih, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Composites. 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. As for [4] the problem is, that this is obvious in Polish and there are no sources. There had been no word "Puchatek" in Polish, until Irena Tuwim named so Winnie the Pooh in her translation of the book (it came from adjective "puchaty" = fluffy). The only reference I could give is to Polish version of the book itself. Pibwl←«14:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that is all we have to link that to due to a lack of refs. I have the ref Schweizer, Paul A: Wings Like Eagles, The Story of Soaring in the United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988 which is the complete company history and there is almost no mention of the design at all. That note in Schweizer SGS 1-29 is all we have to refer readers to until a ref can be found and even a short real article is written, but it is still better than a mainspace encyclopedia page that says "Redirected to an article with no content about the 2-27". - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox
Recently you removed {{User:Andrei Marzan/userbox/archiveicon}} and {{User:Andrei Marzan/userbox/minibox icon}} from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Miscellaneous on the grounds that it is not a userbox, however, i oppose that decision, so I am here to discuss it. My reason to include it is that in WP:UBX#Creating a new userbox, it is listed as a type of userbox also known as an mini box, so i would appreciate it if you would change your mind and let me include it. If we cannot resolve it, I will ask for a third opinion. Thanks - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★(talk)12:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care that much about this issue as we re not talking about a mainspace article here, so go ahead and put it back in and see if anyone else removes it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blender logo
You recently removed the Blender logo from my userbox because you said that it didn't qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law. However, Ton Roosendaal, Chairman of the Blender Foundation, said that the logo can be used by anyone as long as it's used to point to the product, which means that it has no usage restriction (at least in my userbox).
Unfortunately it is not up to me, they have released their log under an "all rights reserved" licence, which precludes using it in userboxes. If they want it used more freely then they have to licence it more freely. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the uploader of the image uploaded it in a GNU Free Documentation License, but someone (not sure who) changed it to an "all rights reserved" one. Was it a mistake or intentional? Is there anything I'm missing? FerJox (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tracked it down here. It seems that the logo is "all rights reserved" and cannot be used in a userbox. This is not an uncommon situation where free software has an all rights reserved logo to protect branding. Firefox's logo is in the same situation. I would suggest you use letters or a free image or something similar, as the logo cannot be used. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Eclipse Aerospace 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).
Reconsidering: does 'constructed with' deliver the idea? My intention is to describe the components of the device, not how it was made. Therefore 'made of' still sounds better to me, but I'm not a native English speaker... Thanks Etan J. Tal(talk)15:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several good ways of saying this, like "assembled from an iron nail and a rubber disc" or "comprising an iron nail inserted into a rubber disc", but I think "constructed with an iron nail and a rubber disc" is the clearest. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid a possible misunderstanding I would prefer the 'assembled' or 'comprising'. Both refer clearly (unequivocally) to the composition and not to the process of building the device. Am I right? Etan J. Tal(talk)
Thanks! I appreciate your patience... I'll update the captions in the other articles accordingly. Etan J. Tal(talk)
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moyes Microlights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Bailey. 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 saw you reverted my corrections on ICP Srl page. In particular the owner name. His nickname is Edi and not Eddy. (being his neighbor I know quite well how he prefers to be called). And why delete the ICP Savnnah S picture? It's their current flagship product (and the picture, of course, comes form wikimedia).
The cited ref http://www.zenair650ei.fr/joint-announcement-anglais.html spells it "Eddy", while your information is original research. Keep in mind that the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not the "truth". As per Wikipedia policies to change the information from a cited ref you need to cite a new ref, you can't cite "personal experience". As far as pictures go I explained that in my edit summary: "we already have a photo of a Savannah, no need for two here". If we had photos of other ICP aircraft models that would be worth adding. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem, I understand. The error comes from Zenair :-)
Here a re some links where Edi is called with his real nickname:
Yeah I think it confused even me what this was trying to say! My understanding is that the top bar is of minimum vertical extent so it saves vertical space. It extends over the whole width of the screen, so it doesn't save horizontal space. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, I think, is that "vertical/horizontal space" and especially "saving vertical/horizontal space" are very vague, ambiguous expressions(saving space inside such a stripe or space for more such stripes in parallel?) while "top/bottom, horizontal/vertical" etc. are much less so given the human context, indoeuropean/western/anglophone/whatever spacetime linguistic/cultural conventions and gravity. It's the former expressions that imo need clarification in this case in the article; the latter, if we're talking about the system tray etc., is/are horizontal, at least in 14.04. Thanatos|talk|contributions12:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:System76 Logo 2014.JPG
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:System76 Logo 2014.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,
I think you made a mistake reverting my change. Mike Sandlin's gliders are NOT advanced. The goal is too keep them primitive. Anyway, given your large amount of userboxes, I believe you'll edit the page to a nice state.
Cheers, Happy-marmotte 21:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-marmotte (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your note. The problem with your comment added to this article is that there is no reference that Sandlin's designs are considered primary gliders by any reliable source. Certainly Sandlin himself calls them "airchairs" and not primary gliders. Not every low-performance glider is automatically a primary glider, we rely on refs cited to sort that out.- Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should come as no surprise that User:WPPilot took the video he is edit warring to include on the PC-12 page. The user has a long history of promoting his own work on articles. For an example of what a mess he makes adding his photos, see Reno Air Races. - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat: Would you like me to remove all my work from the site. If you had the access or the skills to contribute the kind of content I am contributing, please jump right in. Am I asking anyone for anything for my contributions? Funny the site even promotes my work in Signpost each week, yet you two see set on keeping others from enjoying it. I all but cleared out the Reno site for ya, and just don't give a hoot if you two want to conspire to keep others out of the cockpit of a PC 12, fine you win let someone else figure out how to overcome you two wall builders and you just keep building, you the only keeping everyone from enjoying the experience, everyone. I contribute media, anyone can. That is how this site works. Its not about promoting my work, it is about improving the site, that is my only objective here. I am sorry that you feel otherwise but frankly speaking you are wrong. talk→WPPilot16:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filling articles with your own photos is promoting your own work, especially if you add so many photos that the text is squeezed in between the photos. That's bad style for articles, and isn't recommended by the MOS. No one would have a problem with your adding one or two photos to an article, if they were good photos (they sometimes aren't) and if they were placed so they didn't disrupt the text, or if you didn't remove other good photos to make room for your own photos, as you sometimes do. If your photos are good, someone will find them on Commons, and post them to articles in time, as I've said before. You don't have to be the one to add them, and in many cases, you've proved you shouldn't. - BilCat (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is your problem with the video? Signpost has in fact featured videos I created for augmentation of the photos I took such as Space Ship One, yet you have a problem with a video that is non promotional and shows what it is really like, inside the PC 12. As mentioned before I strive to improve. I have 10 featured photos on the English WP, such as the one I removed from the Reno page a moment ago after your complaint and obvious efforts to simply remove my work as you feel that I am promoting something??? FYI the PC 12 is about 600pound a hour in burn, so the total fuel cost of that flight was well over what most people make in a month. How does that differ from any of the other links on this site to videos or in fact anything that has a named author, would not that make every ref on this site some sort of self promotion? BTW, do you contribute any media here what so ever or simply off the site your perspective and valuable insight? talk→WPPilot17:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove your work on Reno Air Race page. I tagged the article as having too many images to give you the option of choosing which images to remove, because I knew you'd react badly if I did it. Instead, you removed the tags, which wasn't a surprise either, but at least I gave you a choice. I've added many photos to WP articles from Commons, including many I uploaded myself from US government sites, as those images are PD. I'm not a photographer, and my only attempt to actually take some images of an aircraft on display at a museum ended baldly when I accidentally erased the SD card before transferring the photos from my phone to a computer! - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be all or nothing with you? My issue was that you added too many photos, not the other improvements, for the most part. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You never said that. You never came to my talk page and respectfully entered into any conversation of any sort. your words above were "look what he has done to the Reno page" yet 7 months after the fact your the only user that has a issue with it. And with regard to Hunts claim of civility give me a break, you get out of people what you put into them. If someone treats me like a jerk, I am only left to assume the role and treat that person as I was treated as I did with Bilcat. If someone is communicative and forward in commentary, I respond with similar comments. Please lets have BOTH of you go to Reno this year and get some nice shots for the page. Then you can contribute something other then attitude and commentary, as much as you may enjoy picking people apart, it is unsavory for the purposes' of Wikipedia really. Anyone can be a critic, it is costly and time consuming to be a aerial photographer/videographer that donates everything to the site at my own expense. It is hard work to get the stuff I have donated and them have to deal with the likes of you two. Perhaps I should just walk around airshows with my phone and not bother, as it is unpleasant to have people create stubs about you behind my back. If @BilCat: were at least respectful he would have done this on his own talk page, but he chose to gang up on me, with you. Oh what fun the stupid site can be (not) at times. talk→WPPilot20:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your excuses here for incivility don't wash. There is never any acceptable reason for incivility. I guess it should come as no surprise that my polite warning to you about incivility was met with more incivility. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Calm down, all of you. Ahunt, you are right (WPPilot, he is right), but when someone is angry, it really doesn't help to calm him down to say that. I happen to know that WPPilot is coming off of another bad experience, also due to poor communication on the part of two other editors. WPPilot was, I think, justified in feeling angry and betrayed. At that point, he withdrew nominations from FP and then expressed his feelings in an edit summary while removing a comment from his talk page. WPPilot has a lot to offer WP. It does no good to keep saying, "Civility is required" when a person is still upset. It makes them more upset. Haven't you ever been hurt or angry? You know how you feel then. I read the comments above, and User:BilCat has a point that it's not good to have so many images in an article that it crowds the text. However, which images to use and which to remove should be decided in a discussion on a talk page. It then takes someone with experience to place the images properly. Just posting a template at the top of an article doesn't accomplish much of anything. WPPilot does have some unique skills to offer WP. Good aerial photos and videos are not so common. Also, perhaps he feels that his photos are the one thing he can offer to WP, so he may be slightly overenthusiastic about adding images. I've seen absolutely no indication that he is adding images for self-promotion. May I suggest that you all start fresh with a polite, gentlemanly discussion? Forget what has occurred up until now. Stop the criticizing and blaming. Extend an olive branch. Show kindness and understanding. Who will be the bigger person and start a reasoned, cordial conversation? Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corine, we aren't the first editors he's had difficulty with over adding his own images to articles, and I doubt it'll be the last, unless his incivility gets him blocked before that happens. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Corinne I am one of those too, who got incivility thrown at by this editor, and you know it. User talk:Adam Cuerden#Maners is about the above user's quite unpleasant manners that lately escalated into rather weird language. Like this edit note and more. And in my opinion if an editor wants to contribute at the Signpost - or any editor anywhere - they should be able to discuss edits or take it without reacting in this kind of rather negative way. I never had any previous experience with this editor before, not before here, this was around 22 January 2015. So I was rather surprised. And I don't agree that it was poor communication at all. If it was poor communication, that it was rather from his side removing all our comments and saying 'adios! instead of sitting down and going through our issues we raised. I think we were rather clear in what we meant. I do think it is a problem, and Corinne with all respect knows this editor even less I do, and had even less contact with him, I think this was the firs time + the section on her page, Nice to meet you CorinneSD, from 28 February 2015. It is not acceptable to react and behave like this. It really isn't, BilCat - . I agree completely - sometimes we tend to overlook this kind of behavior, but my experience is that if it once started it will not stop, unless people are reacting against it. I like Corinne a lot and appreciate her goodwill, but this is not acceptable. Hafspajen (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:Hafspajen and User:BilCat above. All I did was question the inclusion of a home movie in an aircraft type article and ended up with a tirade of temper tantrums as a result. That behaviour is not acceptable and indicates someone who cannot contribute to the project in a constructive manner. User:WPPilot needs to stop throwing tantrums every time someone questions him trying to include his own home movies and such in articles or they need to get a new hobby. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What strikes me as funny is the manner in that each of you exploits a few words here and there and now have blown that into a "tantrum" wow. First regarding the films I have included over the years. This is the first time that anyone has ever even commented or removed one from a page, Steven Hinton Jr & The Wedge (surfing) as well as in the augmentation of a few of my photos as featured photos reviewed upon Signpost. Being a target, and watching as a gang builds only gets frustrating. I have in the past contributed over 1000 top quality photographs and over 800 of them are active on this site. 10 are considered featured photos. I contributed my photos originally to participate in the Featured Photo section, of the site and to improve the site at any junction I can. I personally think it is sad that the perspective of @BilCat: and AHunt are so curt, as in the case of the PC 12 video, and to go so far as to assert that it could be in any plane, unless the viewer takes the time to check the tail numbers (shown on the panel) with the FAA. As with the Steven Hinton Jr page, I have access to valuable video and am willing to work hard to acquire it, edit and produce it, for the readers of Wikipedia. I was considering nominating the Steven Hinton Jr video for FP consideration, but have learned not to do them during these witch hunts. Its too bad that not once was it mentioned or considered by these users that we might cut that down and do some exterior stuff and without the music that would be a cool thing to embed, on the PC 12 page. Sadly the OGG size limits how much video you can imbed on a page, I guess only I think that way. I get frustrated in the posture that Bilcat and AHunt have here, and that is one of "do not contribute photos at all" that is frustrating as my objective with every photo I contribute is to improve the site. Corinne is correct in that a little communication goes a long ways. I consider myself more of a contributor then a police agent and you rarely find that my edits are of a patrolling nature, yet Bilcat and AHunt, upon review of your history logs are just that, more of a patrolling nature making sure that everything on the pages each patrols is up to snuff. Bilcat and AHunt, your patrolling has crossed my path a few times before but we are talking about perhaps 4 or 5 photos so this is creating a mountain out of a ant hill IMHO. I have to agree with @CorinneSD: in that deciding, which images to use and which to remove should be decided in a discussion on a talk page. It then takes someone with experience to place the images properly. Just posting a template at the top of an article doesn't accomplish much of anything. What can really be frustrating is to watch how people create the spin that accompany these seemingly random inabilities to communicate. @Hafspajen: and I were working for weeks on end when an issue that neither Bilcat and Ahunt is aware of, that caused a lot of frustration for everyone in the Signpost publishing group. Hafspajen and I have resolved our differences that were, in fact created when a third party vanished. I work hard to get the shots I get, its unfortunate that Bilcat and Ahunt are so unwilling to engage is conversation, and simply provide the tag and patrol/revert mentality. I succumbed to the requests of your tags, and reduced the volume of photos on the one page that you mention and removed the video. Your all making a great deal of effort to highlight and blow a few poorly chosen words in edit summaries into something that it is not. I will continue to contribute media, video or stills to improve as many pages as I can improve with my talents. Have a great day, I am going flying....... talk→WPPilot16:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are still engaged in making excuses for your rude behaviour, like this, this and this. There are no excuses for these, you need to apologize and no amount of defecting or pretending is going to suffice. We had a consensus discussion on the inclusion of the video at Talk:Pilatus_PC-12#Video_external_link and you didn't bother to participate, so your accusations that "Bilcat and Ahunt are so unwilling to engage [in] conversation" don't hold water. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right there, @BilCat: and @Ahunt:, I am sorry for my comments please forgive me. If I could make a suggestion. I am more then willing to discuss anything that improves the pages my work touches and am more then willing to communicate cohesively with everyone at any time. As to the PC 12 video, I just was trying to settle things down and opt'ed out by removing the video. As mentioned before I contribute photos to participate in the Featured Photo program and that is originally what brought me to Wikipedia. I never had any intentions of doing anything other then that, but here I am, almost 6 years later. Again, sorry for the comments and frustration, I promise to work with the two of you more cohesively in the future and ask that you both extend the courtesy as well.. talk→WPPilot18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment here and for the apology. I can't speak for User:Bilcat, but I would be happy to work with you and discuss issues, to continue to improve aviation articles here on Wikipedia. That's why we are all here! - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation
Hi, I'm just wondering if this edit that you just reverted at Aviation might have contained some valid content. A lot of the existing material is unsourced, while the edit at least contained plenty of links to reasonably sourced articles. I agree that it needed a lot of trimming down, there was also a lot of off-topic detail. Anyway, I'm signing out and going to bed now so I leave it in your capable hands. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I saw this as a short list of examples, not as an attempt to create an exhaustive list of historical instances. I really thought it read better with just a couple of culturally diverse examples, although I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...like you just did, I often leave a note on the talk page so that interested parties can find it. In reality, I don't think anybody goes through edit histories searching for small bits of potentially valuable text, so putting it on the talk page where someone might actually see it seems like the best thing. May it be of use. Samsara00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. Sure you can do it that way if you like. I find when cleaning up unsourced text that often anyone interested is already watching the page and will frequently find a ref, if one exists. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did and the results were mixed. The big danger is running into unattributed Wikipedia mirrors and then using those as refs. I did find one ref that contradicts the unsourced statement, so I will work that in instead. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Airsport aircraft
Adam if you have a moment I like your input here, regarding the F-18B role "trainer"? or "combat aircraft"? We have sources with conflicting information - Many Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I know that in Canadian service the two seaters are used both for training and ops, but I have no information on how Australia employes them. - Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
March 2015
Hello Ahunt, I am a little confused about the link removal from the page Windows Image Acquisition. The article I provided is trying to addressing an important part for those scanning protocols, which is the difference and the pros and cons of using them. This information is not provided on those pages before, and I think putting such a link on them will add value in this regard. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianitmarket (talk • contribs)
I don't know why you are all pushing the idea of Linux being an OS, first of all Linux is JUST A PIECE OF CODE written by a community, which is a software like any other software, it's developed to make any individual or company use a highly featured kernel in their OS. the term "Linux distribution" should be avoided since Linux DEPENDS on other tools like GRUB, glibc, bash, java, and other software to be able to run or be used. Android for example is not a Linux distribution it is an OS which uses Linux and other softwares, Debian GNU/Linux is an OS using Linux plus a lot free software. please stop writing wrong informations, that affects the knowledge of many people across the net, and make the informations related to Linux more neutral and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb333 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt. Just wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that when you move a sentence that has citations, that you should move the citations with the sentence. You moved the line without the citation, and subsequently separated citations for a different sentence with the one you put in. Mkdwtalk23:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I tried, but got caught in a subsequent edit conflict. I'll go back and see if it can be done now. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed you are the originator and main contributor of [Stoddard-Hamilton Glasair II].
I believe the wing loading figure is incorrect. I suspect it was calculated in metric and the digits were swapped from 126 to 162 ?
I checked the figure for the Glasair I, but not subsequent models. PlainsSoarer (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - In checking, the Stoddard-Hamilton Glasair II has a wing area of just 81.3 sq ft and a gross weight of 2,100 lb which gives a wing loading of 25.8 lb/sq ft, so I will fix that. Thanks for pointing it out. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding those refs, I have formatted them, so the page looks much better now. As per WP:V "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." If you think that there is enough on Thom to meet WP:BLP then by all means go ahead and write the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yateley
Have you considered reporting that IP from Yateley to WP:AN/3RR? I mean, yes they check everyone involved, and technically you've broken 3RR as well, but I don't think it really applies in this case (personally I wouldn't count 'reverting blatant self-promo'). I'd do it myself, but I don't want to accidentally get you in trouble, since you're pretty clearly in the right on this one. NekoKatsun (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I agree this is just flagrant spamming and thus vandalism and he has been reverted now by three editors multiple times. I generally don't bother with reporting IPs for 3RR, because almost all are dynamic IPs and thus even if he gets blocked he'll just reboot his modem and start over. Most just give up long before now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point; no sense wasting effort. And hey, it's semi-protected now, hopefully that'll head it off for the time being! NekoKatsun (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YOu have stated that I am non notable and so is my band. I did not originally put this post on the Yateley site, however was obviously flattered that someone had. Probably someone who knows me. It seemed to be there for ages as my daughter pointed out.
The band concerned is regarded as one of the top tribute acts in the UK and has been for 22 years. IN that time we have performed all over the world, including audiences of 50000 at Hyde park in 2006. 40000 at Plymouth National Armed Forces Day a couple of years back in front of David Cameron and Prince Edward. We have also appeared on national TV on lots of occasions (Ant and Dec show being one). Our website is www.onestepbehindtribute.com (which I did not link to). Please look there and you will see that we are not a flash in the pan local group trying to self promote, we are spread out all over the UK, it is just me that comes from Yateley and am proud of my connection with it. If you google "one step behind madness tribute" you will see hundreds of sites where we are listed. The band has been performing worldwide for 22 years, we don't need to self-promote on wikipedia, however other musicians are listed and I believe that the band is well known enough to be on there. We also used to have a wiki page for the band (which was started by the original management, not by me) but this has disappeared. Please look at the websites and make an informed decision. The band is very well known up and down the country and is not un-notable. Thank you for your time. I apologise for the undos, however I find it difficult to navigate these talk pages and it's taken me ages this morning to find this section and write this. Kind regards, B PHIPPS 84.45.187.217 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note here. On Wikipedia notability has a specific meaning, that in the case of a list like this that the articles on the person and the band exist and are not redlinks. For the articles to exist they would need to have independent third party sources, as explained. Lots of people and bands try to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, so we are very careful to make sure that non-notable content is kept of Wikipedia. If the band's article was deleted it was because it was found to not be notable. As far as people go, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am still confused. How does Richie Mills keep his position on the same page then? Also, Tim Hampton and Bromhead Jackets? They have a blue link but just goes to obviously self written page about themselves.
So do I need to get a 3rd party to create a wiki page then and blue link to it? I really do not understand these rules you are quoting. Please advise. It is not my intention to annoy anyone however there are lesser artistes than myself listed on that page so it seems unfair that I am being singled out. Their blue links point to self penned pages about themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.187.217 (talk)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is not that articles need to be written by thirds parties, although as per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI you shouldn't be writing about yourself. Articles need third party references, like magazine reviews in reliable sources. I'll assess the articles you mention and see if they meet WP:N. If not I'll send them for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The band Bromheads Jacket was found to meet notability requirements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromheads Jacket, although I can't quite see why, given the lack of refs in the article today. The person Tim Hampton is not notable, so I have removed the entry. Likewise Richie Mills is not notable and I have removed the entry for him too. The band Cable (British band) article is a mess, but the external links have third party refs that establish notability, although the band isn't from Yateley, so doesn't belong on the page either. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a more thorough clean-up of that whole section, removing non-notable people, organizations and previously challenged text. It should look a bit less spammy now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you for having a dialogue. It was never my intention to annoy anyone. What about other bands that have pages they have obviously written themselves. I could find a number of press articles about my band on the internet in the past 22 years. wOULD this make a difference. We have had members of the original Madness join us on stage and sometimes members of my band have stepped in to cover a member of Madness on stage, such as our sax player in the BBC broadcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUJLm5szRI . Where would I go from here if I wish to have a presence on Wikipedia? There is enough online info about us out there. Thanks again. 84.45.187.217 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI really covers all your questions. You really shouldn't be writing about yourself or your band. If you finds other articles that look like spam you can drop me a note and I'll have a look and see if they should be sent for a deletion debate. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note! I did see that "4 cancelled" but I was going on the the assumption that these were not part of the 40 shown as built. It isn't really clear, is it? What's your take? - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft
Preserved AB-205 at Museo Nacional de Aeronáutica (Argentina)
Hi, you was too fast for me! I was adding a tag to the entry I just included in the list of preserved UH-1s, but you beat me. Agree that the museum webpage is not a very useful reference as it does not provide an explicit list of aircraft preserved there. I recall having read an article with such a list, however I don't have it at hand; please give me 1 day to locate it and to add the inline citation. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Ironically the museum website has a photo of the UH-1 on the home page, but no list of their aircraft! - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my mistake
Hi there, the message below was on its way to the Teahouse, but I see that you corrected my error even before I could send it. Sorry for breaking the page. Thanks for fixing my mistake, and so quickly. AugurNZ✐⌕17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just made a slight change (my first Wikipedia edit in ages) to the Lubuntu page, to add the future release of 15.10 Wily Werewolf to the Releases table. Ever since my edit, sections below my edit no longer seem to render at all. Sections such as Timeline and See Also are not rendering, even though they still appear in the wikitext of the page. I have checked the diffs (two most recent edits), and noted that only my expected changes had occurred. I have purged the page at my end, and checked it on a different computer, so it doesn't seem to be a caching issue. Any idea what's going on here? — User:AugurNZ
Thanks for your note. No problem, collaboration works!! Did you see what caused the problem? It was just one missing "/". - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I checked your diff and saw that minor correction to my omission. I've been away too long, I should have picked that up myself. Thanks again. AugurNZ✐⌕17:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as you are apparently the editor of the page "FK-Lightplanes SW51 Mustang", we would like to thank you for the work.
We would be gratefull if you change the title to "ScaleWings sw51 Mustang".
We, ScaleWings are the designer and owner of all rights of the sw51 Mustang. FK Lightplanes is manufacturing the plane under license.
Thanks for your note. According to FK Lightplanes they are building it and marketing under their name, while crediting ScaleWings for the design. The other two refs cited in that article 1 and 2 agree with that. On Wikipedia we name aircraft type articles by "Manufacturer-Designation-Name" as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming. - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt,
I received your note regarding the removal of my contribution to the External Links on the Smith Miniplane Wikipedia entry. I disagree with your opinion that the link is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. My addition is far more relevant and current than the existing external links and catalogue an ongoing story of the Smith Miniplane. I believe that those visiting the Smith Miniplane section of Wikipedia would certainly be interested in the Finding Foxtrot Alpha Mike story - at least as much if not more so than what is currently featured in that section. I hope you reconsider.
Kindest regards,
Jdrotondo (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Jdrotondo[reply]
Thanks for your note here. It is not a matter for whether anyone might find it interesting or not, just about everything on the internet is interesting to someone, it is that we have policies that prohibit posting links to these sorts of self-published websites, particularly WP:SPAM and WP:ELNO, specifically to prevent using Wikipedia to promote other websites. You can note that it has now bee removed three times, twice by the anti-spam bot program. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out-of-date data harming commercial interests
Hello! I am in direct contact with Antonov State Company sales department.
You are kindly requested to undo your edit Revision as of 12:06, 27 April 2015 Line 18, as far as it prejudice the commercial interests. The article to which you refer is based on the same out-of-date wiki or press articles.
Text to be deleted:
|unit cost = US$ 40-70 million "В Киеве презентовали новый самолет АН-178" [New An-178 aircraft was demonstrated in Kyiv] (in Ukrainian). companion.ua. Retrieved 16 April 2015.
