Hi Ahunt, I've added link to keepass-view project since there is special unofficial derivatives section with list of other projects.
And about a year ago I was searching for special functionality to match my needs here. And couldn't find one. As a result I wrote this simple implementation which I use now.
The only reason why I added this, is if someone like me will search same functionality, and wanted to save them some time.
Thanks
Sergii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.184.220.60 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can only be entered here if it has a third party reference to show it is notable. We don't use external links in article text as it is promotional and comes under WP:SPAM. Basically Wikipedia is not the place to promote your project. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
F-35 variant image
I read the image caption but not well enough. I could not find that image on the AF.mil site but did find a similar image with all 3 variants. This image is from May 2014 and suggested to me that the image in the F-35 article was all variants. Oh well. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this. I did look on their website, but didn't find that. It's not the easiest website to find something on, on a tablet at least. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, could you look at this diff, and see if my revert was justified? I've never heard the IP's wording before, and even if it's technically correct, it seems overly technical, and isn't explained anyway. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ATC normally would not use either term in giving a clearance. They usually say "cleared to land, runway 28" without "at" or "on". I suppose "on" is implied. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very knowledgeable in the subject and therefore I made the proper corrections. Now, the thing is that the museum states in their website that the helicopter in question is a "Bell OH BT-13/47 Helicopter “Mash Helo” , see: [1]. They may be wrong. I trust your judgement, so what do you make make of it? Tony the Marine (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bell OH-13, factory designation Bell 47
Thanks for your note here. I did fly UH-1H and Ns for a couple of decades, so I do know the aircraft pretty well. That looks like a Bell UH-1B configured for the attack role. It is listed on the museum website as a UH-1B. The image to the right here is a Bell OH-13 Sioux, also called the Bell 47, which is the type made famous in M*A*S*H. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Contributions/Beescarf. If he's true to form, he'll soon start reverting with some "this is my wiki" nonsense. He/she/it/xe does that on their registered sock accounts. Someday psychologists and psychiatrists are going to write whole encyclopedias on Wikipedia vandalism and LTAs. They'll be busy for years! - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why my addition of a comic book series (by Hugo Pratt, a World famous author!) about the L.R.D.G. was reverted and thus removed from the "Popular culture" section... Comic books about a military unit are the perfect example of a popular culture depiction of said military unit! The removal is particularly ridiculous when two of the entries in that "Popular culture" section are about historical documentaries. So, comic books are not popular culture but historical documentaries are?! Carry on... Gazilion (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, have had many conversations with that editor. While he is right about the word use, I prefer clearer language, too, since many non-English-as-a-first-language readers read en.wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You left a comment on my talk page, that the external link I added to Paramount Business Jets on the Business Jet page was not appropriate for the encyclopedia.
The page I linked to was this one: Aircraft Database. It is the index page with links to all the categories of business jets which further links to each business jet in that category. Paramount Business Jets is my client and we have spent significant effort and time to research and present detailed specifications and information for each business jet in the database. Furthermore, there are links to similar pages in the references like Jet Advisors [25], Air Charter Service [26], Air Partner [28], and Business Avia Partner [33]. The current link in the references to the Aircraft Guide from Air Charter Service is also broken.
Below are some examples to show we have superior data and information on business jets to all the other references currently listed. Here are comparisons of the pages on the same business jet types from PBJ as well as the other references:
I hope you can see that our aircraft resource is far more detailed and appropriate to this page than all these other sources listed in the references. I hope you will reconsider and add our resource as a reference back again. Much appreciated, Neeraj, Orrasis (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your note here. Because this company is your client you are in a conflict of interest which means you need to stop adding links to your client's website or you will be blocked from editing. You should also add a conflict of interest declaration to your user page What you are adding is covered under WP:SPAM and is not permitted in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, can you double-check this edit which I've reverted? From the article, it appears the Trackers were still operated by the CF. Btw, the IP has been making other edits regarding the Canadian Coast Guard, some of which are sourced to photographs or museum websites. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah he is dead wrong, the Canadian Coast Guard never flew Trackers. The ref he cited is WP:SPS, but nonetheless accurate and has no mention of the Coast Guard, for the reasons that they never flew them. The CF (VS-880, based in Summerside, PEI) flew coastal patrol, ice monitoring, pollution patrol for DFO, but these were military aircraft, not civil. - Ahunt (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten and a memory
I was this kitten in 2011 when you welcomed me to wikipedia. Today in 2019 you thanked me for an edit and I recognised your name. Now I know why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Psypherium You created that page for me and encouraged me to continue to contribute. I hope you have been having good days :)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lancair ES, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia 300 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It has not been described that Zoltán Juhász is the designer but that he helped in the design. The designer is Gábor Farkas. Please change the incorrect information! Thanks.
Superficial information, you should look better !
You have problems with interpreting, sharing bad information with people! On the site Gábor Farkas tells us who helped him in the design.
You could also have written that designer six people :D "With the main engineer Zoltán Juhász, we designed the basic parts, and in the beginning, six people worked on this "bird machine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happykrisz (talk • contribs)
Their username is fine per the username policy. Refer to the information under the header of Usernames implying shared use where it states "usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.". Hope this helps clear up any concerns with this editor. -- Longhair\talk11:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt, can you double-check this edit? I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate the changes short of reverting it as unsourced additions to to cited content, which I haven't done yet. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor's addition as are right and probably helpful in explaining it. I am just wondering if the ref supports it, but hard to tell as it is a paper ref. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted it as unsourced additions to cited content. The IP is also adding some unsourced content to other articles, but did add a sourced statement to another one. A personal note from you might be helpful, as I'm not that good at that. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have some expertise in the subject and writes well enough. Perhaps we can just let him run a while. It would be handy if he gets an account! - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I used welcomes rather than straight warnings to be less bitey, given the kerfluffle about that this week. :) I usually don't do welcomes on IPs, as they change so much it's not usually helpful. But, in this.case,.you mentioned he was adding useful information, so I changed my usual habits. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating stuff. I usually avoid anything involving nazis! - 11:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Me too! Editing Nazi-era aircraft and engine articles is as close as I get to that, and even then it's sometimes hard to avoid those issues. - BilCat (talk)
I try to stick to less controversial subjects on the basis that the controversial ones already get enough attention. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's been officially banned now, which means we can revert on sight, and ask questions later. I've reviewed more of his edits as a registered user, and I "think" I can recognize his style. I'm sure I'll make mistakes, but now that we know the master, we can file SPIs and let the CheckUsers handle the proof. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, would you mind reviewing my revert here of an IP from Spain to make sure it was correct? My revert would be correct in American English, but of course Canglish is such a hybrid mess that I'm not certain I was right to revert. :) I've seen enough Canadian television over the years (from Wayne and Shuster to Private Eyes (TV series)) that I have a pretty good instinct for the differences between the two in spoken language and word choice, but I'm usually less certain on spelling issues. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Canglish is such a hybrid mess" - hey we resemble that remark! Actually in that edit, all but "plexiglass" are fine either way. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spoken American English isn't nearly as homogeneous as some people think. Soda/pop/soft drink/"coke" is a notable example of that. My parents are also from the Pacific Northwest (many similarities to B.C. English), while I was raised in the South and a Commonwealth country in the Caribbean, so my own personal English is very hybrid. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would go so far as to say that English in all its forms, is not really a language, but a mish-mash of lots of other languages, sayonara hombre! - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I always laugh when I hear about the French in France, and French Canadians too, complaining about English polluting their language. In many cases, the words they're complaining about originally came into English from French! - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link which is used as a reference in Wikipedia, gets archived over Wayback automatically. And, if you are manually running IABot, don't add an archive-address to the non-dead links. ∯WBGconverse13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they do get archived, but they don't get added to the article ref broken links. I have many broken ref links in articles I have started where the are no Archive.org pages that have been added to the refs, so the reader just sees broken refs. Updating refs to include archives makes the encyclopedia better, as it prevents WP:LINKROT at the reader end. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Help with TABSO Flight 101
Hi Ahunt, How are you? I've removed the flags from TABSO Flight 101 but the text is too close to the box in the Events section. I've tried to fix it but am getting a little frustrated. If you have time could you please take a look? Thanks, - Samf4u (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)03:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question. The easiest way is to add your ref to the refs at the top of the specs and then add the new figures. Alternatively you can just add the new numbers and the ref as a footnote to each new number. Keep in mind that the PT-17 had many different engines fitted, but the specs are only for a single representative variant, so we don't add multiple alternative engines. Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt, I wanted to update the performance on SHARK AERO page. The current reference is an estimation from 2011. According to the manufacturer the max cruise speed is 300km/h. I modified the speed to 303km/h according to FAI record, but I get your point, it was not with standard aircraft. Do you think we can set the max cruise speed at 300km/h or the data from manufacturer might be not reliable ?
Btw, you have an impressive contribution on Wikipedia. Congrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSgaT (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your note here! I am glad you think my contributions have been more of a help than a hindrance. The manufacturer's data is usually all we have. Jane's doesn't do its own flight testing and neither do many other sources, so most rely on the manufacturer's flight test data. Back when I was writing aircraft reviews for magazines I measured my own inflight data, but I have to admit that I accepted things like the manufacturer's weights and dimensions, as they are harder to measure! I have added the manufacturer's specs as a source and changed the number, so Done. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Technam Astore.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Technam Astore.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).
Just a question since the operating system Deepin is under the GNU licence the main Deepin logo states that its under GNU would that mean "we" as in Wikipedia users can use the actual logo for the actual Userbox or is that awkward? I'm asking because I've noticed that you occasionally in the past reverted some editors from using OSes logos on Userbox and I thought you might have knowledge in this. The Deepin logo I would like to put on the Template:User OS:Deepin userbox which someone else created but didn't explain why the logo wasn't in use since other systems like Ubuntu and its userbox has the same logo in it. ImpWarfare (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question. It all depends on the licensing for the logos. Some free software projects do not issue their logos under free licences that allow use on Wikipedia. Lubuntu's current logo is an example of that. The Deepin log is under a GNU Free Documentation License, so it can be used in userboxes. - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt, Thank you for offering perspective in recent nautical discussions. Having seen no further input on renaming Windjammer, do you have any preferences or alternate ideas among Iron sailing ship, or Iron-hulled sailing ship, or Sailing ship (iron-hulled) that you could offer at Talk:Windjammer#Proposed new name: "Iron sailing ship"? I'll look for a negative reply, here, or a positive reply, there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think any one of those would be okay for a new article name, I don't have a preference. What do we do with Windjammer though? Just make it a redirect? and if so to where? - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me, especially considering that there seems to be no agreement what kind of sailing ship a windjammer is. Related: got in a three hour sail today on the Ottawa River! 4th one of the year. - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottawa River is still 1.3 m over datum, but quite usable for sailing at that level. Britannia Yacht Club can't get their gates open until 1.0 m above datum, but our club and the rest are already sailing. We lost six weeks of sailing to the flooding and TC restrictions, so we have some sailing to make up! - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Erroneous Responses
Hello Ahunt, please refrain from posting disruptive edits/reversions and erroneous responses to users' talk pages. You are inhibiting useful progression to the Wikipedia platform. Jmbise (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have been repeated warned by a number of editors about your disruptive editing and edit-warring. You can continue to remove those warnings, but be advised that continuing to be disruptive and edit-warring is likely to lead to your account being blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of my edits have ever been disruptive. I have corrected erroneous information, only to be assaulted by the likes of you and others on my own talk page. Yes, I shall continue to remove your inflammatory, incorrect information from my own pages. I would appreciate if you would refrain from propagating false information. Jmbise (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I left this over on my Talk page but I'm not 100 percent on how this all works and who receives what. Honestly, this is the first time I made a mistake, though I'm not sure it's a mistake. I'm copying it over so you can see. Hope you don't mind if it double messages you. Sorry if it does.
I have zero relationships with any of the sites. I created a few pages on cameras and drones. Some in space when I saw something cool. I've run across News Ledge a lot on cameras and drones. Two things I like. They always seem to be one of the first to cover breaking news. I've created camera and drone pages with zero issues. I will fully admit to my mistake in creating one for a media site. Obviously, I didn't know how or it's different from when a camera launches. For that, I apologize. Not the most wiki-literate editor, but I try :). Do they deserve a Wikipedia page? I have no idea. How does a two-person website get into Google and Bing News and regularly appear on reddit? I guess how does a media source become a noteworthy subject when that's not their place? Again, my apologies for trying to create the page.
Thanks for your note here. I am watching your talk page, so I saw it there, too. Your editing history is almost all inserting News Ledge weblinks as references into articles. We regularly have issues with owners of small websites trying to promote their services on Wikipedia and your insertions looked similar to that sort of pattern. So thank you for explaining that you don;t have a conflict of interest with regard to that website. It is probably best if you use a variety of sources when adding content to articles. - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, my bad on the double message. I will make sure to include more sources. Sometimes the small news sites find a way to break news and I think that's great. Kinda has the Wikipedia vibe or at least what I garner from many days of the Wikipedia rabbit hole. I'm gonna feel bad if they suddenly become big and I hampered their shot at a Wikipedia page cause I'm terrible at anything other than photography. Also, I went ahead and adjusted the quadcopter page you manage because of a new slate of FAA guidelines coming online this month for recreational fliers.
No sweat. The News Ledge article doesn't meet our notability requirements at present, but, even if it gets deleted, it can be recreated later when there are sufficient third party sources to show it is notable. That is one good thing here on Wikipedia: things are fluid over time and non-notable subjects can become notable later. I just restarted an article that was deleted in 2008 as "not notable", so it does happen here. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that if and when the ref URL does go dead (and many do) that the archived URL will already be there, so it serves readers in that regard. Right now we have many cases where readers are tagging refs as dead, requiring someone to fix it or else often (because the readers are new editors) they just remove the ref entirely, sometimes replacing it with a "citation needed" tag, but often just leaving it unreferenced. If the archive URL is already there it prevents all that, keeps the material properly referenced and the encyclopedia working properly for readers.
More to the point, as per this discussion, you do not have a consensus to remove these, in fact the consensus there is to keep them and keep archiving refs, not to remove them. I would suggest if you want to remove them you will need to start a higher level discussion at WikiProject Aircraft or even higher up. Until then, you are editing against consensus by reverting them. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's for editors not readers. An not really a consensus, more like a majority. I'm not against archiving urls but against a bot not verifying the content.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors and readers benefit. So far you are the only one who doesn't like it and, to be honest, I don't understand your objections. We editors are not usually confused by a ref with two extra parameters added. Regardless, at this in point in time, we have a consensus not to remove these. If you want open it up to a larger discussion I would be happy to participate in that. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Carolinas Aviation Museum Logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Carolinas Aviation Museum 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).
Just to let you know, I've restored the actual logo on that article and removed that tag on the file. It shouldn't technically be removed now. Regards ImpWarfare (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orbit is about a sphere, ie three dimensions whereas circled is in two dimensions ie a surface. The plane did not orbit as it it did not go all the way around the Earth, it circled the surface of the Earth. Unibond (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "orbit" is widely used in aviation writing and is correct standard phraseology between pilots and air traffic controllers. - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article cater to some pilots who use the term incorrectly or to the general public who should be given the correct usage ? Unibond (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is an aeronautical subject, so proper aeronautical terminology should be used. The term "orbit" is used when an aircraft is holding around a fixed ground point. The term "circling" is only used for circling approaches, an instrument approach procedure whereby the aircraft flies an approach to one runway and then is maneuvered visually with reference to the aerodrome to a different runway for landing, after acquisition of the runway environment. It is not being used incorrectly, the language is carefully chosen to avoid confusion in the air. Where does it say that the term "orbit" is only used for an object circling a sphere in three dimensions? - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here [2] for example, using non standard jargon may convey the meaning to a few specialist readers but confuses many more. In plain English, it was not orbiting it was circling ;-) Unibond (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt would you be kind enough to check my revised section "Decline of Canada's military prestiege" for the Canadian Armed Forces wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXEastonXx1 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could clean up the low importance level for most - it would be up to you or more knowledgable persons to raise the importance if they are above the standard default... JarrahTree14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to avoid rating articles that I have started, so I leave it to others to determine that. I can't think articles on sailboat types are very high priority, or they would have been written years ago. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
my small problem being a western australian my usage for some items is problematic - I tend think of sailboats as yachts, and should probably keep to tagging with rater than to determine terminology... JarrahTree14:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether you find the tagging of use or not though - it simply is very easy to do - please let me know if it has any negative aspect or not... JarrahTree15:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I have adjusted my talk page template for new sailboat artilces so it will in future say {{WikiProject Sailing |class=start |importance= low}}, so that will at least save you some work going forward. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for letting me know that - what i find intriguing is the amount of articles like australian plane crashes - so much detail on talk page falls short - sailing is a breeze, already edited talk pages in whole range of interesting dark corners with inadequate info are far more challenging :) JarrahTree14:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Photos
I took a look at your photos and I must admit that you are a great photographer. I like them very much. By the way, I don't mind your revert of my gallery, I understand. Keep on doing the great job that you do. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As you can see, these days I am mostly photographing sailboats for use in sailboat type articles. it is a slow process! - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You recently warned user:Camdentaxpayer that he/she was not to edit any sites to which they have a vested interest. Camdentaxpayer is an opponent to Spaceport Camden and continues to maliciously edit the page with false and misleading information designed to advocate rather than inform. Can you continue to monitor this page and take corrective action against user:CamdenTaxpayer to prevent additional editing of the Spaceport Camden wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c2:c300:5100:bcd1:fca:e3e:3998 (talk)
As stated before the Royal Netherlands Air Force never used the NF-5 in the reconnaissance role. It did not replace the F-104 in that, or any other, role as such. I can't find a reference in the article given for this statement. If there is please let me know. Untill then I feel free to undo your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baswanschers (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert it, the cited ref says on page 223 that they were for that role and so equipped. These were the same as the CF-5s, the recce equipment was fitted in a removable nose and so could be installed at any time, on any single-seater in the fleet. It doesn't mean that they were used often however. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I own a 1968 Marshall 22 and could add a photo to the article if you think it would be useful. My best photo was taken by someone else, sadly, and I can't recall who gave it to me (the boat at its mooring in a gorgeous fog), but I could find or take a decent one at the mooring. It's not the newest boat, but it looks pretty good.
Be nice to have a photo under sail, but I'm on the boat when that's happening.
That would be great if you can upload a photo to illustrate the article! Photos really make boat article come to life for the readers. It really has to be a photo that you took yourself, thus have the copyright to and can freely licence. You can upload it to commons here and then either put the photo coding in the Marshall 22 article yourself or else drop me a note here and I can add it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Formation
Please help me understand why you undid the citation for the FFI Formation Guide. That guide directly replaces the T-34 manual originally cited (which is no longer being updated and is not available online for review) and is published by a non-profit (FFI) authorized by the FAA to write that manual and evaluate pilots for airshow credentials.
Sololead (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I removed that link to the book for several reasons. The first was because it does not support the text in the paragraph where it was added, the first sentence of Formation flying. That sentence says "Formation flying is the disciplined flight of two or more aircraft under the command of a flight leader" and that ref does not actually say what formation flying is at all, offers no definitions, it just describes how to do it, not what it is. So on that basis alone it doesn't belong as a ref to this article. Second, in my experience, when the first edit a new editor makes is to add an external link or reference that essentially promotes an organization and its products, whether it is a for-profit, non-profit or a charity, it is because the new editor has some close connection to that organization and is trying to promote it. This falls afoul of WP:COI and WP:SPAM and those two links explain why we don't do that here. That said, that reference may be useful for adding some text to that or another article, but keep in mind that it is a "how to" manual and as per WP:NOTMANUAL we don't give instructions on how to do things here, so I suspect it will be of limited use as a reference. I hope that helps explain why I removed it? - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guru Shots
Hi! Ahunt, you really have some nice photos ~ I don't know if you have heard of Guru shots ~ but here is a link ~ I hope this is not inappropriate, me telling you about them Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mitch - thaks for your note here. Nope that is entirely appropriete to mention on a talk page. Gkad that you like the photos I have been adding recently, I just added 15 more to Commons today, all sailboat photos intended for sailboat type articles. Right now my saliboat photos are getting onto Commons, sailboatadata.co, and *Diaspora, but I'll have a look at your suggested website. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About the Donecle article, I would like to have feedbacks from you. You are an older user compare to me so I would probably learn some stuff. I disagree on your revert. Since Spanish is my mother-tongue, my English is probably worst than yours this part is maybe true. The header was not reflecting the article contents so I increase it. Founders section is kind of weird for me so I preferred to integrate it in the History part. I think the product section is just presenting the target market with a product working indoors or possibly outdoors if the regulations is ok with that. It is important to provide the fact the human is still in the loop. Patents can be used as references, in my opinion, it gives a bit of credibility to the stuff. I do not think the article is too promotional since there is still the mention of other approaches. I would greatly appreciate some feedbacks to improve it. I ask for GA review to have some. Thank you in advance.
Thanks for your note here. The main problem is that your writing in English is so poor that the article doesn't make any sense as it is right now. I reverted it back to the last comprehensible version, but you reverted it to the poor-grammar version. You need to either revert it back, so it is readable or else re-write it in proper English. - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. Is my English that bad? :-( (purely rhetoric) I ask a friend her opinion and I also made some changes (English improvements I hope). It is probably still not at the encyclopedic level... Is there a project to ask for a grammar/spelling review of the article?
It was pretty close to incomprehensible. We get a lot of people trying to edit English Wikipedia who don't have enough skill in writing English to make comprehensible edits. It makes a lot of work trying to fix it for those of us who are native English writers here. We usually try to encourage people to work on the Wikipedia version in their own first language. For instance I would never try writing articles on Spanish Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think one explanation for the fact that non native English speakers edit English wikipedia is that there are fewer contributors on non English wikipedia and most of the time there are doing translations of articles from English wikipedia. If you realize there are missing information or non respect of some rules then you are trying to fix the original English article. I am pretty sure if one day you were translating a non English article into an English one, you would end up correcting the original. Thanks for the corrections and the chat :-)
Thanks for your thoughts on that. I have been though the article and fixed up much of it. There is still a bunch of duplication in the article that needs addressing, as I have noted on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. These were designed to pick up user searches on Wikipedia and also search engine searches to send users to the right page, but I plead "no contest" in all cases. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You
Thank you for the editing that you do. About 10 days ago I edited the fleet size in an article about Bulgaria Air. I revised a table and made substantial changes to the fleet mix and counts. I added two inline citations and the appropriate references. I too am a bit of a stickler on citations and references. Since I am a fairly new editor and since I am still learning my way I checked the "Watch" box to see if anyone would take objection to my edits. Today I see that someone revised the fleet table, but did not provide any reference for their change. And then I noticed that you reversed that edit and cited the fact that no reference had been provided.
So I thank you for watching over the quality of the articles on Wikipedia. I believe that my work regarding Bulgaria Air was factual and I was very happy to see that through your vigilance my referenced additions were not allowed to be changed without a new/better/updated source of information being added.
Based upon the number of edits and contributions that you have made I'm sure that you are very busy. If you have a chance I would be very curious to learn how you zeroed in so quickly to the un-referenced change to the Bulgaria Air article. Do editors such as yourself have special tools that help them watch for such changes or is Bulgaria Air simply a article that your watch? And a second question, do ordinary relatively new contributors such as myself have the "right" to reverse edits to their contributions or the contributions of others when such edits are made without appropriate references?
Hey, great to hear from you! I am glad that my edits helped you out there. I don't have any special tools to monitor edits, other than adding articles to my watchlist. I currently have 20,334 pages on my watchlist and I check each edit to those pages. That sounds like a lot, but it is probably 100 changes a day and I can check probably ten a minute, so not that arduous. I watch the Bulgaria Air article because it gets a huge number of unsourced edits that need to be reverted, particularly to fleet size numbers. I am not even sure why. I did read your edit when you made it and thought it was good and properly sourced. On that article that is rare enough to note! I do have "rollbacker rights" which lets me revert an edit with one click instead of two clicks, but it only saves a fraction of a second. It is all eyes and fingers otherwise!
On your second question, I can best quote one of Wikipedia's founders, Jimbo Wales from a 2006 missive: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." That is still true 13 years later. All of us are responsible for the quality of Wikipedia, so by all means, if people make unsourced changes to facts and numbers then go ahead and "revert". Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle explains. - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent point, too and well worth noting. I do read refs cited, especially when the data added is suspect. It is common to misquote refs or just mis-type info from refs, less common to intentionally put in a ref that doesn't support the text added at all, but it does happen often enough to watch out for it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that many times. Jim Konstanty for example. An editor has repeatedly put in the article that he died of cancer on a sentence with a reference that says no such thing. And another issue- Amending a sentence to update some fact but leave a reference there that doesn't corroborate what it now says....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this crash[7] at the King Air AFD. My wife knew two of the victims. John and Ilomae Bialek. In fact she spoke to Ilomae the day of the crash. They were parishioners at our church and where my wife also works. The cause of the crash is just outrageous too- They ran out of fuel and the pilot was high on marijuana.[8]
Another thing- This was the third of a series of tragedies/deeply personal happenings to people my wife and I know that happened in a matter of 4 days. 1- James Joyner, a blogger I know who I have written for at his websites, had his 40 year old wife die on him unexpectedly. Next up- The suspected murderer of our church pastor's (He was also my wife's boss at the time) mother was arrested. Then the crash happened.
Thanks for your note. Wow, that is a bad string of tragedies all around you there. I flew medevac in the Canadian military and also for a civilian helicopter company covering a period of 1982-1999. It is a demanding role and requires pilots to be rested and sharp, to make good decisions. Running out of fuel is not a good way to do it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:PipistelAlphaTrainerArtistConcept.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, thanks for your question! I have never tried, but I would start out by using a vector graphics editor, like the free software Inkscape and then importing the image and colouring it from there, saving it as a .svg file. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I've tried using Inkscape, but I just can't figure it out. The image is the first hummingbird photo on this page. There are other similar files out there of the same image if this one isn't good enough to work with. I need left and right silhouettes if possible, and in a single path. If it can be centered on 0,0 that'd be even better, but if you don't know how to do that, don't worry either. It's not time-sensitive, just for a personal project I'm working on. - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I was hoping to find someone who already knew how to do it. I don't want to make someone spend a lot of time learning how to do it for me. I've looked at the tutorials before, but it was much more than I could absorb. Perhaps one of your watchers knows what to do, or knows someone on Wikipedia or Commons who does. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for undoing that mess on the 2019 Canadian election page. I was trying to do it myself, but he kept making changes when I finished the thing. Also, besides the spelling errors it was contradicting the sources that we had and he removed some sources that were there by consensus for "trimming". So, once again, thank you JonathanScotty (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I hate doing that when someone is making a good faith effort, but his edits were doing serious damage to the article. I started off by looking at his edits in total and making a list of what needed fixing, but it was "everything", so regrettably I had to revert the whole thing as the only viable solution. I left him another note on his talk page, as we have been having a conversation about his English skills there. I initially assumed he was struggling to work in a second language, but that is apparently not he case. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit to Trailer sailer because it was not referenced. Reversions are really a last resort and should only be used for patent gibberish, edits that break wikipedia and vandalism. Reversions are also hostile and turn away contributors. It would have been better to perhaps write on my talk page requesting that I provide a reference. For what it is worth, I was transferring content, unreferenced out of good faith from another page, but your reversion did get me to add the reference.Mozzie (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for adding the reference. Actually what Wikipeedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, said on this subject was "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." In the case of this particular article if you check the history you will see it once contained a lot of poorly sourced and frankly erronous text that has had to be cleaned up. Some articles need to be more carefully checked for unsourced material than others and due to their history, this is one of those articles. I have just reverted your removal of cited text and your addition of more uncited text and tagged one paragraph of claims that was not supported by the refs you cited. Since this is a contentious article I would suggest you propose changes in the talk page along with refs that support the text and we can discuss how to incorporate them. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't references for the claims made. You need to cite actual refs that support the text in the article you want to add. I left the text there, you just have to supply refs that support the claims that this was a a pioneering sailboat designed to be trailered. Neither ref you had added mentioned anything about that. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have put them back in, even though they don't support the text you added. You can leave there if you want, but I have tagged them for {{Failed verification|date=September 2019}}. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No you are going through my contribution history and putting citation needed tags on every paragraph that doesn't have a reference? A lot of these are just stub articles where the given reference contains the relevant info for the whole artile. Please stop harassing me.Mozzie (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging for references in an article where they are not cited is not "harassing" you, so don't be histrionic, it is Wikipedia policy and is a non-negotiable requirement for material added. Feel free to add the refs and remove the tags. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt! Is there a reason why there is no TBOH's on aircraft articles? I was doing some personal research on Cessna 414, just trying to get some information about the aircraft from a pilots point of view ~ and it is one of the first questions a pilot asks him/herself when determining if an aircraft is worth purchasing with out contacting the owner. I don't know if Wiki likes that info in the article or not ~ I was just wondering. By the way nice to see you again! ~mitch~ (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you, thank you for your note here. Probably the best answer is that aircraft don't have times between overhauls, engines do. Many aircraft, like the Cessna 172 have had many different engines over the years, in that case the Continental O-300, Lycoming O-320 and Lycoming O-360, so the aircraft type article doesn't get into TBO. The article for the O-300 and O-360 mentions the TBO, but the the O-320 doesn't. Likewise the Continental O-520 used in the C-414 doesn't list the TBO there. It could be added, though. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ~ I thought it was the '|}' ~ but I was afraid to fix it on someone else's talk page ~ LOL ~ I'll work on adding the TBO's later ~ thanks again. ~mitch~ (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ahunt, I wanted to know per Wikipedia policy how many sources is too much? Since I want to write about the aftermath of the TVA debate (how each leader did), but since we don't have the At Issue panel this time, it's a bit harder to do. So, here is a really rough draft : "Journalists and political commentators praised the performances of three leaders : Trudeau, Singh and Blanchet. The winners of the debate varied according to each person, but they all agreed that Andrew Scheer did really poorly."
Yeah, I've been a bit busy these days. Thank you for your comments and for liking what I do for the page. I've actually fallen behind in what I want to add to the page due to work. I actually have some important stuff I think we should add. There's the policy section that seems to have gained consensus on the Talk page. So, I wanted to make a table just like the editors did for the Quebec election. I would cite pollenize since they seem to have all the policies from what I've seen : https://pollenize.org/en/elections/canada-2019. There also was a similar site by the CBC that we can use. I would need to find the link though. Unlike back in January, we now have a lot more policies to add, which makes it more notable as well. I also want to add a lot of fact-checks that I've bookmarked for each party (The BQ "killing" energy east, Trudeau's comments on cabinet confidentiality, Sing on drug prices and Scheer for the carbon tax). Finally, I also need to add the whole insurance broker thing for Scheer & the dual-citizenship thing. In the long run, these two things wouldn't matter, but since Scheer lied about the former and the CPC has been accused of hypocrisy for the latter considering what they did to Iggy, Dion, Mulcair and one of the GGs, they probably deserve to be added. That and the media has been talking about these two issues extensively which qualifies them as news. In the case of the citizenship thing it's even made headlines in other parts of the world as well. I hope I didn't bore you with what I want to add. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it is an interesting subject! You could simply be WP:BOLD and see if any one reverts as per WP:BRD or you can start a talk page discussion and try to get a consensus. The former process is easier and quicker, of course. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That builds the encyclopedia more efficiently. Of course the 2019 election article can be more easily refined and tweaked after 21 October has passed! - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally waiting for the CPC's platform to drop, so that I can complete the policy section. I want to do it in one go. It's currently hidden with a comment on the election page. I guess I also need to add Scheer's insurance broker + dual citizenship story to the campaign section, since the media has been talking about those for a long time now. I just don't have time to do it right now though. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:DoPDFlogo.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).
_by_Ron.jpg)
