I probably have referred to my aversion to 'water sports' creeping into sailing issues - but then when I look at the article sailing - the lead para has in the tex distinct inclusion of sailing ships - just that few project taggers have bothered in the past - felt that a check was needed, but the more I look at the original scope/intent - its no big deal, just so few have ventured - as far as I can tell JarrahTree14:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still inexperienced with Wikipedia, but I would like to change that quickly and take part in improving, expanding or creating texts. My passion is languages. I am also a long-time companion of the company founder "Hybrid Airplane Technologies GmbH" and participate in projects as a freelancer. I have proposed future changes to be evaluated as paid work and thus disclose that I carry out adaptations on the relevant pages "H-Aero" on behalf of "Hybrid Airplane Technologies GmbH"--MayaForeignLanguageCorrespondent (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for stating that. So as per WP:COI, you need to stop editing the articles associated with H-Aero and instead propose changes on the talk pages for neutral editors to evaluate for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They always have been a very small organization with a mixed fleet of mostly seized aircraft, but it now looks like they are moving to a more unified fleet. They do mostly anti-narc and SAR work. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. WP:GALLERY is pretty clear on this: A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. It is not the lack of captions but just using a gallery to "shoehorn" more images than would fit in an article. Also the images you had in that gallery were all pretty much non-encyclopedic, other than the one I salvaged. We don't need closeup photos of the cabin doorstep, or the cockpit headliner and so on. These might belong in an aviation trade publication's detailed review, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, could you look at this edit? I reverted it primarily because it was unsourced, but it's also quite confusing and confused. Two of the problem phrases include "inline engine configuration" (The engines look to be side by side to me), and "the exhaust gasses were instead pumped out the sides and not into the helicopter's rotor wash" (Huh? The exhausts are still under the rotors!). To
be honest, sometimes aerodynamics isn't as intuitive as I think it should be, so this could all be correct. Either way, it needs sources to remain. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to remove it as unsourced. I have no idea what he means by "inline engines" as, yes, they are mounted side-by-side, with the exhausts ported to each side. While it is true that the exhaust would not be disbursed in forward flight in this configuration, as the rotor wash goes back, his assertion that western helicopters of the same period disburse exhaust gases into the rotor system is not true, see the OH-58 Kiowa, UH-1 Huey or UH-1N Twin Huey for instance. This is not a simple issue, either, as routinely putting the hot exhaust gas into the rotor on an on-going basis can cause blade delamination. In a hover the Mi-24 exhaust gases would be quickly disbursed, however.- Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a bit strange that there is no article in the company's "home WP", de:WP, and it is only very briefly mentioned. There is no "Handelsregistereintrag", registration, for that company in Germany. Additionally, all links in the article here appear to be dead. Thank you for your reply anyhow! Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Hello friend. The argument that LifeHacker is unreliable comes from RSN. Was a small 2020 discussion with a 2 to 1 consensus that it was unreliable. That's not a huge consensus though, so I won't revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. Yes, that is not a very conclusive discussion. Regarding the ref itself, it seems well researched and written, so obviously the writer has some knowledge of the subject. I also removed the "primary sources" tag, as the article has dozens of other, third party sources. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: I've been aware of your editing since we both worked on Chrome OS, ahead of any hardware implementation. With Google announcing the 10th anniversary of the Chromebook, it seems our efforts have now extended beyond a decade! Would that all social media output were this sustained, productive and civil. Best, Barte (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, great to hear from you! Yes, it has been great collaborating with you over the last decade on that series of articles. I think one of the biggest differences between Wikipedia and purely social media is here we are working towards a common goal, to create the best and most accurate encyclopedia ever and it looks like we are doing that. I tend to think of us as being congenial colleagues, kind of in the same way as if we were working in the same department at a university or similar. Everyday here we seem to prove that collaboration works. I look forward to many more years of it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in questionA slightly better oneA better example #1A better example #2
I was just about to ask your impression of that photo! I missed that that was the photo which they added, or I'd have removed it myself. (I was merely removing the funky px sizings, but didn't actually look at the image first. I removed it from another article yesterday, and one today also.) For some reason, that user has been adding it to multiple pages. Perhaps they're visually impaired? I can't see why anyone would think that's a good photo. BilCat (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well Commons has many better photos of that person and also a policy that says Reasons for deletion ... Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. So I would say it can be sent for a deletion discussion there under that criteria. It seems that the editor who keeps trying to insert it all over en.wikipedia is also the person who uploaded it to Commons, although it is a public domain USAF image. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the photo gallery that image is taken from, most of that batch is too dark to be really useful. (And yeah, I noticed the same user had uploaded it.) I don't know if any of our WP:AIR resident photo gurus (Fox and Marc) can improve the images or not, or if we should even bother asking. Most of those photos don't show all that much interesting anyway. I've seen much better cockpit and aircraft interior photos than that batch. For example, these 2 from an RAAF C-17 cockpit are much better, especially the views and angles, but then the C-17 has "eyebrows" which let in more light. If we had some like those that were of the CoS instead, that would be worth keeping. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is needed anywhere, really. As you note there are better photos and the Aircraft pilot article has sufficient photos anyway. I don't see any application for the initial photo discussed here - it is only a good photo of a shoulder, nothing else. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the subject is head of the USAF, not even a member of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing. The most amazing thing about that photo is that it not only fails to show the person, but also fails to show anything about the aircraft. It ought to be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stated "perhaps" because I figured a wing or squadron would be pleased to have a CoS visit and fly one of their aircraft. Granted, this isn't "their" page, but a good photo could be illustrative of such a visit. BilCat (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valtare: Yes, that is a welcome message that I left on your page. Not sure what your question is or point of posting it back on my page through. Perhaps you can elucidate? - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Is there a simple way to make a user box appear really big? Something like a wrapper that I can just put the userbox's name into. I have one I'd like to make big enough to go across the top of my user page for a few days. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill: LOL, topical! I just tried a few experiments and may have it. The size of a user box is determined by the size of the text and the image, so if you take the coding and make those adjustments you can get:
I find it useful to check the template page for instructions, see also links, etc. I don't always understand the more intricate coding, butnI usually learn enough to break things! BilCat (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks again for working with me on edits to the Google Chrome article. I hope all is well. At the moment, I'm working on edits to an article that I think has an issue with original research. Before taking it through official channels, I wanted to run a summary of the issue past you, and a handful of other editors I also respect, to check my thinking on this and gauge what consensus might look like.
Here is a summary (and you are probably only about three clicks away from the article if so motivated):
1. A college student conducted research into a major company that uncovered lax security practices that needed to be corrected.
2. The student self-published the research on a blogging platform and got a lot of attention. He also admitted to taking up a short position on the company’s stock and stood to make money proportionally to how much his story could depress the price of the stock.
3. A major business newspaper ran a story on him and described the problems his research revealed about the company.
4. The Wikipedia article about the company has a weighty section that references the student’s self-published story almost exclusively.
5. I’m seeking to build a consensus that: the self-published article is OR and shouldn’t be used as a source. The controversy can and should be mentioned, but should be limited to what reliable sources published about the student’s research.
It seems to me that without relying on the legal teams and journalists behind quality sources, Wikipedia becomes vulnerable to short sellers who smell blood in the water and seek to inflate negative stories, even in the short term, just to boost a short sale.
Given the admission of short selling the stock and the self-published nature of the source, would you agree that the self-published article should be disqualified as a source in favor of the reputable newspaper's version? Thanks again and looking forward to your feedback. SBCornelius (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is a fun story, alright! Yes I agree with you. His self-published paper is WP:SPS and should not be used. The controversy, as covered in WP:RS should be covered. These two policies greatly reduce the chances that Wikipedia would contribute to the stock dropping in value. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing this so quickly. It seems obvious to me, but since I have COI here, I wanted to validate my thinking with multiple people and there seems to be agreement that this isn't right. Would you have any objections to me pointing to this discussion when I bring this issue up on the article's talk page? I don't want to pull you into anything, but I would like to show that I have done my homework. Thanks again. SBCornelius (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, could you looks at these two edits? While not citing primary sources, the overall tone and size of the additions seems to weighted to me. Am I just being nit-picky? thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at those same edits and thinking the same thing - they read like the marketing department wrote them. Go ahead and remove them, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I know you’ve reached out to me before, and I don’t really know anybody. I mostly do grammatical edits, but I want to fix (mostly, add citations) some articles now.
UPDATE: Thanks. I swear I tried EACH section w/and w/o quotes. Thanks again! I tried adding the dispute tag because that section seems outdated entirely, per that same source. Apparently I used it wrong? If you can advise/do proper use, I’d appreciate. Either I will amend or just to let others know it appears erroneous. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam. I just looked at the MacCready Gossamer Condor page and noticed that someone has swapped out the previous photos of the Condor and substituted photos of the Gossamer Albatross II instead! I would go in and try to revert or otherwise correct this flaw, but:
• I'm a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor, and
• Since I'm mentioned on the page, it might be improper for me to edit it in any case.
I notice in the talk on that page that a couple of other people have noticed the defects in the photos too.
On the page "Category: Gossamer Albatross" the first photo (in hangar) is of GA II, 2 & 3 are correctly labeled, photo 4 (ground crew) is of GA II, photo 5, 6, and 7 are of the channel-crossing Gossamer Albatross (wing ribs and other details give it away), the SVG file is a mess and mostly in the imagination of the artist, and the ninth photo is GA II (NASA logo plus wing ribs gives that away.)
On the page "Category: Gossamer Condor" the first JPG (a drawing) is a mishmash of Condor and Albatross so representative of neither, the second, third, and fourth ones are Gossamer Condor (though the third one is a drawing of the earlier Mojave-version Gossamer Condor), and the remaining photographs 5-8 are all of GA II at NASA Dryden.
I just wanted to thank you again for your help with the aircraft specification merger it made it a lot better and easier. It's now finally finished. Take a Swedish cinnamon bun as a token of my appreciation! --Trialpears (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Adam, ("Hey" being Southern American English for "Hi") could you look at at Draft:Truculent Turtle, specifically quality of sources and completeness of coverage? I still need to condense the body from three separate blurbs to a single organized narrative, but beyond that, is there anything you see that needs to be done? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you note! I had a read over it and it looks basically good, except the point-form paras need converting to prose, which is basically as you noted. The two refs are authoritative and should be sufficient to establish notability, I would think. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding this revert, I sincerely want to avoid any edit wars or dispute resolutions, and hope we can resolve this amicably. It is my understanding that according to the guidelines about editing other people's comments, you should, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." and it goes on to say "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." Well, I have some objections based on the fact that the guidelines also imply that only things like personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism should be deleted. Also, I personally feel that this edit was a misinterpretation about the intention of my post since the whole idea of it was to help serve editors in their research regarding reliable sources, but I honestly feel like you had a bad interpretation of it by incorrectly implying I was promoting original research and including distros using the tool without reliable sources, which could not be further from the the truth. A bad judgement call like that could be seen as a borderline personal attack by some people. However, I did not respond to it as an attack. I responded in good faith thinking it was an honest misinterpretation, and I tried explaining to you that the intention of it was to help editors save time with researching reliable sources, and had nothing to do with OR. The response I got from that was having the entire conversation blanked, which I feel is an inappropriate response, and I would like to see the conversation restored per the earlier statement from the guideline that comments should not be deleted if there are any objections. Huggums537 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was nothing like a personal attack. Two editors (User:Johnnie Bob and me) both removed your talk page post for the same reason, because it violates WP:TALK#USE, as we both explained in our edit summaries: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. Your addition was removed, twice for that reason. I am not going to restore it and if you do, a third editor will likely remove it. Instructions for how to test software just do not belong on an article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you say it wasn't an attack, then that can be taken on good faith. What I usually do when editors bring something like that to my attention is apologize for the misunderstanding, but you can do whatever you want. I'm not going to restore the post either. Especially not after suggestion has been made about a third editor making a revert. I've already said I wished to avoid an edit war. So, my only alternatives are to convince you to restore, or (ugh!) dispute resolution. I disagree the post violates WP:TALK. I think my intentions about it prove that I was in line with what you quoted above: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." I believe my comment was in the spirit of improving the article, and should be kept in to give editors good ideas about ways they can do their own research on reliable sources and fact checking to improve the article. Huggums537 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Just to close out this thread for the file: the DR volunteer who addressed this DR post agreed with me that the original post on Talk:List of Linux distributions that run from RAM was off topic and thus inappropriate. He did however restore it to the talk page and then collapse it. He also stated that it was inappropriate to bring it to DR. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say I hope there are no hostilities between us over this trivial dispute. You have been very friendly, and helpful to me just recently with the userboxes. I appreciate that very much. I only wanted to see my comment restored, and you have been gracious enough to agree not to remove it again if it was restored, and I can't ask more than that. I have no hurt feelings over this, and I hope you can feel the same way. Huggums537 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's great news. I'm honestly not too thrilled about my comment being collapsed and labeled off topic, but as you say it's part of the give and take, so I'm happy to just leave things as they are and go back to being fellow editors again. Huggums537 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laser
Hi Ahunt. Why do you say my edition in the Laser (dinghy) article was spammy and promotional ? You are right there was no ref cited (I just solved that), but it's also mentioned on the "Class Association" section of the article -not edited by me- that the International Laser Class Association (ILCA) is the governing body of the class. You don't agree with that ? Best regards--Banderas (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No in general we don't mention associations at all, unless there are third party refs and we certainly do not mention them in the lede paragraph due to WP:PROMOTIONAL. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! Dam222🌋 (talk)
Thanks for your note! We were fighting the same vandal at the same time. With both of us on the job we were staying ahead of him! - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for new articles to search through and clean up typos. I had looked through yours a few minutes ago, I wasn't able to find anything that needed to be fixed.
I may keep an eye on the article and continue to fix up any typos as it gets expanded upon.
Discount Horde (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note and thanks for looking the article over, too. It always helps to have newly created articles checked for errors! I am hoping that this one will get expanded over time, with new refs and text as well as some photos, too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the new black
is the dynamic between short descriptions and wikidata records
it would be great if you could offer a sample example of
the accepted standard for sailing - there are quite few possible variants
Hey, great to hear from you! I have just been simply using "sailboat class" for all of them. Doesn't get much shorter than that! - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
good to see you still around in this bizarre circus - I tend to think that 'designed and built in' as a qualifier might sort of qualify as a clarity thingo, bit like the scratched perspex on old 1980s passenger stock of the time... JarrahTree13:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with that if you want to use that. Although if both countries are the same I would use "British sailboat class" rather that "Sailboat class designed and built in Britain", just for brevity. Personally I don't get too excited about the "short description", as I am not really convinced anyone sees them at all. I did change "sail boat" to "sailboat" though!- Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Pilatus Aircraft Logo 2012.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Pilatus Aircraft Logo 2012.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).
Good to be speaking with you! Ahunt, I have to say that I just acquired and watched the above work, and ... it was quite good, actually ... pretty accurate. I think there is a chance they used Wikipedia as the backbone of their script! Then padded it with a lot of exciting drama, of course. We see footage of prosecutor Brice Robin, and interviews with NY Times journalist Nicola Clark.
Thank-you for continuing to watch the article. —Prhartcom♥04:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished a few edits to the article and I'm exhilarated about how tight the Investigation section is now. Finally. Only took six years! ;-) —Prhartcom♥00:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on that, it does look better. We are basically a history publication, so these things do take time, but we usually do create good articles eventually! - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is so well-put; I have never heard it put that way; this is encouraging to think about, thank-you, Ahunt.
Say, do you remember when the community was heavily editing the article, back in 2015? It took so much work—compromises and diplomacy—to improve the article back then, with so many editors with so many motivations. The changes I made yesterday would be hammered! —Prhartcom♥03:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is the thing with current events, once they are no longer "current" interest wanes and they can be re-written into proper encyclopedic shape. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted the edit I made on Mach number/airspeeds, saying I had to discuss the change first. Can you point me to some guidance material on how to change essays on style? I was given the impression that policy on changing it was fairly laissez-faire, like wiki articles in general, on the grounds of the page being littered by dozens of edit links, and the header that states, "This is an essay on style. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Cheers, Paulgush (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On WikiProject Aircraft we use that as guidance material for standardizing our articles, so, yes, you need to discuss before changing it. I got "thanked" for that reversion, indicating other project members agree. If you check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) you will see fairly extensive discussions there of pretty much all changes. Your change was quite sub-optimal, too, conflating TAS/IAS issues with issues that we have had with Mach number in the past. Sure adding guidance on IAS/TAS could be useful, but it needs to be in its own section and needs some discussion first on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer, in essence, is no, you can't point to a wikipedia policy requiring discussion before editing an essay. On the other hand, after looking around, I found this: "If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment", at Wikipedia:Essays#Creation_and_modification_of_essays. Paulgush (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "policy" requiring that, but as per WP:BRD, I can revert your changes as controversial and ask you to take it to the talk page. The fact that other project editors agreed means that would be the wise course of action here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was confused by the WP:MACH shortcut, but in light of your link to WP:BRD, I see it's so that you can have something concise to point to, like the No Stairway sign from Wayne's World. Explaining that politely to me would have been helpful. Presuming you've had your own good faith edits reverted, you'll remember how alienating and deflating it feels. For that very reason, we need all need to remember that the "R" in BRD is not an invitation to revert, but encouragement to preserve any positive nuggets in an edit (for instance the bit on IAS/TAS you pointed out), and to revert only as a last resort. I'm glad I came across WP:PLEASEBITE today, because this exchange put me in need of some comic relief. Paulgush (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I'm really not sure why you think it's a good idea to modify project advice/guidelines without prior consultation, regardless of any Wikipedia guidelines or policies preventing it. To me, it's simple courtesy. Rather than play the offended card, justified or not, just go to the project talk page as suggested and make your proposal. Also, it's really not up to Ahunt to keep "positive nuggets" on his own, as he respects project consensus. This guideline/advice page is the result of many long discussions, and he knows that, having participated in many of them, as have I. BilCat (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2021 (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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!15:05, 27 May 2021 (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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!15:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I was just tracking both those IPs and both traced to the same place. I was wondering why anyone in Ecuador would be making those strange edits. - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, have you seen any source for this designation yet? I've been unable to find anything through Google. I'm about ready to revert its addition to those two articles, but wanted to ask you about it first. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point. I was working from the General Dynamics F-16 VISTA article. I just did several searches and, like you, turned up no sources at all. You would think if this was the case that there would be at least a USAF press release on it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user answered on my talk page. I take him/her at their word, personally, but of course we'll have to wait until it's released publicly. BilCat (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! I have to go out for a bit, but if you want to upload some PD photos of the VISTA, see here and here. I plan on adding a couple of them to the artist's article, Mike Machat. If you can't upload them now, I'll do it later this evening. BilCat (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've download them now, and will upload them later. Some people enjoy the processes of uploading images, but it's too much like work to me. :) BilCat (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been no public notice about the X-62A as yet, should we CSD X-62A VISTA? We've no idea how long it'll take to make this public, and it may well be a different X-number, or none at all. I didn't want to do it on my own as you created it. Just being courteous. :) BilCat (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, well I was just planning to leave it, since it is only a redirect, on the basis that it might be right, but if you would rather have it deleted, please do go ahead. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2021 (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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!15:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
your edits to Project Schoolflight were speedy and so well done & reveals that your talent for this shines like a beacon and I appreciate your doing such a nice job polishing up Project Schoolflight because Schoolflight, EAA, the readers, and all stakeholders deserves to have the best & such a wonderful story told so well as you helped do! sincerest thanks and warmest cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBACE1 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I tagged most of the images for deletion at commons as they are clearly not the work of the uploader just scans or images of magazine pages and documents. Suprised that it was accepted at Articles for Creation without comment. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking those over and nominating them for deletion. They looked like copyright violations to me as well, but it is good to have a second opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated one as it is an upload of one already nominated - claim that the documents are part of the family collection. In the Baby Ace image User:RDBACE1 calims an "original photo"- this photo is an original from the uploader's archived family library- U.L. owns all rights to this work as this photo was taken by Robert D. Blacker" - I am not sure if he is saying he is Robert Blacker or presumably a relative. Either case the article becomes a COI issue and probably needs tagging as such. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! DinosaurTrexXX33(chat?)13:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized it's now been 10 years that we've been at it together on the federal election polling pages. Well done and here's to another 10! Cheers!!! Undermedia (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time flies. You have been doing great work on those articles. I don't think they would look as good without your efforts. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the case (I'm not saying it is the case) that you do not understand or do not appreciate the concept of category trees. Just in case you do not understand it: detailed subcategories allow navigating from any article to other articles that are the most closely related to the article of departure, based on certain characteristics. If you also want to check out articles that are slightly less related then you scroll up in the category tree. One big Linux category without any subcategories would not be helpful at all because then it becomes nearly impossible to find the Linux distributions that are most closely related to the article of departure. All there would be left would be an alphabetic sorting, which is not meaningful at all from a content point of view. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I do understand how trees of categories work or at least are supposed to work, but in this case this one has "grown organically" by editors just adding random cats over time, without any plan and so is a total illogical mess that is impossible to navigate. I also think it is best if we keep the discussion in one place over at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_26#Category:Linux_distributions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rotax and x-charged
Hi Adam, re: this edit, the Rotax website lists "supercharged", not "turbocharged", for the Seadoo watercraft, which is probably why it keeps getting changed. Is the site incorrect? Perhaps the aircraft versions are turbocharged? (Note that it also uses "naturally aspirated", which is the title of the Wikipedia article too.) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- my learning curve is getting better and your assistance / help is the reason why- your edits always polish it up- thank you Sir! G RDBACE1 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After you put the link in Project Schoolflight, I checked where it redirected to, which was Stits Playboy, which made no sense really. It was a pure WP:EASTEREGG, leaving readers with that "WTF feeling". That really left only twp possible choices: put the redirect up for deletion, or write the biographical article to replace the redirect. It was easier and made more sense, in terms of growing the encyclopedia, to just research and write the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddest response to a revert I think I've ever gotten
I flew on several airliners on my recent trip, including CRJs.
I flew on a CRJ200 last week, and a CRJ900 this week. I liked the 900, but the 200 had issues. (I called it the hot sausage!) The APU quit before we boarded, so it was very hot, as the A/C didn't work well. I talked to a dead-heading pilot who was on the flight, and he mentioned that the APU has always been an issue on the 200. Our CRJ700 article mentions the upgraded APU and environmental systems, but the issues aren't mentioned in the CRJ100/200 article. It might be worth finding a source for those issues.
I had hoped to fly on a Boeing 717 on this trip, but it didn't work out, as my flight got changed. (I've flown on many DC-9s and MD-80/90s, so I wanted to see what a 717 was like. They might all be gone by the next time I fly.) BilCat (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, and I'm plus-sized! I also miss the "no middle seat assignments" policy on this trip, as every flight was fully booked. I even got upgraded on the 900 flight to make room for a stand-by passenger. BilCat (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We still have to wear face diapers tho. But as hard hit as the industry has been in all this, I don't mind the full flights. BilCat (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear veteran wikipedian,
Is it possible to rename the article as TAI/AW T129 ATAK (under Wikipedia rules) from TAI/AgustaWestland T129 ATAK. It is worth mentioning TAI is a short-form of Turkish Aerospace Industries. TAI/AgustaWestland T129 ATAK name is extremely large for a helicopter name. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A. I'm here to ask a favor. I have been looking at Downwash. The major citation is Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, page 172. Would you be so kind as to let me know what Crane has to say on the subject of downwash? At your convenience. Many thanks. Dolphin(t)11:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem:
downwash (aerodynamics). Air forced down by aerodynamic action below and behind the wing of an airplane or rotor of a helicopter. Aerodynamic lift is produced when air is deflected downward. The upward force on the aircraft is the same as the downward force on the air. When the mass of air in the downwash is equal to the weight of the aircraft forcing it down, the aircraft rises.
Looks like it already got moved to mainspace! It looks basically okay. The only part I would question is the "operators" section, which lists two organizations that have not ordered any yet, let alone taken delivery of any. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why the history of a company that includes only establishments of new companies and facilities is promotion/spam/trivia. The wiki article is FL Technics. Deleting the whole section without any proper explanation is unprofessional and devaluing to my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spontiac (talk • contribs)
My edit was fully explained with regard to policies, in my edit summary and I also received thanks from other editors from removing the text you added. If you want to discuss this, then please take it up on the article talk page where other editors watching the page can participate. As far as devaluing to my work goes, please read WP:OWN. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war on FL Technics
Ahunt, as much as I value your contribution to the Wikipedia, the edits you make on FL Technics Wikipedia article are not valid. The company did expand by opening new hangars how is that a promotion? The company also created a training division which is an integral part of the company. Other companies like Boeing, Airbus in their wiki articles are allowed to disclose such information, whereas FL Technics can only disclose the date it was founded. Why 2011 entry about Storm Aviation acquisition is okay and the one from 2020 about Flash Line Maintenance once is not okay anymore? I would kindly ask you to explain or rather write the history as you see fit. The explanation of "STILL A LOT OF WP:SPAM; WP:TRIVIA and WP:PROMOTION" does not give clear indication where the problem lies, because Storm Aviation and Flash Line maintenance acquisitions are worded in the same way, but one is not accepted, although other one is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spontiac (talk • contribs)
Please make your case on the article talk page where other interested edtors can participate in the discussion. Alos please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted that this editor has only edited on a small range of articles, all corporations of some sort, and mainly "updating" the articles by adding large amounts of material. While I don't want to make unfounded accusations, this is a bit odd. Editing articles with a undisclosed COI, including paid contributions, is a big no-no, and if discovered before it's revealed by the editor, may result in an indefinite block. BilCat (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the wiki articles that I have ever edited are from the largest Lithuanian aviation companies which I'm very proud to have in the country. Updating their pages because I'm keen on aviation does not make me a paid employee or anything else. The information I add is factually correct thus no infringement on Wikipedia rules because I do it voluntarily.Spontiac (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:CanpotexLogo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:CanpotexLogo.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).
