The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonini Racing until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Robvanvee 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt. I have withdrawn or at least attempted to withdraw this AFD. I guess I tagged it rather hastily without reading article properly so my apologies for that. Robvanvee 15:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat, it is all part of the process! - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations for 1979 Dniprodzerzhynsk mid-air collision
Hi Ahunt, I think the amount of inline citations here is sufficient. Do I need to have one at the end of every paragraph? Samf4u (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is needed for quotes (which some are) and certainly safer for each para. - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thanks. You have been very helpful. Samf4u (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, from the snowy Canadian south! - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. TSRL (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for this, I am looking forward to working with you here more in 2017! - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Welcome"? :-)
Thanks. Even if I'm editor since 2007. --Kissg (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, your talk page was a redlink, so I guess no one had welcomed you before or left you any other messages! I've only been editing two years longer than you, but I have had thousands of messages left for me! - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually because English is not my natural language I do mostly technical modifications on articles of enwiki. These fortunately do not provoke any comments. --Kissg (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well welcome to Wikipedia then, even ten years after the fact! - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N.3 Cromarty
Hi there, not suggesting the main title be changed - adding N.3 was to balance with the Phoenix P.5 in the lists. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is not a big issue, really. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BOT SC07 Speed Cruiser
Thank you for creating BOT SC07 Speed Cruiser. I am friends with Christopher "Doc" Bailey, founder/president of Renegade Light Sport, and he is the owner of the only two Speed Cruisers in the USA (one powered by a D-Motor LF-26 and the other by a Rotax 912ULS), his friend, Ron Kellogg, is using them for the "Broken Wing Project", were amputee veterans learn to fly and get there Light Sport license. Doc also has plans to produce the SC07 in the USA. - (ZLEA 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC))
Thanks for your note here! That sounds like a good use for the aircraft! One thing you could do is take some better photos of the aircraft to help illustrate the articles and upload them to Wiki Commons, if you are there when they are out and flying. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at there websites, BrokenWingProject.com, www.RenegadeLightSport.com, and sportpylonairraces.com (about Sport Pylon Air Races, or SPAR, there new air racing circuit that raises money for the BWP). I don't have any pictures of the aircraft, but I do know that the picture in the article is of the D-Motor powered aircraft (N911DV, the Rotax powered plane is N236RL). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLEA (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that the picture was taken at 2016 Sun 'n Fun, in Lakeland, Florida. I was there with Doc at the booth (but I'm not in the picture, this was probably when I was at "Warbird Country"). In the background is the Pitts S-1C "Dragracer", a former Reno air racer that is being modified as a Renegade LS-1 Li'l Rascal LSA for SPAR. - (ZLEA 01:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC))
Oh, and why did you decide to creat that page? - (ZLEA 13:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLEA (talk • contribs)
The BOT SC07 Speed Cruiser page? I'm actually part of a project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft to create articles on all the aircraft types ever flown, so this was just part of that. I have started about 2,000 new aircraft type articles as part of that effort. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. - (ZLEA 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLEA (talk • contribs)
Here is a question for you! BOT has no entry in the 2015 World Directory of Light Aviation, they never certified the SC07 as an LSA and their website seems to be gone. Do you know if they are even still in business? - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore my last, the website has now returned so I guess it was just a server outage and I found the entry in the WDLA (it was misfiled), so it seem to be still in production, even if it is not on the FAA LSA list. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is (at this time) an E-LSA. And maybe a better question is, how did you find out about the SC07? - (ZLEA 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLEA (talk • contribs)
I was working my way through the World Directory of Leisure Aviation, creating missing articles from that ref. - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. - ZLEA 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLEA (talk • contribs)
The S/N on the Rotax SC07 (known as the R-BOT by Doc and his employee Larry Ross, and me) is SC07-014 (build No. 14)and D-motor SC07 (D-BOT) is SC07-027 (build No. 27). - ZLEA (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did find them here and added some info about them to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a look. - ZLEA (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Unkown Registration aircraft is marked as an LSA, but it is pending registration. - ZLEA (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was pending something. When it gets sorted out we can update the article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently learned that Renegade is having trouble staying in business, so there is a chance that we may not see the "Renegade SC07". - ZLEA (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and on the tail of the Speed Cruiser, it says B.O.T., not BOT (if it's an abbreviation, I have no idea what it means). - ZLEA (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The company calls itself B.O.T. Aircraft AG so that fits. On Wikipedia we don't use the dots in abbreviations as in UK, US, UN. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and heres some sad news, the Broken Wing Project no longer exists, but surprisingly the website is still up. - ZLEA (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to hear. They probably paid for the web hosting a couple of years in advance. - Ahunt (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glider photo
A, can you check this diff? I don't know anything about specific gliders, but the photo file.name doesn't match anything in the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true the file name is very odd. I found this which seems to agree that the photo supplied is of the right aircraft, the Akaflieg Stuttgart FS-23 Hidalgo, though. A bigger concern is that the uploader claims the photo as his work, even though it was shot about 60 years ago and is obviously scanned from a book or magazine. I'll leave him a note and see what he says. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't returned to Wikipedia (inserting that photo was his sole edit), but the image has been nominated for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and now it is gone, so I guess we can close this item. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:FullCircleMagazineLogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:FullCircleMagazineLogo.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the
CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
OTRS pending
}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
More to the point the logo is unused and can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title alternatives
Hi Ahunt, thanks for your input at
Talk:Sailing faster than the wind#Awkward title. Based on your input, I have a new suggestion for you to consider. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
High-performance sailing: Directly down wind faster than the wind (DDWFTTW) vehicle
Thank you, Ahunt, for helping move recent sailing and wind-powered discussions along! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weslake aero-engine
I've made some changes to
Weslake aero-engine. You might like to check them. Roberttherambler (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
RE: Y2Fly Seahawk
Yesterday you reverted my edit to the article Y2Fly Seahawk, citing, "due to the bizarre copyright claims on that website, we generally avoid linking to it." Can you please point me to the discussion and establishment of this policy? -- Kamnet (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has just been an editing policy, but if you read the bizarre and inaccurate fine print copyright claims on the bottom of the page you linked to you will see why it is avoided. It isn't worth exposing Wikipedia to those kinds of claims nor it is a good idea to promote the website of a person who makes claims like that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt
Hello Ahunt, I am new to wikipedia. I posted the photo of the Hidalgo glider awhile back and the picture is originally mine. I don't know what happend to is at it seems like it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmairplaneman (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you. Yes it got deleted over on Commons. It seemed to be a 50 year old photo scanned from a book or magazine and that you claimed you had taken yourself. That was judged as unlikely and thus it lacked proper origin and licencing information and they deleted it over there on Commons for that reason. Also the file name was odd. It looked like the
Akaflieg Stuttgart FS-23 glider but the file name didn't match, which just added to the confusion. The deletion is found here. Where did that photo come from? - Ahunt (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Ahunt, The reason it was comanche 250 is because it was in a group of files that I had scanned of older pictures that one of my relatives that helped work on this glider had taken the picture. I see that you are a glider pilot as so am I! The original photo was on a slide but I had it made onto a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmairplaneman (talk • contribs)
Okay thanks for the explanation. Wikipedia is very careful about copyrights to avoid being sued for violations. In the uploaded photo you claimed that it was your photo, when it wasn't. The person who took the photo is the one who owns the copyright and needs to be the person who uploads it and licences it. If the person is no longer alive then the copyright would pass to their estate for administration and their executor would need to upload it, at least until it passes into the public domain (in the US that is 80 years after their death, less in other countries). It would be good to have a file name to reflect what it is as well to reduce confusion. This page on Commons gives more guidance. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit has been reverted. Unless you can prove that File:The Document Foundation logo and wordmark.svg is an official logo of The Document Foundation, the file should be regarded as an original creation and thus cannot be added there. Thank you for your contribution. Dokurrat (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The file documentation on Commons shows exactly where this comes from and when it was retrieved from the foundation website (in 2010). Please go and read it. The proper proceedure if you suspect an issue with the file is not to remove it from the en.wikipedia article, but to take it up on Commons. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If one can upload something crafted without doubt from others, anyone can upload something like this and claim this is the official logo of TDF.Let's take a closer look. Does that file depict an 2010 TDF logo? I found several following screenshots.
TDF website (2010) shows a "Document Symbol", which is a TDF official logo. but the text "The Document Foundation" next to the logo is merely a title written in DejaVu Sans. The text is not repeated explicitly shown in TDF branding, webpages, products, etc.
The dubious file has three historical editions. The first and second ones did show a proixity of the "Document Symbol"+ title, however these two still failed to demonstrate that they as a integral whole are offical logos of TDF.
The third and current edition is merely a personal creation. I can do that random drawing, too. But does that contribute to the official collection of TDF logos?
The proper procedure is that I should remove unverified material from an Wikipedia article. Thanks. Dokurrat (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No the proper procedure would be to update the Commons logo with a new official version and leave the image in the en.wikipedia article, thus fixing the problem, rather than making new problems. Keep in mind we are here to build an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "Document Symbol" logo to the article. Dokurrat (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undid revision
It was, and is broken. Phoenix Industries (8 February 2015). "Phoenix Industries, Inc.". Retrieved 8 February 2015. |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help) Quebec99 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the ref. If you check the link it works fine and leads to the intended page showing the history of the website. Linking to one page of the archived website doesn't support the text in the article, so it isn't a valid ref. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legend 540
Dear Sir,
You have reverted a correction I have made on this page. Please note that the information presented, namely that the airplane is a scale version of the Cessna 175, is incorrect. The airplane is based on the Cessna 182. Thk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.39.78 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I find a definition of appropriateness for inclusion in this section? Probably should know by now! Seems to me that it's sometimes used a bit indiscriminately; there are certainly examples where an older aircraft is listed, whereas I thought it meant developments from the subject. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A good subject! It is found here. - Ahunt (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. TSRL (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment in the talk section of the ATEC v.o.s. . I think that even if the NG has the same model number as the Faeta, it is a different aircraft. The Faeta is exactly the same aircraft as the Zephyr but with carbon fibre wings.
The NG is the same as the Faeta but with totally different tail and with some other important construction changes. Are you ok If I revert your undo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redge76 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is enough of a new model for a whole new article then I think the case is best made by writing the article. I don't have any third party refs for the NG model, or I would tackle it myself. - Ahunt (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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
).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is no longer used and can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HAL HTT-40
Re: this edit summary, you're right of course for most aircraft, but for an Indian Government-developed aircraft, it is a milestone: Most crash before hitting this one! :) - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to treat all aerospace ventures the same. Perhaps that is not properly accounting for "regional challenges"? - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the US DOD (and the US Federal Government in general) seems to think that all problems can be solved by throwing more money at it. The Indian Government seems to think that all problems can be solved by spending as little money as possible. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't fault that logic! - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead."
However with a list article, which do not strictly have to have the article title bolded, it is more useful to keep the link and debold.--KTo288 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. It might have been a good idea to summarize that in your edit summary as it wasn't clear why you did that. If you check the article I have fixed the "link in the bolding" issue, while retaining the lede title reiteration bolding. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problem: Bushcaddy L-164
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bushcaddy L-164, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.bushcaddy.com/model-l164.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked
from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author to release the text under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Bushcaddy L-164 and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Bushcaddy L-164, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission
for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Bushcaddy L-164
with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Bushcaddy L-164 saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! TopCipher (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag and placed a backwardscopy thing on the talk page, even I can recogonise your writing style! They even managed to copy the [1][2][3] on the last line. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: My apologies on having missed out on this. Soon as I saw that the manufacturer's official website contained the same content as Wikipedia, thought I'd report it but thanks for the swift action and having undone the same. A good learning to remember on my part, I suppose. TopCipher (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Topcipher: no problem it would seem reasonable to assume the official website was the source. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the conversation here. This is a growing problem on the internet, where other websites are copying Wikipedia (and we often get blamed for copying them instead). In this case it is particularly egregious because it is the manufacturer that has copied Wikipedia and done so illegally, by not crediting the source as the Wikipedia text licences require. Thanks to MB1 for jumping in! Yes, that is my terse article style, I recognize it, too. I guess in a way the copyright violation on the manufacturer's part is a bit of a "left-handed" compliment to Wikipedia, in that we are producing content that even the manufacturer thinks is worth stealing! - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the rest of the manufacturer's website and confirmed that each of the aircraft model pages on that site are copied from Wikipedia and without attribution:
This enough of an issue that I think I'll write to the company and ask them to comply with the Wikipedia licence and just add a credit to each of the pages. That will also avoid any future issues like this cropping up. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:backwardscopy to each of the Bushcaddy aircraft type article talk pages so they don't get tagged in the future as copyright vios as well. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
His merge proposals have been becoming progressively more minimalist over the past couple of years, but that one is ridiculous! - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has set a new standard, that is for sure! - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do I provide a source for information I know to be true but cannot find spelled out in a document or article?
I added an entry to the article on US warplanes in fiction, about the fact that a plane that is plainly a B-1 Lancer is used in the movie Real Genius as a test bed for a laser weapon, but could not find a plot summary of this movie that specifically identifies this airplane. Should this entry not be added to the article, or should I reference a plot summary that does not include this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunneman (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note here. Aircraft in fiction is a bit of a special article. Because a lot of non-notable text gets often added we have a consensus on this article to requite third party references showing that the aircraft has a significant role in the film. The item you entered has been put in and removed several times before, because no one has been able to find a ref for that. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nav Canada
I just realised that there are some errors in the Nav Canada article but I have no idea what the correct version would be. Under the 8 FICs it lists where the cover. However, that isn't in the source. Also all the airports in the Kitikmeot Region have been reporting to the Edmonton FIC for several months now. I see North Bay is still in the source but I was pretty sure that they had closed down. Unfortunately I won't be back at work until Thursday so I can't check any of the paperwork we have on it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here! Yeah in IP made some changes, but when I looked them up the company refs didn't agree. It could be they are out of date, though. - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes
I have undone your edit as, like the one I undid before, it looked like it was written by me, with my signature, which should never be done, per
WP:SIGFORGE. If you want to post the notification then sign it in your own name.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your note. I missed that the other editor had not used his own signature. No problem, I'll repost under my own signature. - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A, could you check out this edit by a newly-registered user to Spin (aerodynamics)? Oddly enough, they also added one of those strange image thumb sizings. - BilCat (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this one out. He got it all correct and I think his changes make the article a bit more clear! - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good! I know my limits, and am not qualified to judge such matters. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, ping me anytime on stuff like that! - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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
).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in
TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems someone uploaded a totally new logo, instead of just uploading a new version of this logo. So, given that, this old logo can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahunt. I am having a difficult time over at Fuel economy in aircraft, with a good faith rewrite of some sections being repeatedly reverted by another editor. Pertinent discussion between the two of us is in the last two sections of the Talk page, and I believe no reason of any substance has been given for the reversions. There is an impass. Since you have a lot of WP experience and have been involved in the aviation project, I seek your advice on how to handle this situation - if you care to offer advice. Coastwise (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I will do that sometime in the next few days; first chance I get. Coastwise (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sikorsky S-37 title
Hi Ahunt, If you have time would you take a look at Sikorsky S-37? For some reason the title is in Italics and I'm not sure the best way to fix it. Samf4u (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have seen you reverted my edit to the Microsoft Edge Browser.
I think the first sentence "Edge 14, compared to Chrome 52 and Firefox 48, performs well on HTML5 standards. " Is misleading and that is why I changed it.
It does NOT perform well, as if it did, it would be better or same as Firefox or Chrome.
The two sentences should be restructured, saying something like "It does not perform badly compared to Firefox or Chrome" or something like this.
(Note that I have no affiliation with either Microsoft, Firefox, Chrome or any other browser). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankst (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support rewording it all, but as you left it it didn't add anything to the following sentences. Let me see if I can rework it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do agree my edit wasn't great either!
Just seen your new edit now, it looks a lot better thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankst (talk • contribs)
Thank you
Hi Ahunt
I am jui89. I noticed are a long time editor. I appreciate the follow up response on my recent post on the aviation news. I am a newbie on the Wikipedia and learning the ropes of Wikipedia community. I noticed you are an avid image editor. I am hoping for some mentorship, as time permits. Alternatively please do guide as well for redirection. Thank you Jui89 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. Sure, I would be happy to help you out! I am on here most days, so please do just drop me a note any time you have a question of need a hand with anything. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You
Hi and thanks for the Wikiwings commendation. I had been wondering if there was a list of aircraft articles needing photos, and I found it! I think I've now done all I can with what I have, so far...
While I'me here, could you please look at the caption for UFM Easy Riser and tell me if it breaks any rules? I didn't contact John Moody (if it was him) to ask his permission to take the photo. If necessary I will crop him out. Many thanks. Lestocq (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you. The photo is fine as is the file caption. In the US and Canada you don't need anyone's permission to take a photo with them in it in a public place, like an airshow, because, as I understand it, there is no expectation of privacy. You took the photo, so the copyright is yours. You can do with it as you wish. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice Lestocq (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're thirsty...
A beer on me!
To be consumed 8 hours or more before operation of a helicopter. Thanks for all you do Ahunt. Samf4u (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are doing a great job on those pioneering Sikorsky aircraft yourself. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
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.
Hi, I made a contribution to the article on the 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash, essentially including links to the ATSB preliminary report. I was surprised to see the whole section was deleted by you. You could, at least, have left in the link to the ATSB investigations/report page.
While you may take issue with the amount of information included, I believe that the total redaction of the section was counter-productive. One of the main reasons I and, I believe, others, refer to air crash articles in Wikipedia is identify the facts behind the crash, the cause(s) and the corrective and preventative actions that are taken. To delete that section from the article while leaving in "...The aircraft was reported to have crashed as a result of an engine failure on take-off..." (This statement by the press has since been questioned by the results, so far, of the ATSB preliminary report.) demonstrates a bias against the facts. I fear that you are unnecessarily controlling the content of this page to suit your own preconceived notions of cause and effect. The only reference you have left are some selective statements that you have not referenced. You say they are from the report but did not say that they were the ones chosen by the ABC, so are from a second hand source. The ASTB report is much more thorough and includes many more observations and inferences. A link to the preliminary report is, in my opinion, an essential part of any article on this subject matter.
Wikipedia is a co-operative project. Just because you feel it is superfluous doesn't mean that others might find the information meaningful.
Please reinstate the section that you have deleted.
Thanks for responding. Initially was asking you specifically to undo the changes you have made. I appreciate that you have a different opinion. Perhaps you would reinstate and then we could have the discussion on the article's talk page to improve the section (or delete if that is the consensus). Back and forward deletion and reinstatement as each of us edits the page would be a poor approach, in my opinion. Malchemist (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The correct approach is
WP:BRD, which is that you make a bold insertion, it is reverted and then a discussion takes place to come to a consensus on whether the text should be included or not. To make things easier I'll start the discussion, including the deleted text. - Ahunt (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
Thanks, sorry I am not up with the intricacies. Malchemist (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I provided links in my post on the article talk page to the relevant policies and guidelines. It's all about writing encyclopedia articles that make sense to readers. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question about your undo
Can you explain your revision? What do you mean by “Easter egg,” and why is the hatnote unneeded? ―PapíDimmi(talk | contribs) 16:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link to a disambuguation page is a surprise to readers. Personally I don't think a hatnote is needed at all, but if you want a hatnote that leads to a disambiguation page I would suggest using Template:Other uses. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Other uses}} can’t be used, as the hatnote referred to a term that redirects to the page.
“Peace keeper” redirects to “Peacekeeping,” but what if someone meant “Peacekeeper”? The only difference is a mere space. ―PapíDimmi(talk | contribs) 16:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the redirect for Peace keeper to point to the Peacekeeper disambiguation page instead. I think this makes more logical sense and eliminates the need for any hatnote. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you undid that. Peacekeeper and Peace keeper are two variations of the same word in English, theye shouldn't point to two different places, as it is confusing ad makes no sense to readers. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense that way. Thanks for fixing it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 2 May 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
Good morning Ahunt, Very little information exists about the Sikorsky S-13. Both books I have and the online sources don't even mention it, except the Sikorsky Archives. I've never come across a photo of it. The article would just be this. Same for the S-14.
Not sure if this should be an article or just remove the red links at: Sikorsky Aircraft. Samf4u (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I think that is okay for a stub article. It covers the subject and has a ref. I think it is worthwhile for sake of covering his designs completely. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add the S-14 to the article to consolidate the info. Sario528 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you both. Article title will be Sikorsky S-13 and S-14. Samf4u (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
questionable article
Can you look at this article and tell me if you think it's really needed?
At first blush you would think it would be a suitable subject for an article, but it only has one ref and even that one really doesn't describe the office in any detail, just in passing. Perhaps it should be redireceted to
WP:AFD for a complete debate. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Orphaned non-free image File:Nav Canada Logo 2014.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading
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. It appears they use a new logo and someone else uploaded it. I couldn't think of a use for the old logo so I tagged it. If there is a use tag the tag off. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no sweat, the old one can go! - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Done - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please reconsider
it is original research to write It is sometimes referred to as the "fifth national language" of Switzerland. All you could possibly write was: "A private homepage calls it Switzerlands fifth language". Sorry, but Markus Schindler, specialist for litter decomposition (his father ist Hansjürg), is not "it is sometimes" - but only one private person. And he may not be the person to claim this - as far as I can see completely irrelevant. So I would prefer not to write the sentence in Wikipedia as it is written now. Of course I should have deleted the non-relevant source in the first place, sorry. Cheers--2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:1462:F8AD:1249:C1BC (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an edit to discuss please take this to the article talk page so that other editors can participate in this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit review
Ahunt, could you review this edit? It seems oversimplified and misleading, but a second opinion would be helpful. "drag is the weight of the plane in the back" is particularly odd. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is both oversimplified and some of it was badly worded or wrong, but it has been reverted, so all fixed! - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. Thanks for the second opinion! - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word, "licence."
I can tell by the speed with which you looked at my references, you don't care about the spelling. You just want to agitate US users. I'm not sure why you've been specifically trolling the private pilot page for the past year at least, but every single user in the US who sees Private Pilot Licence populate on Google search thinks that some uneducated person is editing. Even the rest of the language in the article uses, "license." I'm not sure how many pilots are Canadian, or from New Zealand, or wherever, but I'm pretty sure pilots from the USA are a majority. Asian pilots don't utilize our silly English symbols, so the subject is not relevant on that end. We do, however train quite a few Asian pilots here. You are correct in thinking that Wikipedia is not a US-centric site, but when the vast majority of English users (and pilots) reside in the USA, it makes sense to use the US spelling. Please reconsider your hard-line stance, when you have multiple users trying to correct you.
Please check out dictionary.com. The definition of "licence" is license. Perhaps you should take your battle up with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.27.253 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
WP:NPA before you start a discussion by accusing editors of trolling. - Ahunt (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally, in this particular case we can look at the international authority / standard for the spelling. The International Civil Aviation Organization use "licence", which seems like a compelling way to settle the debate here (English Wikipedia is international, without any particular default bias to the UK, US, or any other English-speaking nation and their national variations on the language). And yes, you need to be far more careful with the accusations. Finally, when your change has been challenged on Wikipedia (by multiple established editors, in this case), you need to stop making changes and discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Both of those last two points can result in withdrawal of your editing privileges, if there are ongoing problems. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that edit! I agree, seems pretty clear to me, but then I have new glasses! - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox
Here's an extremely belated thank you for making those userboxes for me. Jak474 (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thank you for the userboxes you made for me! Jak474 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ford Tri Motor
A Friendly Hello Ahunt,
I wanted to ask a few questions about Wikipedia as I haven't posted that much before. I recently conducted a 19 minute interview with pilot Ed Rusch of the Experimental Aircraft Association. Ed flies the Fort Tri Motor across the USA to educate folks on the history of the aircraft.
The inteview was part of my Travel With Hawkeye podcast. I thought it would be of particular interest to aviation enthusiasts and those who are researching the plane, as he gave a lot of information that is not listed on the Wiki page.
Perhaps because the podcast also feature other travel segments, it was thought that the recording was worthy of a link? I'm just wondering the criteria used in reverting, as the pilot interview was pretty detailed and informative. I really think the information in the interview is of interests to aviation fans.
In going though your contributions, you seem to be on Wikipedia just to post links to your own podcasts. This is not permitted. Please see
WP:SPAM. They have all been removed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
AHunt, I am rather new to posting on Wikipedia and was unaware on the COI protocol. Whenever I have something to post that might be a conflict of interest, I will use the COI third party procedure. Thanks of your understanding. MarkRybczykMarkRybczyk (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies' terms of service
Today on the Malwarebytes and Google Chrome articles, Ahunt deleted the Category:Companies' terms of service, saying these are "not an article about terms of service." That's why I didn't put them in Category:Terms of service, but in Category:Companies' terms of service, which is for "articles which describe terms of service, privacy and data policies of specific companies or products." The License and Privacy section of the Malwarebytes article does describe Malwarebytes' terms of service (arbitration) and privacy policy. Similarly the Privacy section of the Google Chrome article describes at least some of its privacy practices. So both articles seems appropriate for the category about specific companies' terms. You're a long time editor who has been nice to me in the past, so maybe you can suggest a clearer title for the category. People come to an encyclopedia to research various topics, and Terms of Service is a natural one. The article Terms of service (and a category of the same name I am building) will send them to various high-level articles about general aspects of the topic. And for people who want to approach their research bottom-up, a list of articles which address terms at specific companies will be most helpful. Maybe it should be called something like List of articles which include descriptions of companies' terms of service. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note here. I did read the articles in the cat, but the mention of any terms of service was in both cases very minimal and just in passing. The articles were not about the company's terms of service. To be honest I am not sure that a cat that collects together articles that have any even passing mentions of any terms of service is all that useful to readers, no matter what it is named. My past research into page hits on categories showed me that readers hardly ever use categories for anything, so I don't feel that they are worth spending much time on, so if you want to re-add the cats to those two articles, that is okay with me. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did re-add them, but note your comment on non-use of categories. Maybe a list article would get more use than a category? Numbersinstitute (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is probably true. - Ahunt (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Hacking incident that arose from this plane shootdown incident. Mamasanju (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I tend to treat all aerospace ventures the same. Perhaps that is not properly accounting for "regional challenges"? - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm See this diff. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Done - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
