Why would you remove a corrected link to an existing Wikipedia page, and revert it to a broken link? My house overlooks Mr. Stewart's mill, I walk by Mr. Paterson's office every single day. Congrats, you have demonstrably made the page worse. Instead of spending some time correcting Wiki articles about Flint this afternoon I'm going to go for a walk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelrashflint (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, but you are going to have to do better than that. The cited ref in the article spells Patterson with two "T"s. You changed it to one "T" which created a link to William A. Paterson, but that article is 100% referenced to self-published references, so is not reliable. This means that to change the spelling you need to provide at least one reliable source that supports your changes. Sorry but I walk by Mr. Paterson's office every single day is original research and we work with reliable sources here, not "I know stuff". Enjoy your walk. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A-26 Invader reverts
Hey, User:Ahunt, you are obviously a valuable and conscientious Wikipedia contributor, but just because they give everyone the power of the revert command does not mean it should repeatedly and gratuitously be used.
You are an expert on aviation. I made a simple name error - twice - having been at the Skyraider page just before ending up at the (not only for me but for now many over several generations) confusing A-26/B-26 B-26 Marauder/B-26 Invader page (and simply skipped a cog and put "Skyraider" down instead of "Invader". Twice.).
If that was the error, and you could immediately see it twice, why not just change "Skyraider" to "Invader" and be helpful, instead of reflexively reverting and saying ambiguously just that [something] "did not make sense" - twice - without ever explaining what that something was [either]. That would go a lot longer towards everybody getting along here, and getting a Thanks pinged back for catching an obvious but unseen error instead of a potential tete-a-tete with another user who in this instance was not seeing their own mistake. Which, as indicated, is rooted deeper than merely carrying over the wrong aircraft name from the previous page but trying to weed through countless conflicting accounts of which aircraft was which (when both had the same overlapping no less designation) for part of three decades in historic accounts. Surely with your comprehensive knowledge of aircraft (and sailboats) you can understand that, and how rare that is. And it creating a durable hitch in sorting out a proper designation/identification. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. The reason I did not just fix it is, as I said in my edit summary, because I could make no sense of your edits at all. To be honest, I did not just "reflexively revert" your edits, I looked at them both carefully and they looked like intentional vandalism, especially when you did it twice, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and just reverted it, without labelling it as vandalism and didn't leave you a warning for it.
It seems the entire conversation is fairly moot anyway, as an admin has removed the entire para, even in your "fixed" form, with the edit summary not sure this should be in the lead it is not mentioned in the article or referenced, it was also not confusing at the time as the Marauder was no longer in service. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Hey great to hear from you. Merry Christmas! I figured it was something like that. We all check each's other's work here and fix stuff. I always say "collaboration works". I am just breaking in a new System76 laptop here, too, that I got in September. It took about eight weeks for everything to loosen up enough to work "normally". Hopefully yours will too! - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays!
Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Orphaned non-free image File:Darik's Boot and Nuke (emblem).png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Darik's Boot and Nuke (emblem).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).
Ah everyone has an opinion on this subject. The current text is well sourced and the way it is written is quite correct, but his opinions aren't totally wrong either. Basically the aircraft is safe enough in the hands of a well-trained and current instrument pilot, but if you think you can fly it once a month and blast off into clouds it is going to make a smoking hole. Let's stick to the sources. - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
Doc, I got cancelled and cost my company billions. And my forehead's too big. And everyone calls me a whale.
See here. It's probably a genuine mistake, similar other common good-faith corrections like attitude-altitude, matériel-material, etc, but it is funny. BilCat (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listen pal, I don’t know how to cite, but I’m telling the truth about the appearances of the P-51 and P-40 in the films I’ve listed. Check out the articles I’ve linked there, there’s no deception going on! I just thought that since those films which I know those planes star or appear in didn’t show up in the list, I should add them. Just because I don’t know how to cite doesn’t mean those additions should be taken away! Ace of Aces12 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. You can't add any text to any Wikipedia article without citing a reference or it will get removed. You can note that after you reverted my removal of your unreferenced text another editor removed it again. The Wikipedia policy WP:V explains: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. As this is a Wikipedia policy we all have to comply with it. References are easy to cite, please see WP:CITINGSOURCES for instructions. You can also note that Wikipedia does not include anything because "it is true", it includes it because it is verifiable from reliable sources. See WP:THETRUTH for more on this. - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't miss the incorrect use of "literally" on my talk page, since reverted. I wanted to respond, "It literally is not a catfish." But then I figured they'd never see it anyway, and just reverted. Oh the joys of letting the functionally illiterate on the internet! BilCat (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOLOL! :) Of course, "literally" can be used figuratively as hyperbole, but I got the impression the IP didn't know that! BilCat (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems absurd to me. :) A G-search of "F-100 Catfish" turned up a few mentions on forums and a couple of YouTube vids, all within the last few years. So it doesn't appear to have been a contemporary nickname, much less anything with reliable sources. BilCat (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I've noticed the hatnotes on Douglas DC-1 keep growing. Do you think there's a primary topic for DC1, and is the airplane the primary topic for DC-1? I'm really not sure, especially about DC1, but if the hatnote keeps growing, it'll soon be longer than the article. Literally! BilCat (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine for Wikipedia! I'd had to use my dad's dinosaur on an unrelated. task, and it took nearly an hour to complete a 1-minute task. Stupid thing crashed 3 times trying to open an email. (Not the email's fault!) The monster is about 17 years old! BilCat (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Brontosaurus? I am feeling very spoiled these days as I splurged on a ludicrously capable Linux laptop with a quad-core 4.7 Ghz processor and 32 GB of RAM. I can edit every page on Wikipedia simultaneously... - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Tyrannosaurus Dell. He can't afford to upgrade at this time, so he's stuck with it for now. It was good in it's day, and tough, which he definitely needs. He's dropped it several times, and killed the hard drive once already in a drop. On the DAB page. I think they prefer the unhyphenated titles, but I'm not certain on that. But if the DAB page wonks don't like it, they'll fix it the way they want it soon enough. BilCat (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:EpicAircraftlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Question about List of most-produced aircraft page
Hiya Ahunt, quick question about updating a number on the List of most-produced aircraft page so as not to mess anything up!
On the Airbus A320 family line about halfway down the list, the "number produced" figure appears to come from the Wikipedia article section it's linked to, A320 Orders and deliveries, which recently had the December production figures added, taking it from 10,110 to 10,176 (in parentheses at the bottom of the delivery totals column).
I wanted to get your feedback on whether it's all right to update the production number on the most-produced list page as well. Should I also add a new retrieval date to the List of most-produced aircraft#cite note-Airbus Orders-27 citation? I'm not sure whether I should also change the first date in the citation as well. Thanks a billion!
Thanks for your question. Basically the answer is "yes" to all. You can update the production numbers, but please do make sure the refs are updated. The situation to be avoided is when you have accurate and current production numbers, but refs with old dates that therefore don't support the new numbers. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've suspected there might be more than one person involved in the Hogg sock farm for a long time. One never uses any edit summaries, and doesn't respond at all, while the other occasionally does. If it is 2 brothers, it would explain a lot. BilCat (talk)
Now he's admitting he's been lying about the brother, but states there's only one person who's ever been editing the account. Curiouser amd curiouser. BilCat (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With that admission, that pretty much closes this issue. Hopefully he will move onto a new hobby and leave us to work on writing this encyclopedia without the unneeded disruptions. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...now redirects to Baby Trud's Wikipedia article. I note there's no mention of it in the article, however, but it is true. It's mentioned in this source, though I doubt Wikipedia considers it a reliable source. It is funny, though. BilCat (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd bit of propaganda, that. Our PM just won an election, got his third term and the official opposition party will vote today whether to fire their leader and break up the party into fragments, which will all but guarantee Trudeau a fourth term. thepostmillennial.com is right wing propoganda, so not RS, but the facts there are correct, it does redirect as indicated. Also worth noting that compared to some world leaders who lie all the time (Johnson, Trump, Putin) Trudeau is pretty honest. While Musk is a noted anti-vaxxer and convoy supporter, this seems to be more of the "dark money" associated with the convoy, just intended to cause disruption here and there is increasing evidence that these donations are tied to opposing our troops currently being in Ukraine helping them defend their country there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
I just came across some of the new articles you have created, like Sea_Sprite_23. Each one is properly filled and indented with the important information. In addition, you preempt archive all of the citations. Keep up the good work with your high quality articles! Rlink2 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, I am glad that you like the work I am doing. I started archiving all references in new articles as I write them a couple of years ago as a preemptive measure against WP:LINKROT after one reference I was regularly using disappeared from the internet and the after-the-fact archiving proved spotty. If every editor archived each ref as added then it would make Wikipedia a lot more verifiable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar
I do not see the point of reverting the edit that I had made on the Air France 4590 page. You could have instead replaced it with another more proper synonym, I had edited it to make it more by the facts as gushing is a very unprofessional term and distracts from the point of the sentence. I will now edit the page and replace gushed with a synonym as stated by Merriam-Webster, I can even cite it if you want.
-Toast (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change you made because it was poor word usage and changed the meaning. I see you have changed it again and have been reverted again by another editor for poor word usage. If you really think this word needs changing as per WP:BRD you need to take the issue to the talk page and gain a consensus for any change. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I first started editing Wikipedia in 2006, it was quite easy to look through the photos of a particular aircraft to find a good photo. Then the brain trust at Commons decided that photos should be categorized by certain parameters, such as serial numbers. Hence the mess we habe today. Under c:Category:Canadair CF-5 Freedom Fighter is c:Category:Canadair NF-5 by serial number, which has 56!!!! subcategories, most of which only have one photo! To quote a recent reverter of my edits, "jeez louise"! After all this time, has no one on Commons figured out a way to have an option to view all the photos in a category's subcategories at once? (This rant is brought to you today by Wikimedia Commons, the world's largest collection of photographic categories!) BilCat (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup you are right the commons organization is garbage. It serves the "planespotters fanbois" admirably, but makes it next to impossible to find photos to write an encyclopedia article. So whose side are they on? - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please watch this article? The article creator has restored mention of the non-notable people 3 times after being notified either in edit summaries or on my talk page that the consensus is against this. WP:IDHT may still be at play here. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?23:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being stupid is really popular right now. Here in Ottawa where I live we actually having a convention of stupid people right now. No one else is allowed to attend! - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm living in a Wikipedia article. Their demands change a lot, last week they wanted to replace the government in power, today they have decided that they will settle for the Governor General appointing them as an opposition party with seats in parliament. Not really into elections. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure, as your description could reasonably have referred to this. That reminds me of the old joke about a Soviet defector in Washington, DC, who was seeking political asylum. He was told to go to the United States Capitol, as it was the largest political asylum in the world! :) BilCat (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to "Undid revision 1071264468 by TheRealSteelskin (talk) - please see WP:SPAM, we don't use external links in article text: WP:EL"
I can see why the external link may be an issue, having read the linked text about external links, but why spam?. ShredOS and Nwipe are as associated with one another as DBAN and Dwipe are. Both ShredOS and Nwipe are closely related. At a more detailed level dwipe is a program within the overall product name called DBAN, nwipe was forked from dwipe when DBAN devlopment ceased. So nwipe is the broad equivalent of dwipe, ShredOS, like DBAN is the bootable environment in which nwipe exists. I'm the developer of both Nwipe & ShredOS.
Would citations in relevant places make the deleted text more acceptable?. I'm confused over the reference to spam.
Any comment that helps me reword the removed text is much appreciated.
Thanks for your comment here and for your note I'm the developer of both Nwipe & ShredOS. You are in a classic conflict of interest here and need to read and comply with WP:COI with regard to ShredOS, nwipe and DBAN and stop editing these articles, stop trying to add links to your projects, as well as stop trying to write the article Draft:Shredos 2020. - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I therefore have a further related question in regards to promotion of products by commercial enterprises. Shouldn't the entire DBAN wikipedia entry be removed therefore? The reason I bring this up is that a company called Blancco (a disk erasure company) purchased DBAN in 2014 but stopped it's development, instead they used the domain name www.dban.org which is actually quoted in the wikipedia page! as a marketing page for their Blancco product. This could be corrected by linking to the actual https://sourceforge.net/projects/dban/, however, this in it self has issues as the DBAN product has been modified by Blancco to provide an advertisement within the code. DBAN was purchased as a vehicle to promote Blancco and Wikipedia are aiding this. Neither Nwipe or ShredOS promote a commercial enterprise. This seems somewhat unfair that Wikipedia are presumably inadvertently promoting a commercial enterprise while removing non commercial open source code.
Actually if you read the DBAN article it is rather damning of Blancco in warning readers that they are just using the DBAN website to promote their own product. The cited ref is just there as verification that the information is correct. Without that we couldn't make the claim. The external links have a link to the DBAN repos on SourceForge. - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like new articles that practically write themselves
I started work on Draft:ASU Multi-Purpose Arena this afternoon using the Oceanside Ice Arena article as my template. I added some content from Arizona Coyotes, and voila! I then moved it to mainspace, added some cats and nboxes, copied some finishing touches from Georgia State Arena, and wrote one whole sentence myself, with a ref, of course. That's my idea of writing a new article! I wish they were all that easy, which is why I write very few articles totally from scratch. BilCat (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, that is easy work. I have been doing a few sailboats from scratch, done about 1,000 so far, only 10,000 left to go! - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, every so often, we get an edit summary like this one. "Port and starboard are not used in aviation. British terminology only." I usually just revert, but this one was even more odd than usual. Thoughts? BilCat (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general he is right, at least in North America port and starboard are not often used in aviation. Not sure about the rest of the world. I doubt it is in Russia or China, though. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Hi Ahunt! I wanted to say thanks for your help with merging the NetJets and NetJets Europe articles, I really appreciate it. If I have any more suggestions for the article, I'll let you know on the Talk page. NetJetsJM (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and that is why we called them the "drama boards". Ironically the colourized photo in question was deleted from Commons, due to being uploaded with a free licence when the original was posed on Flickr with an incompatible non-free licence... - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. Anyway, WP:ROPE is good advice. I had to rein myself in a few times to keep from commenting last night and early this morning, and let it play out. Thankfully, it was over by the time I woke up. BilCat (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our truckers show up in DC soon, early March I think. We'll see what happens. (I'm just glad I don't live there. The DC murder rate is bad enough, but honking all night? That would be intolerable.) BilCat (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully lessons have been learned there from Ottawa and the stay will be very short. Poutine is generally considered fatal here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In our case our politicians we on top of this one from the start, but our police force dropped the ball (and police don't take direction from elected officials). One resignation later and we got things under control quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. We're busy defunding our police! Another difference between our countries: In Canada, some people ask, "Where's the PM?" In the US, the President. asks, "Where am I?" ;) BilCat (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think many people here will be pursuing "defunding the police" right now. Once they had new leadership they had things cleaned up pretty fast and with no one killed, which was an accomplishment. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Microsoft Edge browser logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, I'm not new to editing wikipedia, but I'm new as far as having a registered account. I don't know how to message users, so I'm making this.
I noticed you reverted my edit to the Chromium page and I'm just asking why?
Was there something wrong with it?
Google Chrome and Chromium have updated their logos since M101, and I uploaded the official SVG from the source code, to be in line with the edit to the Google Chrome wiki which already has the logo updated.
I'm a Chromium developer and make my own fork of Chromium for Windows, Linux, and MacOS called Thorium > https://github.com/Alex313031/Thorium/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex313031 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I probably should have detailed more in my edit summary. I reverted that logo addition because the the logo was identical to the existing one and because the formatting of the addition was malformed, causing it to display incorrectly. As far as being a dev working on Chromium (web browser) goes, you may want to have a read though our policy at WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks about the format. And the logo HAS changed. It looks almost identical. Here, compare the logo to the one I wanted to upload. I uploaded the new svg to wikimedia commons specifically for this.
Also I'll show the link to the old and new logo on the Google Chrome page as well, where you can see the similar differences. I would be more than happy if you use my svg and make the edit for me, to make sure the tags and descriptions and formatting are all correct. Also, I am not employed at Chromium.org or anything. I just occasionally send bugs and/or patches in as a volunteer. A majority of Chromium developers are just regular people, don't work for Google, and have no monetary interest in promoting the browser. IDK if that would be a conflict of interest, but I'm only here to provide accurate, unbiased data on the browser.
The new logos have darker colours, removed the shadow under the lines, and have a larger inner circle/inner ring. At a glance they look the same, but they were updated for Chrome's 100th birthday. They converted the ChromeOS/ChromiumOS logos in version 100, and continued updating for different platforms, ending with Linux at version 101. Regular users will see this change in the stable channel in two months.--Alex313031 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your note here and all the info. You are quite right, just submitting the odd bug report or code wouldn't put you in a COI. I was more concerned that you were a lead dev or similar position. I have put your new logo into the article at the top of the infobox (formatted) and put the old Chromium Material Icon in to the history section, so that it isn't lost. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a strange thing. The Google Chrome Logo wasn't right for a long time. Just looking through the commits to find the old logo, I stumbled on these.
Incorrect logo that was up for a few months. Note no shadow under the lines, and an inner circle/ring that is too small. This looks like a logo from one of those icon/logo dump databases, where the authors change things slightly to get around licensing. It seems the author probably meant well, as it says "new logo (2022)" and was done on Feb. 5th, the day it was first updated for ChromeOS only. I just think he got it from an unofficial place.
I meant up for a month not few months, also it seems since march 1st, my image has been scheduled for deletion, even though I used the LGPLv3 tag and it came from an official source? What do I (we) do about that?
Best we can do is make the valid points we both have done on the deletion discussion there. There are some issues over on commons with over-zealous people there and thus is a good example. Hopefully it will get "kept" there now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Sailing
Thank you for your note and very gracious welcome! I really appreciate the tips and look forward to helping but also improving my editing skills! Hoping to add some more sailing photos to wikimedia commons too. Have an excellent day! Minard38 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Minard38[reply]
@Minard38: Thanks for your note here! I am glad that "welcome" was helpful! The project is a bit short of editors right now and we can always use more sailboat photos, too. If you have any questions please do drop me a note any time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving "Next Conservative leadership election" to "2022 Conservative leadership election". How did you do it though? When I attempted to do it it said something like "a page [the redirect] already has this name therefore you can't change it." Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that they must always fly in a two-ship formation, but then it would probably be classified as a biplane... - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who writes this stuff??
From the TL Ultralight TL-96 Star article, "According to witnesses the aircraft had previously disintegrated in midair." It makes it sound like it occurred on another occasion like months or years before. Disintegrated aircraft usually aren't rebuilt later. :) Also, if it "disintegrated", what exactly "crashed" into the building? BilCat (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks aka my edit to Antonov An-225 Mriya Today I got thanked for six edits all done today. From work on actor Robert Colbert to Climate change to an Irish magazine Hot Press. Before today I didn't get a thanks in 16 days. Don't know why I'm writing except to express thanks for your support. Now I just need to have the 6 winning numbers for tonight's Florida Lotto drawing. There another 6....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?01:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, could you look at this edit? Apparently it's recent news, but it's difficult to read, especially the tenses, presumably due to translation issues. The sources are all in Q-French, so could probably be replaced with C-English sources. Thanks for whatever you can do, if anything. BilCat (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:China Aviation Museum Logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:China Aviation Museum Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi!
I believe the information re: LOA of the Aloha 26, 8.2, 27 and 271 using sailboatdata is incorrect. All of these boats were built using the same mould as were the two "Parks 27's" built in Tatamagouche NS. To this day I can drive five minutes and put my hands on the mould. https://www.alohaowners.com/specifications-aloha-27-8-2/ shows the LOA as 26' 9" and LWL as 22'2.5" Bob Perry, the designer link to the Aloha Owners information directly from his website. Regards, Aloha27 talk 14:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got a good chuckle from your recent comment to Geoff Nicholson, “Wikipedia is not your company website” (about your undoing his revision of the Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey article). He may be the (current) CEO, but he doesn’t have a lot of friends among SeaRey builders.
That article is nicely done, by the way. Early versions were well-intentioned but painfully biased and incomplete. Your edits have been quite good.
Thanks for your note here. I am glad that you think the article covers the subject adequately at the present. I am sure there is always room for updates, improvements and more details, though. Many of the aircraft articles on Wikipedia for types that are still in production suffer from occasional bursts of what we call WP:COI here or, as you noted, what I untactfully summarized as "Wikipedia is not your company website". It seems to be a hard concept to get across that we are trying to run an encyclopedia and not a product promotion! - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if this is not the normal place to discuss your reversion of my edit.
You said my pop-culture reference of "Casey Jones" was unsourced -- but I linked to the Wikipedia page about the character. Doesn't that count?
Also, you're right that listing every pop-culture reference of a character using improvised weapons would be exhaustive. I included Casey Jones because he's unusual in that he specializes in these weapons. He carries his collection of sports equipment rather than real weapons. Isn't that different than, say, a character who always uses whatever happens to be available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnVW (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your note here. No you can't use Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia. All explained at WP:CIRCULAR. There are probably hundreds of thousands of pop culture references to using improvised weapons in films, books etc. I am thinking in particular of people like Jackie Chan. The article is not about pop culture and would be swamped by it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking out my trash. Some psychologist/psychiatrist would have a field day with all these trolls, if they could find them! Some are probably psych patients already, and the rest certainly should be. BilCat (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with those sorts of talk page posts is that it is hard to tell whether it is a difficultly with English, a difficultly with typing or a difficultly with thinking. (The IP traces to the US) - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. The US has many immigrants, so English can still be a problem for many. In this case, it might be all three. BilCat (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. And, of course, English is a problem for many native-born Americans, especially those who were in failing educational systems, which are generally government-run institutions that spend more money per student than any other country in the world, and get less for the money, including a high proportion of functionally illiterate graduates, and for which the only allowed solution is spending even more money, which oddly seems to result in even more failed schools and functionally illiterate grads, but which if is criticized, means the criticizer is just full of hate for the less fortunate who can only attend government schools! (This run-on rant is also free.) BilCat (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may have mentioned this anecdote before, from when I was in the Canadian military. To test out and validate some language exams they gave French tests to anglophones and English tests to francophones. Then they decided on a whim to reverse that and give English tests to anglophones and French tests to francophones. What they discovered was about 25% of those tested were not fluent in any languages. Having met many of these people that was not a surprise. Some of these people are probably here now contributing. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And millions more just like them! And yeah, you have mentioned it before, but it's still packs a punch. Sometimes, no amount of quality education can help people become fluent in their native language. BilCat (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The schools were already failing. While the funding isn't irrelevant, it's not the root of the problem, though good schools do exist that do better with less money. But, unfortunately, that very complicated problem is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia user talk page. BilCat (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Linux-libre. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. I've explained numerous times why the terminology you keep reverting to is ambiguous. Follow your own advice and take it to the talk page.
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to GNU. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. GNU is an operating system. I invite you to take a look at the source code to check for yourself.
Thanks for your note here. You can note that your edits to the two articles have been assessed by an Admin and found to constitute "persistent vandalism". The articles have been protected to exclude you editing them further. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an injustice. I have now effectively been blocked from correcting the false information you keep inserting into the articles because of the page protection. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a serious encyclopedia includes falsehoods deliberately, then what's the point? "Concensus" (which amounts to what 2 users on a website forum page agreed on) means nothing when it's directly contradicted by all the genuine sources. You are incorrect. GNU is an OS. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign slogans- 2015 Canadian elections
Strength in democracy got basically zero votes, sure they had seats in the previous parliament but notice how the page isn<t called 42nd or 43rd Canadian parliament, yeah there<s a reason behind that... (it is because it is about the ELECTIONS, notice how an election is NOT a parliament.) In short they should be removed from the slogans section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the article talk page please, and make your case there, so that other editors can participate in the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of 2015 elections...
I noticed the Trudeau government is going to buy the F-35 after all. So, exactly how much money did the Canadian government spend to have a "fair" competition, only to make the exact same decision as the supposedly unfair decision, but taking 12 years to do it? I'm not picking on Canada, as the US Government has done the same thing on several occasions, the KC-767/KC-45/KC-46 procurement fiasco being a notable example. BilCat (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is "transparency isn't cheap". To be honest, given how "buggy" the bird is and its uninspiring serviceability rate in early service, being a non-"early adopter" may turn out to be a good move. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, but they never tell you that up front, do they? And yes, not being an early adopter may be work out. I'm kinda surprised they didn't go with the Super Gripen, and they still might if the negotiations with LM don't work out. But I guess everybody wants the bells and whistles of stealth, the Germans and Finns included. Perhaps someone in the Canadian government found out they already had an aircraft type named Griffin, and thought they couldn't have two! :) BilCat (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the CF desperately wants the F-35 in their toy box and always has done so, the truth is neither it nor the Grippen are really suitable for Canada, as both are short ranged and single engine. That is not the right config for a country that is millions of sq km of swamp and trees. That is why the Arrow, Voodoo and CF-18 were all long-ranged and twin-engined. The CF-5 was at least twin-engined. True, we had the CF-104, but mostly used it for digging holes in the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The modern twins are relatively more expensive. I thought the Super Bug was probably a good choice, but the Boeing feud eliminated that! And in the Gripen's favor, it is at least designed for rugged conditions and cold weather. BilCat (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I was flying rescue at our fighter base in Cold Lake we had an average of one "two bell" (airborne emergency) a week, with a CF-18 returning with an engine out. If those had been single-engined those would have all been "one bells" (smoking hole). - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, could you look at this and previous edits? I'm about ready to file at AN3 over it, but I'd like to see if you can help out first. It should be self-explanatory, but I'll add that it should be paraphrased as much as possible. There's a direct quote after it that's not actually a quote from a spokesperson, but verbatim from the source. (The IP address is a bit odd looking, but perhaps that's normal near the border?) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'm not clear about, and they will bring it up, as they already have when I missed it the first time. https://adbr.com.au/canada-to-buy-25-raaf-classic-hornets-report/ does state, "The Ottawa Citizen said on June 15 that the number of jets to be acquired by Canada’s Department of National Defence has risen from 18 as reported in late 2017, and that the additional seven aircraft would be broken down for spare parts." So are you referring to the Ottawa citizen as the source here or the ADBR? The rest of your point is of course still valid. My original concern was that his first wording, "another seven 'broken down' Hornets", made it seem like Canada was buying poorly maintained or out of service aircraft. Jeff changed the order and wording to "disassembled ", which unambiguous, but I don't get why they think that makes it "made up". BilCat (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is just a translation to unambiguous and encyclopedic language. The actual Citizen article ref cited says Those extra aircraft will be stripped down for parts, Dan Blouin, a spokesman for the DND, said Friday.. It all shoots around the same idea, we just used more precise wording. - Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Now I can defend it more fully if need be. (And I have a feeling there will be a need.) BilCat (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 2 weeks, by an admin from RPP. (Much quicker than ANI in my experience.) They also had a final warning for uncivil edit summaries on another article, which they certainly were in the last revert of the CF-18. We might want to start a discussion on the article's talk page for when/if they return. BilCat (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
OK, thanks. From their contributions, they seem to be British, so probably thought Canada followed British usage, or didn't realize the article was Canadian. I don't think they're someone who thinks British usage is always correct! (Like this "person"!) BilCat (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said "jingoistic rant"! I was very tempted to respond to that, but figured I'd be "casting my pearls before swine". Btw, I think I've run into them on another IP, possibly over the same article. The rant seemed very familiar. BilCat (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know you were being polite :) The whole thing is quite odd, as some very famous Brits are well known for mangling the English language. BilCat (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I third that. I must say that its interesting how time seems not capable of slowing down or reversing, at this stage... but then the us-canada border might be a location for that sort of process... JarrahTree01:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to think that old age is equivalent to finding yet more articles/categories that relate to sailing here on wikipedia that have not even been tagged or assessed (or is it my imagination), and I still find the dreaded water sports... but fewer, thank heavens... Taxation, Death and untagged pages being things that even heisenbergians cannot argue against... as for time, hmmm... JarrahTree01:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you your note here. I did see the revert afterwards, but I thought you got it right the first time and deserved some encouragement for that, at least. All part of the ebb-and-flow of building an article! - Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TEDBF ORCA
Hi - the TEDBF page on ORCA was incorrect and not in consonance with the cited source. In trying to fix it, I did not write the edit comment properly (mobile swallowed the rest). You undid the edit. (also possibly wording was not the best) As I did not want to leave the page incorrect, I tried to revert and ultimately rewrote the corresponding phrase to better reflect the intent of the cited source. Left a message here and on the talk page of the article for better traceability.
Thanks for your note. Your original edit made no sense in English, which is why I reverted it. Your latest text is more comprehensible, so thanks for fixing it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for your note. Sorry I missed that in a search. It still seems like a pretty far fetched WP:EASTEREGG for a redirect from a person's name, but feel free to decline the speedy if you think the link is appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I have seen quite a few redirects from a person to some sort of product they are known for (although I know this isn't of itself a reason to keep this one). I've declined the deletion for now. Jguglielmin (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You frustrate me. I provided even the exact quote and the exact Mozilla policy that was cited for Canonical’s packaging changes. Yes, it does say what it was written. Born2bgratis (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I removed your text because the refs you cited did not support your claims made. It was even a stretch to call it merely WP:SYNTHESIS, which says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. In fact your two sources combined did not add up to the text you added.
Your first source Distribution Policy for Mozilla Software does not mention Canonical or Ubuntu or anything to do with the use of Firefox in Ubuntu. That was just your WP:OR interpretation.
Your second source Ubuntu Studio 22.04 LTS Beta Released only says Mozilla’s distribution agreement with Canonical changed, and Ubuntu was forced to no-longer distribute Firefox in a native .deb package. Your text added is not supported by this.
The real story is detailed in Feature Freeze Exception: Seeding the official Firefox snap in Ubuntu Desktop, regarding the introduction of the Firefox snap in Ubuntu 21.10, and it says in part Today, Sept 16th 2021, the Desktop Team has opened a Feature Freeze exception 72 to replace the Firefox seed in ubuntu-desktop from a deb package to a Mozilla-official Firefox snap. This is the result of cooperation and collaboration between the Desktop and Snap teams at Canonical and Mozilla developers, and is the first step towards a deb-to-snap transition that will take place during the 22.04 development cycle. ... When Mozilla approached Canonical, they had some clear benefits in mind... This actually proves that your text is incorrect, it was Mozilla that approached Canonical about moving to a snap voluntarily to make life at Mozilla easier in supporting Linux in general. If you like I can add that last ref and more detail about why the switch happened from it, but, as it stands, the text that is there now is correct, even though more detail could be added. - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
