Expected contribution level to WikiProject Aircraft
I saw you left me a note on my user talk page about my joining the project, and I do appreciate that. Just wondering if I'm expected to write new articles or make fairly major contributions to pages, as neither of those things are something I'm good at. I'm much more of a numbers and details guy, and most of my changes are either grammatical corrections, correcting wrong/mismatched numbers (as in my recent changes to North American F-86 Sabre), or clarifications and adding small but important details that help better describe the aircraft in question (for example, noting the P-51H's wider propeller in North American P-51 Mustang variants). I don't have the level of knowledge required to write entirely new articles, as I'm much more interested in the design of the aircraft itself and tend to pay far less attention to the design process or historical usage, so I just wanted to make sure I didn't make a mistake by joining. Fsend (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here, it is great to hear from you! Wikipedia is an all-volunteer project, so you can contribute as much or as little as you like. Some people write articles, some people fix existing articles, it is all useful and helpful to the project. In fact one thing we need is someone to go through existing aircraft articles and just check the spelling and grammar, as well as facts and figures against the references, so your contributions will be very welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I enjoy interacting with new communities. Like to get to know folks. That's good to know, though. I can definitely help with a lot of the grammatical errors, and any sources that I can access are fairly easily cross-referenced. Fsend (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I hope to see you out in the articles, then. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note. I am around on most days here! - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - I noticed you reverted my edit to Air France Flight 66. The source states in the "Update 7 December" section that "the aircraft was flown to Paris on four operational engines by Air France pilots." That seems pretty clear to me that it was flown on 4 engines. Cheers. Tvcameraop (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, see this illiterate "gem" and following edits about Canadian English illiterates. Can't make this stuff up! Btw, is it significant that this rant comes from a Newfoundland IP? (I'm assuming Newfoundland English might have a closer affinity with British English, as it's a rather late addition to Canada.) BilCat (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yeah, I read through that article, but it's mainly about the spoken dialect, with no mention of which written variant it favors, which is why I asked. The "North American Rubbish English" comment is hilarious. I also loved the run-on sentence in his first post - wow! When criticizing someone's literacy, it helps to be at least mildly literate one's self! - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He does seem to be in an ironic position there. I have worked with many Newfies over the years. They lovely people, but it tales a while to understand their language. - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you made a lot of small corrections and changes on the Nacra page, including changing it to the current name of the company (that must have been tricky to do!).
Thanks, it was a long labor of love to create this page, and I was really hoping other editors would help improve it, and it's clearly looking much better now.
It is nice to hear from you. I am glad that you think my edits were an improvement. I saw that page as a result of creating articles on some of the company's boats. Overall I can say "collaboration works". - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Colombo is NOT the same as Koggala. The source for the change was given as "Barry Pattison & Geoff Goodall, "Qantas Empire Airways Indian Ocean Service, 1943-1946", published 1979"
Thanks for your note here. I am not sure which edit or even which article you are referring to here. You will need to provide some more details before I can respond in any useful way. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@5.43.72.55: I have reverted your revert of Ahunt's revert of your revert of Ahunt's revert (etc etc etc) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C5%BEej_Ramadanovski - I have added this in the edit summary: "please stop this edit war, "He had his career distinctively successful throughout the second half of 1980s" is not grammatically correct, some of the other changes seem okay, but you should try to provide a citation for them. Perhaps try the edit again without the bad grammar, only changing the other things, and provide a citation, then it might be acceptable."
Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right (WP:BASICS). If you wish to retain this privilege, I strongly suggest that you follow the advice of Ahunt and read WP:CIVIL. I would also suggest that you read WP:CS. It seems that your edits are in good faith, so I will continue to assume good faith (WP:AGF), and politely suggest that you try to be more careful with your edits in the future.
Yeah, I have been carefully watching that AN/I discussion unfold. It has become pretty much a deep hole that I don't think I can help dig out of. I would just suggest dropping at the point that it is at now. The editor in question seems to have stopped editing, so the original issue has been resolved. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks f your note here. I am glad you fond my "thank you" encouraging. I intended it as than ks you for signing up for WikiProject UserBoxes. There has been much organizational work done recently, but there is always more than can be done, making new boxes and keeping them organized on gallery pages. Some editors don;t see the value of userboxes, but I find that they add group cohesion, make people feel like they belong, keep them motivated to be here and thus probably help indirectly grow the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ubuntu 21.04 (Hirsute Hippo)
Hello I am still editing it please do not remove anything until I am finished editing. Awesome12241 17:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Nope Shuttleworth hasnt released it to, us (developers) yet... I know the suspense feeling.
I would be happy to tell you one he has announced it!Awesome12241 17:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Drumroll.. its Hippo! -(Awesome12241 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add two pictures of J-3 float planes to the Wikipedia page here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3_Cub. Unfortunately, every time I "saved the page" the pictures I had added disappeared. I thought I had done something wrong, when I saved the revisions. So I tried to load the images again. I rarely, contribute images to Wikipedia, and believed I had made an honest mistake. Well, now I see a message, from Ahunt that I am involved in an edit war? Nigel Ish said, "revert spamming of personal photos - this is not your personal website". Well I already have a personal website on Flickr ;) . I did not see that others had edited my content until just now, when I clicked on the revisions tab. I don't even know how to contact the people/editors who are removing these images.
These are my own pictures, of aircraft I flew, and I felt that pictures of this iconic aircraft on floats was important for many aviation enthusiasts, who have operated this aircraft on pontoons. If that is unacceptable to Wikipedia then let me know.
However, now you know why I kept editing the Piper J-3 Cub page, when my uploaded images disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAS pilot (talk • contribs)
Five years ago.....I corrected some information contained in an article detailing the midair collision between a Small aircraft and a Piedmont Passenger Plane (flight 22, July 1967). Anyway, you were kind to thank me for the correction. That was my first and only correction. Now five years later, I have returned, and discovered your warm note. I'd like to chat to you, one on one, for advice on what I'd like to add. I suspect you know this site like the back of your hand. "User: P0singstrap"P0singstrap (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)(the second letter "0" is actually a number).[reply]
Thanks for your note, I am glad that, even long ago, that was helpful. Welcome back, too. Sure I am happy to help you out , feel free to let me know what you have in mind. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taxation as theft; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If your contributions have been constantly blocked and deleted by non professionals without any background on pure ideological basis, there is no margin whatsoever for friendliness against such destructive approach. To deny that standard references of accepted historians like Michel Ledet or Hans Redemann on the Aichi B7A "Ryusei" (Grace) carrier attack plane are no "sources" just because they are written in French or German is the typical arrogance of US Wikipediots, to say nothing of Japanese works which are treated by them as pure rubbish (presumably already because they do not read Japanese at all, uneducated as they are).
These great "patriots" simply cannot stand the fact that Japan was able even in 1945 to develop and put into service an airplane much superior to everything the US had then at hand. They want to continue to make the bombing of USS Franklin a matter of pure "chance" by attributing it to an inferior type just having incredible "luck". Reality would force them to accept the proven truth that the plane succeeded because there was no proper defense against it and the outcome only reflected the phenomenal fighting power of the B7A2 "Ryusei". But this is "unthinkable" for these stubborn simple minds.
Just recall: All US sources, including the official damage reports, evidence in detail that the one and only attacking plane was a single engine type, and did drop two 250 kg bombs after a steep dive on the carrier. And there is only one type ever put into service by the Japanese fitting to these facts - the "Ryusei". All other planes were either multi-engined, unable to dive or had only the capability for one 250 kg bomb. To say nothing of that no other type could have come in that fast as the US radar plots show, could fit the descriptions of the lookouts that close (similar to a D4Y but larger) and could have outperformed the hunting F4U fighters after recovery from the dive. 100% pure B7A. Nothing else. Period. Dispute settled for anybody with an IQ above a piece of bread.
Janapese researchers even found the specific plane of 752nd Kokutai which, as the only operational one of its type on March 19th on a south Kyushu airbase, flew the mission. All that evidence does not count for US history falsifiers because it contradicts their fairy tale of "only America is great". This immature behaviour is stubborn, ridiculous and severely damages the reputation of the country. Just calling foreign researchers with high reputation "fools" who cannot be cited in a project run typically by admins who are all too often only uneducated workless, infantile pupils or retired roustabouts (having too much time and nothing better to do) against the contributions of a professional historian with 40 years of skilled research work on the history and weapons technology of WWII with university degrees is something which better than anything else illustrates the inferiority of US Wikipedia. In German Wikipedia, the entry was explained, evindenced and is accepted since, because European Wikipedia standards are at least somewhat less uncivilized than American ones.
That's for short, and no matter how often blockheads deny the fact that 1+1=2, the historical truth is that with this B7A2 a superior plane crushed the Franklin not because of "good luck" but because it was too fast, too sturdy, to manoeuverable, too precise and too powerful to be stopped by the numerous but outdated defense weapons and the unskilled officers of the US carrier. They called the ship "Big Ben", but Japanese carrier plane technology prooved to be better, even in 1945. Not more, not less.
LOL, yeah that IP traces to Canada all right. I actually see quite a bit of Canadian vandalism here, but then I watch quite a number of Canadian political articles and other articles with Canadian ties. To be honest as much overall IP vandalism traces to India as the US. Maybe it is just a population number thing? - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and a lot comes from the UK too, and those are the 3 largest English-speaking countries. I do see a fair amount of vandalism from Alberta, especially Calgary. It may be a few prolific IP vandals there. We also seem to get a lot out of Australia too, especially South Australia, not the largest state there either. BilCat (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you did an accidental rollback on Quatar Airways, then undid the rollback. Thanks for that. I've done a few of these myself. I always undo them, then post a personal apology on the talk page of the editor in question. Maybe it's just me, or is it that because I'm an Admin that my use of the rollback tool carries more weight? I don't know. I'm not saying that the way you handled the situation is wrong, but it's nice to go the extra mile. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Yeah it was a mouse/finger issue for me. Your advice is sound, though. I thought the edit summary would be sufficient, but I'll leave a talk page message, too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Adam. I should know how to do this but ... How do I clear Kawasaki KDC-2, which currently redirects to the Kawasaki 88, so I can upload a new page of the same name? {{db-??} ? Cheers, TSRL (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can probably help you with that, as I have "page mover" powers. Can you describe exactly what you are trying to do so I can get it right? - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) TSRL, unless you're really wanting to keep the edit history, the simplest thing to do is cut-and-paste from your sandbox into the desired title. There's no requirement for keeping the edit history as long as there's only one editor. But either way, we can help you what ever you decide. I can take care of the move for you in Adam's not available, but otherwise I don't want to step on his toes. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, hi Bill, thanks for jumping in! Great minds think alike. I was going to suggest the same thing, depending on the details, that if there is just a new text for the Kawasaki KDC-2 then you can always just drop it in there to replace the existing redirect, but if it is more complex then a round-robin set of moves will fix the situation and leave the direct blank and available for a move. As always the devil is in the details. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey uhh you removed my comment on BilCat's talk page, it wasn't uncivil and I just wanted to point out that I thought his page was creative and funny. The part where I said "10/10 would waste my time again" was to denote that I am being unproductive by reading others Wikipedia pages not that his page was bad ...Bobbytun (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He probably objected to your use of crude and racist term "homie". That's considered bad around here. It's certainly not a compliment in my eyes either. I don't play that. BilCat (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was that insult, plus the "time-wasting" remark. When I checked what precipitated that talk page post I found only one editor interaction and that was this revert, so it appeared to be an insult in retaliation. Please see WP:CIVIL for how we interact here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I see. My intent was not to be racist as in my vocabulary and where I am from it is nothing of the sort. But all I required was to see your side of the story and how it could be seen as uncivil; in my opinion, understanding the opinions of others is the best way to learn and grow. Have a wonderful night/day. :) Bobbytun (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have people from all over the world here it is easy to get cultural-specific things wrong, so most of us try to interact in a pretty plain manner, without the use of colloquial terms that might be misunderstood and err on the side of being too polite and considerate. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, civil discourse amongst those from other cultures does require a very generous amount of easy to understand and not easily misunderstood vernacular. Bobbytun (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, I saw you sometimes edit Environmental impact of aviation, while I continue to work for improving it. As I don't want to remove material without some sort of consensus, if you have the time it would be nice if you could scan the article for the inline maintenance templates I added ([failed verification], [importance?], [better source needed], [weasel words], and so on) and remove the litigious statements if needed? Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the referenced conspiracy theory that Gadaffi had this plane shot down? I think is is bs but I want another opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?22:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Adam, I flew commercial out to my sister's house on Tuesday out of a smaller airport, and I saw an Vision SF50 by itself on the GA flightline. I wasn't sure what it was when I saw it, but the name Vision came to mind, and that's what it was. Cute and tiny little thing. It was just past sunrise, and I didn't expect to see it, so I didn't have my phone ready. I'll try and get a shot on out return trip, but if it's from an airliner window, it might not be a good photo. BilCat (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, quite true, it is hard to shot good photos though windows, but occasionally can be done! Good luck with your trip, hope everyone is safe and stays that way. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Adam. Somehow I've managed to delete my inbox! It must have happened while I was trying to delete an entry in it. I've gone to WP:REFUND but I'm not sure if I've framed my request for undeletion correctly. Is there any way you could check this or, better, do a speedy undelete? Cheers,TSRL (talk)21:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC) It's one of those days- I meant sandbox.TSRL (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across Bellanca 14-7 and Bellanca Cruisair, which link to the same Commons category. They don't seem to link to each other in the article text (just in the navbox at the bottom), and I'm not sure which one the Commons category actually applies to, or if the category should be split, or indeed if these articles should be merged. Could you have a look please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you say "this doesn't belong here?" No one wants to manually open 50 pages for 50 different boats searching for the 3 BOTY overall winners. They want a clear table or list of data. For example see 'Chevy LS Engines" as it doesn't just list the engines but as all kinds of info on one page. That's just one examples, where there must be thousands.
You said "it MIGHT be worth mentioning in the store on EACH boat type." That is wholelly incorrect as well as subjective. Boat Of The Year is relevant third party information that NEEDS to be listed in a table of all boats.
It is just one award from one commercial magazine and does more to promote that magazine than anything, see WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:SPAM. It doesn't belong on the manufacturer's list of boats produced because it is just a list of boats produced, nothing more. If you think it really needs to be in the article then start an "awards" section, although, again, I think it belongs more on the individual boat article page than the manufacturer's page. As far as other examples of other manufacturer's I would say they need fixing too, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I worded it a bit awkward. What I meant to say is that the '80s cartoon series had a character called Powerglide modelled after an A-10, not that it had any relation to the later character Wingblade.SQB (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was not very clearly worded, but more to the point, no source was cited. See WP:PROVEIT. There is so much trash added to that article in particular that we just remove everything that is not sourced to reliable third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the only thing I could find was him being identified as an A-10 in another article, but I could not find a reliable 3rd party source identifying him as an A-10. I'll keep an eye open for one. Thanks. SQB (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. As you noted here you are in a conflict of interest in adding the websites that you run. Your additions fall under WP:SPAM. Wikipedia relies on third party independent references and is not a website for promoting the club that you run. See WP:PROMOTION. If you keep persisting in trying to insert your own website into this article you are just going to get blocked from editing. Since you are in a conflict of interest you need to follow the guidelines at WP:COI, stop editing the article and instead make suggestions for changes on the article talk page, where neutral editors will assess it for inclusion. You will need to support requests for changes with third party refs, not your own website. - Ahunt (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you allow a bogus site like https://sailboatdata.com/association/shields-class-sailing-association to be your reference and not allow the actual Class site to be mentioned? Why shouldn't the people who are involved (in this case a boat owner and class officer) be able to correct information? There are active fleets in Chicago and Holland, MI - this is a fact and can be see from the Class site at https://shieldsclass.com/association/fleets.php. Why do you remove the mention that the boat sails with a spinnaker? Many sloop racing boats do not use a spinnaker. I can understand it is not wanted for the article to a set of links but some of what I added was factual details that you had wrong or incomplete. Rjearobbins (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We use independent third party references, please see WP:V. We do not mention type clubs unless they have independent third party references that describe them to show that the club is notable and avoid spamming. This is to prevent clubs using Wikipedia to promote themselves. In this case sailboatdata's listing of your club is a third party page about it, which shows that the club is notable. If you insist on replacing the sailboatdata ref with the club website for a ref then the club becomes "non-notable" and any mention of it at all will be removed. Also that is WP:SPAM. Club officers attempting to insert the club's website into Wikipedia is spamming and a conflict of interest. I removed the text on the spinnaker, because the refs cited do not support that. If you think text should be added, then please bring that up at Talk:Shields (keelboat) and provide references for any changes you would like to see there. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
44th Canadian federal election
I noticed that you removed the candidate section from the 44th Canadian federal election page, saying ″removed section. With between 2,000 and 5,000 candidates to be nominated by all parties, listing them all here would be WP:TRIVIA. Note that 2019 Canadian federal election does not have an equivalent list″.
While I understand your point and suspect it might be premature, it is not correct to say that the 2019 election does not have an equivalent list. As you can see from the history on the Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding, the page was changed from candidates to results on October 22, 2019, by user Tholden28. Prior to that point, dating back to March of 2018, a full year and a half before the known election date, it was a list of candidates.
So while it might be premature to list the small number of confirmed candidates at this time, and it might not make sense to list them directly on the 44th election page (as opposed to a candidate-specific page), it is something that will be necessary eventually. Indeed, the 2019 list only included some 60 or so declared candidates when first created, so it might not be long before we hit that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viruk42 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed that you have reverted an edit of mine (twice). Not sure what's wrong, but the existing information is clearly inaccurate (the quote should be dated November 2019 instead of May 2020). Please let me know what I can do. Cheers. - Cynicrom (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you an apology. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were posting there. You are quite right and I have removed the warnings. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. So far we are all doing well here. It has certainly been a good year to stay home and work on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahunt, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK16:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... you never will be able to have this section online for public changes. You can only do what dictators do: Lying, deleting, blocking, use brute force against the truth. But you won't prevail. I will be after you, and the aircraft will get the credit it deserves, against all these silly attempts of uneducated US admins to suppress them. :-) 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:FDBC:27D6:A1C2:93DB (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is in Europe evening, and the German greeting would be "Guten Abend". But don't try to appear educated. No, in Germany there is the basic phrase for Wikipedia: It is NOT a pony farm. ("Wikipedia ist kein Ponyhof."). We are not in a contest for cordialities, it is a project built on quality (that's also what Jimmy Wales kept emphasizing). I made numerous citations, and as a retired university lecturer with more than 40 years of professional research into WWII (especially the history of the Pacific War), a library second to none (at least in Europe) on the subject, and also a former air force member and a private pilot myself, I can judge better than anyone with too much spare time hanging around as some Wikipedia bureaucrat what happened during the attack of USS Franklin. My conclusions are now generally accepted in Japan and in Germany, also in other countries, and if the US has problems with the quality of a superb Japanese airplane design outclasssing anything of their own inventory in 1945 and able to crush their then largest fleet aircraft carrier typ, that's a case for a medical doctor and not for discussions between serious historians. Of course, your only answer as always when one lacks arguments, is: Block, block, block, delete, delete, delete, as stupid as can be. I'll get a new IP and I do wait patiently until any kind of "protection" is raised again, years if necessary, and I will come back to Wikipedia. The German word is: Lies have short legs. You can't win in the long run. No one ever prevailed over the truth, it only "takes sometimes some time". That's from Abraham Lincoln, a man you perhaps should know. That's what has to be said, what is saved here by screenshot, and now do what all helpless creatures do: Delete and block. 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:FDBC:27D6:A1C2:93DB (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super, so authors are unable to correct all the other silly mistakes in the article, say nothing of expanding it. Wikipedia in suicide mode. One day you must lift the ban, and I will be there, or one of my students, and in the meantime the whole historian's community worldwide is laughing at you fools who think that some sort of extraterrestrial witchcraft instead of a Ryusei must have nearly sunk that unfortunate carrier. Star Trek versus education. Sort of Custer's last stand, if you know that, foolish and stubborn, and doomed as the Franklin. 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:E538:C31C:975E:D762 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You will be waiting a long time as it has been protected indefinitely, basically "in perpetuity", a timeline you dictated yourself. I do need to point out that if you had a single reliable source to cite for these undocumented claims of yours then this entire conversation would be unnecessary. - Ahunt (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would also end the juvenile entertainment the OP derives from this circus performance of his. So I don't ever expect the OP to do so. BilCat (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny arrogance - as if you were the only Wiki representatives in the world. Maybe there is soon a new generation who does not deny the merits and skills of Asian engineers? Who accept that not only white men but also Japanese constructors were able to build a superb plane and who do accept its success in battle? A plane better than anything in the US at that time, and that did in fact contribute to the war effort? That the USS Franklin was not hit by "bad luck" but because it was attacked by a superior war machine against which it had no satisfactory protection, even with ample radar warning? A generation of admins who perhaps share the opinion that intentionally ignoring the abilities, the technical compentece and proficiency of Japanese people is kind of racism? Who lift the ban, include the correct merits for these engineers and Japanese aviation people, and start asking the question: Who are the Wiki admin guys that do suppress the truth, presumably only because they simply can't accept that white men are not always best in everything in the world? And who ask, why are those guys allowed to play God at the knobs of Wikipedia? Nasty questions, indeed. 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:7816:962B:5A80:AF5F (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without any references to back up your claims this is just starting to read like a trolling WP:HOAX now. If you had just even one reliable source to cite your additions to, the article would have been fine. You can also note I am neither an American nor an admin here, I have no dog in this race, but if you had checked my user page you would know both of those facts. You can note that your future tirades with be dealt with as per WP:DFT, so I regret that we won't be continuing this fascinating conversation further, although you can have the last word here, if you desire. You also get another warning for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, no American (myself included) is denying that the ship was destroyed by a Japanese bomber, as the OP last rant strangely asserts. The only dispute is which Japanese aircraft type dropped the bomb. In truth, no one alive really knows. BilCat (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your promise: "I do not remove ...", "You can have the last word ..." The reality: Lying, blocking, deleting, lying, blocking, deleting, lying, blocking, deleting, all you uneducated, illiterate Americans can (no matter whether from the 51st state "Canada" which you only babble of in fairy tales as "independent" from Washington). Asia will crush North America, and you are perfectly right to panick and be afraid of Asian engineers who already have completely outpaced you. Today, there are many "Ryuseis", called "Chang'e" or whatever. America was yesterday. The future is Asia, and the EU will be a partner of them, you won't. 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:8991:9609:1E3A:A049 (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have prepared an article about the multihull designer Ian Farrier in my sandbox User:Ahi-nama/sandbox/Ian Farrier. Please review it and feel free to comment. In case it is OK to publish, please also help to substitute the redirection page which is published for Ian Farrier today.Ahi-nama (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a good start, but needs a lot of work. It needs completely re-writing as an encycloedia article, as right now it reads like a promotional piece written by the company PR department. It also needs proper referencing. So far you have one ref, to a bio on his company website, which is WP:PRIMARY. This would not make WP:BIO or even WP:GNG and the article would get quickly deleted. You probably need to start with reading Help:Your first article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
side-stick new page format finalised on sandbox
Adam- My sandbox first draft reformatted sidestick page was published weeks ago with only one small suggestion weeks ago from an editor about disabling a link at the bottom of the page which wasn’t my work anyway. Unless you want to check it first why don’t I just put my last draft out there on the actual page to speed up any refinements by others.A5afety (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the last title re China Hacking did sound “Tabloidish”-any scandal can-I’ve changed it and changed some past tense to present tense on the overall page. But it shouldn’t have to be rewritten because much is already from Wiki simply aligned to this page. More precise input on any changes would be more helpful with safety. I'm not writing it as a hobby. Caution when handling safety info–Captain Edgar J Smith was highly acclaimed in his field (a bit like yourself..?) and he rose over decades. Look how quickly he undid all that by snubbing a simple safety message (about icebergs ahead). …and rapidly went down in history (on the wrong side) for centuries to come as “the Captain of the Titanic.”A5afety (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I am not sure what you mean when you wrote "I'm not writing it as a hobby."
I should note too that while some of us have safety backgrounds (I am a former military and civil flight safety officer), that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a safety publication. Our job is to provide general information for non-specialist readers, not to write articles promoting safety aimed at engineers, designers or aircrew.
I just read though User:A5afety/sandbox again and it still has a lot of issues. The masses of bolding is not in accordance with the WP:MOS, the tenses are all inconsistent (some past, some present - we write Wikipedia articles in past tense, unless an event is ongoing, we don't write about past events in present tense) and it still reads like a breathless tabloid newspaper article in structure, format and especially tone. It needs a complete scratch rewrite to be an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adam. Thanks for the info on your air safety background. We both have similar backgrounds. Incidentally, I’m politely blunt-not breathless.
Considering that Wiki has many pages devoted to various plane crashes, also pages on a particular aircraft often have a section on its crash/incident record e.g.
Suggestion 1- Why at the very least have the crash /incident record related to side-sticks same for this side-stick page which others can add to later…?
4 known crashes 2006 to 2014, equate to some of the deadliest or 2nd worse deadliest crashes for the those aircraft types. I’ve proposed this and more on the side-stick talk page.
Suggestion 2- Instead of delays from me trying to correct the tone, Why don’t I give basic info and with your safety background you can edit…?A5afety (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have gone through User:A5afety/sandbox once again. It is still nothing like an encyclopedia article and the tenses, formatting, bolding, and so on are still a mess. Moreover it still reads like some flight safety expose, it just is not encyclopedic content like that.
I have read it over and can't do anything with it, it would have to be rewritten from scratch and even then I am not sure that the result would be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia instead of a flight safety magazine.
If you have a read through all the articles on aircraft components listed in Template:Aircraft components you will see that these are descriptive articles aimed at giving non-aviators basic information on what these components are and how they work. Wikipedia is not a publication to promote flight safety for pilots or bring about engineering changes. Our aircraft component articles don't list every accident caused by different rudder, autopilot or trim tab designs, for instance.
What I suggest is this: let's add links to the side stick accident articles that we have on Wikipedia under "see also". - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, I'm sorry for reverting you on the Cessna 150 infobox change. Most of our other Cessna aircraft articles use "Cessna" in the infobox with a bare number, including the 152, 170, 172, 177, 180, and 182. There are some exceptions, such as the 160, which uses "Cessna Model", and 188, which just uses "Model". I won't very change those yet in case you want to discuss this further first. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome for the welcome. Hope that was helpful! This is a fun place to work, once you figure out some of the subtleties. - Ahunt (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your claims, not because it was necessary inaccurate, but because your cited references were not reliable sources. If the information is correct, then it will have been reported in proper sources, not just on "some guys" Twitter account. Have a look at WP:CITINGSOURCES. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you agree that the link to the disambiguation pageMinister of Employment and Social Development on those pages is intentional, or you would have directed the link somewhere else. Well, then, this is what WP:INTDAB says about intentional links to disambiguation pages, which you don't seem to have read: Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports cannot distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the procedure of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page. So what I'm doing here is absolutely standard procedure and I do not have to explain that change on the talk page. Also, please use the 'undo' function for reverting, because I only found out about your January 2 reverts just now, through those very reports that INTDAB speaks of. Please forgive me if I sound a bit annoyed, but this is just a huge waste of time for both of us. Thanks. Lennart97 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I see where the error is. The problem is that Minister of Employment and Social Development is not a disambiguation page, it was just mislabelled as one. It is a page about a government ministry that has now been split or re-allocated into two new ministries. The links provided are not disambiguation links, they are links to the two new ministry articles. Granted it is an easy mistake to make as it is a very short article that needs some expansion and it was mislabelled. I have fixed it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, it shouldn't really have been a disambiguation page. I think it would work as a set index article instead (it fits a list of related items that share similar names), at least until someone expands it into a viable standalone article. Turning it into a SIA would simply involve putting Template:SIA where Template:DAB used to be, and it would solve its current status of not being in any categories. Anyway, I'm glad we cleared this up, thanks :) Lennart97 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted additions to Don Farrington
Hey - I noticed you reverted the additions I made to Don Farrington. Your comment there was "those additions are either not supported or partly supported by a ref that is clearly self-published."
I am not aware of any self-published reference. I was simply adding facts about Don's career that he related to me when we worked together. I did not add any opinions to the article, only facts relevant to his aviation company and experience.
Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia pages (and haven't actually made an account yet).
I twice tried to make a correction to the wikipedia page for the Extra 260 aerobatic aircraft. The reference used as the basis for the article is simply wrong, regardless of whether it is an approved source or not. The problem with finding a citable source is that only a small number of this aircraft model were produced and it is no longer in production (and in fact, stopped being in production a long time ago). The result is very little publicly available information with which to refute the Smithsonian, other than personal knowledge and non-reputable websites.
I provided a link to the website of a pilot belonging to a world-renowned aerobatic display team where he has photographs and information about his aeroplane. \
I could also direct you to the UK CAA national registry where you can enter a specific aircraft registration and see that it is in fact the 4th built Extra 260, but sadly, the page can't be shared (the search results sit behind a captcha and and uses a POST request, so the result page cannot be shared).
I can provide anybody with the means to verify that the article is wrong, but cannot actually cite a reputable trustworthy website to do it. So what is the answer here? Do we continue to allow incorrect information to be presented when we can absolutely prove it is incorrect (but cannot provide a URL)? Can I take screenshots of the CAA registry results page and use that as proof? Can I simply add more photos of other Extra 260s to the article, rendering the text confusing to anybody looking at the photos of several _different_ aeroplanes?
Please help me to understand what it is I can do to correct the misinformation on that page and I'll do it.
Thanks for your note here. On Wikipedia we work with what can be verified from reliable sources. So changing things like production numbers of aircraft requires references. In this case we have the Smithsonian Institution saying only one was built. The Smithsonian is usually a reliable source, but even the best quality source can be out of date. We have been having problems with various national civil aircraft registries changing formats so that searches do not result in reproducible URLs that can be cited as refs. We can only work with what we have, but we can still cite them, if users know how to use the page to verify the data.
The one in the Smithsonian is US registered N618PW. The FAA registry shows this as deregistered and that it is serial number 001.
My assumption about the Smithsonian's undated webpage is that it was correct when it was written, that there was only one EA260 at that time, but it is just out of date, as more have been built, as we have proof of serial numbers 001, 003 and 04 existing. Because serial numbers can never be assumed to be sequential, we can't assume that 002 or later ones exist. So what we have is three confirmed aircraft, so I'll update the article with that information.
That's great - thanks for doing the legwork and updating the article, that's much better. I take your point wrt reliable sources. Thanks again! Stevebakh (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job getting the new article up, but in future we can avoid stuff getting reverted by following WP:WTAF. The situation doesn't come up terribly often, but a good process to follow to save a bit of extra work. Happy editing! -- Fyrael (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Your revert beat me to it by a few minutes, in fact I created that link to use to post the article I had in fact already written offline. - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gnu/Linux fully free VS. Linux distribution
Hey, you know Richard Stallman would have a hissy fit if he saw how you "fixed" the description in this edit, right? It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, I just thought you might care about poor Richard, that's all... :) Huggums537 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Richard and I have met in the past and had a fairly involved discussion. The terminology I used is standard for Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well I guess I will never find out, as it looks like your account was just blocked as a "vandalism only account". Have a nice day! - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia had an IQ limit for.editing, we'd cut out most disruptive editing and vandalism. This one certainly would have been out. :) BilCat (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...you'd hope they'd use that, but given the kerfuffle awhile back about bird article page titles that threw (virtually) all uses in ornithological sources out because it was specialist, I wouldn't be so sure. (the debate was "Bird name" versus "Bird Name", unique among biology birds use the latter, but Wikipedia has to impose its own rules). Of course I have since returning to regular editing seen both "only sources in the general/popular press should be used" and "sources that aren't peer-reviewed shouldn't be used at all" (plus the somewhat-in-between "using technical sources is wrong because they're associated with the subject"), so who knows what's going on these days! - The BushrangerOne ping only19:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) It's what happens when you build an encyclopedia without competent editorial oversight at the top. I've often thought that we need an editorial equivalent to ArbCom, but that could introduce its own problems. BilCat (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is the only thing worse than not having such a a board, would be having such a board. And it still wouldn't solve all the issues that people seeking imaginary Internet points bring! I'm pretty sure our future is a Wikipedia with only two pages: the Main Page, and the AfD page the big red banner at the Main Page's top links to. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with you, especially at such a late date. Had one been implemented in the early years, we wouldn't have quite so many contradictory guidelines. Of course, the people likely to be on such a board are the MOS wonks whose sole purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to make the MOS conform to their image of what the English language should be! And such a board's first actions would probably be to mandate DMY, British English, metric measurements, and BCE/CE dates. (I still believe that had Wikipedia been founded in the UK, those would have been mandatory, and ENGVAR would never have existed! But it's Americans who are accused of forcing our way on the rest of the world! Facepalm ) BilCat (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am late to the discussion here, I was out snowshoeing ...
Hi Adam, do you know now it to look up German aircraft registration numbers? It's regarding this edit, which contradicts the photographer's information in the image file. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
