User talk:Ahunt/Archive05

History of United Nations peacekeeping missions
I noticed you have made a number of edits to this article and I have proposed deleting/moving/redoing this article and drawn up a very rough draft of a replacement. If you're interested, please read my comments on the discussion page and respond if you have any thoughts. --Jieagles (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC in Hudson River crash discussion
Adam, there is an RFC at Talk:2009_Hudson_River_mid-air_collision that you might be interested in weighing in on. If you know of other editors with aviation interests, please feel free to forward. Seanfranklin (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Those examples
I don't know why you started revert war when MOSUNIT states clearly that SI is primary and I removed inconsistency (1 example uses SI as primary and others use customary as primary). SkyBonTalk/Contributions 13:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The MOS is a guideline. Stop vandalizing the page and discuss on the talk page to gain consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Slitaz GNU/Linux _does_ use LXDE as the default desktop
I edited the Wikipedia LXDE page to include Slitaz, stating that it uses LXDE as its default desktop. You removed my addition, writing that there is no reference to support that statement, including nothing on the distro's own website. Slitaz does indeed use Lxpanel, Openbox, PcmanFM, Leafpad, and Gpicview -- all of which are components of LXDE, according to the Wikipedia page. The Slitaz website seems to be down right now, but Google's cache of this page from the Slitaz website states these facts: www.slitaz.org/en/doc/handbook/desktop.html. -Monz (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of USSR/Russian aviation acronyms
Thanks for working your magic. Could you repeat the effort as I hadn't finished what I was doing. I have added my latest edir to the bottom rather than overwrite what you have done. Can you sort it out for me, thanks, two reasons; I'm not sure what you've done and I'll be leaving on a jet plane in a couple of hours for a holiday - YippeePetebutt (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit of a mis understanding, I have added a lot of individual citations and deleted the section ones and quite a few error corrections and some more additions. I have gone ahead and replaced the lot hope ita ok, taxi's here ByeePetebutt (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert on PA-32
Adam, the [revert] you did on the PA-32 - do you have access to that reference? There definitely WAS a PA-32-300 in 1967, so the change made the other day was correct. I considered reverting it for the same reason you did (no change of reference) but I did not because I knew the correction to be accurate, and I did not have access to the P&P 1978 airplane guide used as a reference. Seanfranklin (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good thinking using the TC as a reference. I "Knew" there was a 1967 -300 (plenty on ASO and Controller to verify the fact) but couldn't think of a good on-line reference.  The TC is ideal. Seanfranklin (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks for the barnstar! Jaydec (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ASUS Eee PC
The mention that ASUS Eee PC uses an operating system that is built on the Linux kernel does not contain ANY POV language. It just describes what actually happens in this case. Why can't readers be informed that the system is built on the Linux kernel? On another topic regarding your Epiphany browser edit. It is clear, unfortunately, that you are under the influence of very strong personal emotions affecting you against the mention that GNU is indeed an operating system that works and that it uses different kernels and that many programs have been compiled for it and do work. Could you say why? Last question: are you a software developer? --Grandscribe (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a GNU operating system. It does exist. It works with different kernels. Download one of the available versions and give them a try: The problem is that the original kernel the Hurd, though it works, has not been fully finished. So other kernels are used instead including the Linux kernel. If you are interested I could send you some more basic info about operating system development fundamentals just to have a general idea. --Grandscribe (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.superunprivileged.org/hurd/live-cd/
 * http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/index.en.html
 * http://www.gnu-darwin.org/


 * In the reply you gave me you do confirm that even you accept that GNU is an operating system.(You refer to it in that way). The fact that the kernel is not fully finished, though it works, does not mean that GNU is not an operating system. Stallman has never said GNU is not an OS. Remember you yourself "accept" him as the authority on this matter.I would suggest that you try to be objective and put your personal feelings aside on this topic.--Grandscribe (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Redlinking
You recently removed a large section of the article Peacekeeping and inserted a link to Peacekeeping child sexual abuse scandal in place of it. This article does not exist and a search did not turn it up under a similar but different title. Do you plan to write this article or is there some other explanation? - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It exists now, you can examine it if you wish. I'm still adding material to it though. ADM (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Future aircraft developments
Hey Ahunt, I see that you nominated the article Future aircraft developments for deletion. Aldough I agree that I hadn't much work on it for a while (busy with other articles), I would like to keep the article. I agree that it could be better implemented in other articles (eg an article as aircraft design could be made and this article could be redirected, but at present there is not yet a single article at wikipedia which describes this. I could thus make the new article and redirect the page there, or modify the article on your preferences, so that it is suitable to wikipedia. KVDP (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will work on it but could you give some pointers on how I should alter it ? If I decide to move it into the suggested Aircraft design article, I'll need some other info I could use to inmediatelly have a bit of "weight" for the article. Alternatively, I'm also open for other suggestions.

KVDP (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the star
Still on it, but after staring at ref coding for a few minutes my mind goes nuts. Got to love Google News though :) --Admrboltz (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Linux
Hello, not @ my computer but I am a respected editor / Twinkle RC Patrol; will reply when I log in @ my own comp later :) 66.190.62.144 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC) (R3ap3R)
 * To the point, I have proof from an interview between one of the Gawker sites and Linus; will update refs later (more recent ref as well).66.190.62.144 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Aeronca
Adam, see User talk:MilborneOne for some comments you might be able to help with. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have another question at WT:AETF, but I don't know if you watch that page. - BilCat (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gatineau
No problem. I noticed your WP:OTTAWA post a few months ago and looked at the situation, but it was far too complex for me. Your second post brought me there again; though I may not have content to add, I'll try and improve the article in what ways I can, including my current passtime of citation templates, as well as through discussion and debate. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm happy to help out. Nice work on your eloquent statement to Stoneacres' talk page, which I strongly endorse. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Stoneacres 3RR
I have reported Stoneacres for 3RR at Politics of Gatineau Park and Gatineau Park; the report is here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Note that the articles remain in his versions as I do not wish to get into 3RR myself. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Axis & Allies userbox
Thanks for the correction on my new userbox- I should have paid better attention, and now it is replaced with a free image from Wikicommons. Good looking out. Monsieurdl   mon talk-mon contribs 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SPH
Ahunt, i would inform you that i start to have enough of your attenctions. It seems that you are not even able to read my sources, shall i think that your will is just provocke me?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you just have to ask me =).--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your Hello. You sure like airplanes. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can narrow my focus even more than you. How about being the Wikipedia airplane window specialist...writing articles about airplane windows? Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC) On second thought, I know nothing about airplane windows.

Fisher Flying Products
Please provide anything at Fisher Flying Products which says that they do more than exist. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when does WikiProject Aircraft get to decide notability above and beyond what anybody else anywhere in Wikipedia has authority to do? Secondly, I don't see where Notability (aircraft) provides notability for manufacturers of kits. Can you quote that section to me? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Planning
--Kozuch (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No. 434 Squadron RCAF
Hey Adam, good job in fixing this up. We should be doing this to all the squadrons. I thought that cites were really only required when facts are such that they could be challenged, with quotes, with adding info to bios of a living person, when uploading images, or where there are contentious statements. It does say we could cite all facts, which is not typical of most WP articles. I think your approach is likely the better one since it ensures nothing is left out. It does, however, interrupt article flow somewhat. Cheers. B C talk to me 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How was that spam?
Mentioning that I own and fly a Zodiac isn't spam, especially since I didn't put it there...I do have my own article, and am pretty sure that I'm notable. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While you were recommending I read the SAIB and such, I was documenting them in the Zodiac article. :-) -- Jay Maynard (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia
OK, I understand the distinction you make between external links and references to specific topics or data, etc. I appreciate your feedback. While I will take your advice and cite references that might be useful for Wikipedia readers, I also wish to draw your attention external links already listed in some articles that clearly are uninformative and should therefore be removed. I refer specifically to the Wikipedia article on Abraham Gesner, which is a topic of interest to me. The External Links section of this article includes a number of less than stellar links including one which seems to be an elementary school project, one link that is inactive, and other which seems to be a political rant about whaling. Why are they still online in Wikipedia? Certainly, the biography of Mr. Gesner from The Canadian Encyclopedia would be a much more informative source of information than many of the present links. I would therefore like to be permitted, actually encouraged, by those of you who are editors to add both external links and references from The Canadian Encyclopedia in articles where such links would indeed be beneficial and useful to Wikipedia readers. In exchange, if you agree, I am willing to check the status of other external links in those same articles that I add Canadian Encyclopedia links and references to, because, clearly, many of these External Link lists have not been adequately reviewed. Thank you for your attention. Stratshaw (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia
I agree that it would be counterproductive to add "bad stuff" in place of other "bad stuff" in the External Links sections of Wikipedia articles. But, perhaps we should distinguish between bad stuff and good stuff. I have noticed many links to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and other reputable sources. Well, The Canadian Encyclopedia is just as reputable as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, The Atlas of Canada, etc. So, for the sake of consistency and for the sake of providing useful info to readers, I suggest links to The Canadian Encyclopedia be permitted in appropriate and relevant Wikipedia articles, just as we see links to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, The Atlas of Canada, and other reputable sources. Of course, such links should only be placed in Wikipedia articles that are directly relevant to the topic.Stratshaw (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gatineau 2
Thanks for the note. I lost track of all the Gatineau Park issues over midterms, and haven't jumped back in yet. I'll stick that page on my watchlist and will contribute to the discussion where I can. I'll try to re-immerse myself again, though I must say that taking a break has certainly been relaxing! Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I have never been totally away in truth. I am just a little bit shy in editing here as a non native speaker, but I finally made up my mind and I am convinced some work must be made on Italian aircraft, mostly on pictures front. There is now a lot of good material on it.wiki, ready to be transferred here. I will bother you for some help I am sure you will give me. Obviously, ask me anything you want. --EH101 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good ! So let's start: What is your opinion about concept aircraft ? I guess it is quite a sensitive issue, but nevertheless could be interesting. At the end of ww2, it seems lots of "secret weapons" were planned. At the time they were obviously top secret projects and only well after war some data appeared. There is a lot of unreliable stuff, but very few projects really existed and should be mentioned if sources are well-developed, best if they are presented from real aircraft manufacturer designer in their last memories. It is a pity I had to come back for such a controversial article, but mainly it is a favour to a good colleague who is eager to upload that plane drawings under fair use. It is mandatory to have an article in order to keep a non-free image related, so "here we are!"
 * I am going to prepare an unofficial "it.wiki-en.wiki mutual cooperation page" relevant to Italian aircraft, in a sandbox of mine. Stay tuned: I will need some opinions and help. During these years, I bought several Italian aviation books and now I am the proud owner of a big quantity of Wiki workable photos, with a Public Domain status in Italy and US. All wiki-colleagues on it.wiki projects now know this fact, and often they address me vintage airplane photo or technical data requests. Feel free to ask.
 * On a more general front, as I took care of several aviation pages on it.wiki, taking them to featured article status there, I am now quite confident on citation notes, formats and templates. My favourite style is the plus  in References. You can see an example of this citation structure in it:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress I took care. Ask me freely if I can help on this matter. Ciao. --EH101 (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I wished to add specifications to Re.2007 in my sandbox. I have seen the new Aircraft_specs you are taking care of, together with Trevor MacInnis. It seems to me it is an improvement of classic Aircraft specifications. If so, it is a nice idea. What are concepts related to this new template genesis ? Best feature I noticed so far is the automatic metric/British conversion. Any other features planned ? --EH101 (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it! I found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft the activity starting point. Well ! I volunteer for moving Italian planes to the new standard (improving data on the need). --EH101 (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! I promptly added the template to Re.2007 draft and everything seems ok! Maybe you remember I am a member of the rotorcraft task force (or simply give a look to my nickname). I am eager to experiment the new features on Agusta rotorcraft and, as far as I see, I could be one of the first to help debugging on those aircraft type. By the way, if you have some spare time, visit my brand new Italian aircraft situation page in which I will try to take some notes on specific Italian made aircrafts, grouped by manufacturer name. Later I will put side by side equivalent situation tables for it.wiki articles, in order to foster data migration both directions. Any suggestion is very welcome. Bye. --EH101 (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your copy-editing on the Reggiane article. I will take note of your styling suggestions and I will apply where possible on the other Italian aircraft articles I am trying to harmonize and improve by means of my dedicated situation page. Now you can see the "famous" drawing we are talking about since the beginning. It seems to me an interesting (and reliable enough) story about the jet fighters pioneer age. Thank you again. The Italian aircraft barnstar I am going to draw will soon have a first bearer. --EH101 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirects
I have no interest in resuming regular contributions to Wikipedia with my registered account. Examples of why are all over your Talk page. But thanks much for taking care of those two redirects for me. 68.72.10.51 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gatineau deletions
No problem on adding those links; I'm not familiar at all with the deletion process, but figured that the links would be useful. Do you have any idea if there is a better way to streamline discussion for both deletions? It seems like the debate will be the exact same on both sides; maybe they can be consolidated into one? Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SA-160VortexGenerators03.jpg
File:SA-160VortexGenerators03.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SA-160VortexGenerators03.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

image replacement
So here's the long version of why I replaced the gedit logo:

The replaced version is almost an exact duplicate of the replacement I introduced. Almost means that in the replacement there are a few pixels more that got cropped away in the other version. That's why I think the replaced version is the one to be deleted.

(And: Watch out - I might come up with a SVG (vectorised) version soon...)--Wondigoma (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are canvassing re: Gatineau deletions
You should be ashamed of yourself. Not only have you actively and persistently worked to "out" members of the New Woodlands Preservation League and Gatineau Park Protection Committee, you are also canvassing Mnelson and MilborneOne to have 3 Gatineau Park related articles removed.

What a selective approach you have towards Wiki rules.

--Stoneacres (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Canvassing, Ahunt's notices on the talk pages of MilborneOne and I are entirely acceptable (see the table at the top of WP:CANVAS and the section on friendly notices). I would like to see quotations on how Ahunt "baited a member of that organization [...] to produce the name of a GPPC member quoted in the press". How is it "clear Ahunt created both the GPPC/NWPL sites to out its members" if you (a self-declared member of the GPPC/NWPL) in fact created those articles? -M.Nelson (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re.2007 in DYK
Congratulations to you too. Wikipedia is basically a teamwork and I wish to share all acknowledgements with all other editors, never forgetting user Flanker, who retrieved the image which started everything. Moreover, your copyediting was definitely necessary in order to improve article's readability I now enjoy much better.

Back at work! I have one more fact now: I have now discovered the reason why two Junkers Jumo 004 engines were left in Udine airport by the Germans. At the moment it seems quite inexplicable why two extremely valuable jet engines were delivered in an obscure Italian location. I have found an explanation on a completely different source form the ones mentioned since now. I try to draft the candidate adding sentence here, prior to add this fact to the article.

two Junkers Jumo 004 engines that were left in Udine airport after the German defeat. Those extremely valuable jet engines were delivered to Italy in 1945 as spare parts for a little Luftwaffe's high speed reconnaissance flight group, equipped with three Arado Ar 234 Blitz, when the nearly impossible to intercept German innovative twin-jet planes, participated to the Italian Campaign. Unfortunately for Reggiane's designers, the engines were purchased by Angelo Ambrosini, another Italian aircraft manufacturer.



Do you think could it work ? --EH101 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good ! I did it ! Many thanks. --EH101 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Aviation Heritage Centre
Thanks for your note. I have no plans to start an article on the CAHC at any time soon; I am tied up in lots of other things, besides which there must be others better qualified to write on the subject (someone from Canada, perhaps?). I "discovered" their website while updating the list of extant Napier Sabre engines in that article. As it is they don't list the Sabre as one of their restoration projects, so it looks as if I'll have to contact them to find out whether they still have it... Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fisher
Just a question about Fishers Brassey's 1996/1997 attributes the Avenger, Celebrity, Culex, Horizon 2, Mariah and Youngster as products of Fisher Aero Corp of Portsmouth Ohio. It also mentions FP-303, FP-505 Skeeter, FP-606 Sky Baby, Classic, Dakota Hawk, R-80 Tiger Moth, Super Kaola, as products of Fisher Flying Products, Edgeley, North Dakota. As you have the Celebrity and Youngster listed as a FFP products perhaps a connection between the two Fishers ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Janes the company was originally called Lite Flite and was located in South Webster, Ohio, which is part of or adjacent to Portsmouth, Ohio. When the Hansons bought it they moved it to Edgeley, North Dakota. After it was sold again the company was moved to Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada, near Toronto. I think it may have been called Fisher Aero in between being called Lite Flite and FFP. No doubt they are all the same company. I have no info at all on the Culex or Mariah types as they aren't mentioned in the Janes 1982/83 or 1986/87. I did go through all the Janes from the whole 1980s, except the missing 1983/84 volume. Perhaps it has more? - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Brassey's has some specs on the Culex and Maria, Culex - Tandem 2-seat, mid-wing monoplane with fixed tail-dragger undercarriage, wood, available as plans and kits. Mariah - Tandem 2-seat, low-wing monoplane with fixed nosewheel undercarrriage, wood and fabric, available as plans and kits. Also has some dimensions - just enough for a very stubby article ! MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I found two websites as well Culex and Mariah, but that is all I have on those two types. I guess I can add them to the main article from there. - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fisher Culex and Fisher Mariah created with the basic info from Brassey's. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for doing that - I was going to ask you if you thought it was worthwhile, given the info we have. I'll add what I found from the above refs, if there is anything of value there. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

LORAN
I hope I am doing this correctly. It's been awhile since I last did any editing and I may be a bit rusty... I've added citations to my edits of the LORAN page[] concerning the current situation with LORAN. I have been closely following the situation with LORAN as my company involves supporting avionics systems and developing integrated navigation equipment (GPS/LORAN/NAV/DME/ADF). I am not sure if the citations appear exactly correct (i.e. the numbers are there, but there are two #1's and the links, although there, don't appear at the bottom in the reference section. The citations/links are valid however. DrWhatIKnow (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the example formatting on the Wayne Ison page, and for the edits. Have a great day :-) DrWhatIKnow (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Valid-xhtml10.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Valid-xhtml10.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 09:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vcss.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Vcss.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 09:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All gone :) - Thanks! Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LubuntuLogo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:LubuntuLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All gone. :) Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Teal/Wicker Man
Evening Ahunt: The reg was the key to i/d, so maybe just a ref to G-AXZN in the G-INFO CAA data base like might suffice? No need for it in the text, as you say. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added that - it proves that it is a Teal, but is there a ref about that "emphasising the conflict between modernity and ancient ways" - that has to be someone's opinion on what the use of the Teal means and it needs to be attributed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. I've removed that bit; thought I had a source but maybe memory playing up! If I find it I'll replace it.  As a science person, it's the plane that matters, not the symbolism!TSRL (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Chrome OS pricing
Continuing the thought (and indulging in wild speculation beyond the scope of the article's talk page).....I agree with you about pricing being at least a possible differentiator for Chrome OS--and will be needed to counter the huge branding advantage of Windows. So how can they achieve it? The savings from an open source OS versus Win7 can't be that much. There's also potential savings in not having to include hard drives--but again, not much. More savings perhaps from not having to use the fastest processor on the market, or from building an iTouch like device that eschews a keyboard. All of the above? But one thing is clear. Compared to the other Linux-variant OSs out there and in development, Chrome OS is the only one that is being developed in tandem with hardware. Everything else I see, including, of course, Chromium, can be run from a USB stick. Barte (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I agree that price is going to be the single factor that will determine if Chrome OS succeeds or fails. I think Google is well aware of that too. A Chrome netbook won't be able to do as much as a Win7 (or Mac or more regular distro Linux) netbook and so it has to compete on price and dramatically so. If you read Moody's article he seems to think that the hardware can be mass produced in the $20 range. Moody thinks that they will subsidize the cost through advertising down to zero. I don't think he is right as people would collect them and use them to insulate their houses if they can get them for free. Also what motivation would the retail stores have to distribute free netbooks? It would just kill all their other laptop sales, thus forcing Google to distribute them themselves by mail or similar. The best information I have heard is that the Windows-tax adds about $30 to any given OEM computer. Currently the average Win7 netbook is in the $250 range, meaning that Microsoft gets about $30, the retailer gets about $80 and the hardware supply chain shares the remaining $140. I think that the Chrome OS netbooks will make a real impact under $100. Under $50 it will clean up the market completely. At that price Google is basically covering their costs of the hardware and the retailer's mark-up and counting on making their money on the advertising growth that the new netbooks will generate ti cover the cost of the OS development. I realize that this all may seem like a peripheral story to the Wikipedia article on the OS, but I think it will turn out to be the central part of the story. If the Chrome netbooks come out next October, in time for Christmas 2010, at $49.99 then they will sell hundred of millions of them. If they come out at $250, people will look at it, realize that it doesn't run their favourite Windows games, Microsoft Office, etc and not see any reason to buy one when they can get a Win7 one for the same price or close. Not to diminish the interesting technical aspects of the article, I think the marketing will be the story to follow and decide whether this is revolutionary or a just becomes an interesting historical footnote. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I bought a netbook from Dell yesterday, and the shopping experience was instructive. I think the cheapest Win7 machine they offered was a Mini 10 at $379 ($30 more than if configured with XP).  I wound up with a slightly less capable Mini10v with Ubuntu for $279--the same price as with XP.  I even configured it with an 8GB SSD instead of the default 160GB HDD--again, same price.  That would seem close to the base retail price for a Chrome SD netbook.  The real thing would have the requisite firmware, of course, and might provide less memory, but $250 seems in the ballpark.  Which is far from $49.99--a big gap for Google to subsidize. Historical footnote here we come?  Could be.  We'll see.  Barte (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here in Canada the Win7 netbooks are more in the $300+ range. The cheapest Win7 netbook I have found is a HP Mini 10.1" Intel Atom N270 1.6GHz with 1 GB of RAM and 160 GB hard drive for Cdn$329, but it is easy to find an HP netbook with XP for Cdn$249 or even refurbished ones for $199. That is the current competition here. Moody seems to think that these Chrome netbooks can be produced for far less, "I'm no engineer, so I find it hard to come up with an exact build cost for a minimalist Chromium OS netbook, but I imagine we're talking ten or twenty dollars, rather than one or two hundred." Here if you were trying to sell Chrome netbooks for $200 the market would be zero. At $100 it would be pretty good, at $50 it would be fantastic. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Moody links to a startup that claims it will lower the cost of netbooks to $75 in 2010 through a lower cost, more energy efficient screen--the screen and battery being the two most costly components. (The company's FAQ says it would have its first screens for netbooks in 2009. Time is getting short.) So I suppose that's one business model model: a $75 device running Chrome OS that sells for even less because it is subsidized by Google AdWords.  In this scenario, it's not so much that Chrome OS requires less computing resources--that alone wouldn't cut much cost.  Rather, that it would serve as an ad-delivery vehicle. Seems far-fetched to me and doesn't get us to "free", but who knows? Barte (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - it is all a big question mark, but it has the makings of an interesting story, all tied to Chrome OS. I think we should be able to legitimately include at least some of the upcoming marketing developments in the story in the article over time. I am looking forward to seeing how it unfolds! - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It may turn out that the marketing developments are more notable than the technology itself. ;-) Barte (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Adam
Don't know whether you will get this. We flew together in Manitoba I think email me at georgeaaiken@gmail.com JTG Campbell heli. or CHC?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.29.134 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfitzner Flyer / Alexander Pfitzner
You're quick! Thanks for tidying up the Flyer specs - something I intended to do but forgot!! I have an image for the Flyer too, so that will be coming soon. Cheers. --TraceyR (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Steen Skybolt
Hi Mr Hunt! Have created a new item on this US-designed biplane, but cannot get the hang of the new aircraft specs layout. Have entered up the details as best I can, but there's something wrong somewhere! Please could you help - I would hope to learn from your amendments! Thanks RuthAS (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting me out so helpfully and quickly. Had forgotten that the system enters commas automatically! Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
 * And from the other ocean's side.... Merry Christmas and Happy new Year ! I am confident we will cooperate in the incoming new year like we did in the past and I will bother you again, receiving your valuable support. All the best ! --EH101 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jane's 1983/84 Articles
Merry Christmas! I'm not sure you saw my (belated) reply on your post on Talk:Aircraft, but I can access the articles you're looking for when I return to my office in the new year. Were there other articles besides those two I can look up for you at that time? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey that would be great - I am just trying to get the Fisher series completed, more than anything. You could either start the articles from the refs or somehow pass the info onto me and I'll do them. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I got the articles you wanted. You don't have your email turned on, so I'm not sure how to get them to you. If you want to keep it private from WP eyes, you can email me directly (mine is on) and I'll send the info to you. Best, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

JDM-8
Just to say thanks for the one-wing folded image, just what was needed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, as soon as I saw that you had started the article I new I had that photo I took at Sun 'n Fun 2004! It fits nicely! I have tens of thousands of aircraft photos, fortunately they are well indexed so I can search them! I need to do some more work on Murphy Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just created the Maverick if you have a picture of that please. I was looking at the Renegade and it appears that the Renegade Spirit and Renegade II are listed separately in my Brassey's are they that different or are they just in different certification categories? MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a Maverick picture - they are very rare in Canada for some reason! The Renegade II and Spirit and the same aircraft, the Spirit just has some extra fuselage stringers to give it a rounder shape and fair into the mock radial cowling. There is also a Renegade I, but only one was built, although it should be mentioned, too. Both the Renegade photos on the Murphy page are mine, I have quite a number more, too. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Schweizer SGS 2-25
Hi Mr Hunt! You may be interested to see the image that I have just loaded of this one-off glider which I took at Great Hucklow during the World Gliding Championships. Had not realized this was the sole example until I read your article! Thank you for your past help and best wishes for 2010 Ruth  RuthAS (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

External links clarification request
For the record, I only received a single message from MilborneOne about a deletion several weeks ago and I obliged. The reason I wrote the comments is because noone has yet managed to explain to me why other links to commercial websites are valid. Specifically for the A380 example I used, I would be grateful if someone clearly explained why it is acceptable as it does not comply with the requiremetns of the links you provided either! Concluding, I'm not insisting to get the links after being rejected. I'm just trying to get a clear answer on why they're not valid while other similar ones are. Thanks Aegn3 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. As per WP:EL if there are other spam links then they should be removed. The existence of other spam links is not a precedent for adding more spam links. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the swift feedback. Since I'm a newbie, this is what I wanted to hear from someone experienced (although you do not clearly identify the A380 link as spam). However, my guess is that if I go ahead and start deleting external links leading to major commercial websites (similar to the one for the A380), I will p***-off a lot of people, right? I'll write a polite comment in a couple of articles about removing similar links and see what people say (of course I won't delete anything). I really don't care that much about the links now but for the "principle" of the process. Thanks again for your time. Aegn3 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well looking at the A380 article I don't see any spam links there. There are a couple of "Official Airbus A380 page" type links and three from FlightGlobal which is aviation media coverage. Those last could possibly be used as refs instead. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A small token of Wikipedia's gratitude for all your efforts!

 * Thank you! I usually find persistence is its own reward, but in this case I will make an exception! - Ahunt (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible AfD
I see you've had misgivings about the Aircraft in fiction article. The lack of reliable sourcing in the article is almost comical. Over 2 dozen of those sources are not reliable by any stretch. I appreciate your deside to keep Gobot and Transformer trivia out of legitimate articles about the actual aircraft. I truly do. But I don't think creating an indiscriminate list of unsourced/poorly source trivia is the answer. I'm giving serious thought to putting the article up for AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did "warn" you this would eventually happen! :) - BilCat (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill: Yes you did!


 * User:Niteshift36: Well, obviously you can go to AfD if you want to, that was my initial inclination, but if you read the F-15 and Wikiproject talk pages I left as links, you will see we have a pretty good consensus to keep the article and try to improve it, which is what I have been doing. First we got as many refs as possible (some good, some less than good, but even the fan-sites do prove that the toy items exist, truth is that neither the NY Times nor the Economist have spent much space on the cultural importance of GoBots, so refs are skimpy.) Next I removed all the unsourced text. After that is improving the refs and trying to do something to show that these toys and other things have some genuine notability from a cultural perspective. While it is hard to keep the article neat, tidy and well-referenced, let alone free of cruft, it is improving over time. What I don't want is to have all this video-game and toy fancruft dumped back into the aircraft type articles, where it is a constant battle to keep it under control. Any suggestions on how to accomplish that would be appreciated, but AfD would be my last choice, because of the resulting cruft dump that would result! - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may, I agree entirely with the above summary. I count 50 cites (I am guessing that they are not all reliable sources!), this is more than some featured articles. Use of this article has cleaned up the 'parent' aircraft articles markedly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   01:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Counting cites is like counting ghits. Just because it is there doesn't make it a reliable source. If references to Gobots, for example, are skimpy, could that indicate a lack of notability? Tough to consider something really notable when the only refs you can find are from a site that some guy put up on tripod. I really do appreciate the desire to keep this cruft (and that is what it is) out of more encyclopedic articles, but is creating a dumping ground really the answer? Like I said on the talk page, this is nothing more than a Gobots fan page. Very notable movies and aircraft are there. Why? Because the author wants to worry about Gobots and Transformers. At least make the article honest and say that is what it is really about. There isn't even a reasonable attempt to put much of actual notability into it. Like I said, if some actual criteria for the list was established, that would be different. As it stands, pretty much any aircraft that appears anywhere in fiction is eligible and that would make the list of almost no value. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Adam, I wasn't trying to be an "I told you so", but I've delt with this attitude many times before in the past. Nite's final comment, "pretty much any aircraft that appears anywhere in fiction is eligible and that would make the list of almost no value" is telling. Adam has said that many entries were removed, and will be removed if they are just appearances. But that doesn't matter, as the goal here is to get rid of all pop-culture list articles, regardless of their actual content. Look at this line in the first post: "I don't think creating an indiscriminate list of unsourced/poorly source trivia is the answer." There is never any attempt to accept that any thought or effort is being put into the articles at all - It's a long list, so it must be "indiscriminate". I'm sorry, but that's highly insulting to the hard work editors such as Adam have put into such articles. And it is why I warned Adam it would probably not be worth the effort. Is the article perfect? No, but good faith effort is being made, and to denigrate all that as "indiscriminate" or "There isn't even a reasonable attempt to put much of actual notability into it" frankly is just untrue. A "dumping ground" is a page where we just leave it alone, and all the crufters show up and add whatever. That's been tried in the past too, and that isn't what Adam is doing here.


 * I'll be even more honest: Of the several dozen editors who show up to make sure these articles get deleted, only one has ever even attempted to help out with the daily chore of keeping actual cruft out of articles, and he left WP soon after for unrelated reasons. Having a single page for "notable aircraft appearances in Media" does keep cruft of the aircraft article pages, and reduce workload for editors, and gives us only one page to have to watch, rather than thousands, and one talk page to expalain for the umhundredth time, "No the Simpsons "spruce Moose " parody is not notable to the Spruce Goose, or any of the other hundreds of parodys of hundreds of aircraft, or the hundreds of game appearances such as CoD#-whatever. Rather than threaten AFD right off the bat, get your hands dirty, help out, try to help us expand the guidelines on what is notable. We do have some quite extensive notes at at WP:AIRPOP on which to base some specific guidelines for this page, so feel free to try to help expand that to something that can be used here.


 * I will say this in closing: If this article is deleted, I will make every evert to see that WPAIR, or WP in general, allow us to ban all pop-culture mentions in aarticles, no mater how notable. Even keeping a Top Gun mention in the F-14 article isn't worth all the mess and grief we have to go through daily to keep articles free of crap. And then to have anything which actually helps to reduce workload by consolidating efforts on one page deleted as "indiscriminate" just makes it even more frustrating. Sure the crufters will continue to add game and film curft, but it's alot easier to simply say" that's not allowed at all" then to try to explain to them why "Top Gun" is mentioned but the Call of Duty 541 game is not. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you haven't bothered to read the discussion on the articles talk page. If you had, perhaps you wouldn't have written all the insulting things you wrote. I'll give you the link to make it nice and easy for you. . Please take note of where I offered to hold off and see if the article could be improved and suggested how some criteria for inclusion into the article would improve it. You'll also note that my main issue is the lack of criteria, not that I have some vendetta against pop culture articles. Maybe after you read it, you'll understand why I look at your comments as pretty condescending and insulting. It's not that I have an issue with someone expressing their opinion. But I do have an issue when you attack me and "suggest" things (in a condescending manner) that I've already suggested and offered assistance on accomplishing. In other words, do your homework before telling me what my "attitude" is and how I'm afraid to put any work into something. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you insult Adam and everyone else, and then feign insult when I reply? That doesn't work with me. There's a lot of work involed in these types of issues, and it hasn't even gotten hard for you yet. The hard part comes when you have deal with 16 year-old barely literate gamers (not all gamers are barely literate, but the most stubborn ones seem to be) who don't understand why their game can't be on the page, and who can't even read the guidelines you've developed, or don't care to if they can read them. If you're still around after several of those encounters, then I'll apologize. - BilCat (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I sure sure stepped in that one! My apologies for all of it. You do use the same buzwords as the AFD nazis who show up to AFD this type of article, and that set me off. That's not your fault. ut I am serious about this being hard work, and I hope you can hang in there when it does get tough, because it will. Even if we do get some good guidelines on what should and should't be on the page, someone else will show up, think the page is and "indiscriminate list", and AFD it. Then perhaps you've understand why I have little patience here. - BilCat (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At some point, you'll accept that I do understand and sympathize. I don't think references to Metal Gear belong in the article about the article on Delta Force, nor do I think an entry belongs in the article about the Gulfstream IV because someone mentioned it once on South Park. I do realize the problem and I can also see why there is use for the article. But as you see, I have been making an effort to improve the article and see if we can make it withstand a possible AfD, rather than putting it up for AfD, which I'm betting would result in deletion. If there is a definate, reasonable criteria for inclusion, then I think it will survive any future attempts to delete it. I also think that the article could actually be fun to work on from time to time. I do tend to !vote with deletionist tendencies. I've nominated a number of articles that got deleted. I've also saved a couple from deletion and hold the "distinction" of having the first article got through the article incubator. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Made my appeal
I posted to the nominators talk page and appealed to him to withdraw the nomination for a week or two and then see if the article has made enough improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough suggestion! - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I dropped a barnstar on him to say thanks for his patience. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice touch! They don't cost anything and help build goodwill. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you get us some support
I know you are very active in the aircraft project. And, let's be honest, one of the biggest reasons for keeping this article is to help that project. Can you drum up any support there? Maybe they have some good sources or just think of some really good examples that the few of us working on this let slip our minds (you know, like how it took me 2 days to remember Memphis Belle). I could post to the project's discussion page, but I thought maybe coming from someone they already know might be more effective. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to engage members there in the past with little effect - but let me try a new appeal based on our two weeks grace period! - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's my concern. We bought the 2 weeks....but it's 2 weeks. This helps them a lot more than putting work in on this is going to help me. I'm debating on enlisting some people I've dealt with before from the Article Rescue Squadron. They could help, but they might help too much. They like to include everything (as if WP really needed an article on the bacon, egg and cheese sandwich. The title says it all. Done.) and that could become a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rescue at any cost, eh? - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dean Winchester article
I understand your concerns about the article in its current state. However, I'm fairly certain that Ω  pho  is  plans to improve the article in the not too distant future. In the past few months he has improved a number of the Supernatural articles to good and featured status. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rihanna Knowles/Cats
Thanks for providing an image to the user box. Rihanna Knowles 05:40, 12 January 2010 (PST)

Moves
When one page has no history except being created as a redirect to another page, you can move the other page to the first title without admin assistance. For example, you could have moved "List of helicopter manufacturers" to "List of rotorcraft manufacturers", because the latter page had no edit history except for being created as a redirect to the former page. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To the contrary — the only reason I can carry out moves that you can't is that I can delete pages, since admins are required for some moves because these moves require deletion, rather than preservation. Thanks for your clarification!  Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SATSair
Good catch on restoring the AVweb ref. I got hung up on the inaccurate "The company's major investor" wording in the article and didn't read the ref closely enough to see that it said "a major investor". Your wording is better than mine and encompasses the facts from both refs. Sorry about that... 150.215.72.40 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem - that is the strength of collaboration! - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Linux Adoption
Another source gives a more detailed and clear explanation.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Refs for callsigns and ICAO designators
I've found that most airline entries don't have refs for their callsign and ICAO designator. Do you think refs are needed? I added refs to SATSair's entry but it would be pretty tedious to go through and do them all. 98.232.5.210 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note - as per WP:V any text that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires a ref. Personally I don't add any text without a ref as it makes Wikipedia more verifiable and thus more reliable, plus saving discussions. - Ahunt (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your note about WP:V but I have just removed the refs from SATSair as airline articles dont normally have refs in that part of the infobox, official all ICAO codes and callsigns have one source which is ICAO Document 8585 so unless it is likely to be challenged I would suggest not adding the ref to all 4000+ airline articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I am not sure where the question came from as it wasn't a requested or tagged requirement for a ref and he had already put up the refs when he asked the question - so my answer was a general one. - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for messing things up, guys. I was just trying to be diligent about providing refs for info that I add to an article. The SATSair article didn't have ICAO/callsign at all so I added them. I should've clearly stated in my question that I added actual new information, not just refs for existing info, and that I wanted to know if refs are required there or not. My bad. Still learning the ropes...150.215.72.40 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem at all you are doing fine there - you can't go wrong with citing refs. If other editors think they aren't needed they will say so. Why don't you open an account and work with us on a regular basis improving aviation articles? We could use the help! - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. X96D74828 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Street fighting
Dear Ahunt: I'm flattered that you went ahead and took my suggestion on this page (and that another editor already blanked the article!). I hope that you will come up with a much better article this way. Unfortunately, this topic does not appeal to me at all, so I'm afraid I'm going to be one of those AfD commentators who sit back and wait for others to do something :). I would also like to commend you on your pleasant and civil tone throughout the AfD discussion; it made for a much nicer experience. All the best, Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note - I find it benefits everyone to keep it civil and pleasant, after all this is supposed to be a hobby, not a life-or-death struggle! I too have no refs and no background in this subject. I just found the article while looking for something else and since I am doing some "spring cleaning" on Wikipedia this year though I would PROD it. It kind of snowballed from there! - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011
Are you interested to be involved in Wikimania? In 2011, we want Wikimania 2011 to be in Montréal. Are you interested to be involved? -- FA IL ! Talk 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)