User talk:Ahunt/Archive25

"all the C&C boats, except two that we don't have refs for"
(→‎October 2018: this finishes basic articles for all the C&C boats, except two that we don't have refs for)

Which two? Ken Heaton (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As per Template:C&C Yachts
 * C&C 52 Custom
 * C&C Custom Pilothouse 54

- Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Is any of the following of use for the C&C Custom Pilothouse 54?


 * http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/brochures/54foot/54b1pg01.htm


 * https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:698735/mmsi:512000065/imo:0/vessel:TARA_MOANA (this link will provide a photo but is slow to do so)


 * There is a photo of a C&C Custom Pilothouse 54 at this link, in the section on cutters: http://www.jordanyachts.com/3745


 * The following search will provide some information, length, width, draft, etc. for the only C&C 54 I could find in the United States Coast Guard Port State Information Exchange database. Using the Hull Identification Number (HIN), the first three characters are a MIC (Manufacturer Identification Code) assigned by the Coast Guard to the manufacturer, which for C&C Yachts is ZCC.  The next two digits are the hull length (actually, these two digits are part of the boat's hull serial number but C&C always used the 4th and 5th characters in the HIN for the model, which was always the length).  The next three digits are the rest of the serial number, in this case 001 (so Hull No. 1).  the last 4 digits are M84F, so the hull was certified in January (F = Jan) of 1984.


 * https://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXSearch.aspx (input "ZCC54001M84F" into the 'Hull Identification Number (HIN)' field and hit search, then select the linked result)


 * Results for Vessel: TARA


 * Vessel Information: Vessel Name: TARA


 * Primary Vessel Number: ZCC54001M84F (Hull Number)


 * Hull Identification Number: N/A


 * Manufacturer Hull Number: ZCC54001M84F


 * IMO Number: N/A


 * Vessel Flag: CANADA


 * Vessel Call Sign: WCZ9963


 * Vessel Particulars: Service: Recreational


 * Length: 53.50 ft


 * Breadth: 15.50 ft


 * Depth: 11.30 ft


 * Build Year: 1984


 * Alternate VINs: 1090250 (Official Number (U.S.))


 * Service Information: Service Status: Active


 * Out Of Service Date: N/A


 * Last Removed From Service By: N/A


 * Tonnage Information: Cargo Authority: N/A


 * Tonnage: 35 - Simplified, Gross Ton


 * 31 - Simplified, Net Ton

Ken Heaton (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For the C&C 52 Custom, the same United States Coast Guard Port State Information Exchange search using a HIN starting with ZCC52 reveals a boat named SAPPHIRE, HIN: ZCC520011277, built started in December of 1977 for the 1978 model year. Length: 52.00 ft, Breadth: 16.00 ft,  Depth: 7.80 ft,  Build Year: 1978 Ken Heaton (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A search on the United States Coast Guard's (USCG) vessel data base here: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/CoastGuard/, using the 667603 (Official Number (U.S.)) from the above search will reveal this boat used to be named 'Cadence". There is a photo of her here: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1566182196/photos/2449929/ another here: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/123219-some-of-my-old-sailing-photos-2/&page=7&tab=comments#comment-3952877 on more here: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/113336-some-of-my-old-sailing-photos/&page=5&tab=comments#comment-3051675  "Cadence" shows up here too: https://www.chicagoyachtclub.org/files/George%20Owens%20Clinch.pdf, as first to finish in both 1984 and '85 as winner of the Race to Mackinac First to Finish Trophy.  I'll keep looking. Ken Heaton (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Those are good efforts and prove that the individual boats exist, but they aren't going to make WP:GNG for notability for an article. They are kind of similar to basing a biography article on a phone book listing. We need at very least an entry on the boat type on sailboatdata.com or similar and more preferably a review in a magazine or equiv. - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Germanwings Flight 9525
I did not know about the consensus until now. There was a separate article of Andreas Lubitz in the Simple English version, so I thought I would be okay to make one in the regular English version. I should have known earlier, and I apologize. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, well sorry you missed it. Most people would have tried to create the new article at Andreas Lubitz with no disambiguator and seen the note there about the AfD and also noted that that page is locked for editing to prevent anyone re-creating the article, but no matter, all fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what to call this subject yet
You hate me (or you at least hate my editing but don't hate me altogether), don't you. Be honest. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are on about here. I just noted an existing consensus and fixed things as per that consensus. It is policy, nothing personal to it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dominica DC-9 air disaster
For the second time, the articles’s title was changed to Dominicana flight 603. I did it stating the improperly sounding title (I forgot to state how the info box was reading Dominicana flight 603) however, William was unhappy about it even though I showed him the time table you found (I think the flight number became 603 AFTER the accident, but the airline may have kept it), so I had to move it back, and I changed the info box title as well. We need more information on that flight number. Until then, the article title stays the same.Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The article you are referring to seems to be Dominicana DC-9 air disaster. I think you need to come up with a consensus on the name by starting a discussion at Talk:Dominicana DC-9 air disaster. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - Edit CFB Chatham
Thank you for catching my error on the CFB Chatham page. Great eye. Mech1949 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Metrojet Flight 9268
The image of the aircraft involved (in its livery at the time it was bombed) isn’t displaying properly in the mobile app. The other one did though. I’m not the master at image editing, so how do I fix it? Or should I just revert to the older image? Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the image file itself. It displays fine on the mobile version at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268 and even at cellphone screen widths, at least on Firefox. I suspect it may be an issue with the mobile browser you are using. Have you tried another browser? - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (I apologize because I should have been more specific earlier) I meant it was not appearing at the very top of the article on the mobile app, before the article starts. Anyways, the mobile browser I use is safari, and it also didn't display properly. I just tried using the mobile version of google chrome, at the same thing happened. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. The page coding is all correct as far as I can see. It seems that the mobile version of Wikipedia does that for all articles. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Syrian_Air_Force_An-26_crash for another example. It seems to be part of the way mobile pages are intentionally displayed, to put the intro text ahead of the info box on cellphones. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
I apologize in advance for anything in my recent edits that looks unnecessary. Look in the edit history, where I explain more. Again I apologize in advance if I messed up (which I probably did), I really do. UPDATE: I undid the edits myself. I decided not to take the risk. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize in advance for anything here. Let me have a look at the article history. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

When you're adding a CN flag, use REASONS
I was going to fix this for you, but since you undid my edit instead of fixing it properly I'm not allowed to. Please be more careful when undoing legit edits!!!!!!!!

Like this, with a pipe character: (cn|reason=whatever the reason is) Ninjalectual (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't add a citation needed tag, I restored one you deleted, which left the whole para uncited and not tagged. I provided my reasoning in the edit summary. Feel free to remove it and add refs if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

About my political views
I want to be more open about my political views (who I like and hate), but at the same time, I'm nervous how others will react, and I even fear vandalism. I will tell you more information: I'm a democrat. But what would be the best thing to do? Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good question. It is up to you of course. I personally don't put political views on my user page because I think it might give the impression of bias or conflict of interest, even though I don't edit political articles (mostly aircraft, sailboats and software articles). - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Browser differences
Just FYI, this edit makes everything line up on chrome, IE and edge. (At least on my screen.) Sario528 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note here! It lines up on Firefox, but not on Falkon. Falkon shows the infobox as narrower than the two images, which is odd as it Falkon is "built on the Qt WebEngine which is a wrapper for the Chromium browser core", so ypu think it woukld render like Chrome! I guess the lesson here is to check several browsers when this comes up in the future! - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage
Good morning. I think that you should change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage. Since the name of: Ixquick is out of date. The updated name is: StartPage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notewiki2000 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you should bring this up, we are having a discussion on that that subject at Talk:Ixquick. If you want to add your views there it would help us establish a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Dead link on your userpage, but I found you an archive
I pulled up the two articles that you link to to encourage people to have references on wikipedia and one of them 404ed, so I found you a new link: https://web.archive.org/web/20100425165517/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judges-rap-wiki-evidence-in-immigration-cases/article1542565/ 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 02:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Super, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ICON Aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COO ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/ICON_Aircraft check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/ICON_Aircraft?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo request petition - please sign
Hi Ahunt! Can you please sign the petition to TASS and RIAN requesting them to release certain historic photos (many of them from WWII) for Wikimedia by adding your signature to the signature section? Also, please do spread the word to other Wikipedians. Thanks, - Samf4u (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea, but I have to admit that I don't read enough Russian to figure out the buttons on the page. I messed about with it for the last few minutes and couldn't figure it out. Is there somewhere to sign this in English? - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Took me a while to figure it too. Near the bottom of the page next to the heading "Signatures" is 2 buttons in Russian. Click the right one, go to the bottom and below my signature add this: --Ahunt then sign with 4 ~    Leave an edit summary you know where and click the blue box to Publish Changes. Samf4u (talk)  16:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I hope that got it okay. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!

 * Glad that was helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 821
Hello again Ahunt, I'd like to ask you about the summary of Aeroflot Flight 821. The edits I usually make on summarized accidents are the initial cause such as software malfunction and leading up causes such as loss of control or spatial disorientation. Anyways the pilot (captain) of Aeroflot Flight 821 had a high blood alcohol level (intoxicated) when flying the aircraft and I was asking if you could mention about the pilot being intoxicated when flying the aircraft in the summary? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. The article states "Forensic examination found an unspecified amount of alcohol in the captain's tissue", so it does not seem to have been determined that this was a major cause factor. On that basis I wouldn't put it in the infobox. It is already mentioned in the lead section, though. - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

C&C Yachts
Thanks for your contributions this week over at C&C yachts. I think that together we improved the article both significantly and substantially. It was a pleasure to work with you. Magnoffiq (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you. Thanks for all your work on expanding the article. There is always a bit of "back and forth" in the editing process, but the collaborative nature does make for better articles when we get it all hashed out! - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone photos
Hi, I've been looking for some free in-flight photos of the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone for the article. The only one I've found so far is on Flickr, and it looks like it could be cropped without losing quality. It's labeled as "free to use", but I have no idea how to license it for Commons. Any thoughts? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep that could be cropped down and be useful. The page (RH side) says https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Duh! See File:Halifax DSC08302 - CF Cyclone -811 (36286729876).jpg. I looked in the category yesterday, but didn't do a search. So yeah, categories are important! - BilCat (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you any good at cropping? I'm not so much. :( The original file is quite large, so should make a good crop. - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I figured it out, and hopefully it's centered. :) - BilCat (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Just got home and saw your notes. Gad you got it figured out. The results look good! - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Korean Air 85
The summary box of the article is confusing; while the description says that the KAL 747 that sparked the false alarm has a tail number of HL7490, the details say that the number is HL7404 instead (check the summary box at the top of the article and you will know what I mean). I did not make any changes to the summary box because I cannot verify which tail number is actually correct. If you can verify which tail number is correct, please fix this confusion. Thanks. TransportFan2014 (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have never worked on this article, perhaps it would be better to bring this up on the article talk page so editors more familiar with the topic can address it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, then. I have already placed my question in the related talk page, but seeing that I have yet to find anyone familiar, I decided to bring the subject to an admin, hoping it gets solved.TransportFan2014 (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, Ahunt is not an admin. Sario528 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Troo, I am definitely not an admin! - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Userbox
You removed my userbox, is it because the copyright? If so I can use another image Erfson (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I took it off the page listing because it was quite broken, but sure if you get it fixed, with a free image and a new name all then put it back up. On the naming of the box, it should really be descriptive. I can move it to a new name if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Would this file be okay?
File:Pubgfile3.jpg Erfson (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is only simple text and shapes so should not be copyrightable. I have fixed the licence on Commons though, so it doesn't get deleted. I'll put it in your boxes. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

QAM?
Someone came on the IRC help channel and said that they had paid you to work on the QAM article (which you edited about an hour ago).

"ahunt work for us ... we paid him to make the page ..."

Do you have any idea what he's talking about? DS (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, not a clue. I have never done paid editing on Wikipedia and never would do so. It is unethical and would compromise my neutrality. I have never been to that museum, never talked to anyone there. I doubt they have any money for promotion either. It seems to be a tiny museum with one loaned aircraft and no permanent facilities. I found the write up on it in the COPA newsletter I get and since it is an independent third party ref, I used it as the basis for the article, since it meets notability requirements. If you read the article, it is pretty clear that what I put together there is very non-promotional and based on the third party ref, with the addition of some supporting background from two museum website (first party) refs. If someone had paid anyone to write that, then they didn't get their money's worth. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The person left almost immediately thereafter, and to my knowledge did not return. Another helper who was present at the time noted that the IP address of the person in question was a VPN, rather than something which could be geolocated to Canada. We felt it unlikely that the person was sincere, but I did have to ask -- due diligence and all. Strange that someone would pick on this particular item, though. DS (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, all very odd. Just an attempt at disruption I suspect. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cyclone photo question


Ahunt, any idea what the round red thing on the tailboom is? I assume it's not the modern incarnation of Pinball! Just curious. - BilCat (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that is a self-jettisoning emergency locator transmitter. They depart the aircraft on impact and then float, which is useful if the aircraft is over-water and sinks. The CH-113 Labrador had one too, just below the RH exhaust. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

rcaeonnaissance
I should have picked thoseup, shouldn't i?--Petebutt (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is why I suggested a better browser that includes spell-checking. As soon as I opened the page in Firefox it underlined all the spelling errors and suggested fixes. Google Chrome has spell checking, too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Paul James Phelan
Hello Ahunt. Thanks for your work on such pages as C&C Yachts. I'm disappointed to remark that my submission of a page on Paul James Phelan has been contested and is now a candidate for speedy deletion. As a Canadian and a sailor, I wonder if you might help to preserve the Paul James Phelan page. Thanks for your consideration. Magnoffiq (talk)
 * I had a read through the article and he certainly looks like the sort of person who should be notable. The refs are very skimpy, though and are mostly "passing mentions" rather than any detailed bio info. You really need a couple of better refs that give more details about his life. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Smile
 Hello Ahunt, CrazyMinecart88 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Hope you have a great holiday season. I look forward to working with you again in 2019. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png

Hello Ahunt: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Adapted from Season's Greetings


 * ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * Thanks! I'm looking forward to a great editing year in 2019! Hope to work more with you. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hope you have a nice holiday season, too. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Acro-1
Hello,

I’m obviously new to Wikipedia. I own the only example of this aircraft that’s still flying in the United States. I’ve attempted to update the wiki to improve accuracy. Please let me know what references I need to cite for the edits to be valid? I attempted to replace the RV-3 with the DR -107 since the RV-3 is not a comaparable aircraft. I also uploaded the photo that was removed. Please let me know what need to be done to post it. I also posted the photo that you reverted back to.

Thanks,

Marshall Owner Acro-1 N25BE Acroone (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you. The image you added File:Acro-1airtoair.jpeg is up for deletion due to copyright issues. The exif data says it is copyright "LINZY A Johnson" and someone on commons picked it up as an issue and has nominated it for deletion. You should note if you are flying the aircraft then you didn't take the photo and thus don't own the copyright and can't upload it. It would have to be done by the person who took the photo. The other image (the one there now) File:Aircraft Technologies Acro 1 N25BE.png I am guessing you took on the ground. You are the copyright holder so that one is fine to use.


 * As far as changing the data goes, any changes have to be cited to published reliable refs. The existing cited ref would have probably used manufacturr's numbers. Obviously, being a homebuilt you could build yours which any changes you like to wingspan, weights, etc. The key policies here are verifiablity and reliable sources. We can't change specs without citing new published sources.


 * I can add in the DR-107 back. - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bill, hope you have a happy Wiki-Christmas. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hope you have a nice holiday, too. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SwiftJet Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:SwiftJet 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted, so the logo can also be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Beartrap (hauldown device)
Ahunt, do you know of any photos of the Beartrap (hauldown device) that could be added to that article? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Best one I could find on Commons! (LOL). We don't seem to have any free images available right now! Ideally you want one like this - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Viasa Flight 897
I need your help. Jetstreamer is having a go at me for having cause undetermined in the summary when you on the other acident added that factor, please tell him about it.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like something we probably need to discuss and come up with a consensus on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ahunt, I appreciate the support. Jetsteamer states my summary edits are not good. For example, if it states a plane had an autopilot failure, id say Autopilot failure leading to a loss of control as did THIS accident.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You really need to take that up on the article talk page and find a consensus there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

External links for Pearson Yachts.
Hello, thanks for the feedback regarding the removal of external links. I believe the external links I added to the Pearson Yacht sites were appropriate per the guidelines. The site that I linked provides much more comprehensive research information (directly from company documentation) about Pearson Yachts - and it seems to fit into this Wikipedia Guideline: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailod (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If the website provides useful information and meets WP:RS for independent editorial oversight then it can be cited as a reference, but almost all your edits so far have been to insert this website into every possible article that it could fit into as an external links, seems to be promotional in nature and is not allowed under WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC

This is not about promotion, this is about documenting encyclopedia type information that has been gathered over many years that is not practical to put it all in the Wiki pages - it fits exactly into the Wikipedia guidelines as stated above. The references that you claim to be promotional are to a non-profit website that is the result of user input over several years with a very similar "model" to Wikipedia but it is not a wiki. As far as "every possible article" it is because a few of the specific Pearson models documented by Wikipedia also fit into the category of having encyclopedia type of information to reference. There are probably about 50 more models that could have pages associated with them so this is only the start of a long term effort. I would like to at least update the references for the Pearson Yachts page to share the information. Sailod (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said if you want to cite the website as a ref than that is one thing, but just putting the website in the external links section of every Pearson-related article falls afoul of WP:SPAM. Entities do not have to be "for profit" to be promoted, it is very common on Wikipedia to run into people spamming promotional material for charities and not-for-profits. As WP:LINKSPAM says, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." WP:SPAMMER also says. "Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You are here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?" - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for the feedbackSailod (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hybrid Magnus eFusion /"Siemens Fly-Eco Hybrid eFusion"
Dear Ahunt,

you have undone my revisions to the article "Siemens Fly-Eco Hybrid eFusion" twice even though I cited valid references for my corrections.

I see the following problems with the version as is:

- There is no "Siemens-FlyEco Magnus eFusion". The plane is called "Magnus eFusion". - Not clear whether this article is talking about the 'hybrid eFusion' or the 'eFusion'. Both use the same airframe (Magnus Fusion), but different propulsion systems. The article conflates both. - The hybrid never crashed. - The article attributes design of the plane to Siemens and FlyEco. This is wrong as the design is by Magnus. - Siemens designed the propulsion systems in both cases, there is no input from FlyEco for this beyond the provision of the combustion engine. - The picture shown is the fully electric eFusion, not the hybrid - The Manufacturer of the plane is not "Siemens and FlyEco" but "Magnus" - The fully electric shown had its first flight in April 2016 - "The prototype crashed" insinuates that there was only one eFusion. At the time of the accident, there were 4 eFusions, one of which was the hybrid. Correct would be "A prohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahunt&action=edit&section=39totype" or "The pictured prototype" - "No cause of the accident has been determined" is incorrect. Pilot error has been established as the cause of the accident of the eFusion.

Would you kindly support that all this incorrect information about the Magnus eFusion gets removed from Wikipedia?

Thank you and best regards! 80.146.228.67 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. The changes you made contradict the cited refs and, despite your claims to the contrary, did not include a new ref. - Ahunt (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

signature failure
Thanks for catching that. I think that may be the first time I've forgotten to sign in the past year or so.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, we all help each other out here! - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flexjet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Field ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Flexjet check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Flexjet?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me my first like on wikipedia!
Thanks for liking my contribution on the F-35 article. My first like on wikipedia. It's encouraging and I hope to do more here on Wiki! BigRedDot (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am glad that was helpful. I do try to "thank" editors when they do something worthwhile. Too often we feel like we are editing in a vacuum, that no one is checking our work or even reading it. I hope it is encouraging or at least motivates people to continue. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Diamond HK36 Super Dimona
Appreciate you thanked for my contributions on page Diamond HK36 Super Dimona! Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Glads that was helpful. I always hope that "thank yous" for good contributions will encourage editors. I think your photo additions will be helpful to readers in bringing the aircraft to life. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw
Hello, I saw that you undid a revision I added and would like to understand more of why it was rejected. The edit seemed straightforward enough:
 * Netherlands
 * 076 - HO4S-3 on static display at the Aviodrome at Lelystad Airport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haymant (talk • contribs) 07:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It was because no reference was cited. As per WP:V a ref needs to be cited for claims like this. I tried to source it myself at https://www.aviodrome.nl/collectie/ which is the museum website, but they claim to not have this aircraft at the museum as part of their collection. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It was there in 2017 according to https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1569504 Unlikely that it has moved just need a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Odd that the museum website doesn't list it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * They appear to be a lot of aircraft on display that they dont mention on the website, I first saw "076" in 1979 when the museum was at Schipol and I have photograph I took at Lelystad in 2009 so it is not like it is a recent acquisition. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is possible that they have traded it to another museum since, but more likely they need a better webmaster. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elroy Air Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Elroy Air 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Article has been deleted, so the logo can be as well. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"this bot is starting to be annoying"
Thanks for. Why is it starting to be annoying? Surely the commons links are only useful if they work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note! I have had to fix the bot's commons cat deletions a few times now. It seems to check commons cats and just delete them if the target is not valid. In most cases there is a commons cat, but the link is wrong. It would be much more useful to the readers to just fix them, rather than delete them. A good example was that last one you linked above. The commons link was to "Raceair Designs" which was incorrect. I tracked down the correct link and it was to "Raceair aircraft". Another one I just fixed was the bot's deletion of the link to "Powered Parachute" in Category:Powered parachutes, which I reinstated to "Powered paragliding". Another one was this where an "A" created a broken commons' link, fixed with a "a". - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing those, although isn't Powered parachute different from Powered paragliding? The bot does also try to fix them if it can, e.g., but that's not always possible. It's easy to add the commons category link back if the correct one is found in the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are quite right they are different, but whoever organized commons cats got them fubbelled up. I may have to go and fix that over there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have spent the last day reviewing the images on Commons and I have to admit it is too much of a mess to sort out over there. Hundreds of images need to be re-categorized to be correct. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Somebody has done a really good job with the cats at commons that makes it near impossible to find any image unless you already know it is a blue-aircraft parked on grass in the afternoon and operated by Biggles Air. They also clearly have no idea that aircraft registrations and serial numbers are not unique to one airframe. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I find commons to be a total mess these days and it is getting worse overtime, too. It doesn't help that there are some people there who seem to be dedicated to deleting perfectly useful images, rather than simply fixing licencing, etc. Overall I find it frustrating to work over there. All I do there these days is add and categorize my own photos. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Air France Flight 4590
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Air France Flight 4590. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited C&C 34/36, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transom ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/C%26C_34/36 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/C%26C_34/36?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Italian American Motor Engineering
Hi Mr. Ahunt, I need to publish the Palmares of my Company, please can you give instructions how to do it properly? Sorry but it's must have for IAME, if you need, I can link every single result to the correspondant page of the Karting Championships.

Have a nice day, Gabriele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.238.197.247 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are associated with this company you are in a conflict of interest. You need to read the policies on that and stop editing the article to promote your company. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Italian American Motor Engineering
Hi Mr. Ahunt, I need to publish the Palmares of my Company, please can you give instructions how to do it properly? Sorry but it's must have for IAME, if you need, I can link every single result to the correspondant page of the Karting Championships.

Have a nice day, Gabriele — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.giudici (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are associated with this company you are in a conflict of interest. You need to read the policies on that and stop editing the article to promote your company. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ahunt, I'm an external consultant of IAME and I think that the Palmares must be there (I've also added the reference like you suggested, at the page of the Karting Championship because it's part of the IAME's history like Ferrari, I don't think that they must link each year of victory). Also I want to let you know that everything about IAME is under copyright and under social responsability to divulgate right informations using the maximum respect regarding all the drivers that we made our history. We don't undestand which is the real problem because we don't say lies and we hope for the welness of Wikipedia to promote knowledge using responsibility. Let me understand, if I want to tell the History, truth facts, technical informations about IAME Engines, what I have to do avoiding the continuous blocking by you? Do you need that I follow my personal contacts so I can exchange with you the informations and you'll publish it respecting the rules that you're talking about? Let me give you an example, you're violating our trademark blocking the correct publishing of the actual registered trademark (eg. Logo), yesterday at 19:06, 28 January 2019‎ you Undid revision 880658705 polluting the truth. Today IAME Lawer Office, told me that exist a problem because via Wikipedia a consumer can be confused about the informations gived by Wikipedia (eg. Logo, website address). How can I proceed to allow the publishing of this informations? I've to contact the Wikimedia Lawers and ask them how to proceed for report as snapshop of the reality? Bye - G.giudici (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC+1)


 * Okay because you are into legal matters here you must stop editing Wikipedia immediately until the legal matter is resolved. Please read WP:LEGALTHREAT. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to file: user blocked for WP:LEGALTHREATs. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

we don't use contractions
Uh oh. – The Grid  ( talk )  16:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONTRACTION - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha I know, it's just the edit note made me laugh. Cheers! – The Grid  ( talk )  20:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That was my military training: "clarity, brevity, conciseness"... don't use ten words, if three will do. - Ahunt (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Source
Is this not a reputable source?



No strong feeling either way. Seen a number of these added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you check the editor's record, he or she was adding that same ref to dozens of articles over and over. It all looked like WP:CITESPAM to me and the additions didn't add much to the articles of value, seem to be just trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time between overhauls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continental Motors ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Time_between_overhauls check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Time_between_overhauls?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

C&C 30 & Waterline Systems
I didn't make that edit you just reverted but I did see it there and as there was no reference I emailed Randy Borges the president of Waterline Systems to ask him about it. Can an email be used as a reference? The following was his reply:

Randy Borges  19:58 (1 hour ago) to me

Ken, no idea who posted that? the following is correct. There was no purchase from USW. We have a licensing agreement for the name. We do have the C&C 30 tooling but our main objective is support of the brand and not building anything right now.

Fast Forward 2019 the C&C Yachts brand still lives on. “Squirrel Works” dba “Waterline Systems” the predecessor of USWatercraft obtained exclusive rights to the C&C Yachts name and existing tooling. Waterline Systems founder Randy Borges who grew up in Youngstown, NY right across the river from the C&C Yachts Niagara on the Lake facility has had a lifelong affinity with this great brand. Waterline Systems renowned for world class service and aftermarket support will do everything it can to support the many loyal C&C owners throughout the world. info@waterlinesystems.com 401-247-300

Best Regards,

Randy Borges

Waterline Systems

342 Compass Circle

North Kingstown, RI. 02852

PH: 401-247-3000

“Great Finishes Start at the Waterline”

From: Ken Heaton Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:43 PM To: rhb@waterlinesystems.com Subject: C&C 30 design and tooling is now supported by Waterline Systems

Hello Randy,

An anonymous editor added the following to the Wikipedia article about the C&C 30:

"The C&C 30 design and tooling is now supported by Waterline Systems, who purchased them from USWatercraft. Waterline Systems will be supporting the boats and owners going forward."

There is no reference provided to verify that this is true, so that information will likely be deleted from the article by other editors soon unless one of us can find a reference to show that this is in fact true.

Is this an accurate description of the situation, and is there a source online or otherwise we can add to the article to support this information?

Respectfully yours,

Ken Heaton Ken Heaton (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Private email is not a valid source, as it is not verifiable. Please see WP:V Sario528 (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sario528 is right, we can't use emails as references, as they are not verifiable for any reader who wants to confirm the information. Waterline really needs to add a press release or an info page to their website about this. That said, if all they are doing to supplying some parts and services for C&C boats, then lots of suppliers do that, it probably isn't all that notable anyway, unless they start building new boats. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, thank you both for your thoughts on this. Ken Heaton (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seair Seaplanes Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Seair Seaplanes 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft in Fiction
are the references supposed to be about the films themselves, or about the planes in the films. If the latter is it fine to have info about the aircraft in the film but without a reference.

Also you need to check through a ;lot of the references on the page as they are currently going to dead links / websites. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJS114 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The refs must support the text in the article, so if you are going add text that says a certain aircraft appears in the film then the ref must support that. It can't just be a ref that talks about the film and not the aircraft as it fails WP:CITINGSOURCES. Also we don't remove broken refs, see WP:DEADREF, we fix then instead from sources like archive.org. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Okay I think that I have just fixed all the broken rotaryaction.com refs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:FireSeason01.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FireSeason01.JPG, 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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

ULPower Aero Engines
Hello Ahunt. I am not affiliated in any way with ULPower or Sonex. That Sonex use ULPower as a standard engine is something no one anticipated since Sonex have their own engines, as well as the now defunct Jabiru engines. It's one of the oddest things, yet extremely welcome thing that has happened in the experimental/LSA industry for ages. Also, that tons of info is available, how is that non-important for an encyclopedia? SvingenB (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The text you added was very promotional in tone and read like the sort of thing we often see here on Wikipedia, added by company marketing departments. The refs you added were primary refs and also seemed promotional in nature. These days most companies make their product manuals available on line for download for free. That is true for Rotax aircraft motors, Nikon cameras, food processors, software, etc. So what? It is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and not notable. By consensus we don't add information on product distributors, because it is spammy. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to show people where they can buy things, we are not a shopping guide. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft Transponder Codes...
In the United States and in many other jurisdictions, if your aircraft squawks a transponder code such as 7500 or 7700 without a bona fide emergency it is considered a Class 'A' felony offense, although I would personally NEVER do it I was at a local airport when a pilot was taken into custody by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and charged on various felony counts. The pilot was convicted and sentenced to a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 20 years in a federal correctional facility and yes he did have his airmen's certificate (pilot's liceense) permanently revoke. YborCityJohn (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and in many countries, including the US people have squawked it in error and the error has been discovered and there are no consequences. If you want to make wild claims you need to cite reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a pilot is charge is up to law enforcement, the fact is IT IS a felony to falsely squawk a 7500 or 7700 code that is NOT a wild claim. Let me ask you are you a pilot? because I am and I know the FAA's rules and regulations I've a licensed pilot for 33 years. YborCityJohn (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes a pilot since 1976, commercial helicopter pilot, military SAR pilot, etc, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia requiring refs for text added, see WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Flags in info boxes
I am surprised that is an actual rule here. It seems not very well enforced, though, since there are tons of military infoboxes with the flags of the various service branches showing on their equivalent pages; I came across more than enough to see it is quite commonly done. Well whatever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ PartColumbia (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note here. WP:ICONDECORATION has been around a long time and has a longstanding consensus. If you find pages that don't comply they should be fixed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've finally stopped enforcing that "rule", except in WPAIR infoboxes where we have a specific consensus to not use them. We're told it's necessary because of WP:ACCESS, but yet they are allowed as exceptions in a myriad of circumstances, which somehow bypasses WPACCESS issues on those specific articles through "magic". Typical WP bureaucratic nonsense. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Rotorless" Helicopter


Per FlightGlobal, "MD Helicopters is developing a winged-variant of its rotorless, twin-engined MD902 Explorer for the US Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) programme." Someone needs a better proofreader! Maybe I should apply. - BilCat (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also "jet fan trust". They've been making minor mistakes for years, but this article is the worst one I can remember. - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, not WP:RS! Should be tail-rotorless. A winged, rotorless heicpter is an airplane. - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Flight's not the only one in need of a proofreader. :) And there has been a winged main-rotorless helicopter. - BilCat (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - Ahunt (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was a bit hard to read, but does it sound like MDH is beefing up the Swift's NOTAR fan to provide a little forward thrust, assumingly out a rear-facing duct? Obviously the main rotor still has to provide most of the thrust, but the wing helps to offload the rotor some. This source seems to imply that too, as it mentions "new fans and thrusters". - BilCat (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds worth us putting together an article if we can find some good sources! - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources I've found so far have even less information than the Flight article, but more info should be forthcoming over the next year. I might start a draft to work on until it's raedy. Btw, Flight has fixed the errors, adding "tail" to "rotorless". - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That might be the best way to tackle it, until more info comes up. - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the article now says "tail rotorless" - so it is still a helicopter.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, and they fixed "jet fan thrust" also. I don't usually pick on typos in reliable sources, but a "rotorless" helicopter was just too good to pass up. -BilCat (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they were watching our conversation here? - Ahunt (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Who knows, but if they did, I hope they realize it's all in good fun. Most of us aren't professional writers or editors, and I know I've made a lot worse editing mistakes on Wikipedia than those! - BilCat (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Qs
Couple of questions. Do you think 'aviastar' (eg http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/horten_ho-7.php) can be classified as reliable? Also, I think the new Caudron C.360 would be better merged with existing Caudron C.362 - see Talk. What do you think? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We actually have had some guidance at WP:AVIASTAR, as you will see there are problems with that website as a ref. I have reviewed the Caudron C.360 and Caudron C.362 artciles and there seems to be enough information and refs to justify two articles there, as long as they are properly linked to each other (which they are now). - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll clarify the Horten VII article.TSRL (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Evolution Aircraft
Hi Ahunt, see Special:Contributions/Mark_Jean. I've reported the user to ANI for COI and legal threats. I'm heading to bed, but hopefully the admins will have taken care of this by the time I return. Since you were "involved" with this user's initial edits, I'm letting you know what steps I've taken in case the issue isn't resolved by the time you resume editing and see what's happened. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look! - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we have made some progress there! - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So I've seen. Good work. - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We seem to have all the facts in the right order there now. We just need one newer ref that says whether the company is still in business or not, as the last ref was the Flying one that says they aren't. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)