User talk:Ahunt/Archive10

Many thanks
I don't know how to say this, but your Wikiwings Award had really touched and humbled me. I feel really acknowledged, which makes my experience on Wikipedia much more enjoyable. Thank you, Ahunt. I plan to finish the article off by tomorrow and nominate it for GA, so, watchout! On a slightly different note, have you ever heard of a Sukhoi, or Mikoyan, before? Well, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37, during the next few days, so, if you're interested, please watch-list these articles, and, if you can, please chip in. One reason why I'm doing this because I'm in the WikiCup, but the main reason is because I think Soviet and Russian aircraft are really neglected on Wikipedia, partly, because we all think they're inferior to Western designs, which they're not; I'd like draw more attention to these aircraft. Thanks again for the Award, and I hope we can work together more closely in the future  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 11:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. Glad you thought that small acknowledgement of your work was a positive thing. You did some good work there and I believe in "credit, where credit is due". A lot of people put in hundreds of hours of work on Wikipedia each month for no pay and very often for no thanks either. We really are building a great encyclopedia and the work being done needs to at least be acknowledged. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope this is the start of a great partnership. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 12:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Glasflügel 205 Club Libelle
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Glasflügel 205 Club Libelle, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/McDonell/7862.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Reviewed - the page cited contains virtually no text so obviously a bot error. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Barringer Trophy
I started a page for documenting the Barringer Trophy. It is rough and will need some help. I'll try to add details about each years winning flight over the next week or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonycondon (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a "needed article", good work! I have looked it over and made a couple of small changes. Otherwise it looks great! I'll make some link as to it as it is referred to in many articles. We need a photo of the trophy! - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The only sort of picture i've ever been able to find of the trophy is here: http://soaringweb.org/Awards/barringer.html I may try to email the latest winner to see if he could take a picture Tonycondon (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could get him to do that it would be a real coupe! It would be ideal if he would upload the photo to commons, but if he sends it to you with permission to post it that would do. - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Leica logo
Hi. I notice you have the logo I cropped from a free-to-use image. I don't wish to get into the rights-and-wrongs, but will just note that I was (in good faith) copying the example set by so many userboxes, e.g. Userboxes/Interests. Will you now have to tag the Nikon, Canon, and many other logos used there? If not, could you give me a clue as to how I can change the image I uploaded so it falls under the same category as the close-up Nikon logo used ? Thanks. GFHandel &#9836; 23:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for your note. I am not trying to be difficult and I am certainly not a trademark lawyer, but I have run afoul of copyrighted logos used in articles myself. As far as I know those other logos are also copyright violations and should be tagged. My understanding of US copyright law is that a photograph of a three dimensional object, such as a camera body, that only coincidentally has a copyrighted logo on it and where the logo is not the focus of the picture, can be released as a free image under a CC licence. But a photo that predominantly shows the logo is in fact a reproduction of the logo and thus copyrighted, cannot be anything other than a copyrighted image and thus can only be used under the "fair use" provisions of US law, which according to Wikipedia, excludes use in userboxes. In nominating the image for review by a copyright specialist admin I was planning to see what they had to say and if they agree and remove it then I will nominate the rest of the close-up images of copyrighted camera manufacturer logos that have been released under free licences for userboxes as well. I would suggest we wait and see what the admin says, but you can go ahead and replace the image with lettering instead if you prefer. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like the powers that be have decided that the official logo file should not have been tagged as copyrighted in the first place as it fails to meet the the hold of originality for a copyright logo, consisting only of lettering. So with that solved you can use that logo in the user box now if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, and thanks for looking into this. If I can use the official logo file then I don't think my cropped version should stay around. I've supported its deletion. :-) GFHandel &#9836; 20:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me! As you can tell I am still learning US copyright law here, myself. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyper engine
I have edited out many, if not all, of the material commented upon on the article's talk page. It would now be quite easy to transfer the remaining sections into the existing Hyper engine article. I was quite concerned about the major rework necessary to revise the existing article with what material I thought was needed to revive it, but I am now confident, with the consensus of all concerned, that I can manage that task. Would you please, when you find a moment, take a look at my edits and leave your comments? Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Maupin Carbon Dragon
EncycloPetey (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User: The Bushranger
Ahunt,

Thanks for letting me know about The Bushranger and his contributions, plus his unusual disappearance from Wikipedia after becoming an Admin. I had no knowledge and assumed he was still around although I did find that one of the users of WikiProject Espionage was a "sock puppet" I deleted it's username from the contributors. Other than that, I only have one other contributor on the WikiProject. Adamdaley (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, no one knows what happens when they don't leave a message on Wikipedia. I spent 10 weeks in the Philippines and I kept in touch with some of the people on Wikipedia that I work on articles with. Now I'm back would like to get things going again. Adamdaley (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Well, thank you kindly! One reason that I have had obscure gliders of the 1930s to 60s all to myself is that I don't think many people have paid much attention to them, even after they were created. Still a few to go yet though! I am doing a methodical sweep! - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just on my way with a barnstar, with exactly the same reasoning, to find myself pipped! Anyway, well done and keep going. Gliders have been a bit neglected - what is the state of the glider project? Looked very neglected last time I was there.TSRL (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind thoughts. The gliding project seems to be a bit disused right now, but there are a few of us doing the writing anyway! - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Article on Diamond
Ahunt,

Would you be interested to do a more in-depth article on Diamond Aircraft based on more background information? JumpingCrab (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. If more references can be found on the company's history, then, sure the article can be expanded. Right now the less recent history is missing and needs expansion. - Ahunt (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I can definitely help with the less recent history. I could write something myself, but I do not have the time available and you have a good grip on this stuff. Can you shoot me an email though my user page? Thanks. JumpingCrab (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Brodburn
Evening Ahunt, Are you sure the designer's name was Radburn? It did occur to me that it ought to be, in order to make sense of the "Broburn" but Flight have him as Radbarn. Do we trust the museum site? Thanks for adding the Museum ref; Didn't know about that - it's not in WR22 under Broburn, bus as Wanderlust,  Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. It wasn't me that changed the name spelling, that was User:Mean as custard. I found the museum article, but I have no information on which spelling is right. The museum article does indicate that the spelling is "Radburn" and that he was involved with the aircraft donation to the museum, so on the balance of probabilities it is likely that with him at the museum that they probably spelled his name right. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I'll maybe drop him a query.  Certainly wouldn't be the first time Flight got a name wrong, but I guess they are the only citeable source.TSRL (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I could try searching S&G.TSRL (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft system article - template
Re rv of my rm of aircraft lists template at AFCS. WP:AIRMOS is suggested guidelines "for articles on specific aircraft types", which the article isn't. Or were you referring to something else ? DexDor (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is for aircraft types, but by general consensus we use this navbox on all aircraft related articles as a general aid to readers finding key aviation articles. It is used on pretty much all aviation-related articles, as indicated at Template:Aviation_lists, which says "Please place the navbox template at the bottom of the page of any aviation-related articles.". Is there any reason to not have it on that one article? - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. FYI many articles on components/systems don't have that template - e.g. Avionics and AFDX. DexDor (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously an oversight! It has one real advantage in that when it is matched with another navbox that is similarly configured that both will collapse, this taking up much less room on the page! - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Caribbean Airlines Flight 523
Hello Ahunt, We're working together on the article. I found this aerial shot here from msnbc, which shows the downed aircraft just yards passed the runway. The tail wings are basically resting atop the perimeter fence with the section between tail wings and main wings resting on the socalled "road" past the fence. This contradicts some of the press reports. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's take this to the article talk page! - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dean international flight training school
In case I dont get round to a prod (and a COI) have you seen Dean international flight training school? MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I haven't seen it, let me have a look and see what needs to be done there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An admin has blocked him indefinitely for spamming, so it seems a no-brainer to nominate the article for CSD, which I have done. Perhaps you would like to do the honours and review my nomination? - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And it is gone! - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and sorry just to leave you a note and run I had a real life diversion and would have probably forgotten about! MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was happy to help out and that was an easy one! - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jono Bacon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jono Bacon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jono Bacon 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. —  Jeff G. ツ  03:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC) '''

Hello
''' Hi Ahunt! Well, i don't know how to begin. I'm a second year student of engineering(Mechanical). I've been interested in aircrafts and space exploration ever since i could read a book. My aim is to be an aerospace engineer. I just saw your user page; and i must say : I.M.P.R.E.S.S.I.V.E. I know this post seems amateur and kiddish here, but I consider it an honour to be on your talk page. Please do be in touch. I would love to know you as a mentor. Cheers! The Mangol (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well welcome to Wikipedia! Sure if I can help you out getting started I would be happy to do that. Let me know if you have any specific questions. As far as Aircraft design process goes, this article really needs more text on the process of designing aircraft, which is what it is supposed to be about. The key thing when doing any writing of content, as opposed to just fixing wording, spelling or grammar is to have the references you need in advance, read them and then paraphrase from them citing them. Have a look at the latest article I just started today, Brochocki BKB-1, and you will see how the footnoted refs support all the text there. The most important facit of Wikipedia is that everything has to be verifiable and that means that no original research is used. Start from there. - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Sure, no problem, I used to be 18 too. The main thing is to write on the correct topic. Your previous text at Aircraft design process was all unsourced (no references) and also on the wrong subject. The article is supposed to be about the steps in the process of designing an aircraft, but you were adding text on the history of aviation, which duplicates the article Aviation history. First you need a good reference website, article or book on the process of designing aircraft and then work from that, paraphrasing what it says and citing the source as you go. It is much harder to just write stuff off the top of your head and then try to find refs that support it later. In the example of the article I started today I found an article on the aircraft type, then researched supporting refs, like registration documents and then wrote it from those (In my own words of course) and added the ref citations as I finished each paragraph. Then I made sure it was all on topic and coherant before having a colleague edit it for me. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Spamming on Wikipedia is darn annoying! - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Warsztaty Szybowcowe Orlik
Thank you for creating this interesting article. When you create beyond-stub articles with inline references, like Warsztaty Szybowcowe Orlik, please consider nominating your work for front page exposure at T:TDYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thought, but I start new articles like that one once or twice a day and noms like that take far too long and thus slow down writing of new articles, so I leave it to others to judge the quality of the work and deal with the administrative things like ratings and such. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons: Poux and other categories
I've been finding more pics of Poux in various corners of Commons, also trying to put more structure there so we can find stuff, especially homebuilts (many of your pics affected). One particular question is whether we should try to replicate exactly the category structure in en.wikipedia, eg Aircraft/Homebuilt aircraft/Jurca/SiroccoF-Pxxx etc. I'm wrestling with a decision to perhaps rename Pou du Ciel category as Mignet or Mignet Pou du Ciel (alphabetisation, etc), or put an extra category Mignet (ie, aircraft designs) in between Henri Mignet (the man) and the individual models. Trouble is, the longer we leave it all uncertain, the more work needed later to amend categories in image files (unless someone writes robots). PS Just re-categorized a VT-16 Orlik I found in unidentified aircraft. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Yup Commons has some issues alright. One of the biggest problems there is a bunch of German editors who seem determined to file aircraft photos under their registrations, which makes them unsearchable by type. I think the biggest consideration should be that when someone goes looking for a type (ie Cessna 172) that the category at least should pop up, which should have all the C-172s in it! For my money the best hierarchy would be Manufacturer > Type > then Registration if it has to be done that way. The designer could be a duplicate parallel category. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response. German editors practices are ironic, as their registrations can and do get re-issued many times - yesterday I recategorized D-EFVM as a Wiggins from incorrect Druine D.31. At least with Pou, I'll move it to Mignet Pou du Ciel as in en:wikipedia, and see what can be done with Commons redirects. I'm sorely tempted also to try Commons file moves, but it's all very time-consuming while I have backlog of tens of thousands of aircraft images to catalogue and archive, and I'm not at liberty to upload any to WP projects. PeterWD (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * File moves of Commons are hard and take time to arrange. I usually find it is better to just assign new cats instead, which do show up on searches. For me it is all about finding the pictures there - if I can find them I am happy! - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Userboxes/Wikipedia/humour you left in my userpage
Thank you! I didn't see much about birthdays in the userboxes and that's a fun subject to bring up front. It took me years to find someone famous born on my birthday that I actually know/like. Hopefully others can find a famous person they like that was born on their birthday too. :) --Molokaicreeper (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Humorous, eh? It will display in 5... what should I think of....4... on no...3... ononononono!!!!! 2...ohohoho...1=YOU RRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCCKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!TheWeegeeMinion (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Opus prototype.jpb.jpg
See my notice at WP:AN related to this file. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice - replied over at WP:AN. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Evektor EV-55 Outback
Hey Adam - THANKS for your considerable assistance in bringing the EV-55 article up to Wikipedia standards. You are the greatest!--Raymondwinn (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, it needed a bit of expansion. Glad that you thought my contributions were helpful. Now we just need a photo of the EV-55! - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Opus prototype et al.
Hi, I've just got to grips with Talk Pages. Was the Opus picture not yet "Public Domain"? TL. Arrivisto (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as the admins could tell it was still copyrighted. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more details. That image was probably taken only a few years ago and my understanding is that photo copyrights in the US extend for 80 years from the time the photo was taken. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From |commons, US copyright lasts 70 years after the creators death if creator known or if not, 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Super, thanks for correcting that, Nigel. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll contact Tony Dawson at Opus & ask him to release to me some images that can go into public domain.Arrivisto (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can do it that way if you like, but make sure that they are properly documented. The easiest way is to have Opus upload them or post a notice about copyrights on their website. To be honest the article actually has enough photos for now, the ones that are there just need some rearranging. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I have rearranged the ones there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hewland AE75
I have put in an AAIB report ref in respect of an in-flight water-pump drive-belt breakage. Is this within the Air Accident guidelines, please? Arrivisto (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The guidelines for aircraft types are at WP:AIRCRASH, but we don't specifically have guidelines for engines there. Personally I would say that accidents that lead to airworthiness directives (or equiv) or changes to the engine design should be mentioned in engine articles, but not others. Think what the articles would look like if we listed every Lycoming O-320 or Rotax 503 that suffered a failure in flight! - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a look at how you used that, as an illustration of an issue to be addressed in a redesign, and that looks fine! I just formatted the ref for you. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

S.F Cody
...Thanks for adding & removing the cite tags. I had all the references, was just too lazy to add them. I'm currently (inter alia) expanding the article on the Cody Army Aeroplne no. 1, and this no doubt has a lot of remarks that need inline cites. As will the article on the Circuit of Britain biplane when it appears.TheLongTone (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, collaberation works! Glad you had those refs to add! I find in writing new articles that it is best to write from the refs and add the the refs to the text as I finish each paragraph, that way the text is always supported as I go along and I don't have to go back and ask myself "now where did it say that again?"! - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I keep note of the online refs in a Word document, and do the rest with post-its. Often by the time I've dropped in the cite, I've forgotten what I want to say next. And I'm generally writing from one major cited source: how many references to the same three pages of British Aircraft 1809-1914' can an article bear?TheLongTone (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess as long as the system you are using works for you! I actually often add the formatted ref first and then the text! - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome....
and advice.

(SafetyConcerns (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC))


 * No problem, glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added to an input references lately for Canadian International Air Show, Abbotsford International Air Show and Cleveland National Air Show. If you have some time, pls take a look at them for me, they will surely need a little cleaning up. (SafetyConcerns (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your note. I had a look and most are fine, but I removed a couple due to policy problems like WP:COPYLINK and WP:SPS. I noted such in the edits summaries. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up. (SafetyConcerns (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC))


 * No problem! - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ahunt, gotta disagree with removing the engine problem with Snowbird 5. It happened during the aerial display and the crowd all say it missing. I thought we were trying to be consistant with the master list of Accidents and Incidents. If you look, there under 2008 is an incident where a kid hiding from a windstorm had a piece of ducting fall on them. If that is related to the air show then so is #5 departing. Thanks again for all your help. (SafetyConcerns (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC))


 * My reason for removing was simply that it was a very minor incident and non-notable, no injuries, no aircraft damage and no risks. When I flew Tutors at Moose Jaw we had an aircraft land with these symptoms at least once a week, so 50+ a year. Have a read of WP:NOTNEWS for more on this sort of issue. - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Colomban MC-30 Luciole
Hi, I've started a page on the MC-30 Luciole. Please advise - should the title be changed to "Colomban MC-30 Luciole, like the Cri-cri? TL Arrivisto (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As per WikiProject Aircraft/Naming it should be Colomban MC-30 Luciole. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Two issues: (i) the web page's automatic conversions are wrong: it says 170kmh is 110 mph (should be 105), and 200kmh is 120mph (124). How do we address this?; and (ii) the images I uploaded, with the owners written consent have been deleted.  I will try to reinstate them. Arrivisto (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with the images is that you can't just say that someone gave you permission and then take them off their website and upload them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes copyrights very, very seriously, to avoid being sued. The person who owns the images needs to file permission with Wikipedia, or better yet upload the images themselves with an appropriate licence. Your indication was that the person who owned the images said "sure use any you like", but that isn't a licence statement. You uploaded them as "public domain" but he never indicated that was how they should be released.


 * As far as the spec conversions go, you are right, there is some error in the math there. 200 km/h is actually 123 mph and 170 km/h is 105 mph. This has to be corrected at the template level, so let me see if I can get that addressed over there. In the meantime adding extra figures to the template doesn't work as the template doesn't display them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have outlined the conversion issue at Template_talk:Aircraft_specs. Hopefully someone who knows how to fix the template can have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a few more changes, with data from a recent LAA test report. I think Teverson's page should be included as "official website" as he IS the "manufacturer" (Colomban is the designer), and he, in conjunction with the LAA's chief engineer is making the significant alterations to the design that will make it acceptable in the UK.  It is not any old club blog!  Arrivisto (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can show me where he is advertising kits for sale, then I'll buy that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In reviewing his website I am not seeing that. This page in particular shows that he is only making a few parts as are other people. This page indicates that it is an enthusiast page only. It doesn't make WP:RS and he isn't the manufacturer. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The CAA's G-INFO search describes him as "manufacturer". Neither he nor Colomban are producing aircraft for others, but that does not affect his status as (i) manufacturer and (ii) the most reliable source of MC-30 information in the UK.  To deny any reference to his website is unhelpful, and (in my view) not a legitimate use of the "type club" ban.  Arrivisto (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Any person who builds a homebuilt aircraft is listed as the manufacturer, because, literally, they built the aircraft. The problem isn't WP:TYPECLUB here, it is WP:SPS. His website is a bunch of information that he has self-published with no editorial oversight and so is not an acceptable ref under WP:RS. Surely we can find better references than that in places like KitPlanes or EAA Sport Aviation? Let me check AVweb and see what they have. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ProFe
Just moving to what was used in the article, but when I got to the D-8 article it wasn't clear what the compnany name actually is. Searching the internet did not give any satisfaction so i left everything as it was and asked for evidence of the actual name. So i haven't done anything wrong, check for yourself, both version have been freely used in article names and in the articles. If you can raide a consensus then i will abide by it!! I Petebutt (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)am not trying to impose just arrive at the truth.


 * The company uses ProFe and all the articles now reflect that. In future please ask so we can sort it out before moving articles. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

libreoffice calc
i could do with some help polishing up the lo.calc article, btw do you mind creating the lo.impress article, i havnt got around to gathering some links for it, but if you could do that for me, that would be a big help, if u dont wanna create the article just let me kno and ill do it myself if u dont agree with that it should exist. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.24 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no references to start that article with. It needs good refs from the start to establish WP:N. As far as the LibreOffice Calc article goes, it is a total mess. In future please do not just copy the OpenOffice articles, start from scratch instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

nah that seems like a bad strategy, i dont wanna reinvent the weel, better just to build on the work of others and wholesale lift stuff from another article and then modify from there. besides its an infant article of course it bad, give it a while to mature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Grumman G-164 Ag-Cat
Hi, Thanks for all of the help in getting the Grumman G-164 Ag-Cat page in tip top shape! Joe Lippert was my uncle, and I was shocked to see he was not mentioned at all when I pulled up the page last Christmas! It was Schwiezer, Schweizer, Schweizer.

Joe was the preliminary designer of Grumman aircraft from WW II through the magnificent F-14. He was once referred to in the NY Times as a modern day DaVinci. He was truly a genius. I did a lot of work to describe the correct history of the ship. Best to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.86.24 (talk • contribs)

Hello
I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article ProFe--There is a good number of citations and references. However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: some of the article's Wikilinks are broken.

It would be great if you could also clean-up the related article Sonex Aircraft. Jipinghe (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I just checked all the Wikilinks at ProFe and there are no broken Wikilinks. Perhaps you can explain which ones you think are broken.


 * Sonex Aircraft is actually not related to ProFe, other than that they are both aircraft manufacturers. I had a look at it and I am unclear what you think needs cleaning up there. Perhaps you can be more specific? - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

do you own a Flitfire?
I do. cubgirl4444Cubgirl4444 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I have owned six aircraft, but none were Pipers. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Quadracycle and pedal cars
Hello, I see that you are the editor most active on Quadracycle and that "Pedal car" redirects there. I recently attended an antique car show and took photos of a couple of high end children's pedal cars from the 1950s that had been restored to mint condition. That type of pedal car doesn't seem to be covered anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find. Would you think a section on children's pedal powered cars would be appropriate? Any other thoughts? Thanks.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As they have four wheels and pedals, I think it would fall within the scope of the article. Why don't you add that as a section (perhaps in the history section if you have not too much text, or in its own section if you have more than a few sentences) and let's see how it looks. If it gets too long it can be split off into a new article at that time. Make sure you have refs cited as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, all I have is the photos and my personal knowledge (which is worth nothing). So, I will study the subject a bit and see if I can find some good, solid sources.  I'll get back to you in a while because I am working on a variety of articles.  Thanks a lot.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the best way to proceed! Once you post something I'll take a look. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved mention of deleted external link to the talk page.
I see that link I added to the Continental A-40 falls foul of certain external link policies, so instead I've added a mention of it to the talk page. Basically my thinking was to potentially aid editors in adding extra information. The site is certainly not itself a citeable source, but it includes a list of references (in very abbreviated format, explained elsewhere on the site) which could be consulted and used for citations. Also the list of applications might be useful, either as cited from the references provided or from other references to the same aircraft. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. It actually looks like a pretty well-researched website, but fell afoul of WP:SPS as a ref and item 11 under WP:ELNO, which is essentially the same thing. In many ways I wish we gave more discretion to include well-written hobbyist websites as they are often better than the professionally produced material and can be more accurate too. Sure, on the talk page is fine for it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jacobson Flare
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jacobson Flare. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - commented. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mignet stuff
Many thanks for your appreciation. I'm amazed at still finding Pou-related stuff in Commons, but disappointed generally that several other aircraft pictured there are not even mentioned in lists or articles in en:wp, hence the Pouchel. PeterWD (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Credit where credit is due - you have done lots of good work on these articles. Wikipedia is not finished yet, there is still more to do, but I try to encourage those who are doing it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Mooney M20 correction
Hey, thank you for correcting my accident addition in the Mooney M20. I thought it was a hull-loss, which is why I posted it. :) EmadIV (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. We generally go by WP:AIRCRASH. The problem with adding just hull losses to light plane articles is that there are so many of them and most are generally the same. In the M20 series there have probably been over 1000 in total. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Two-column reflist in Google Native Client
Hello Ahunt. In this edit I tried to fix a problem with the appearance of the reference section when viewed on a Mac in Safari 5.1. (The last footnote wandered from the list and made itself a new section to the right of the article). Firefox 7.0.1 does not care about this change, and the problem is not seen on Firefox. I only mention this because you added the double-column reflist and you could have some thoughts about the matter. Curiously, my change also allows Safari 5.1 to see the second column. Just possibly this could be a bug in Safari. From Template:Reflist I could not tell what argument is recommended to enable multi-column. You had the template as and I changed it to. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. That is odd! It looks fine both ways in Chromium 12, which runs the same Webkit rendering engine as Safari! It also looks fine both ways in Firefox 7 (Gecko engine) and Epiphany 2.30.6 (Webkit) as well. Oddly enough the HTML for both versions looks pretty much the same! It must be a Safari bug, but if it looks okay in Safari now then just leave it as is! - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for your welcome message on my talk page. I have in fact done many anonymous minor edits (typos etc) for some time. However, with this PG dispute involving lots of back and forth I thought it was appropriate to create a traceable identity. Jontyla (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured that you might have been around for a bit, but I always like to leave a "welcome" message anyway, in the hopes that it makes the place seem friendlier and therefore encourage knowledgeable people, like you, to keep editing. Hopefully you have found some less conflictual areas to edit in than paragliding safety and AfDs! Most work on Wikipedia is writing and fixing articles rather than arguing and can be quite relaxing and creative! - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Metra Logo
Since you deleted the Metra Logo from the User:Theodore Kloba/Metra userbox template, what do you think of the simpler "M" logo here: as an alternative (converted to svg)? It seems to meet the "geometric shapes and/or text" requirements that have been applied in other mass transit logos included in userboxes: User:UBX/BART and User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/WMATA.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. As long as it isn't a copyrighted logo then it is fine. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Applebay Sailplanes
Category:Applebay Sailplanes, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring of Epiphany article
I've developed another version of Epiphany (web browser) article in my userspace. I'm going to replace the current text with my version, but before I would like to ask for Your comments.

Please comment at talk:Epiphany (web browser) &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We really should keep this on the article talk page so that other editors watching the article can participate. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your Chrome OS revert
Hi, No, it was not a Chrome version, but a Chrome OS version I entered. How do I know? I entered about:version into my Cr-48 Chrome OS netbook. You can revert your revert :)

Google Chrome	16.0.906.1 (Official Build 105829) Platform	1169.7.0 (Official Build) dev-channel x86-mario WebKit	535.7 (@97251) JavaScript	V8 3.6.6.1 Flash	11.0.31.201 User Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS i686 1169.7.0) AppleWebKit/535.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/16.0.906.1 Safari/535.7 Command Line	 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --apps-gallery-title=Web Store --apps-gallery-url=https://chrome.google.com/webstore/ --compress-sys-feedback --device-management-url=https://m.google.com/devicemanagement/data/api --disable-seccomp-sandbox --enable-accelerated-plugins --enable-device-policy --enable-gview --enable-logging --enable-login-images --enable-nacl --enable-smooth-scrolling --force-compositing-mode --log-level=1 --login-manager --login-profile=user --no-first-run --parallel-auth --reload-killed-tabs --scroll-pixels=3 --user-data-dir=/home/chronos --webui-login --register-pepper-plugins=/opt/google/chrome/pepper/netflixplugin.so#Netflix#Netflix 1.3.2#1.3.2;application/x-ppapi-netflix --enable-accelerated-layers --ppapi-flash-path=/opt/google/chrome/pepper/libpepflashplayer.so --ppapi-flash-version=11.0.31.201 --load-opencryptoki --block-reading-third-party-cookies --flag-switches-begin --enable-experimental-extension-apis --enable-print-preview --flag-switches-end Executable Path	/opt/google/chrome/chrome Profile Path	/home/chronos/user

-- Mathias Schindler (WMDE) (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is the browser version, not the OS version. It didn't jump overnight from 0.14.811.132 to 16.0.906.1. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability/sources
Hi, I have added some more info/sources to Sonex Electric Sport Aircraft; do you feel that it still needs the notability/poorly sourced banners? Thanks for your help with the formatting/cleanup, as well as the Sonex Aircraft Onex article awhile back! Falconus p t   c 14:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good - done! - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. One more thing, I gave the article the title Sonex Electric Sport Aircraft, because the typical "Sonex Aircraft Electric Sport Aircraft" sounded too odd, and I wanted to avoid using the acronym "Sonex Aircraft ESA".  Do you think it is good the way it is, or would you suggest something else?  I'm going to post this on the discussion page of the article, so we can continue there. Falconus p  t   c 14:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As per WikiProject Aircraft/Naming the name you picked is probably the best one for now. Judging by the rest of the line of aircraft, I suspect the company will give this model some sort of marketing name in the future, in which case the article name can be changed then. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks again. Falconus p t   c 14:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang gliding deaths redirects
Hi, there a bit of a discussion going on about the hang glider deaths redirects here, where I've mentioned your recent edit, and I thought you might like to participate. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Piper J-3 and L-4
Thanks for the Barnstar! Would you like to review my new article on Major "Bazooka Charlie" Carpenter, who used a bazooka-equipped L-4 during WWII to attack German armor? I would greatly appreciate a critical eye.Dellant (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a few small changes, otherwise it looks fine. Good work. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dellant (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

LibreOffice
Hello, Ahunt. How do you do?

Allow me to be frank -- I need to leave quickly. May I attract your attention to the fact that (also known as WP:UNDUE) is a higher authority than Template:Infobox software/doc? That means, if something that Template:Infobox software/doc says is in violation of WP:UNDUE, we change Template:Infobox software/doc instead of breaking WP:UNDUE.

Do not worry though, it is alright; I will pretend nothing has happened. But please bear in mind that once your edit is contested (like what I did in the article) you should not repeat it unless you have discussed with the contesting person and reached a consensus. If you do not do that, you are edit warring.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you have any question, please feel free to contact me. I am always glad to explain. If you feel I am wrong, again please feel free to tell me. I will be more than happy to apologize and withdraw. Fleet Command (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your moderately insulting note here. Putting lists of operating systems in what you think is order of importance is not NPOV, compared to a neutral manner of listing such as alphabetical order, which is what the template documentation supports. I assume that you must be a Windows fan and thus feel the need to list it first, rather than list operating systems in a neutral manner. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Air Napier - thanks
G'day from Oz; just wanted to say thanks for setting up the AfD for Air Napier. I had every intention of doing it myself, but I spent nine hours installing P-clamps on a CCF Harvard 4 fuselage frame yesterday and by last night I just couldn't face doing something as complex as starting an AfD process. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey that counts as bragging ;) No problem, it isn't close to notable! Feel free to add to the discussion, too. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess some were less than thrilled or even stumped. 15 minutes to write that, huh? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see he has vandalized it again, too. - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cabane and kingpost
Evening Ahunt: I saw you had altered cabane to kingpost in the recent Radlock Trainer page. I disagree, though I think I know why you altered it. We probably agree that a kingpost is a single post above the wing, as commonly used in early monoplanes. Though the OED doe not include an aeronautical use, kingpost is a just one member in churches and ships. Now the Radlock (perhaps I was not clear) used a two strut, inverted V structure, not a post, though it did the same job. So what to call it? The Payne I.C.1 had a similar though three strut wire support which was called a cabane in a contemporary source page 84. I was a bit surprised because I had thought till then that cabane referred to struts on a biplane between centre section and fuselage, but used it in the text. Since then I've looked up cabane in the (full strength) OED and get (truncated):

"A pyramidal structure supporting the wings of an aircraft.
 * 1913   A. E. Berriman Aviation iii. 33   Each spar is supported at intervals by wires that run overhead to a mast or cabane above the pilot's seat.
 * 1914   Aeronaut. Jrnl. Oct. 315   Cabane, a French word to denote the mast structure projecting above the body to which the top load wires of a monoplane are attached."

I guess that the "pyramidal" (3D) detail doesn't stop the flat (2D) one on the Radlock being a "mast structure". If you are convinced by all this, I could change it back; we should also add a line or two to the cabane page. I'd also try to clarify what was meant by "triangular structure". Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is interesting. I have seen the term "kingpost" applied to both single post and triangular structures on the tops of wings that support the ground wires, so I think we are talking about the same thing here, just different terms for it. Perhaps you could use your refs to expand Kingpost to include cabane as a specific kind of kingpost and then put an entry in the disambiguation page at Cabane sending people to kingpost? - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll sort them out in a day or so. Do you have a ref for kingpost as a triangular structure?  It would keep the balance nicely.TSRL (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Apolgies for the lurker instrusion - this page and the following one from a 1915 Flight article imply refer to four kingposts on an Etrich. From the sketch include they are arranged as two (parallel) triangular structures.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No apologies needed! I am still looking for refs, but that one you found seems to prove the point that the term "kingpost" has been used for just about any configuration of overwing supports and not just a single post. I think that we can use "cabane" as a particular kind of kingpost, based on what we have found so far. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was beginning to wonder if cabane, as monoplane wing support structure, was only used before WW1 but this glossary suggests it was commonly used, in the gliding community at least, around 1930. Graeme's ref seems to suggest that the over-fuselage, multi-strut A-frame was distinguished from the (single) kingposts and that the latter were below the wing (as well as above?), mounting wheels in this Taube. Another version had mid-wing kingposts extending both above and below.TSRL (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well we are slowly getting to the root of the issue here, or at least the word. I understood that "cabane" seems to refer to a specific form of kingpost, usually in an inverted "V", however in the Taube article the wheels were described as being mounted on the cabanes. It seems likely that the word "cabane" is derived from the French "cabine" which simple means "cabin" in English. In other words I think that any struts that were near or protruded up or down from the cabin were referred to as "cabane struts" or "cabanes". - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with incorrect information on an official website?
Ahunt

I am new to editing Wikipedia, after years of using this great resource. Today, I edited an article about the T-6A Texan II turboprop trainer. I corrected some misleading information about the Canadian version (CT-156 Harvard II). I found that the source of the misleading info was an official Canadian military website. I have sent an e-mail to the DND Canada Public Affairs department, asking them to correct their site. In the meantime, I am concerned that someone may question the validity of my edits to Wikipedia, based on the erroneous official DND site. I was looking for advice on how to address those concerns, given that Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) could take months or longer to update their site.

The sentence that I changed comes straight from the DND web site: "Its performance, cockpit layout and ejection protocols mimic those of the CT-155 Hawk jet trainer."

I sent an e-mail to DND stating that the Harvard II performance and cockpit layout were quite different from the CT-155 Hawk. I base that on the following reasoning:

-I worked for the company that built the simulators for both the NFTC Harvard II and Hawk aircraft (CAE, in Montreal).

-My job was test pilot, verifying that the simulators correctly emulated the subject aircraft, and that they could be used for the training syllabus required.

-I have flown the JPATS prototype T-6A Texan II (May of 1999, in Wichita KS at the Raytheon plant) twice. I took extensive video and notes, and compared the JPATS to the NFTC (Canadian) version of the aircraft. I can state unequivocally that the JPATS and Canadian versions are virtually identical; the difference is limited to one radio, but this only affects the menus on one of the displays and not at all the overall layout.

-I have spent hundreds of hours "flying" the simulators for both the Harvard II and Hawk.

-I am a retired military fighter pilot with more than 3,500 hours of experience on trainer and fighter aircraft.

-I have worked closely with DND Public Affairs personnel (such as those who create and edit the DND site), and while they are well-meaning, their subject-matter expertise is limited. Such errors are easy to commit on their parts.

-Bombardier Military Aviation Training, in NFTC marketing material, has often used the terms "jet-like handling" to describe the Harvard II, referring to its incorporation of an automatic rudder Trim Aid Device (TAD) that makes large turboprop throttle changes more like similar changes in a jet, where the rudder is not required at all to compensate for propellor torque like in the turboprop. This may well be the source of confusion.

My e-mail to DND suggested that they change their web site text to: "Its performance, combined with its advanced cockpit layout and agile handling, make it an ideal stepping stone toward the CT-155 Hawk jet trainer."

My changes to the Texan II page were: "NFTC's Harvard II aircraft are almost identical in cockpit layout and performance to the American JPATS Texan IIs. Within NFTC, students fly the Harvard II in Phase 2A and 2B of the training program, and some will go on to fly the CT-155 Hawk jet trainer also used by NFTC for Phase 3 (Moose Jaw) and Phase 4 Fighter Lead-In Training (4 Wing, Cold Lake, Alberta). "

I also added a link to Bombardier's NFTC web site within the article, citing it as a reference. On that site, there is no inference that the Harvard and Hawk are similar in cockpit layout and performance, nor is there any clear statement that they are not.

Can you suggest any other means of ensuring that some well-meaning individual does not want to cancel my edits, based on DND's web site? Thanks! Dmcw (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. This is an interesting problem that does come up on Wikipedia with some regularity. Because your information is not supported by reliable third party references it is considered original research and therefore can't be used. The reliable ref in this case (DND) has the information wrong, but is considered a reliable source. Your approach is right in asking them to fix their website - that is the best way to proceed. In the meantime I wouldn't remove your text, but if it gets reverted you have no refs with which to support your arguments, so you will have to leave it until DND public affairs get their act together. This whole sort of problem is actually explained in WP:V which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The reason that we use verifiability rather than truth as the basis for adding information is that everyone seems to have a different version of the truth. The page at WP:The Truth explains the problems in a fairly humourous manner. I hope that helps! - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahunt

I understand a bit better now. What if I could produce pictures of the cockpits, where a side-by-side comparison would show the layout was quite different? Performance is very easy; it is a simple matter of comparing the (already validated by reliable sources) performance numbers here on Wikipedia, where it is clear the Hawk and Harvard II are quite different.

The Hawk pictures are available on Photobucket, and the Harvard ones I can generate as screen grabs from the videos I took. Would that be helpful?

On a different topic, I suspect you and I were in Moose Jaw at the same time (I was there 1980 to 1985, student then instructor).

­­Dmcw (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note here. Unfortunately the interpretation of photos is considered original research. What we really need to sort this out is the DND site fixed and you are working on that. That is probably the best approach. It is always a problem when supposedly reliable sources print erroneous information, but then the old DNDOI motto was "Yesterday's disinformation tomorrow". - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahunt

I am learning a lot about how to attribute, and the nuances of original research, etc. I appreciate the time you have taken to point me in the right direction.

Good news about the external link to the DND web site. I received a reply today from Public Affairs. They have made the change I requested (already!), and the new wording is consistent with my edits to the page. The old text about "similar performance and cockpit layout" has been removed from DND's site. Strangely enough, one of their experts that was consulted by public affairs was an old squadron mate of mine - very small world.

Thanks again for helping me with these edits, and understanding more about Wikipedia's guidelines. Dmcw (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve to get started in these days. That is a quick response on that website change. I will check the article and see if you added the ref, if not I will put it in there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the DND page was already there, in a previous portion of the text, but the access date was 2009. I tried to edit the access date (to make it yesterday), but couldn't do so through the reference edit area. I suspect that I should have updated the citation within the text block itself - just thought about that this morning. Thanks for your follow-up. Dmcw (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the dates on the two refs there, although I note that both DND pages still show that they were last updated in 2007! - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Table of contents question
Hi A., Do you know of a way to force a table of the contents of an article to be two or three columns wide, sort of like the list near the top of your talk page? I am interested in making a very long TOC shorter, so the article contents are nearer the top of the article. I have checked out the WP contents templates, but haven't found one that will do this. Coastwise (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you. Sure that is no problem. To limit how many heading levels appear in a table of contents just insert   near the top of the page and set the limit number as desired. If there are many heading levels you can try different numbers to get the desired effect. Another approach, when you need to have a really long Table of Contents, as is the case in articles like Aircraft in fiction, is to move it to the right so that text wraps to the left, making the table less obtrusive. That is done by coding   . Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Airborne Avenger
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brock Avion
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for International Ultralight Banchee
Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New WP: Aircraft Member
Hi, Ahunt, I have looked over the articles per your invitation to see how things are done with aircraft articles. You can see my work on the some aircraft articles, probably best is the Curtiss-Wright C-76 Caravan; I wrote most of this (I posted from an IP address of 12.72.118.220, 12.72.119.78 and similar before becoming Dellant). I tend to go heavy on footnote information. If you have time look it over and see if I'm doing things correctly and if you have suggestions. Thanks. Dellant (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I had a run though the article. It looks really good. I just made a couple of minor fixes to it and removed one WP:SPS reference. Other than those small items it is a great job, keep up the work! - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks chief; saw your fixes, I added the missing references needed, made a mental note on the no WP:SPS policy. Best! Dellant (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Super, glad that was helpful! Let me know if you want any assistance with anything else. Wikipedia is a pretty mature project these days and so it can take a while to get up to speed on all the policies and stuff, so don't be afraid to ask, because we need new editors! - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ICON A5
I mentioned this on M1's page, but I'm pretty sure works for ICON - he's certainly a SPA and the quacking is getting pretty loud. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That was my thought, too! The page isn't too bad right now, but I'm watching it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Joke
Hello there my dear puppy, i'm not new to wikipedia! Thank you very much. Jamiebijania (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Since you aren't new here you will know that attacking other editors is not acceptable. Try WP:CIVIL instead. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You are featured!
Hi Ahunt, you have been featured as my blacklisted users on Wikipedia. Do check out the rest who made the list!Jamiebijania (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess the Kindness Campaign wasn't working out... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am truly honoured. For years I was on Pol Pot's blacklist and this certainly rates up there! - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robertson B1-RD
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

UH-1 lost during desert storm
The general approach on different articles is to report the aerial losses suffered since the Gulf War. Please refer to the F-4, A-4, MiG-21, A-6 and F-5 articles. Even other aircraft which were downed in the hundreds in the '60ies, 70ies or 80ies wars are listed when it comes to the losses suffered since 1990. Consider the Su-17, MiG-23, Mi-24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus approach is WP:AIRCRASH and what you are proposing falls afoul of WP:RECENT. If you disagree with what AIRCRASH says then the place to take it up is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to see if you can gain a new consesus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please point out the sentence that says what you are saying. There is no trace of it in the link you posted. then If what you are saying is a general rule, you have to fix all the articles reported above before removing that.

Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving military aircraft and light aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) the standard for inclusion is:

the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim) or if this is not the case then it meets all of the following requirements:

The accident was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground; and The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; and The accident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.45.9 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You have quoted the section exactly and this accident you keep adding doesn't fit: it didn't involve a notable person or it doesn't involved fatalities and hull loss and any change in procedures (note that says "and" for a reason, it has to meet all those three for inclusion). The accident you are trying to add doesn't make those criteria. Yes you are right if there are others in other articles that also don't make the criteria they should be fixed, too, but I don't watch those articles or work on them. And, no, there is no requirement for me to fix other articles before fixing this one - Wikipedia doesn't work that way. With over 3.8M articles in English, I can't watch and fix them all. Anyway this is not the right place for this discussion, it belongs at Talk:Bell UH-1 Iroquois which is where I will start it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I see.. you're wrong: "it doesn't involved fatalities". The crew was killed in action, so it fully fits the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk • contribs)

Please take this over to Talk:Bell UH-1 Iroquois as it is article related. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List with Internal Wikipedia Link, External Link
How do I show that a listed organization that has a link to its official website also has a link internally to its own Wikipedia page? See Association of Canadian Archivists. The Association for Manitoba Archives has its own page in Wikipedia. I have looked at a whole bunch of other society and association wikipedia pages but can't find an exact example I can use. Thanks! Archivisticus (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting question. In looking at the article the external links to other similar organizations should be under "external links" and then the wikilink to the other organizations should be under "See also". Let me edit the article to do that and hopefully that will make sense! - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Taos Regional Airport
The article has become nothing but a collection of facts. I mostly deal with vandalism and thought you might be able to help. Andrew Kurish (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that one out, I hadn't seen it before. It looks like a total mess of unencyclopedic and unsourced trivia. I should be able to do a clean-up on it today. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I cleaned it up! See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)