@Ahunt I saw that you thanked one of my edits. I appreciate it very much so…
Because you thanked me
Ahunt, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! Jack345110 (talk)
I used my own records, which I saved at time or shortly afterwards as I attended said championships. I not sure if the regatta sites still exist or their urls, some where only paper records. If you want my additions in that's fine.
Thanks for your note here. I am assuming that you are User:Yachty4000? You really should sign in when you edit.
Your own personal records don't meet the requirements for references on Wikipedia, as per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. References have to be publicly available, so they are verifiable, meaning other editors can read them and check them. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing todo with me I wish I was fit enough to race an International 14! I also have a the same massive archive of results with URL saved at the time of events. I would add that archive.org allows most to still be used.
Martin if you read this please help populate the team racing world champions for the international 14 the crews are very rarely publicised. Yachty4000 (talk) 21:20, 15 Sept 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes I have no idea what's there, but my gut tells me something there. So I throw out some lines with different bait, and see what happens. Sometimes I catch something I didn't think was there, but I knew something was there. Figuratively speaking. BilCat (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you reverted a recent edit of mine on the Torch (web browser) article and wanted to ask about your rationale for doing so.
My edit was to add a dash between "North Carolina" and "based" (i.e., "North Carolina–based") because the attribution for "based" is a compound. You reverted my edit and replaced the en dash with a hyphen.
My understanding of the MOS, in this regard, is as follows: "Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen". I also included MOS:PREFIXDASH in the edit summary for reference.
So, you reverted it for "a number of coding errors including a non-closed <nowiki> tag."
First, I have had the <nowiki> tag happen before and asked about it in the Teahouse, recently. It seemed to be that I was using the en dash template instead of the symbol, plus, maybe, since I use the visual editor I don't see when the tag is added (although that's really more symptomatic). If you have any advice here I would appreciate it, as I am just making MOS edits at this point and would prefer to do so without causing any problems like tagging issues.
Second, please be specific about the "a number of coding errors" part. How many coding errors are we talking about? Please let me know about each one, specifically, so that I can learn from you.
Third, what about MOS:PREFIXDASH, specifically w/r/t this edit. Do you believe that a hyphen is appropriate, that your edit is consistent with MOS:PREFIXDASH?
The <nowiki> tag was not required at all to do what you were trying to do. Also there was no need to pipe the link to include the dash inside the link, as that made the resulting text look very odd and WP:EASTEREGG-ish for readers ("where is North Carolina dash?"). As far as the endless wars on Wikipedia over hyphens and dashes, I stay out of those, because as soon as someone uses a hyphen someone will change it to an endash, emdash or something else and then, as sure as the leaves fall in autumn, another editor will come along and change it right back and it will all start over again, and, yes all will cite one of dozens of policies and guidelines for their changes. To be honest I was not actually able to see that you had used an endash vs a hyphen on that page. When not coded they look pretty much identical on my laptop screen. Regardless, if you really want an endash, then I will put one there. - Ahunt (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) MOS:PREFIXDASH is another of those things that hyper-grammar wonks pushed into the MOS without any broad consensus for it. I usually just use hyphnes, and let those who care fix it. By keep the wonks focused on "correcting" all those hyphens, we hopefully lessen the time they have to think up new rules that the community doesn't want and won't keep. BilCat (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:BilCat, that pretty much sums up my take on that issue, too. For some reason my laptop keyboard doesn't have an "endash key" on the keyboard and Wikipedia doesn't like the use of HTML encoded text, so I have no real way of typing one. If it is important to some editors then I am fine with that, I don't revert "dash wars" in progress, but I know someone else inevitably will! - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ahunt and BilCat. I'm one of those hyper-grammar wonks IRL but also new to Wikipedia editing so appreciate the background info and feedback. Dashes are hard to begin with and the different writing styles create contradictory edge cases. The MOS covers hyphens and dashes in all but one condition that I have found so far, though, so it's clear that a lot of thought and care went into it.
I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing that sometimes causes the <nowiki> tag, though. It seems like the constants are using the visual editor and copy pasting of an en dash. Sometimes, but not always, it's when selecting a hyphen and copying an en dash. Also, sometimes but not always, it's when the prefix compound is a link. I'll just start switching over to the source and looking for the tag, which should solve the mystery and keep me from doing it.
But, while I have you, I'd like to ask for some additional background about <nowiki>. What is it? What does it mean when it's added? What is it used for (i.e., what does it do/indicate)? Is it bad?
I think most of us who have been editing Wikipedia for a while avoid visual editor entirely, because it inserts all kinds of unwanted coding and just generally breaks things. Most long-term editors just write page content by hand, as then it works right!
<nowiki> tags are used when you want to insert wiki mark-up onto a page as a demo or explanation but don't want the mark-up to actually work. As an example, if I want to explain to you how to mark a statement to show that it needs a reference added I will put <nowiki> tags around the template mark-up so it displays what you should add: <nowiki>{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}</nowiki>. If I just put the template in without the tags it displays the template like this : [citation needed]. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I suppose it's also a way that people insert improper things, as well, so something that is patrolled.
Getting into Wikipedia editing is hard enough, and source editing would compound that. Maybe I'll be able to switch someday. Maybe.
We were both on Wikipedia before VisualEditor came out, so we had to learn to do it all ourselves. Once you've learned it, though, it's fairly easy. Wikipedia is very rules-heavy, so the MOS is probably what's important to learn first. The rest can come later. On being a "hyper-grammar wonk" IRL, my condolences. Seriously though, your role is actually quite valuable, as much of editing Wikipeia. requires a good grasp of both basic and advanced English grammar. We have so many editors with a poor grasp of even basic English grammar, both native and non-native speakers of English. A lot of what I do is basic copy editing, but I'm not trained in that; I often know what's correct by instinct, but can't necessarily explain why, especially in college-level grammar terms. So it's important to people on here who can do that, but can also explain it well to layman. That we have a shortage of! My primary issue with what I call "hyper-gammar wonks" (that's my euphemism for another term, btw, one I try not to use anymore) is their staunch prescriptivism. While basic grammar has to be prescriptivist to some degree, I'm more descriptivist on everything else, or I try to be. BilCat (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is always lots of help available here, just have to ask. Of course that is not to say we have all the answers, but at least we often can figure out where to start! - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to let people know that serial numbers use hyphens, not en dashes, as they are not a range of numbers? Things like this incorrect change, which Adam thankfully reverted, really irritate those of us who already despise en dashes in the first place. BilCat (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I mention it, I seem to recall there is one for civil aircraft registration numbers. Perhaps that could used or adapted? BilCat (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I see in the MOS that would be similar to something like a serial number is this, even though it's specific to files/links and touches on ranges:
Do not change hyphens to dashes in filenames, URLs, or templates such as {{Bibleverse}} (which formats verse ranges into URLs), even if a range is embedded in them.
I also looked through the naming and numbering topics and didn't see anything. There are some examples where dates with hyphens are shown where the original formatting should be used.
I also remember seeing something about aircraft tail numbers, too, but can't find it right now. Call signs for radio stations are another one that would cause my head to spin if I saw that a hyphen had been changed to a dash.
But it seems like a statement that says something about how the original formatting should be maintained if hyphens are important/contextual would be helpful.
{{Not a typo}} seems to work, but it really shouldn't be needed if people know their history. Aircraft designations and registrations were invented in the early 20th century when everything was done on typewriters, which only have hyphens. The endash wasn't even invented until HTML text encoding came along! The other issue is that many of the dash warriors are not even reading the context involved: it is not a number range! - Ahunt (talk)
It's most definitely not a number range. I think most of them just aren't paying enough attention when they make these "corrections", which is probably a sign they shouldn't be making these changes in the first place. I'm considering asking at the MOS to get this clarified, but I'm half afraid they'll decide that serial numbers should use en-dashes, not hyphens! BilCat (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it usually does look like a lack of attention! I usually cite the refs (which use hyphens) and change it back. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know better but I would hope not! I do think that the MOS should have something to say about when hyphens are part of the meaning/context of something that they shouldn't be changed to dashes. There are plenty of examples we could cite. Edward Bednar (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of some recent edits that needed fixing, like this one where an editor was using an automated tool (AWB) to make a bunch of rapid edits and also changed one aircraft serial number to an endash along with a bunch of other changes. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like this, from MOS:AMP: In normal text and headings, use and instead of the ampersand (&): January 1 and 2, not January 1 & 2. But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Edward Bednar (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, AWB is a problem with many things like this. Some AWB operators aren't really qualified to run the system, or just aren't paying enough attention, which amounts to the same thing. BilCat (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did start to write a post at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, but deleted it before saving, as I didn't find any other examples besides US aircraft serial numbers and designations (F-16, B-52, MiG-29, etc.) There should be more examples of places where hyphens are legitimately used, but I couldn't think of any at the time. Any ideas about other examples? BilCat (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out what this was all about. The user just created es:Aviat Husky on Spanish Wikipedia. They have linked to an article on Spanish Wikipedia before, in inappropriate places, but that article was deleted there. As to why they're doing it that way, that's more your area of expertise! I did add the article to Wikidata for them. BilCat (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is always inneresting is the total lack of interest in referring to relevant projects or possible editors who have been in the trees, it is rare for any sign of deference, the oz situation can be where cat trees and their context can be morphed into things of different form and no sign of an oz ed in sight... JarrahTree10:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sailing competitions are a real mess, needs some serious clean-up, although it can be debated whether this is a good start or not. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did occur to me either way. Personally I was just looking for a ref that connected the paint scheme to the show, although one could argue how notable the whole thing is. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. We don't even have an article on either Setouchi Holding or Setouchi Seaplanes, so I don't see the point. But an independent reliable source that makes the point would be acceptable, in my opinion. So far, one hasn't been presented. I could go on, but will refrain. :) BilCat (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the RfC will end up recommending something that the community sees as an appropriate caption, assuming the OP doesn't talk it to death first! I'm still holding to the minimalist caption, but will allow others to negotiate something better. My view of consensus is that it usually comes out of a compromise between two opposing views. That's part of the process. Unfortunately, the OPs method was to add more information to the article with inadequate sourcing, and when he couldn't do that, he wanted to "take the ball and go home" (not use the photo in the article). I still get the sense there is some sort of COI involved here, especially since they appear to have a more than basic understanding of Japanese copyright law. We'll see what happens. If we had an article on the airline, that would be the place to explain the livery in detail. But not in the aircraft article. BilCat (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to know Wikipedia doesn't have a monopoly on acrimony and confusion in discussions, though we definitely elevate it to an art form! BilCat (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was particularly pleased to discover the user's first edit and point out this userbox was likely intentional pwnage (for this exact situation) by a contributor who last edited in 2009. This desperate search for offensive things in userspace is troubling and not sustainable. BTW, based on the contribution history, IMHO this was an experienced wikipedian, not a sudden wiki-fling. BusterD (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I did appreciate your addition to the deletion discussion, building on my arguments and citing that essay, which I admit was topical, but that I had not seen before. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen Wikipedia:Ragpicking before either. Some people (ragpickers, not that essayist!) just have too much time on their hands, but lack the maturity (or experience, not quite the same thing!) to use it well. BilCat (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, too many people don't understand that there is a difference between indiscriminate violence and the controlled use of force, and that sometimes the only way to stop the former is with the latter. BilCat (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no sweat. Three hours in jail is not much indication of a character failing, just enough time for a long bath! - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person who took those photos has confirmed that they are J/70 pix and not Melges 24s. He will move them and re-categorize them, too. Thanks for bringing this up! - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. That photo is used on another wiki page of a friend of mine. I think it is a pretty fair representation of the boat and it's performance. Melgessailor24 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is a copyright violation, as it was previously published as "all right reserved" by the person who took the photo. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, I removed it. It is just a jargon-laden research paper and not a policy, besides that there is nothing new in it. I mean the revolution is considering engine cycles and engine hours? Really? The inclusion seemed like pure WP:PROMOTION of the paper. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought that myself, but again, I lacked the technical background to be certain. My instincts on such things are usually, though not always, correct. Seventeen years of experience here on Wikipedia has helped me to recognize promotional tone, and we certainly see a lot of it here! BilCat (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My wife has become addicted to Aircraft Craft Investigations - wherever we can find it in strange corners, we watch - we have just watched a doco on BA Flight 009 - it is giving me the beegees, as I will be flying through Javanese volcano region in August. Inneresting, one might say... [1] inneresting... JarrahTree12:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the himalayan crashes that really get to me - Kangra/Gagal/Dharamshala landing ground is so f ing short the turboprops feel like they are trying to wrench their landing gear from under themselves to finish their landing before the ravine... :( JarrahTree12:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) To my knowledge, I've never flown on a 747. (If I did, it was as a young child.) I've flown on plenty of 727s, 737s, and Dc-9s over the years, and I do miss the 727s. They had a solid feel (most older Boeings had that), and those three JT8Ds were a kick in the seat on take-off. BilCat (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inneresting - have crossed oz more than a few times when qantas utilised it for domestic, and about 15 years ago was on a qantas 400er that doing sydney to BA (buenos aires) it actually crossed parts of the antarctica on its way to cape horn before turning left and wandering along northwards along the east coast of southern argentina from the south - just wish I had taken more photos at the time, I was too sparing as it was the beginning of a long trip... Barn maybe, it was good! JarrahTree11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to look at globes, flat maps, and also guessed that southern pacific weather patterns in August are such... and struck gold with https://simpleflying.com/qantas-buenos-aires/ my perception as a passenger was very wrong :) did I ever claim to be right about anything? the graphic in the link shows I was very wrong in describing, and the route is very straight... JarrahTree12:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and I find the Santiago default quite problematic - airport security was crap compared to BA - and chileans have a very bad habit of speaking too fast JarrahTree12:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most Spanish speakers have that problem. I am a (US) Southerner, and we listen slowly! So I can read a little Spanish, but am useless at understanding spoken Spanish. I speak Jamaican Patois, but I still have to ask Jamaicans to slow down! (Can't read it at all though.) BilCat (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uni students getting credit for Wikipedia editing: success or failure?
In recent years we have had many universities engaged to create or improve articles with a failure rate of 100%. I wish they would stick to term papers instead. I tried that in the early 2000s with some optional "creativity" points (with strong warnings about choosing private usernames versus real-life names or IPs). A few students accepted the challenge, and you'd have to ask pl.Wikipedians of that epoch for their opinions, but I do remember spending quite a bit of time doing cleanups based on Wikipedia standards of that epoch. I seem to remember that at least one reasonable new software-related pl.Wikipedia article was created. I didn't try to make any serious assessments of the overall results.
Looking at an arbitrary sample of one random student in one randomly chosen not-too-new course, I see this pair of edits, which are not too bad, though especially the last paragraph added illustrates your point about adding unsourced material, which was sourced a day later by Diannaa.
Thanks for your note here. I appreciate your optimism! As I noted, everything I saw in this area required serious clean-up. When these first started appearing about 12-15 years ago I really thought it could be a good thing that would engage some bright and motivated students and that perhaps at least some of them might become regular contributors. I was sorely disappointed, though. It seemed that many assignments, like the Peacekeeping one, were mandatory course requirements, involving illiterate and poorly motivated students with a only a desire for a passing course mark, rather that any motivation to build an encyclopedia. If you look back to the early stages you can see the contributions. Now when I see a new university course show up here all I think is "oh no, not again". - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Letting students loose in mainspace, especially those who don't speak English natively, has always been a bad idea! They really need to be assigned to work in Draftspace, where their work won't be disruptive to regular articles. The drafts could be tagged as "educational drafts", and could be copies of existing articles, which normally aren't allowed in draftspace. BilCat (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take down photos of my underage daughter on our sailboat
Challenger 24 Alcyone photos taken without permission or consent from me the owner... Photos of my young daughter onboard. Delete photos now! 205.193.82.252 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that only 2/8 are primary sources, which is not true. 4/8 are: YouTube about page, YouTube video, personal website, and law firm website. They are cited 7 times out of the total 11 citation tags, with the other 4 citations—which are reliable—only cited in one paragraph (relating to one lawsuit) and an award. All other personal details are derived from primary sources. I think that warrants a tag. 〜 Festucalex • talk21:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page is not the correct place to bring this up. This needs to go to the article talk page as per WP:BRDDISCUSS so other editors can see it and participate in any discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRDDISCUSS says You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, and I'll do the preferred thing in the future. But since we're here, we might as well discuss it. 〜 Festucalex • talk23:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahunt, not sure if you confused it with distress sale or something else, but divestment is a broad term that usually involves sale of a non-"core" or non-cash cow asset or business without being compelled. Their spokesperson also calls it a divestiture. Let me know if I'm missing something since I've used this diction in multiple places here. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that is fine, it just seems like a "loaded" term in that context, compared to the simpler and more direct "sale". - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Airbus CC-330 Husky
I guess this answers the question of how the RCAF will refuel its CF-35s in the air: with a boom. We should probably update the relevant F-35 articles that mention the issue. BilCat (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources from today specify that a boom will be used on the tanker Huskies, in addition to the hoses-and-drouges. BilCat (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see how the RCAF's F-35s are configured! Meanwhile, while we still have CF-18s we will need drogue refuelling , so they better not ditch the CC-150s too quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CC-330s will be able to refuel both types with the same plane, assuming Canada buys enough hoses and booms to outfit all 9 CC-330s, which isn't a given. I'm surprised they are buying 9, but that may change once Parliament sees the bill. BilCat (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been on Wikipedia for less than a year, yet they still refuse to listen more experienced editors. It also makes me wonder if they have a dog in the hunt. BilCat (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the template on the above article as that event was an aviation incident (albeit minor, social impact aside), and articles such as the 2023 FAA system outage, which also isn't an accident, have been listed on this year's aviation incident template, and the template page has a listing for that event. I don't see a reason why the template should be removed from that article. --Jnglmpera (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the case, it must have been a crossing in our edits since I would've been editing that template around that time. --Jnglmpera (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but when you put the nav box into the article at 0137 hrs the article was not linked. I removed and then you added it. Regardless, it is okay now, properly linked. - Ahunt (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt, I added a talking point to the Custom 62 page. The references [3][4] "evidencing" the existence of "Lilia" lead to a 62' Alden-built boat and therefore should be removed from the C&C 62 page. The used ON number also indicates Alden, 12.5' beam which cannot be out of the C&C 61 mold, which has a 15' beam. We are still trying to figure out what boat is displayed in the video that is referenced under [5]. Unfortunately the www.yachtauthority.com link in the video description does not respond anymore. There are options that is was actually an older 61' or one of the 2 boats projects before "Pegaso" that are listed on the C&C build list under a different project name. We know "Scirocco" was never built but there is another name listed, "Brita" that seems to be MIA. "Pegaso" was built by raising the freeboard on the 61' mold. This is how they got to the 62' LOA. She has the hull number 10, which corresponds to the C&C buid list entry 10. There was no different hull mold for 62'. Additionally, the book reference [1] indicates that "Pegaso" was "the first Custom 62'", which suggests that there are no other 62' C&Cs, as there were no other builds after Pegaso.
References [3] and [4] are there and actually point to a NOAA fisheries site, no longer to USCG. This should be updated to be a correct reference as intended in the doc. If you search for ON 1041466 on https://cgmix.uscg.mil/psix/psixsearch.aspx, you get the currently active LILIA entry as well as the old MARAUDER entry. Clicking on the LILIA entry gives the detail page. Hull number JGE620000381, Length: 62.00 ft Breadth: 12.20 ft Depth: 10.50 ft. None of these web pages are directly referable since they come out of a database and are dynamically generated. The only option would be a screenshot. JGE620000381 is an Alden hull number, C&C would start with ZCC or 2CC. You can look up JGE620000381 on https://hindecoder.com and it will list LILIA as a J. G Alden manufacturer. So these references clearly are wrong if used to evidence this as a C&C 62 and should be removed. Then, of course, there is no evidence that Jubilation/Lilia/Marauder exists as C&C 62, per the "proper references cited" rule. TomKnorr (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the page history you will see I actually had nothing to do with adding those claims or refs to the article and I really can't comment on their usefulness or veracity, even if fixed and properly archived so they are not dead refs. You probably need to debate this with the editor who added all those refs and text to the article, @Ken Heaton:. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my edit summary, the ref you added is an open wiki that anyone can edit and, as per WP:SPS, it therefore not suitable as a reference, as it is not a reliable source. It can't be "fixed". - Ahunt (talk)
Thanks for fixing my mistake! (accidentally removed WikiProject tag)
Sorry about removing the US WikiProject tag from my draft of the Grady-White Boats article! I accidentally left it out when I resubmitted the draft for review. Thank you for noticing and fixing it! Igoe-Matthew (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So true, so true. Unfortunately, many of them are native English speakers! Anyway, it was a non-notable incident, so no work to fix it was required. BilCat (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but, but - one can be heartened by the geographic genius of the editor encountered ages ago who was convinced that Tasmania was a separate country... as a one time resident I was enthusiastically reminded that editing by people who know nothing about the subject they are editing is pervasive... JarrahTree00:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this. Some people shouldn't ever try to be funny on Wikipedia, especially if under the influence of something. (No idea if that's the case here or not, but if not, it makes the attempt even worse.) BilCat (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of things you should probably not know about! There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy - Hamlet. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, I reverted this as a forum-type question. IIRC, the AH-1G actually used the UH-1C's rotor blades, not "new" ones, but it still seems relatively insignificant, and beyond the scope of a generalist encyclopedia. Manufacturers update rotor systems and blades for a variety of reasons, so it's not really that unusual. However, if you want to address it, feel free to unrevert it and respond. BilCat (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blades for the AH-1G have a chord of 2.25 ft and 43.96 ft diameter. The UH-1C has 2.25' and 44.0 ft, so pretty similar. Without some better refs we can't really know what the differences are. No doubt the AH-1 series blades have changed over time with successive models due to increased weight and speed requirements, but hard to say why without sources. The AH-1Z is 2.08' and 48.0' respectively, so a narrower chord with more diameter in that late model. Overall it is really out-of-scope, too much detail for a general encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I figured. I like to get a second opinion for topics I have little background on, and you're my go-to person on helicopter issues and sometimes light aircraft. BilCat (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Samson Switchblade artists concept 2012.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).
I spot checked 20 or so of your articles that you have listed on your user page, and every single one had major sourcing issues. The most common things I saw were primary sources, self publshed sources, unreliable sources, and the absence of any significant coverage.
If you want specific examples:
2si: The first reference is a self-published book. The second, fourth, and fifth references are primary. The third reference is a 'how-to' guide. All of the 2si articles in that list follow a similar format. I see no significant coverage from reliable sources in the articles that show that any of them are notable.
C&C 101: All references are from sailboatdata, which is not reliable (they use user generated data), and only database. No significant coverage.
MS Parafly: Only two reference. One a directory and the other is primary.
Raisner Graffiti: Two references. One is the same how-to reference from above (the fact that two randomly selected articles from such a large list...). The Other is just stating that it's not for sale from some website.
Sun Light 30: Same issues as above. All database-style references. Some from sailboat data, which uses user generated data. Some from sailboat.guide, which admits to using Wikipedia (not reliable) as a source. All non-significant.
I didn't cherry pick these. These were the first five I picked (I did look at more earlier, but these 5 were when I started typing this up. The earlier ones had the same issues).
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe, I just happened to pick the 5 worse examples and all the rest are great. However, based on what I see and your comments at the AFD, I don't think that's likely. I'm not saying that good sources for these articles don't exist, I didn't look thoroughly for most of them. I did look for 2si, but couldn't find anything worthy.
I don't know what the solution to this is, maybe there needs to be a larger discussion somewhere else. I hope you read this in the helpful tone that I intend. In the meantime, I suggest not using sources such as sailboat data and sailboat guide, as they aren't reliable. -- Mike🗩20:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments here. Some of the articles I have started in the past could, today, use additional refs. You can note that I have been writing articles here for 17 years and the emphasis here on Wikipedia has certainly changed over time. In the earlier days of Wikipedia there was more priority on expanding the number of articles and the subject range coverage. Many of my articles I wrote in the early days of Wikipedia were part of drives by WikiProject Aircraft to complete coverage of all aircraft types and manufacturers, for instance. Where ever possible I relied on paper references as cited. The articles all got peer-reviewed on creation. The good news is that as time has passed, for many subjects new references have become available and can probably be found and added. These include things like "used boat reviews", more Google Books scans of industry magazines being added every day and even newer history articles published. I am quite happy to go back to old articles I started some time ago and see what can be done to expand them and add more references.
As far as Sailboatdata.com goes we already have a consensus that it is a reliable source, although it is debatable how much notability it confers in isolation. Before I started using it as a source I did some digging and wrote to them to understand where their information came from and how reliable it is. Despite your claim above, it is not user-editable or any kind or open wiki that the public can edit or add stuff. Try it yourself - there is no way to edit pages. You can sign up for a user account there, but that only allows access to their user discussion forums, not to the data pages. Everything they publish is backed up by a large library of printed materials from boat reviews, press releases, sales pamphlets and similar. I have submitted corrections to their editors and these have to include documented proof and are independently reviewed prior to being included by their editor. They are quite thorough and are as reliable as sources like Janes Fighting Ships or Janes All The Worlds Aircraft in those respective subject areas. They have very specific criteria for inclusion, too, so it by no means captures all boats. It's not a phone book. In the sailing world sailboatdata.com is considered the "gold standard" reference for reviewers, used boat sales and historical research. Where I sail, it is the first stop for buyers and sellers for background and comparisons for potential purchases. It is good enough that both sailboatguide and sailboatlab started with their data as a basis and have expanded their own sites from there, based on their own additional information, such as from sales data. In contrast, boat-specs.com is a completely original reference based in France. They have many fewer entries, but their information is extremely detailed for the boats they do cover. Again their data is based on manufacturer's data and focuses on European boats. None of these websites is "user editable" or an open wiki, all are suitable for use as Wikipedia references.
Lest you think I have only produced slimly referenced articles, Beneteau First 20 is my most recent article posted. It has 16 references cited from ten different individual sources. These include the four data source sites, the designer's website, the manufacturer's website and three reviews from magazines: Cruising World, Boat Test and Sailing Magazine. I think that should satisfy even the most critical reading of WP:GNG.
As I stated in the AfD, by policy, articles should not be sent to AfD as a first step. WP:BEFORE is very clear that discussion, tagging and improving articles are the first steps, not trying to delete them. I am happy to work with anyone who wants to improve existing articles. As I noted, many new references have become available over time and each old article needs to be checked and then new refs researched and added. - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the discussion on SailboatData or Sailboat.Guide reached a consensus on its relaiblity. At best, it was split. I also disagree that it showed notability, as they show absolutely no notability. I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RS/N. I split it into two sections and linked your discussion above. I hope to have time, though I doubt it, to do a deep dive. I hope I don't come across as rude. I plan on also going through the articles that I created, as I don't think many of them deserve their own page as written (or at all). -- Mike🗩13:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I started editing Wikipedia back in 2005 there was a feeling of buoyancy to the project then. The emphasis was on collaboration to build an encyclopedia. We had some some excellent editors, many of whom were subject matter experts. We worked together through the WikiProjects to complete some very ambitious goals. For instance, over about ten years, as a dedicated effort, we were able to create articles on almost every type of aircraft that had ever been flown and the manufacturers who built them, something that had never been done in any other publication or project before. Are the articles perfect? No, of course not, but each one was peer-reviewed when it was created. Each one also was referenced to reliable sources, too, many to paper publications. They have been expanded over time, too.
Back then most people were here to build the encyclopedia. We did have the odd troll, COI editor here to promote their own company and its products, and we had some vandals, too, but we had a big enough collection of good editors to handle them and keep things on track and growing.
But over time we have lost most of our good editors, many of them to expressed feelings of frustration about how how bogged down the project has become and how so many new editors seem to treat it as a battleground where they are trying to win some personal ego battle and not as a collaborative project. The aim has been lost.
In the past, short or stub articles once started would be expanded and more refs added by other editors, today they get immediately sent for deletion with no regard to policies such as WP:BEFORE. Many newer editors seem to be hellbent on tearing the whole thing down, not building it. They don't seem to understand the goal.
Sadly, WP:RFA is no longer a place where we appoint editors to thoughtfully wield admin powers, now it is a shooting gallery where people have to suffer through personal attacks, character assassination and insults in a bid to help the project. For some reason we seem to be very short of admins.
In a recent typical case, I found an old article that consisted of just one unsourced sentence and I was able to find refs and expand it into a credible article. Apparently the original poster didn't like that and has now turned it into a complete mess and will edit-war anyone who tries to fix it. He has turned many articles into complete messes. I could take him to WP:ANI, and try to get one of our overworked admins to block him, but what is the point?
On one article editors have spent the last six months arguing over pronouns, while removing key, sourced information that explains the underlying causes of the event.
It is demoralizing that Wikipedia's reputation has been suffering in the public and the media from these and otherissues. I get tired of trying to defend the project on social media, when clearly the public has quite justifiably lost confidence in the articles they read.
We have now got to a point on Wikipedia where most of the good editors have given up and left in frustration. A large number of the ones who remain today seem to be WP:NOTHERE, or at least lack the skills in writing in the English language, or have pretty obvious "personal issues" that render them unable, or unwilling to participate in what should be a collaborative process and instead seem to be here to take out their "personal issues" on the encyclopedia.
In the past we always had problem editors, but they were quickly dealt with, as they made up only small numbers. These days their numbers seem to be quickly swelling and, with the departure of so many good editors, the problem people may even be nearing a majority.
People have said that they don't know what to do about this situation, but I do. I have had enough, after 17 years here, I quit. I have many better ways to spend my time.
I have received some emails today from other editors decrying the aforementioned AfD and this conversation, too, due to the lack of collaboration and general rudeness, as it exemplifies much of what is wrong with the project these days. So this may result in other contributors quitting as well.
When an editor's name begins with "Darth", I knew no good would come of it. What part of "the sum of all knowledge" do people not understand? Instead of adding all knowledge, they wikilawyer about what "sum" means. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad to see you go. You have always been one of my role models on Wikipedia. Good luck with your future endeavors! - ZLEAT\C03:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
every project in wikipedia has weaknesses, to focus on any one project is a problem - every single project needs help in maintenance and improvement, not fault finding... JarrahTree06:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have always been greatly appreciated and your absence from the project will be missed, but I can understand the frustration and burnt out feeling. Whether you return to editing or not, I wish you the best and my talk page/email/Discord is always open to you. - Aoidh (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried it and it seems to be working fine there on-line. I have to admit I have never used that website portal in the past, as I run "whois" from my Linux PC's command line directly and that never fails! - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An IP user has been removing references, content and inserting unsourced content into the Hai Kun-class submarine for the past 2 days. Some got reverted yesterday but after my last edit yesterday it seems to have escalated. Basicly all the edits after my edit from yesterday has featured only references removal and insertion of content that is not backed up with any source. Mostly this person seems to just leave previous references intact, which do not backup the content that this person has inserted. Some users like @Llammakey and @BilCat have tried to stop this person by reverting the article, but since there have been so many edits since my last edit I thought it was best to ask your help since you have rollback rights (which apparently can revert several edits?). Best regards SailingthroughHistory (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hai Kun-class submarine article has been protected from IP editing. Also, Adam has retired. He has no current plans to return. BilCat (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles
I was feeling nostalgic on Wikipedia and decided to check old edits and notifications, I just wanted to thank you for thanking me on Wiki as I remembered it being one the highlights of my editing career. Made me feel like I was making a real difference which I truly appreciate :) FiveXdollars (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Textron Aviation Logo 2014.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Textron Aviation Logo 2014.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).
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 uploading File:YankeeAirMuseumLogo.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).
Thanks for uploading File:PDF Forge PDFCreator Free 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).
Hi back. I am over on Commons everyday doing some large image re-org projects there and mostly only show up here when there are article image issues that demand fixing (or when someone tries to downgrade my contribution numbers). I am often here reading stuff as part of the Commons re-org work so I do and tend to see notes left when they pop up as notifications. That said, I am not writing articles here for now or monitoring watchlists. It is possible I may come back and work on en.wikipedia again in the future, but the atmosphere here needs to become less difficult first. So if you need to get in touch Commons is a better bet, or email! - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:TruimphGroupLogo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:TruimphGroupLogo.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).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozone Peak until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Orphaned non-free image File:Carolinas Aviation Museum Logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Carolinas Aviation Museum Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Europa Elite artist's conception.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).
Hello there, Ahunt! CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine here and I hope you remember me. On February 15, 2023, you thanked me on this edit (I renamed my username) and I just wanted to say thank you very much. It has been 565 days but since the first edit I made on UIA 752 until today, I have never forgotten you. Everytime I've thought of thanking you back but other thoughts like "No, don't do it! It's too late now!" hindered me but now, before it's too late for good, thank you for your little vote of encouragement you said to me on February 15, 2023! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you! I am glad that you took that "thank you" as a vote of encouragement, because it was intended that way. I find there is a lot of negativity, nastiness and criticism here, but not much encouragement. I am pleased that my little gesture had a positive impact! - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Hartzell Propeller Logo 2012.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Hartzell Propeller Logo 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:McCauley Propeller Systems Logo 2012.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:McCauley Propeller Systems Logo 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Apsen Avoinics Logo 2012.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Apsen Avoinics Logo 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Continental Aerospace Technologies 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).
Thanks for uploading File:DeltaHawk Engines 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).
.jpg){kind=small}
