User talk:Ahunt/Archive20

Task Force Sinai Page
I am the public affairs officer for TF Sinai. Need to make a few changes to this page. The Task Force Sinai logo is low res. We I have a Hi Res photos that would be much better. Also, the USABATT information is not valid. All units do not come from Fort Hood, that is old information. Additionally, we want to add past commanders of TF Sinai to the page. Audriciam (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note here. Please read WP:COI and then make your suggestions for changes on Talk:Task Force Sinai. I am watching that page and will consider any changes you propose for inclusion in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There is not a COI. I am just providing accurate information to the public. Audriciam (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You represent the organization that is the subject of the article, that is the exact definition of a conflict of interest. It is the same as the PR dept of General Motors editing the article about General Motors. - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asso Aerei
Hi I see that you changed the name for the External Link on this page to "Official Website". Noting that the page is for the Italian company Asso Aerei and the page linked to is a French company Asso Aero, are you sure that the French company is the same, or a direct successor to the Italian one? I had guessed that the Italian company might now be defunct, and that the Frenco one was a separate, though obviously closely associated company. That's why I named the link as I did. Can you clarify? Lestocq (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, my mistake, I'll fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks - that's clariified it. Lestocq (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

AerionCorp
Actually, it probably was written by the company PR department, see this user's contribution. I gave up trying to revert it, but it's been long enough now we can try again. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note here. Yeah the user name is a dead giveaway! The IP editor who tagged it was quite right, so I gave it a first pass through to clean it up, but please do feel free to do more! - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parapower Parapower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilchowo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you for that, but mostly it shows that I have no life. If I wasn't unhappily single I would write a lot fewer articles. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't look at the things that way. You have a special way in which you're investing your time, and your vast amount of contributions to Wikipedia helps many, many people all around the world.  Just keep your spirits up, and I'm sure you'll find someone at some point in time. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. All I can say is that I am working on the problem! If I solve it you will see me here just a little bit less often, but I don't intend to retire. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm sure many people are rooting for you, including myself. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 16:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll put up a user box or something when I find a new partner. My late wife used to be an editor here and edited all my articles for me. Talk about "peer review". Perhaps my next partner will be an editor, too. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry to, and I can understand your pain and grief. May you find the right partner when the time becomes right. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The book you two wrote is so sad... &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 17:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. She's been gone quite a while now, but she believed in what we are doing here and her edits live on! Some people find the book uplifting - feel free to read it if you like, its under a CC licence! She was a devout Buddhist and spent her time as well as possible. - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll all disappear from this world, but the things we've made during our lives will remain. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope so! I would hate to think all this work will soon disappear! - Ahunt (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Wikipedia is going to stay around for a long time. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 07:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. What IS it about?
See Wiki_Ed/University_of_Western_Ontario/Human_Factors_in_Aviation_(Fall_2015). The course is over and we will now be left to clean up the ordure. Fiddle  Faddle  13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that makes sense. I wish universities would leave Wikipedia alone instead of offering "credits for edits." I suggest that the draft just be deleted, as it is now so incoherent that it makes no sense. As you can see people keep trying to move it to mainspace, which also makes no sense. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to use WP:MFD. If I do it that might seem pointy Fiddle   Faddle  14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I will let it sit for a bit until all the moving stops and then look at that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we got two articles out of the 25 students. Both rather arcane. Fiddle   Faddle  14:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When the universities in India started into this it resulted in almost nothing good and tons of work cleaning up the mess created. We really do better with editors who want to be here rather than course "hostage takings". - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

1963 Camden PA-24 crash
Hi Ahunt, Thanks for fixing the article. I'm not happy with the title, do have any suggestions? Samf4u (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. We do have a convention for naming these and your chosen title seems to fit that, but it could be tweaked a bit if you like, like 1963 Camden Piper PA-24 Comanche crash or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Canada
Please stop rolling back this page. I think one needs to look at the references, before reverting as these are valid points and information. I have been an A.M.E. since summer 1977. These are factual references. I apprenticed under individuals who were licensed since the 40's. This knowledge should not be lost. Avmech (talk) Avmech Avmech (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What was added was mostly unreferenced opinion and is not acceptable on Wikipedia and it has once again been removed by another editor, so we now have a consensus to not include this. See WP:NOTBLOG. Anyone can edit the page, see WP:OWN. Your qualifications are not important on Wikipedia, what is important is adding referenced and relevant encyclopedic text. I am a qualified R&O test pilot and have built and restored three aircraft, so what? It is about building an encyclopedia not bragging about stuff. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another user, has posted draft material and commentary about this topic, on various talk pages here, here and here. I do not have time at the moment to make more than a brief courtesy reply, so I just thought I'd drop by in case you are able to assess it and provide any more detailed feedback. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll check it all on your page as soon as I have a chance. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I-beam
Have you seen this? I can't remember if the template causes a load on the page or not. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did see it. I think that this single use is probably all right. The Template:Font documentation says "This template is used to define text styles, for example, size and color. It can also be used to inject CSS. This is very useful when it is needed to change "I" to "I", since uppercase "I" looks the same as lowercase "L"." That sounds like it applies in this case, given the default font on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:TesseractLogo.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TesseractLogo.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope you have a great Christmas too and a happy 2016. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings
All the best for the festive season and new year. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It has been good working with you in 2015. Happy editing in 2016! - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I've been a bit slow on new articles here lately as I have been doing some tech documentation writing elsewhere. I hope to get back at it in the New Year in earnest!- Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Cessna 340
You eliminated the corrections I posted on the Cessna 340 page on December 15, 2015. I found it necessary to post the editing on the page since the photographs shown on the page are of extremely old aircraft, and in the case of the interior picture included, are not of the correct aircraft (analyze the photograph and if you are indeed familiar with this aircraft, you will quickly realize this is not the interior of a Cessna 340). Furthermore, a citation regarding RAM conversions of the aircraft, I thought was relevant since the majority of the fleet still flying has been converted to RAM conversions, and have benefited significantly from them. If you feel this post inappropriately promotes a particular product (the RAM conversions), at least get images of the correct interior for the aircraft. Alex Gutierrez (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Alex Gutierrez
 * The interior photo comes from here and is of a 340A. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . ..
Ahunt, may you continue to make Wikipedia a better place in the New Year. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You too! It is good working with you! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2005 Loganair Islander accident
Ahunt, Your summary for one edit to 2005 Loganair Islander accident said "we don't use 'figures' on Wikipedia." I looked into this beforehand and solicited comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The only comment I received is that it is acceptable and sometimes done if needed for clarity, though not widely practiced. I only want to check with you to see if you believe the images and captions are now sufficiently clear that the average reader will know where to look for the information in the main body of the article, particularly the two radar plots showing the route and the approach. (You probably already considered that before your edit, but I want to make sure that this wasn't an edit based solely on what we normally do here.) I am too close to this article to know what is clear and what is not. (I've been staring at it for a couple weeks :P )

One other comment about this article: Just FYI, I actually tried to extend the first paragraph of the lead because I thought the section regarding survivability and shoulder harnesses was disproportionately long, and I made that part long because that is what establishes notability. So yeah, I did intentionally make the lead long, probably too long. That's always a risk to readability. Thank you for your interest and for your edits! Dcs002 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note here. I did think that the "figures" weren't needed, it seems clear enough to me which illustrations go with which text! - Ahunt (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All right then, thanks for being thoughtful about that. And don't worry, I won't be getting all nit-picky about every edit. I know there is a lot of tidying up to do in the article. Dcs002 (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for reverting. I blocked them as they are either a sock or meatpuppet that were playing around with Seaford Head School. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Super, glad my revert was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Flight 191 Crash & Dr. John Wear
I have added a specific reference showing that Dr. Wear died in this accident, and retained the one which ties him to the University of Wisconsin. By the way, if you are accepting only references that SPECIFICALLY cite the flight 191 crash, reference 33 in the Wikipedia article does not do so. Mrwick1 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for finding that! - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Meredith effect
Please try to include actual pertinent information on a wiki page. Just saying the Meredith effect was used in an undergraduate paper does not at all provide useful information to a reader of the page. What could be useful would be actual calculations (and if these calculations are in the wiki page and were from the student paper they could then use the student paper in the reference) or a actual real world application. When adding to or removing from a wiki page you should make sure it is useful to a reader along with being truthful, relevant and appropriately positioned. Referencing a paper should be done as a reference and only if the main body has useful information taken from the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE99:A229:F886:361E:ED66:192B (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss this is at Talk:Meredith_effect and stop edit warring as your repeated removals have been treated as vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop spamming, trashing and stop edit warring as your repeated irreverent additions have been treated as vandalism. Please try to provide useful and succinct content. Instead of attacking the methods maybe it would better if you address the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE99:A229:F886:361E:ED66:192B (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We already have the issue addressed at Talk:Meredith_effect where you have been invited to participate and have thus far declined. You are more than welcome to make a case there and gain a new consensus. You also need to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It was just an "and"
No need to get thank me it only took 30 seconds. You are quite the prolific writer did you write the shenyang article yourself? Is that the company that made the newest stealth j something fighter plane? If so is there any sign evidence that designs and technology were stolen from the f22 f35 to build it? That's what I read a while ago just wondering what a plane expert like you thinks about it 😊 Take careNotgoingtotellyou (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Thanks for your note. I thought you deserved at least a quick "thanks" for catching that error that all the rest of us missed!


 * Those are good questions. I didn't start that article, but I have done a little bit of work on it over the years. As far as the Shenyang J-31 goes I don't know any more than that article says about it. While I used to be a military pilot, these days I mostly write about ultralights here, mostly because no one else is covering them. - Ahunt (talk)

Re: Criticism of Linux
"Works fine" isn't much of an endorsement for core system infrastructure. Risc64 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not publishing reviews. Please take it up on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Formula One Air Racing
Dear Ahunt, we made some updates to the 'formula one air racing' entry in December which you reverted back. I am the Promotions Director for the International Formula One Air Racing Association (IF1), which is the governing body for the sport and the subject of this article. The edits were approved by the IF1 board of directors and are fully accurate and not spam. Please allow the edit to remain, or kindly get in touch with us to discuss your view or if there is an error that we missed. Thank you and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.22.14 (talk)


 * Another editor has reviewed them and also reverted them as Spam. Since you work for the organization that the article is about you need to read WP:COI and refrain from editing the article further. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and will read the article you proposed, but we (the organization) only confirmed the changes were accurate when asked for information, but a third party had written the update and amendments (I only reverted it when at our board meeting it was noted). There are inaccuracies, outdated information and missing facts on this current posting that you and the other person approved. The article is not up to date. The points that we saw go up in the last edit make the article current and accurate (for example, the most recent winners and new races, which are all factual matters of public record). Who do you propose write it? Importantly, if anyone wishes to prevent the updates, could you please check the facts online on the relevant pages against what is written? You will find it informative and find that the article needs to be updated as proposed. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.22.14 (talk • contribs)


 * The way to proceed is to bring this up on the article talk page with a list of specific things that need to be updated and other editors will review the changes you suggest and then update the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Piper PA-28 Cherokee
Ahunt you reverted my correction of the article on the Piper Cherokee I read the comment on your revert "wrong! Read the cited refs before you change this. It was approved on floats." There is no need to be confrontational with "wrong!" I am not new to Wikepedia, and would not have made the change if I did not feel like it was inaccurate. I read the cited material, and could not find any information on the 160 and 180 specifically being approved for floats in the cited article. If you could please point me to the specific text that would be helpful. I know that they have been approved for floats, as any image search for 160/180 Cherokee Floats will return a plethora of images. But If you could please refer to the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Piper_PA-28_Cherokee#Seaplane_vs_Landplane_160_Cherokee_and_180_Cherokee) where I further explain that the 160 and 180 while capable of a float modification are primarily land planes Similar to how a Cessna 172 while capable of a float modification is still primarily a land plane.

Sunfishtommy (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note here. I have replied to you on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiwings

 * Thank you, it was quite a run! - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

AC-4 Russia - Undo
Hi, you undid my correction to the page Aviastroitel AC-4 Russia because unsourced. The source is the company homepage, already linked as source no. 2.

I suppose they know their wingspan better than the sailplane directory (source no. 1). If it is not enough, here three more references to the 12.6m:   http://www.glidingsport.ru/ac/en/gliders/inde04.html

Check your sources before you undo edits of other people. --Eio (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I undid your edit because you changed a spec number with no edit summary. All you had to indicate was "corrected to cited source". It looks like the original number was a typo. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Red link or not red link ?
In my opinion, this link seems red. What is your own opinion ? Pldx1 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I restored the page prior to the page split but missed that the User:MatthewHoobin boxes had been deleted. They are all cleaned up now. - Ahunt (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In fact, I was modifying Userboxes/Internet due to the discussion at Category_talk:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. If you have an opinion about how to fix these 12 Userboxes pages that became overcrowded, this would be a great help. Here is the list:

Userboxes/Health Userboxes/Location/Africa Userboxes/Location/Asia Userboxes/Location/European_Union Userboxes/Location/Oceania Userboxes/Location/United_States Userboxes/Media/Television_(shows)/Science-fiction_and_fantasy Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages Userboxes/Profession Userboxes/Sports/Baseball Userboxes/Travel-3 Userboxes/WikiProjects

What we are trying to do is to empty the Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded... Only 679 are remaining ! Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have actually run across this problem myself on several userbox display pages. I just split the page, like I did in this case, removing some of the boxes (usually the biggest section on the page) into a new page. In this case I actually split Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet and then split it again yesterday to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet Service Providers. It's a bunch of work, but I don't see any other way to fix these pages. I'm open to suggestions, though! - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again. By recoding the template Usbk, only three pages remain problematic. Have you any idea about how to split these pages (or forward the problem to some regular participant) ?  Pldx1 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I can split them, it might take me a day or so to get to it, though! - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, these have been split to form three new pages:


 * Userboxes/Location/Oceania split to Userboxes/Location/Australia
 * Userboxes/Location/Africa split to Userboxes/Location/Africa/Residence
 * Userboxes/Location/Asia split to Userboxes/Location/Asia/Nations


 * Please do check the old and new pages to see if I got it right and didn't miss any! - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Everything seems OK. Thanks for all. Pldx1 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Zimbra
You undid my edit including history about Zimbra and what name it operated under during Stealth mode. Please explain your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishikal (talk • contribs) 23:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You added completely unsourced claims with no edit summary. As per WP:V all claims like this must be verifiable and referenced to reliable sources or they get challenged or removed. - Ahunt (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "claim", it's a simple statement of fact. Zimbra was known as Liquidsys. It's trivial to turn up via Google as well. If you want references, there is http://www.aboutus.com/LiquidSys.com, and of course, there is simply the MX record for liquidsys.com, which still to this day delivers to Zimbra: liquidsys.com. 3600   IN      MX      20 mail.zimbra.com.

I do think the wiki should be renamed to Zimbra Collaboration Suite. There is nothing that is just "Zimbra". Zimbra as a company produces other software items as well (An example being Zimbra Desktop). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishikal (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:UNSOURCED: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is isn't up to me to find refs for things that you add, it is up to you to provide the refs when you add the text. If you had added a suitable ref then I would have left the ext there, but you can note that the ref you mentioned above http://www.aboutus.com/LiquidSys.com does not support the text that you added, it just describes Zimbra, nothing about any "stealth mode" there.


 * As far as the article name goes, a case could be made for a move, although we follow WP:COMMONNAME and not necessarily the technical name. Oddly enough, your ref http://www.aboutus.com/LiquidSys.com just calls it "Zimbra". If you want to pursue a move I would suggest starting a discussion at Talk:Zimbra and see if a consensus can be achieved. - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've worked for Zimbra for nearly a decade. So I happen to know company history. I don't know how one "verifies" what it was called when it was in stealth mode beyond the fact that the history of it exists. It was called Liquid Appliance (there are remnants of this in our source code tree), and the original company name was Liquidsys (thus why we were liquidsys.com) prior to coming out of stealth mode and renaming ourselves to Zimbra. The entire point of a "stealth" mode is that it is secret. As for it being called just "Zimbra" in the link I provided, that's because at the time, there were no other products, and we generally did only refer to ourselves and our product as Zimbra. That is no longer the case. Zimbra Collaboration Suite is a very specific product, and we also have Zimbra Desktop as a separate product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishikal (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fortunately on Wikipedia it doesn't matter what anyone thinks they "know", as articles are based on verifiability, so to add this it needs to able to be cited to a reliable source or it can't be added. Unverifiable inside information is basically original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.


 * I think the idea of moving the page to Zimbra Collaboration Suite has some merit, but you need to make that case at Talk:Zimbra and see who else has which opinions on that before we move it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Here is further reference to the fact that Zimbra was originally LiquidSys, Inc: http://www.google.je/patents/US20090100073 Between that and the about.us link, is that enough to at least update to note the original name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishikal (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That just shows that LiquidSys owned a patent and then it was later assigned to Zimbra Inc. No indication these were the same company. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the reason clearly states it was due to a change of name: Owner name: ZIMBRA, INC., CALIFORNIA Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:LIQUID SYSTEMS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:018899/0824 Effective date: 20050726

As opposed to assigning the rights to a new entity (such as was done when Yahoo! purchased Zimbra). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishikal (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. That is a pretty weak indication of a company change of name, though. Surely there would have been a press release or something in a company history? Also we still have no refs for the stealth features. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you don't understand the concept of stealth mode. Maybe read over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_mode. The whole point is there virtually no record of the existence of the company or what it is doing until it is ready to go out of stealth mode, at which point most companies pick their official name, and appear on the world scene. So the primary record is what the non-stealth name is. So no press releases, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishikal (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC) I think it is you who don't understand the concepts of WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. What you are saying in effect is that there is virtually no reliable source material to justify encyclopedic content on a company which is in stealth mode. Unless and until some reliable source publishes the story to the public domain someday, it stays off Wikipedia. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically that is the problem. Well put. - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I understand perfectly well. And I provided a rather reliable source, the patents filed on behalf of developers at LiquidSys, later named Zimbra, which show the trail of the requested name change. In fact, it explicitly notes the date of the company name change as well: July 26, 2005. Also, as I originally noted way back at the beginning of this discussion, the fact that Zimbra was called liquidsys is well documented in our PUBLICLY AVAILABLE source code. I.e., the history is available for ANYONE in the world to see. https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/Building_Zimbra_using_Git explains how to obtain the source code. The work begins here:

Well I guess given that one rather weak ref we can cite (hard to cite source code) we could mention that the company name was Liquid prior to that date, but we really can't say anything much more based on that. - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theory?
This sure seems like one to me, but I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to know. - BilCat (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If that made any sense it would be a fringe theory. It's batty. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL! Yeah, that was a mess. - BilCat (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . I suggest removing the post as spamming or trolling. - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm considering it, and that's why I asked, just to make certain it was fringe. Sometimes removing that stuff only makes the user mad, and then they make even more trouble. - BilCat (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Very true, on all counts! Curiously whois puts the IP at a Second Cup coffee shop in Mississauga. Probably gone home by this time of night I would think. - Ahunt (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think maybe he had something stonger than coffee! - BilCat (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly! I removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BATS Exchange Logo 2012.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BATS Exchange Logo 2012.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Some things just HAVE to be shared!
Look at this diff and see if you cann tell what's wrong with it, besides it being unsourced. Hopefully they won't try again! - BilCat (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow the Mexicans must have been the first to fly this aircraft since WWII ended 4 years before its first flight! LOLZ. Would you be surprised to learn that whois sez that the IP is from...yes...Mexico? - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, Mexico. Who knew they had a time machine. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Changes do not reflect what the ref says"
They reflect the only significant things the ref says. The rest is just a massive legal disclaimer, most of which would be equally applicable to any engine, and which has no business being quoted verbatim on Wikipedia. – Smyth\talk 00:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are going to change it from a quotation then it should properly summarize what the ref says and not just cherry pick a few easy items that are not the most critical ones. - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And what do you think are the most critical ones? "Never fly the aircraft in circumstances from which a successful no-power landing cannot be made"? "Powertrain grants no warranty or representation of this engine’s suitability with any other part"? "You should be aware that any engine may seize or stall at any time"? Those are completely generic disclaimers. What's the point of mentioning them? – Smyth\talk 09:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * They are specific to Rotax engines and based on operational experience, plus the manufacturer emphasizes them for all installations. It's not a third party opinion, but a limitation of the design. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Lightning Autogyro
Hi, I've started a new page, Lightning Autogyro. Would you like to have a look at it and perhaps scrub off any rough edges? Arrivisto (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Airframes Unlimited T-2
If there are no specs, why include it!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As the template says, to encourage other people to add them. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Raptor aircraft
Me again! Please have a look at the new page Raptor aircraft and see what you think. Thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow that article has a lot of problems. Let me take it up on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Goodness knows, I'm no expert but I think Raptor Aircraft Raptor is an odd name. We do need to disambiguate from the F-22. What about something more standard like Raptor (homebuilt aircraft)? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I really wish people wouldn't give the same name to the company and the product!! Actually we use "manufacturer-designation-name" as per WikiProject Aircraft/Naming. By that standard it should be "Raptor Raptor", but I went for the slightly less ambiguous Raptor Aircraft Raptor. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. You may also want to add this under the Raptor Aircraft entry at the Raptor disambiguation page, in the Vehicles and engines section. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea, but this article is going to get deleted soon unless some real refs get added as per the talk page discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Tecma FX
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Tecma FX, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Tecma F1 Tempo. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the friendly "Welcome to the Community!" Mail Voter (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit check
See here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh boy...First off http://www.theblackvault.com looks like a non-WP:RS to me. Seems to be run by one guy and mostly a conspiracy website. The AVRO doc looks authentic, but could be an elaborate hoax. As far as I can see it is just a set of design and test reports and doesn't mention the Germans or UFOs at all, so does not support the text added, so you were right to remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, from a brief look-through of the doc, I didn't see anything on Germans or UFOs either. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added it to my watchlist! - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Concorde crash
Re your reversion of my proposed caption to the picture of the plane on fire. You claim the photo was genuine, and told me to check the files. Do you mean the Talk page? There is nothing there that confirms the validity of the picture, which I can well remember from the Daily Mail, which acknowledged (rather hidden-away, where you might miss it!) that the picture was a composite. Is there some other file that proves otherwise? Valetude (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note here. The photo information is in the photo file at File:Concorde Air France Flight 4590 fire on runway.jpg and it says "The image was taken by a passenger in an aircraft on a nearby taxiway. This image along with a video of the aircraft shortly after it took-off are the only visual recordings of the aircraft on fire...This is the only known photograph of the aircraft on fire during it's take-off (a video shortly after take-off also exists)." So that indicates it is a real photo. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wing configurations
Hi, I see you removed the link to the Wikipedia book on wing configurations from the associated article. May I ask why? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just didn't think it belonged at the very top of the article as the first thing a reader would see. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Where might it belong in the associated summary article? Surely it would be better to reposition it than to delete it? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if it needs to be there at all, how about closer to the end where it looks less like the most important thing on the page? Are there guidelines for these somewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No guidelines. I created the template fairly recently and it has yet to gain much comment. I'll reintroduce it near the end, as you suggest. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure I think that would be fine, perhaps down near the links or refs sections would be good. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay I see you have put it under "see also" there. That looks fine, really. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wording
Hi, Your recent comment, "I don't think we need to use personification here. Wings don't actually "suffer". Reworded." perhaps is not ideal. There is no personification in "suffer". For instance: "gross inflation may cause the economy to suffer". I simply replaced "gain" (positive) with "suffer" (negative), as drag is, for the most part, a Bad Thing. Best ... Arrivisto (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOLZ, thanks for your note here. I realize the term is used in that manner in some contexts, although I still think it has its root in personification. I just thought in an encyclopedia it would be more precise to not use the term there. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about using photograph of magazine article as source
Hey there,

I have a quick question about using a photograph of a magazine article as a source / citation for a fact in an article.

To describe the situation, I just recently cleaned up parts of the T-10 tank's Production History section and wanted to find a source for the number of T-10s produced. I found a scan from the June 2008 issue of a Russian technical magazine called "Техника и вооружение" that has a general production chart of Soviet tanks from September 1945 to 1965 which shows the production numbers of T-10s produced prior to then; the image itself is here, despite the fact that the chart is written in Russian the relevant information is in the bottom 4 rows with the rightmost column being the total vehicles of that model produced. Totalling up the data in the chart gives 1439 T-10s produced prior to 1965, so I plan to add that into the relevant paragraph in the article, but as I do not have the title of the article it was from nor access to the magazine itself, I'm wondering how to go about using this as a source. Should I cite the magazine itself using only the name and issue, or is there a way to cite the specific chart using the image without knowing the name of the specific article? Any help is appreciated, thanks for your time. --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note! That is an interesting question. Two problems with that source come to mind, on is that for this to be considered a reliable source you really have to know where the chart comes from, so "publication", "author", "publisher", etc. The second problems is WP:COPYLINK, which basically says that we can't link to copyright violations, which this chart may possibly be on the website that is is published on, http://www.alternatewars.com/. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply! By "publication", do you mean the title of the article it may have been a part of (note: I was assuming earlier that the chart came from an article in the magazine, it may not have, I am not certain) or the name of the magazine? The name of the magazine is, as mentioned earlier, "Техника и вооружение"; transliterating to English that is "Tekhnika i Vooruzhenie" or "Equipment and Armament". As for the author, either regarding the potential article or the magazine, I have not found anything; though I did find that the publisher of the magazine is Roo "Tehkinform" according to http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/mags/magazine-details/tekhnika-i-vooruzhenie-magazine.htm Regarding your second point, is it necessary to link to the image or could we just cite it to the magazine instead? --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That is probably enough information to cite the magazine, although it is nice to have the author and article title as well. Yes that is a good way to deal with it when you find what could be a copyright violation like that, cite the article as a paper publication (which it is) and not link to the possible copyright violation on the web. I think you are all set then. - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey there, back again with another quick question. I managed to find an online transcription of that issue of the magaizne and used that to obtain the authors and name of the article, was about to insert the citation into the article and wanted to know if you could critique how I created the citation. Currently, it is
 * (translated to English) M. V. Pavlov; I. V. Pavlov, "Domestic Armored Vehicles 1945-1965 gg", Equipment and Armament, n.6 2008 (June 2008)
 * (Original Russian) М. В. Павлов; И.В. Павлов, "Отечественные бронированные машины 1945–1965 гг", Техника и вооружение, n.6 2008 (June 2008)
 * Do you think that this would suffice? I found the name of the publisher in English, but no Russian language source that provides the same information, so I have left it out. I would think that this should be fine, however my main question is about the citation itself and whether you think I should keep both the English and Russian citations, or just do one or the other. Thanks! --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi back. As long as you are confident that the citation is correct then that should suffice just fine. The English version is probably preferred, since you have it available. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all of your help! I'll do this now, have a nice day. --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Metrojet Flight 9268. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''You breached 1RR and removed sourced content on the cause of this crash. This is your warning.'' Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Thanks for the uncalled for warning here, but edit-warring against established talk page consensus is not a good way to proceed in editing an article. I would suggest instead you take this back to the talk page and try to establish an actual consensus there rather than wasting time warning experienced editors when they are simply conforming to the existing consensus. You might also want to refer to WP:BRD to see how this should work. - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you breached the DS 1RR with your last edit to remove sourced material and replace with unsourced material. You did that in face of multple big red warnings. I've not edit warred.Legacypac (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said please go and read WP:BRD. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Severed Fifth Band Logo 2012.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Severed Fifth Band Logo 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Article was deleted, logo can be deleted as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandal report
Greetings Ahunt. A few days ago you thanked me for my 07:47 18 March 2016 edit to Template:Linux. The Wikipedia notification function seems to lack means to say "you're welcome", so this must suffice.

Sorry to burden you with further work. When you have time, please examine this anonymous editor: Special:Contributions/154.73.11.125. I manually reverted their vandalism, but thought that someone should be notified, in case further action is needed. You look like a good person to notify.

Thank you. -- Jerryobject (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, you are doing good work here and it is appreciated! No problem, I'll keep an eye out for that vandalism. As far as IP vandalism in general goes: really all we can do is watch articles and revert it when it happens. The open editing nature of Wikipedia means it is just part of the noise here! - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Forrester Research Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Forrester Research Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be no longer in use and can be safely deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
I see you reverted someone making some language in the article clearer on the basis "it is not a quote, it is a paraphrase". While this may be a valid criticism of the original change comment, this does not invalidate the goal of making the article clearer. I see from your edit history that you are rather keen on hitting the revert button, although I have not investigated whether this is justified or not. As such, I would like to remind you that the revert button is not for you to wield against all things that displease you, and I see that in this case there are other editors that agree with me. 46.226.191.198 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Having just now glanced at your talk page, I see that it is very much the case that your use of reverting has not always been justified. I would suggest you refrain from using it entirely, and actually do some constructive editing instead. 46.226.191.198 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Failing, that, perhaps your revert comments should stand up to more than even the most cursory inspection. 46.226.191.198 (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can note that the changes to the article have now been reverted by three different editors. You might want to read WP:BRD to see how Wikipedia works with respect to WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The encyclopedic approach is not to make untenable personal attacks on editors with whom one disagrees but to open a constructive discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions make a fool of you. I was a mere spectator to this page. 46.226.191.198 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to learn how to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. You can start by reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Glad it was of some use as an example! - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:slow start
Evening. My excuse is that I'm working on a Horten and sorting fact from fantasy is taking a while. Les Ailes to the rescue, with some help from the Farnborough National Library Collection! Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Carson Air Flight 66
G'day from Oz, I trust you are well over there north of Trumpmerica; you created a redirect for Carson Air Flight 66 last year, was there an AfD, or was there a different reason? YSSYguy (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We haven't been invaded quite yet, but we are building a wall...
 * I just saw that! The article history shows my creation of the redirect as the first entry, but I don't recall the circumstances of that at all. The history doesn't give any help! There is no Articles for deletion/Carson Air Flight 66, so it beats me! The current article looks okay, though. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Righto, cheers; and thanks for your recognition of my little editing milestone. I know it ain't a competition, but I will never be in your league. YSSYguy (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, I may do lots of edits, but I think you do better edits! We are all just building the encyclopedia as best we can. Mostly my edit history here shows that I have no life! - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I am from Windows listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect I am from Windows. Since you had some involvement with the I am from Windows redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Air taxi
Hello, you edited the Air Taxi page by removing "Hopscotch Air'. Yet, the page lists numerous other air taxi companies, and considering the Hopscotch Air is among the largest, this seems to be an inappropriate edit.  If it's a case of an external link, I have reposted without the link.  thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschmertz (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it because of the external link, which is not allowed in article text and also because the company is not notable, meaning that there is no article about the company on Wikipedia. For more information please see WP:SPAM and assuming that you might be associated with the company you should also read WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving multiple userbox links
It seems that you are very involved with userboxes, so I have a question for you:

On this page: Userboxes/Interests A to M. I noticed that this userbox was not being displayed. I appears that User:Montebest first created that userbox back in 2008, but blanked it in 2013. So I retrieved the old version, made a couple of tweaks, and added the result back to Userboxes/Interests A to M. I also noticed that 119 users used the old userbox that is now blank. (I left the old blank version in place, so you can see where it's used.)

Do you know if it would be possible to do a global change so that the link to this old LD userbox is transferred to the LD in my userspace, namely ? Dhrm77 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note here. Sure that is easy, if the old box has been deleted then just create a redirect to the new location. Let me know if you need help with that and I can do it for you. - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I can find out how to do it technically, but the redirect would have to be in User:Montebest userspace, is that ok to do that? And if he blanked that userbox, for whatever personal reason he may have had, wouldn't he be likely to blank the redirect as well? Dhrm77 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible that he might, so you could ask the question and see if it is okay on the userbox talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I put a request on the talk page of the old userbox. But it looks like he hasn't been active on Wikipedia since 2013. He blanked his own page and talk page before leaving. So I might never get an answer. I guess I'll wait a couple of days to see if I get an answer, then I'll do the redirect. Dhrm77 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan. You are unlikely to get any objections! To make a redirect use this on the page:  #REDIRECT Target page name . - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did the redirect, but it doesn't seem to work, the userpages having this userbox are still not displaying it. Should we instead of a redirect use an inclusion, something like
 * Update: I did an inclusion and that worked. Plus I added a note so that people can update their page.Dhrm77 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Super! - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Velocity XL
Hello Ahunt,

Apologies for not checking back earlier. I see you reversed some of the changes I made to the Velocity XL page. Specifically the Lycoming engines used. I am not a regular editor in Wikipedia. I am a Velocity Builder and Owner. For bona fides, please check my Velocity Construction log. www.kal-soft.com/velocity

The original Velocity XL, N97XL http://www.aviationdb.com/Aviation/Aircraft/9/N97XL.shtm was powered by a 260 HP, Lycoming IO-540. During the early years of the XL model, the 260 HP Lycoming was the standard engine. It was the engine the Velocity factory had an installation package for. They still offer it. You can see on the Velocity store page: http://store.velocityaircraft.com/Model.aspx?Modelno=116&featureno=119 My Velocity, N114MV has a Lycoming IO-540-D4A5, 260HP. Brett Ferrell, N44VF www.velocityxl.com has a modified Lycoming IO-540-D4A5 with 10:1 pistons. Mark Riley, N929X has the 300HP IO-540-K marksvelocity.blogspot.com. Jorge Bujanda http://www.jbujanda.com/Aircraft.html has a Lycoming IO-540-K. Rich Guerra, N724X http://www.rguerra.com/velocity/ has a Lycoming IO-540-C4B5, 260 HP.

The former factory demonstration N222TZ aircraft has a 260HP O-540. This aircraft was sold to Velocity SUD America and is still airworthy. The new factory demonstrator is the Velocity Twin. The Continental IO-550 has only become popular with the type in the last 10 years. It is a wonderful option, however it is expensive.

The IO-550 does not fit in the Velocity XL engine compartment as the kit is delivered. It was designed for a Lycoming. It requires holes to be cut and bumps be fabricated to create more room for the engine.

I can site many more aircraft with the 6 cylinder Lycoming engines, if it would be useful.

Amillin (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note here. As I indicated in my edit summary, I only removed the engines you added due to a lack of references and that the cited refs did not support the text added. Most of the refs you have given above are self-published blogs and such and thus not reliable sources, but the Velocity store link is fine as it is the manufacturer's website. I have re-written the engine section to gather all the engine information in one paragraph, since it is common to all models and cited the Velocity website. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. I can agree with the citations. However, how did the Continental engine become the de facto engine for the aircraft? It wasn't the first engine installed. I know of nothing in the Velocity information that cites it as "the" engine. I don't mind finding information to substantiate my claims. What citation is there for the IO-550?

The Velocity Aircraft page http://velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-xl.html lists anything from 260HP to 310HP. The 260 number is the Lycoming IO-540, parallel valve engine and the 310 HP comes from the Continental IO-550.

Did someone just choose an engine?

I like that you consolidated the models. They are the same wing and fuselage. The only difference is the landing gear or the "-5". The "-5" is a folding bench seat in the back instead of two bucket seats.

Also the article sites the Rocket Racing League. It reads as though this is a going concern. It is defunct Rocket Racing League. The Swing family bought the company back from RRL. Actually, I believe it reverted back to their ownership when RRL was unable to meet payment obligations. Still RRL is just a footnote. References should be in the past tense.

Amillin (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Continental IO-550 is the engine indicated in the specs for all versions in the Kitplanes ref (2011) and in Janes, the cited ref for the specs. Since the specs come from the manufacturer they must have supplied those to both publications. It is also listed in the ref you supplied as 310-350 hp (N, C and E models). The specs listed are for one representative model, depending on the ref we have to cite (in this case Janes), while the text lists all the engines that there are refs for. I also changed the Rocket Racing League to past tense. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and patience.

As a matter of protocol, I can understand how you might not accept builder blogs as a source. However, this subject might call that into question. The Velocity is an Experimental aircraft. It is sold as a kit. The kit does not come with an engine.http://velocityaircraft.com/airplane-velocity-kit.html The construction manual does not make an engine recommendation. It does note Velocity has certain prepared install kits. The existence of an install kit helped me in making my engine choice.

In my years in the community I have seen a variety of engines. These include aircraft, rotary, V6 & V8, turbo prop and even pure jet. If you call Velocity and ask about an engine, they will tell you what they like, what is common, and what they can support. The will not tell you what to do.

The point I am trying to make is there isn't an official engine for this aircraft. The engine choice is the choice of the builder. The blogs you can't accept for reference are the documented place that choice is being made.

I know you didn't sign up for an argument on Velocity engines. In the end, I don't think this is about what engine is in the plane. We both want the facts in the article.

Thanks again for your time and patience.

Amillin (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The engine section currently says, "Engines available as kits from the manufacturer for all models are the Lycoming IO-360 of 180 to 200 hp (134 to 149 kW), Lycoming IO-540 of 260 to 300 hp (194 to 224 kW), Continental IO-550 of 310 to 350 hp (231 to 261 kW) and the Franklin 6A350C1 of 205 to 235 hp (153 to 175 kW)." I think that is factually correct as per the refs cited. I'll add a general statement after that that builders use other engines. - Ahunt (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Fuji
Adam, given your recent edit on the Huey page, you might find this interesting. - BilCat (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of aircraft accidents
Afternoon Ahunt: I wonder if you could point me to the criteria for including aircraft accidents in articles on individual aircraft types? I seem to remember the bar was set quite high and have concerns about the list in SNCASE Languedoc. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you! It is WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Most, if not all, of the Languedoc crashes seem to meet these criteria, so I'll stop fretting. Certainly seems to be unusual, though. Keep up the good work on the paragliders. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey that is good that they meet the criteria! Less work to do there! Glad you enjoy the paragliders, there are lots lfet to do, I am just up to "F" so far! - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Masquito M80
Hi, I have added a couple of paragraphs to the Masquito M80 page. Please could you check it out? The specification paragraph is a direct lift from a source: it is cited, but is it acceptable? Cheers. Arrivisto (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The info that you added is useful, but there is a longstanding identified issue with the source that you found. This is explained at WP:AVIASTAR. Basically we can't use this source due to copyright violations. I'll remove the additions, but these can be pt back in if we can find the original source they copied it from. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Beautiful user page
I was very impressed by your user page. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad that you like it, I try to keep it clean and functional! It is my index of work done and underway. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WestCoastLogo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:WestCoastLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Rationalizations not credible
Sandlin has stated reticence for publishing performance data on both his page and related Yahoo groups and in the comment section of his YouTube videos- as much can be cited, as necessary; considering that no other specification included citation, doing so for this caveat seems remarkable. A lack of familiarity and guessing are not our first choice for editing;  contrary to proclamation, performance data- glide ratios and sink rate specifically -is basic information commonly supplied for any unpowered aircraft, and the "specialized equipment" cited is ubiquitous/commonplace within the soaring world. It seems plain that fact has been exchanged for supposition and imagination - the information page of any manufacture of soaring craft and will find not only best glide, sink rate, and related information, but also polar data. Mavigogun
 * If you have proof of those claims then cite it. See WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to you to explore the ubiquitous nature of performance data for sailplanes; what you style as "claims" are so common citing supporting documents would unduely burden the article.


 * "-most manufacturers of aircraft in this class, including hang gliders and paragliders, do not publish glide ratios, just due to the expense and difficultly of carrying out the measurements."


 * This is such an absurd fiction, I can't fathom what motivated you to proclaim it. A survey of hang glider and sailplane Wikipedia will disabuse you of the notion.


 * Independent of real-world sampling via variometer, the vehicle most definitely was designed with performance targets- very little of which Sandlin has been forthcoming with.Mavigogun (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Check all the hang glider and paraglider type articles on Wikipedia. I started all the paraglider articles here on Wikipedia and all but one of the hang glider articles. You can find them listed at Category:Hang gliders and Category:Paragliders. I have included the data wherever it can be found, but you will see that almost none have glide ratios in the articles. The reason is that the third party sources cited as refs, like my main ref in writing these, the World Directory of Leisure Aviation, do not quote them. I have also searched the manufacturers' websites, both live and archived and almost none have them. It is a very common situation in this class of aircraft. Regardless, as I have said above, if you want to claim that this particular designer is withholding data then you must cite reliable refs to prove that, as per WP:PROVEIT, as required in that Wikipedia policy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In the uber-light hang gliding world where weight dominates some of these calculations- and is variable -design weights are sometimes used; this is reflected in DHV ratings as the minimum speeds figure, or in the Vms, Vs max, Vd min, Va, and Vne provided by Wills (see https://www.willswing.com/hang-glider-placard-specifications/ for the latter, and any DHV rating for the former).  Back-in-the-day, sales motivation produced a spiral of specification inflation; now, polar data is typically proffered- which is, by nature, not a point, but a range- but on which minimum sink and calm air best glide may be found (Wills supplied polars may be found here: https://www.willswing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/polarchart_1.gif, Aeros Combat and Discus here: http://www.aeros.com.ua/structure/support/polar_en.php ,)   With that in mind, many of the craft you have added- an effort I commend -could have the performance specifications greatly expanded.


 * As to the genitive topic, sailplanes, we see sink rate and glide ratio data for the transitional Atos and Swift nominative hang gliders, and for most any sailplane, the omission of sink rate and glide ratio data is the exception, not the rule.  In the case of Sandlin's GOAT, the exception is noteworthy- particularly because of the designer's outspoken liability concerns, which I reckon make the notation of the absence particularly topical on that page.  As Sandlin's discourse on the topic is distributed and not exactly organized, I will attend to references as time allows.   Just now, we have lost a pilot, and my disposition is tending to the combative, not constructive.Mavigogun (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about a pilot death, that is always a hard thing to deal with.
 * The Wills data doesn't include any any glide ratios, although they can be measured from the polars, but that would be WP:OR and so can't be included in Wikipedia articles. Aeros in this case does supply them. Most other manufacturers don't, though. I didn't bring up sailplanes, because, while almost all of them do supply glide ratios, the Goat and its stablemates are legally hang gliders and the degree of documentation is not comparable. Sandlins' situation is fairly unique, being a hobbyist who is giving plans away for free and so is not in a position to make any money to offset lawsuits. Given the unique litigious situation in his home country, which has previously shut down the entire light aircraft industry (1986-1998), it isn't really surprising that he has concerns about liability.
 * Regardless, all of the comparisons which other designs, manufacturers, etc, are moot. Including information in Wikipedia articles requires references. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Listing specific data points given in a chart does not amount to "original research"- that was done by the party recording and publishing the polar -and even somewhat less of any such taint than distances between towns on a map.


 * Sandlin's Goat is NOT an hang glider- while very light, it is not foot launchable, a prerequisite for the classification.  Says who?  The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association... and Sandlin himself:


 * "The Goat is technically an ultralight sailplane (under United States weight rules)....Like the Bug biplanes, the Goat does not foot launch, but is either towed into the air or else launched by rolling down a hillside."


 * We're talking about an ultralight sailplane; hang gliders have been an interesting aside, but aren't salient- only being injected here as part of your argument... which you now say is moot. While it wasn't my intention to help you take that journey, at least it hasn't been for nothing.Mavigogun (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing those refs about withholding the data. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Germanwings Flight 9525
I wanted to let you know that I reverted a recent edit of yours on Germanwings Flight 9525 because Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence states:

"Total number of people killed in the accident or incident. As above, add in brackets if any of this number were other than crew or passengers, or if everyone involved died."

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 13:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Userbox/Unix listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Userbox/Unix. Since you had some involvement with the Userbox/Unix redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Wishva de Silva  (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)