Greetings Adam! I see you have created many Userboxes, and generously offer to create more if people ask nicely! We have a number of Userboxes for use by Wikipedians who are in, or a member of, an organisation. One example is "Category:Wikipedians in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers".
We don't have a Userbox for Wikipedians in The Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeSoc) so I am asking if you are interested in creating one. If one is created I will add it to my User page.
We have some Userboxes for Wikipedians who are members of something eg "Category:Wikipedian members of the Institute of Physics" but I would discourage this terminology because in the RAeSoc a Member is a specific grade, along with Fellow, Associate. There are members who aren't Members! Hence my suggestion of terminology avoiding the word "member".
The current logo for the RAeSoc is visible in the infobox at Royal Aeronautical Society. If you are able to harvest that image it would be the perfect thumbnail in the Userbox.
Absolutely no urgency on this one. The Society has been in existence since 1866 so that is 156 years without a Userbox. (What were they doing in 1866? Hot air balloons!) Many thanks. Dolphin(t)05:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, it is great to hear from you. Sure, I can do that quite easily. We can't use the RAeSoc logo, as it is copyrighted, though. Do you have an idea for an alternate image that would be appropriate? We could use a balloon! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your positive responses! I have given the matter considerable thought. I was originally attracted to the prospect of a balloon floating overhead the Houses of Parliament but in the end I settled on something radically different - how about the lead image in BAE Systems Hawk? It is a lyrical shot of a Hawk T1 trainer - an unmistakeable British aircraft in unmistakable British colours soaring through atypical blue sky (my Brit friends tell me blue sky isn’t all that common.) What do you think? Dolphin(t)01:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Hawk photo is pretty good! Okay here is my first try at it. I went with a black background, white lettering and a blue border, but let me know if you want any changes and I can adjust pretty much anything. - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That is brilliant. The full name of the Society is “The Royal ...” so let’s capitalise the The. Also can we try a dark blue background? Dolphin(t)01:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I added "the" and changed the background to a dark blue. The light blue border didn't look good with the dark blue, so I made it red, but let me know if you need more changes. They are easy to do. - Ahunt (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The US equivalent of the RAeSoc is the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. I haven’t found anything to indicate there is a Userbox for Wikipedians who are members of the AIAA. If you are inclined to create a suitable Userbox I would encourage that.
I alerted Nimbus227 to the creation of the RAeSoc Userbox. It turns out he isn’t a member. If a Userbox is created for AIAA members I will try to identify Wikipedians who are active and likely to be members, and alert them. Dolphin(t)07:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great. Many thanks! I have perused the AIAA website and a few publications, and I see that in sentences the organization is usually named “the American ...” and “the AIAA ...” When not used in a sentence it is often named without the leading “the”. So let’s go with “ This user is in the American ...” Dolphin(t)01:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see that. We seem to have a WP:POV issue there. I see he has reinstated all the unproven lawsuits I removed. Your call if you want to remove them and send it all to the talk page for a consensus discussion there. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They left the tag, so I'm inclined to leave it be for now. But they are adding controversy sections to other articles too, so something may have to be done at some point. WP:ROPE may be relevant also. BilCat (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That ISP with the personal grudge against Strength in Democracy got an edit-warring warning from an editor last week. He's since removed it from his Talk page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note on that! It seems to be some sort of WP:AXE issue. At this point it amounts to mere vandalism and should probably be treated as such. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why I mentioned it! :) I've never seen it in person, but I remember seeing such a sign on a Canadian TV program when I was a kid in Jamaica. (They got shows from the US, Canada, and the the UK, so we got a lot of exposure to different Englishes there.) BilCat (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I've never looked at an airliner as a phallic symbol. Some people are just plane strange! BilCat (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC) (Plane pun intended!) BilCat (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you got my article deleted (2022 Longmont mid-air collision) please tell me the cutoff for what constitutes a notable plane crash. im trying to get more involved in plane crash articles and this only serves to confuse me. Because I see many articles for small planes. Thanks, SmuckersIt has to be good21:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Light aircraft crashes are very common and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. There are dozens everyday world wide, so we only have articles on ones that have WP:LASTING effects. This means crashes that result in outcomes such as aircraft design changes, airworthiness directives, changes in ATC procedures, or the death of someone whom we already have a biography article on Wikipedia about. We don't have articles on light aircraft crashes just because "a plane crashed", any more than we have them on most car accidents. The other policy that is worth reading is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, especially item #2. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that helps me. Promise am not arguing but can you tell me why this article is notable, as it seems that it was between light aircraft: 2021 Colorado mid-air collision. Just want to understand that completely because I want to get more involved in airline crashes but don't know a whole lot about planes. ThanksSmuckersIt has to be good00:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, seeking clarification is a good idea. That accident involved a Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner and a Cirrus SR22. The Metroliner is not a light aircraft, but a transport category aircraft, as it has a maximum takeoff weight higher than 12,500 lb (5,670 kg), so this is not a "light aircraft accident". See light aircraft for some parameters. Mid air collisions involving transport category are quite rare and unusual. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed the image is that that editor keeps IP hopping, adding pictures just for the sake of it or replacing logos with wrong/made-up/old ones (you reverted one of their IPs early in the article). I try to not just plain revert them, because sometimes (rarely) their changes are neutral/technically OK as it seems to be the case in that article as you say. I didn't know about that exception on images for that particular infobox, and, to be honest, every infobox has arbitrary rules (pictures or not pictures, icons or not icons, and so on), so it's difficult to keep up. However, I'll take note of your clarification for future edits. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
inneresting
a lot of your recent new sailing articles are not growing their own wikidata entries and require starting - which is why you get the short descrips.. I got lost in the trains horrible backlog this evening, massive amounts of where arts have the project tags but no effort to fill in the gaps...sigh....so it goes - trust all is well JarrahTree15:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am staying away from Wikidata - nothing but bad experiences there. I have been keeping all the sailboat data local in the articles instead. - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wow amazing - that's intriguing - I have quite a positive experience with it all - pls let me know if any of my crossing between the (here and there) two is a problem for you at all - on or off wiki - I would not want to be a problem for the water sports err sailing content... JarrahTree15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not you causing the issues. I have just struggled there to make the coding work and not break everything all the time and then as soon as I get it right, someone else changes it to be totally contrary to the refs cited in the en.wiki article. While centralized photos on commons work fine, I just find the whole concept of centralized data a mistake. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a more interesting question than you think. The registration is clearly N224LL. The FAA aircraft registry says N224LL is Not Assigned/Reserved, Deregistered Aircraft: None which indicates that not only is there no current aircraft with that registration, there never has been. That is very odd, as a general internet search shows many records for it, like this one that says it is a Bell 222U, serial number 47552 and was also registered as N74SP. The FAA registry has N74SP and confirms it as a 222U. I have no idea why the earlier registration is not showing up at least as a previous registration. The "LL" suffix shows it as having been part of the Lifelink fleet (Air Methods Corp), so perhaps it is a block assigned to that company, although it should still show up as "previously assigned" in the FAA records. The commons Flickr source file says "Taken on August 17, 2008" and the FAA record for N74SP says it was registered under that "N" number in 2018. I can only conclude it is an FAA database glitch. Regardless, to answer your question, it is Bell 222U! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried searching for the N-number later, and found the same thing. Strange indeed. Anyway, from the other photos in the article, it looked like a 222 to me. I guess the IP user thought only 230s had skids, but 222Us did too. Btw, I know you flew 212s, so you have experience with skid-equipped helicopters. Did you ever fly helicopters with wheels, and which did you prefer? BilCat (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that was on some help. I have never flown helicopters on wheels, so I have no real basis to judge, although the ability to ground taxi (vs hover taxi) could be handy on crowded airports. The main advantages of skids are weight, cost, simplicity and better ability to handle off-level landings, plus the ability to fit skis and such. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Airwolf certainly looked good retracting its wheels. It wouldn't have been as cool with skids. And no one would believe that a helicopter with skids could go supersonic! :) BilCat (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bell 205, 206 and 212 mostly and got to try out the Bo-105 and the Bell 412 as well. My favourite is probably the 212 as it is so versatile. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a kid I learned to sail on 2 International 14’s my Dad owned. The second he bought in about 1957 when I was 7 yo. I know 1st hand it was an O’Day built boat. But I have nothing other than my memory of Dad stating it was an O’Day built boat, <and> of the O’Day manufacturer’s tag on the mast step as documentation. I doubt O’Day built many 14’s, as it was a relatively heavy early ‘glass 14, and not very competitive with the lighter wood 14’s of the time. By the time US 599 was sold in 1965, I often sailed it with friends and knew every inch of her.
Thanks for your note here. We require real references to add claims to Wikipedia articles, such as who built which boats. Please see WP:PROVEIT. We also cannot accept personal anecdotes as references, please see WP:OR. None of the existing refs cited mention O'Day buillding I-14s. If you can find an actual ref that says O'Day built I-14s we can add it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, obtuse phrasing
I ran across an odd phrase here, which I've tagged for clarification. The phrase is "a curious prop-to-port/turboprop-to-starboard configuration", which is very unclear. Do they mean the installation is slightly skewed to one side, with both engines being skewed in the same direction, rather than both being toed outward or inward? Typically, the entire paragraph is unsourced. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes zero sense and is incongruent with both the An-24 and An-26 specs. I think I have fixed it, but, yeah, a ref would be a good idea. Let me see if I have anything. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The best info I have on the An-72 is from the 1980 edition of The Observers Book of Aircraft, which does note it as a STOL transport, but does not particularly indicate it was to replace any other aircraft in service. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Range-blocked, too, for that matter. My guess is it was not so much political, or even xenophobic, but trolling, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the articles, I assumed it was implied that it was the Chinese Communist Party (but probably not really if he is a troll). - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or Mongolians, Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, Chinese Mongolians, the Mongolian Communist Party, East Asian Communists, Asian Communists, Eurasian Communists, Communists, or some other group. BilCat (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave. I don't mean that to be sarcastic or funny. We just don't wanna see you and go back to where you come from. I say that to you directly. Just leave 202.9.46.239 (talk)
NOTE TO FILE:15:25, 28 October 2022 Drmies talk contribs blocked 202.9.46.239 talk with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) Tag: Twinkle
NOTE TO FILE:Drmies talk contribs changed block settings for 202.9.46.239 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Vandalism)
Hi!
nomrally i am not that genius in detecting vandalism because i really don't know what happened. but when it said 2055. i already knew something wasn't right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddythedev (talk • contribs) 11:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I didn't leave you a note before regarding the change I made to a citation to an article by Sparky Barnes (that you then reverted back - understandably). Sparky's legal name is now (and has been for some time) Sparky Barnes. She has asked her close friends to assist in ensuring that her online presence states her correct name, rather than the old. I'm assisting her with the citations in Wikipedia. Many of the companies that accept her articles have now updated all past references to her old name. The reason for the change is to ensure that when Sparky's name is searched for in Wikipedia, it's correct, rather than the old. Again, sorry for not leaving a note earlier. The last time I edited a Wikipedia article was 15+ years ago and things have change. 42Fathoms (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. The main issue is that the name given in the refs cited has not been changed so it does not match. I think you need to ask the ref websites to be updated first. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed with your assessment of the institute of finance in 2021's alleged independent-ness, so I added some reliable sources showing their potential biases, knowing you you'll revert without even reading why I did it so I've kinda just explained why I did it CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your cited ref did not even mention Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy. Please take your refs to the article talk page and make your case there to see if you can create a WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And before you remove it, please go to the Kevin Page page and tell me if it still doesn't make sense, if you disagree with my inclusion, take your complaint to the article talk page and make your case there to see if you can create a WP:CONSENSUS. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been removed by another editor with the same observation I had - the sources do not support your claims. So there is your WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Regardless, if you still want to pursue inserting this, then please find some refs that do say that and take it to the article talk page for discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat :CHECK THE KEVIN PAGE ARTICLE, since it cannot fit in that human head of yours :CHECK THE KEVIN PAGE ARTICLE'S SECOND REFERENCE, I repeat, since obvious instructions seem to go past you : CHECK THE SECOND REFERENCE OF THE KEVIN PAGE ARTICLE, FOR SOME ODD REASON IT DOESNT WORK IN THE MAIN ARTICLE, and before you claim it is irrelevant : I'd like to remind you that it is clearly a potential source of bias, or are you going to insist that it is a neutral, independent organisation despite the fact that it seems to love the liberals and dislike the tories. For more evidence, CHECK THE 24TH REFERENCE ON THE KEVIN PAGE ARTICLE, which mentions allegations of unabashed anti-[tory at the time] government bias coming from page's PBO, I repeat :CHECK THE 24TH REFERENCE ON THE KEVIN PAGE ARTICLE, if you still insist that it is a neutral independent comission well then you are yourself likely unknowingly biased towards a more left-leaning version of events 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CL-41R
CL-41R with a RCAF CF-104Bell 230 of the Chilean Navy
Hi Adam, I found this photo last night while tracking down another one from the same archives, René Francillon Photo Archive on Flickr. I tried to upload it to Commons, only to discover it's already there! It looks like all the photos from that archive are on Commons, but they're under C:Category:Photographs by SDASM Archives (check needed). So I've been trolling through the Flickr archive for more rare photos, as it's easier to see them there.
The CL-41R didn't enter production, but I haven't been able to find anything more about what happened to it. Sometimes aircraft with noses like that become radar testbeds, so I'm curious. BilCat (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do know a bit about that aircraft! As the Tutor article notes it was a proposal for a trainer for CF-104 students to learn to use the 104's radar on, with the advantage of side-by-side seating. It never entered production because the RCAF decided to convert two C-47s instead, so that the student and instructor could sit in the back and twiddle with the radar at heart's content and 155 knots airspeed while the crew at CFB Cold Lake's Base Flight flew the plane. The two DC-3s were named "Pinocchio" (photo) and "Dolly's Folly" (photo). The unloved but "supersonic-looking" CL-41R is now at the Reynolds Alberta Museum in Wetaskiwin, south of Edmonton: https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/aviation. I was actually posted to Base Flight Cold Lake from 1990 until it was re-badged as 417 Combat Support Squadron, flying CH-118s (UH-1Hs), but the DC-3s were gone when I got there. Of note the CL-41R's civil registration CF-LTX now belongs to a Bell 206L Long Ranger! - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like not all of the images in that collection have been uploaded to Commons. I tried uploading a Bell 230 (above right), but I messed it up, and it has a very generic filename. Do you know how to rename it? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Done - It is now at File:Bell 230 N230CH Chilean Navy.jpg. I am assuming that, with US civil registration, it was a Bell demonstrator model, although it doesn't show up on the FAA registry under that "N" number. Doing an FAA registration search shows they exported a sister ship to Equador, N230CN, in 2000 though. - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No you are quite right, that was the wrong picture. I have removed it. Otherwise spec templates, ref archiving and nav box Done. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I once tried to join Procrastinators Anonymous back in the 90's. They were on their members promotion of 1958, and after putting it off for years, I actually called them. I left a message, but they never called me back. :) BilCat (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think the 25 year old gmail account needs to be deleted? Your saying the there's no information about how i got a Gmail account back in 1997 in Westbrook college? A random public person that just stumbled upon Google Gmail account? 184.153.185.206 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your original (now deleted) post was basically incomprehensible and did not suggest any changes to this article. Wikipedia article talk pages are only used for suggesting article improvements, not for general chatter, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Your latest post is not much better in terms of suggesting article improvements. Do you have an improvement to suggest backed by a reliable source? Plus additional reading. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
"Unscrewed" aircraft? Really? I'm surprised it wasn't "crude and unscrewed aircraft". (FlightGlobal needs to hire better proofreaders! Or stop relying on computer spellcheckers. I wonder if they take Americans.) BilCat (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Adam, that IP you reverted on the Concorde here is that LTA who locates to the Seattle metro area. I first ran into them about 6-8 years ago. Their edits are mostly indistinguishable from vandalism, and generally focused on Russian articles, usually aircraft, tanks, and orthodox churches! I've never actually had a response from them, so I assume they're one of these LTAs that we got a lot of that are obsessed with certain topics, but have some sort of mental or developmental issues that preclude communication with others. Feel free to revert on sight if you see one of these, as they usually involve date additions or changes that aren't correct, or make some sort of odd claim to being first at something, or some odd comparison to a similar Russian product, as with this one. Sometimes they get even weirder, such as giving odd nicknames for Russian aircraft by pilots or stewardesses (really!), often with mention of the Soviet counterpart to the Wizard of Oz, or something to do with Stepan Bandera! User:Nigel Ish also reverted their edits from the day before on some Russian aircraft articles, and they are the usual type of edits they make to aircraft articles. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another typical edit here. Maybe someday psychologists will do case studies of Wikipedia vandals and LTAs. Should be some very interesting reading! BilCat (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the kinds that remain 14 for the rest of their lives, no malice intended. Sad really, especially if they can't help what they're doing, but they really need better supervision in such cases. It would make our duties here a lot easier. Sometimes I wonder if the WMF is really aware of the extent of such problems, but honestly, I think they just care about other things more, like money. If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-11-28/News and notes, it's eye-opening. Especially the outright lies about donations going to Wikipedia editors. I certainly haven't gotten any of it, and I could use it, especially given how bad Bidenflation is right now! BilCat (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do. We just didn't do it so the WMF could dupe people to give donations by making them think it might help support editors, however weaselly the wording is so they can literally Wiki-lawyer their way out of it. BilCat (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit not having seen then original banner and it seems to be not up now, even when viewed signed out, but I think the issue here is a new kind of maleficence native to the 21st century, called "professional fundraisers". I have seen the same in other charities' materials in recent years. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't I know it! Ole Bill Gunston would be very surprised at being called "US-centric" source. He was many things, but certainly not that! I've read British Aviation literature, especially books, for nearly 40 years. I've yet to see one of them claim the Mustang was British. They certainly don't overlook it's British influence, and crow about the British engine big time, however. BilCat (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the facts are pretty clear. The British government wanted North American Aviation to build them some P-40s and NA said "nah, we can do better than that". They worked up the specs with the British and then it was designed by American engineers, test flown and built by NA using a Packard engine. Sure, later it got a British engine, but it was an American design. If this had been a British project they would have just got P-40s. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. I've tried thinking of some well-known British aircraft that used American engines, but they're really aren't any. I can think of several prominent American aircraft with British engines, however, such as the F9F, A-7D/E, and of course the AV-8B. The US doesn't buy many British aircraft, however. It seems to be the opposite with the UK, as they've bought many American aircraft, and fitted a few with British engines, such as the F-4 Phantom. It's even more confusing now that Rolls-Royce owns the former Allison. Just look at the new Rolls-Royce BR700 engines for the B-52! British-German engines built in the US by a British subsidiary. BilCat (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there are some British light aircraft types that used American engines, . But it's really rare for British-designed military and large airline aircraft to use American engines. BilCat (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a really strong case for the F-35 being Anglo-American, as they're the only first-level partner. One reason we don't is that all that users would want to add all the other minor partners to the origin parameter, and it would get quite long! The other reason is that the US is clearly the lead and dominant partner on the project. I don't think the British were very happy at all with RR being shut out of engine production, as they expected the F136 to be able to compete for production contracts. BilCat (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
clearly you gentlemen have been focusing upon northamericancentrism - Australia had a character Norman Gunston he probably couldnt have even known how to pronounce the word 'geography/ let alone north america... JarrahTree00:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing Australians, he probably pronounced both words without "r"s in the middle, but with them on the end! BilCat (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC) (No malice intended, just good-natured fun!) BilCat (talk)[reply]
Hi, you remove my addition to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_47 Then I found that the "talk" section of the article have already this information! So I'd like to understand why there is a section about appearances in media if it must remain empty ?
There is a link to "fiction" but nothing about "real" even, weird that the interesting section is hidden in "talk".
I think it's a bad thing to keep a wiki entry just as if it was a plain boring technical spec, If it must be a boring technical spec, it can be a better option to remove "media" and left the only link to the "fiction" section. --Rag.lien (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you reverted on Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown for duplicating archives. Now I suppose that's true, but given the auto-archiving was added by a sockmaster to conceal their past editing and that the page is less than the 50-75k norm for archiving, restoring the content seems appropriate. The stray archives can be blanked, redirected, or just ignored until needed. Arguably they could also be G6'd or G5'd, but wasting admin time that way seems kind of pointless since the page titles are not inherently inappropriate. Further current practice is to avoid fragmentation and autoarchive settings of less than 50k are quite unusual present day, so if we were archiving we would consolidate it all to just one page. Anyway, appreciate your thoughts here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you just wrote. The whole point is the sockmaster is still trying to hide that discussion, and none of the rest should have been archived to begin with, and certainly not in archives that small. There's a small number of sockmasters who disrupt things by archiving either using one-click archiver or by messing with auto-archiving settings. I tend to just revert them on both the talk and archive pages. If that means an archive page is blank sans templates than so be it. But I'm not inclined to discuss the issue at length. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are far more efficient at vandalism than human editors are! I actually turned that bot off and started the conversation that got that all fixed. And it was all fixed manually, too! At least we are back to "square one". It showed up on my radar due to sailboats like J/111. I think this episode really illustrates that old saying from the 1970s: To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly did that! Yeah, I saw you had reported it. It was all over by the time I got on-Wiki, and thankfully that was the only article on my watchlist that got hit. I just wanted to put in my two cents! ;) BilCat (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And while I've no doubt that it was a genuine mistake, I do hope the bot owner took the lesson to heart. We've had admins de-mopped and even indeffed because they were unable or unwilling to control their bot account(s). BilCat (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing currently (and sneaking in an edit or two)
Hi nice to hear from you.. I am sailing presently and am able to do a few edits here or there. I hope you don't mind the edit on Jibing. How do you write an article on this topic that is readable and meets standards? Beats me on how to approach the problem, if you want to team up on something let me know.
Anyway - I jibe all the time - it really comes in handy.
I was going port to port, (with the right of way - many people on the water don't know the rules) with an oncoming boat and was getting too close for comfort. Since the boat oncoming was not moving I decided to tack. A first time guest was on the jib and he let the lines loose before I had enough momentum. It was the first time I really really understood losing the wind in your sails. (even though I sail under bridges, behind buildings, through inlets, and in passing)
The only way to maneuver was to close even further with the oncoming boat and then jibe.
It came in real handy to be able to execute a jibe smoothly and without thinking about it.
Nice to hear from you. At least you are still sailing at this time of year. I live in Canada and here we stop and haul the boats out in early November, before the water freezes. Sailing starts again at the end of April, hopefully. Sometimes a quick jibe (or gybe as we spell it) from a port tack to a starboard one will give you right-of-way, if the other boat actually knows the colregs. - Ahunt (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was on a starboard tack... sometimes it just comes down to the practicalities of not colliding.. The big issue in local waters is draft. Sailing under this bridge John_Ringling_Causeway and navigating through a natural inlet where the sand shifts around. Beyond big trips, I usually sail anywhere from Sarasota to Ft Myers. Hard to believe, having lived in Montreal for a while, that 70F would be freezing. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, we have the same issue with people not knowing the rules and not yielding right of way. The bottom line rule is of course "don't hit anyone, even if you are in the right". We are also on a shallow body of water, too, Lac Deschênes. My boat has a draft of 2.67 ft (79 cm) which helps a lot in that regard. It is -10°C here this morning (14°F). A bit cool for sailing! - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My day sailing boat a 22 catalina has a swing keel so its 6.5' draft down and about 3 up. Sometimes I am a guest on a 17' windrunner which has no draft. The fixed keel boat I am crewing on now is a 44 beneteau with about 5.5' draft.. should be about 80 degrees today. It is easy for me to pick up boats [1]https://www.sarasotasailingsquadron.org/ or crew yachts.Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great arrangement. My boat is a US Yachts US 22 and that is it illustrated in the article. Very similar to the Catalina 22, in fact they were competitors. The US 22 has a slightly smaller cockpit, but bigger cabin. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yours looks a bit sleeker. There are two or three catalina 22 variants in the club, some with extended cabins, another with a fixed winged keel (3 foot draft). 6knts is about hull speed. In the catalina 22 I have been caught out in six foot swells and 20+ winds which is even scary reefed. The trimaran I pickup can reach 15 knots, before the outrigger digs in. Your boat looks more overnightable; because of the heat here AC (with shore power) is a must if you are going to have an extended stay anywhere or live aboard. You can buy a nice sailboat here for less money than it would cost you to maintain a slip and diver. There is a real crew shortage here which is great; sometimes however the captain does not know what they are doing. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here and for challenging me on that. I double-checked the timing and you are quite right, that ref actually says the flight was reported as having crashed four minutes before it took off. The news report is obviously just wrong and since it adds nothing to the article I have removed it entirely. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! (On the hashtag!) Yeah, I wrote a response to this question, but didn't post it as it quickly degenerated into a rant about British Traditions, and only that those who are unimportant anyway, like Americans, don't understand the importance of British Traditions, and since they don't understand it, there's no need to explain it. Wouldn't have been very helpful! BilCat (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are kind of burying yourself here, running around with accusations like that. It would be better for you to just apologize and make an actual case on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
December 2022
Your recent editing history at LXQt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - 89.12.182.12 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, do you think this crash is notable enough for inclusion? I've reverted it as a verbatim copy quoted from the source, but there's no proof this is the type's first crash, and it doesn't seem notable otherwise. I've asked about deleting it as a copyvio, so if it's gone when you read this, it's copied from ASN. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Flaris LAR-1 publicity photo-26.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Flaris LAR-1 publicity photo-26.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It arrived Thursday evening with freezing rain and then seven hours of ice pellets falling, which is a bit unusual, then just a lot of wind and some snow, so far 14 cm, which is not a lot, but it is drifting. Our winds reached 86 km/h and are still 39 G 61 km/h right now, but it seems like the worst is past. The fun part was yesterday at +3°C in the warm sector shovelling 100 mm of slush off the driveway before the fast-moving cold front arrived and froze everything! That was a workout. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year!
Thank you. I hope you have a nice Christmas there, too. Here we have some snow drifts that needs removing today, but at least our storm has past. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to discuss. It is not notable, the same as thousands of other accidents, it fails WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and well as WP:LASTING and does not meet the project's consensus inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. Someone else will remove it sooner or later anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and I see another editor has done just that. To re-introduce that you need to present some policy or guideline rationale in that on-going discussion on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
28 December 2022
I see you're also having problems with CanadianScotNationalist...he keeps deleting my content for no reason.
(talk page watcher) Oddly enough, they're doing the opposite with my edits, and restoring questionable content that I've deleted. I've always found WP:ROPE to be good advice in dealing with such users. It just takes some patience, but it usually works out for the best. In very rare cases, I've seem users who start out this way make the effort to become productive editors. But for the majority, they're eventually shown the door. Especially if they've been shown it before! BilCat (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he's using the IP to game the system, avoid scrutiny, or otherwise be disruptive, then yes, he should be blocked. But logged-out editing per se is allowed as long as the account, or another one, isn't blocked already. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No surprises there. Wikipedia always sorts these things out. The evidence points to what I noted above under WP:LOUTSOCK for the fixed IP address 107.190.33.254, which has been blocked, too. It is all explained at User talk:107.190.33.254 in excruciating detail. He gets one entertainment point there for invoking WP:BROTHER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of wikilawyering! It is slightly entertaining, but I doubt they'll be unblocked. Regardless of whether they have a brother or not, they're showing for all to see why they shouldn't be unblocked. BilCat (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, Ahunt! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1362 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 4 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this, what are they putting in the water in Ottawa these days? What's next? The Arrow was the prototype of the Space Shuttle and the Starship Enterprise?? BilCat (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise that was a Canadian IP address. Yeah the Avro Arrow is a sort of evangelical religion around here. We have a locked ward here, where we do deprogramming on them, like in A Clockwork Orange. I recently had to point out to someone who thought we should build Arrows as a CF-18 replacement, that the Sopwith Camel (1918) is closer to the Arrow's time (1958) than the Arrow is to today (40 years vs 64 years). Even if we had bought them, they would have been replaced by the CF-18 in the early 1980s, but you can't argue with fanatics. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Avro closes down the CF-105 Avro met fin au projet d’aéronef CF-105
Can you explain what this photo title, shown in the caption at right, has to do with the photo? And is the man in the photo someone famous? This will make a great photo for my new essay. Now I just need a good caption. BilCat (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is some info on the source page but I have no idea who that person is, or even what the photo is supposed to illustrate. I can see why it is only used on two pages and this is one of them and yours is the other!
the first picturethe second picture
Speaking of pictures on Commons, we have hit a new low in deletion requests:
I will admit that I have never had my photos nominated for deletion for that reason before: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am considering not even responding and leave it to the closing admin to laugh his or her head off. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this link, and click on "Record Information – Details". Could you move the photo to a better title, amd perhaps include some of the info from that link on the filenpage? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the two sailboat photos: sorry the links didn't work, I have fixed them above. Even if that is actually your boat, that is not a reason to delete photos from Commons!! - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The people are not really recognizable, but that was not his complaint, it was that the sail shape was not optimal and so that is embarrassing to him. This is getting pretty close to Streisand effect territory. If Commons deleted any photo because someone didn't like it they might as well delete them all now. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Still, you might reach out to them, explain your reasons for taking and uploading the photos (love of photography, sailing and sailboats, etc.), and perhaps offer to remove them in exchange for helping them upload better photos of the craft, assuming the craft are theirs. (Just a suggestion.) BilCat (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and just to wrap-up the story of the two boat photos, both were "kept" on Commons with the closing admin stating "Kept: no valid reason for deletion.". So at least that worked. In my original retort I did suggest that the complainant submit new, better photos for use if he didn't like the existing ones. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Smith's own website backs up the 1995 date. It's confusing because he did make a circumnavigation flight in a 206 in 82-83, with one in a Twin Otter in between. BilCat (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following citation {{cite web|url = [[Glenn Henderson]]|title = Hunter E33|access-date = 7 January 2019|work = sailboatdata.com|year = 2019}} here as there isn't a URL so it isn't usable (Special:Diff/1132031047/1132031599), however if you have the URL would you like to add it back? Also that page is approaching the WP:PEIS limit so be aware there are not many more citations you can add to it. User:GKFXtalk23:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I fixed the ref that you removed. I have been thinking that page needs splitting for a while, I just have to figure out the best way to do it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article says being made in china, and I looked and there's this france tag, and I thought, I know I have been treading in some particularly weird mud of recent, this requires action it does I says to meself... JarrahTree00:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you got it right, I got it wrong. My set of default talk page templates is currently set up for doing Jeanneau boats! I am working on doing all of those and am about half way through, but the Flying Tiger 7.5 was a break in that series. Thanks for catching it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nah no big deal - I keep seeing things in your conversations with bill that I want to jump in and offer oz strylian anecdoates (the possible puns are endless) - but when sitting in the mud puddle at the moment, its all daylight from here... but that is a long and inchoate incoherent rant about how easily language can be buggered, (in which ever continents use of that word is permittable...) JarrahTree05:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the typo is in the source, then. Here's a different source with the correct engine code [2]. I can't find any evidence of an engine with the 167 code. Cheers,—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that Aerofiles is not correct on that engine model, but that aircraft-database.com ref seems to be an open wiki that anyone can edit and thus WP:SPS. We really need a more authoritative source to solve this one. - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did go though my own library of paper books here at home and could not locate anything on this. I think a good source might be Janes All The World's Aircraft for the right year. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if Jane's goes into that much detail - its probably more like "65 hp Franklin" or if you are really lucky "Franklin 4AC".Nigel Ish (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but later Jane's (for example the 48 edition) don't go into that sort of detail. However, there is a FAA TCDS covering (amongst others) the Aeronca 65-TAF / L-3D [3] which states on page 3 "Engine Franklin 4AC-176-B2".Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your Scampi 30 page is incomplete and provides incorrect details. As an owner of one of these boats, it's been bothering me for quite some time. Today, finally, I made the effort to correct your unfortunate yet understandable mistakes and omissions. However, as being an Owner who has the subject matter mere inches away from his nose apparently does not provide sufficent authority, the edits were quickly reverted by you.
I can appreciate your intransigence. In fact, I applaude it. However, please do realise that this results in you having published false and misleading information. Boltguy (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I had noted, I completely understand your position. And, I respect it as well. Nevertheless, your information is without any doubt, wrong and incorrect. Take, for example, your citation-less claim that the Scampi was also built by the Yamaha Corporation as the Yamaha 30. Nothwithstanding that this boat doesn't have the Scampi's distinctive hard chine, it's obvious to anybody who does a "Sailboat Guide" review of both boats that the dimensions clearly prove that they're quite unique. Just because the Yamaha 30 was also designed by Peter Norlin (apparently) doesn't mean that it's a Japanese version of a Scampi 30. Nevertheless, you claim with great authority that it is. So... as this is an example of your incorect data, surely you can accept that you may have a few other facts wrong as well.
If you're unwilling (or rather "unable") to allow an an actual authority to correct this page, the least you could do is include a big flaming red and bold disclaimer that unlike what it implies, the page contains details which are in dispute. Boltguy (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People whose first language is French always have trouble with English plurals. It is a constant thing on this side of the border! My concern is always that eventually it will become an accepted thing even though it is bad grammar (you know like "I gifted her a present".) The really ironic thing is that the Province of Quebec is always passing laws to protect the French language... - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. They fight to make all of Canada accept French, then outlaw English in Quebec. It always seems weird to me that they even have to have a French translation of Nova Scotia, a Latin word which is closer to the French translation (Nouvelle-Écosse) than to the English (New Scotland)! What the British should have done 200 years ago was to mandate French and outlaw English in Quebec, then only English would be spoken there today! BilCat (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On "aircrafts", I think it will be an accepted plural within 50 years, if not the norm. It certainly will simply things to have a separate plural, which is why I think its inevitable. The word "aircraft" itself is less than 200 years old, so its a relatively new word. Unlike "gift" as a verb, which is much older than most people realize. It's just become more common in the last 30 years or so. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well its always nice to be thanked for an edit, even if it was as minor as those I made to this article. I'm afraid that I'm like the Elephant Child- full of insatiable curiousity- and was wondering how a busy man like you came to notice an insignificant edit to an obscure aircraft...
Changing the subject, I believe that you also do eding on small boats, and I was wondering if you knew anything about the development of hollow spars, an important refinement to many early aircraft that is, I believe, a borrow from boatbuilding technology?TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, it is nice to hear from you! I have a very long watchlist and that article just happened to be on it. Your small grammar change there was an improvement and I thought it at least worth a "thanks". I find there is no shortage of criticism here on Wikipedia, so I like to give encouragement when people make good edits, because we need more good edits!
On the development of hollow spars on boats I don't have any refs about that. I am guessing that they came with the 20th century advent of aluminum masts and booms as hollow wooden masts are hard to make. It might even be possible that boats took the technology from aircraft, as the nautical world tends to be quite slow in adapting new technology. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm, pretty sure that I read something somewhere about the techniques originating with boat builders. Probably in an old issue of Flight. Altho it does seem a bit odd. I can appreciate the value of reducing the weight of a mast regarding the c of g, but is spar/boom weight that critical,TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! And thanks for the thanks at WTAIR. I assume the "Greg" that the single-edit German IP mentioned is Greg Goebel of Air Vectors, but whose really knows? It's not the best way to start a conversation, so hopefully they'll get the message. BilCat (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We were both wrong! After seeing their "responses" after they reposted the question, I believe my instinct to remove the post was correct. There is an LTA who likes to post "questions" on talk pages, and this is probably them. The "discussions" generally go in circles quite quickly. I usually get suckered into responding, but something about this one raised a red flag. Probably the snark! Sometimes the best way to deal with LTAs is to be confrontational, and they'll quickly show why they were banned in the first place! BilCat (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company seems to be delivering a lot of promises instead of aircraft, so that leaves lots of time for internet PR control. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be common with a lot of "alternative energy" companies, many of which are mostly hype. It remains to be seen if all these electric and hybrid aircraft types can actually be profitable and/or economical to own in the long run. I almost expect some new technology to emerge in 10-30 years that makes these types obsolete overnight, but too expensive to replace/throw away. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened with technology. BilCat (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That copyvio on New Medium Helicopter turned out to be from an IP range with a long history of copyvios, some quite substantial, and they've been blocked for the time being. We really do need to report those so they can be deleted from the history, especially if it's more than a sentence or two once in a while. I use Twinkle, which makes it easy to tag them for deletion on the page. If you see some on a page where I'm not active, and don't have the time or desire to deal with it, just let me know. Twinkle is my superpower! (Heck, I couldn't even file an AFD before Twinkle!) BilCat (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_(17136018672).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
