User talk:Ahunt/Archive01

Welcome

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I noticed you had a blank talk page, so I decided to welcome you. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers.

Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. Howabout1 22:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWings May 2005

I'd like to give you the WikiWings award for May 2005 for your Grumman American AA-5 article. Nice work - and I assume that the excellent AA-2 and GA-7 articles are yours as well :) Cheers --Rlandmann 11:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ostmecklenburgische Flugzeugbau

Thank you for contributing this article! I have announced it on Portal:Germany and Portal:Germany/New article announcements. If you write more about German companies, please announce your articles there. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 08:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna Template!

Thanks for the compliment! I was half expecting somebody to already be complaning about something! So, i was pleasently suprised by a compliment Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you nuked my comment on Talk:Ballistic Recovery Systems

Can you be more careful when adding comments? You deleted mine right off the talk page, somehow... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. It didn't do any real harm, I just wanted to make sure you were aware it had happened. Happy editing! Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Aircraft

Filing for bankruptcy doesn't mean the company does not still exist. Yet. Paul Beardsell 11:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Canuck

Adam, take a look over the Fleet Canuck article, do you have a picture to go with it? Bzuk 22:31 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Fleet Finch and Fleet Fawn

Check these out as well as the revisions to the Fleet Canuck photographs- I made them thumb size to fit the article. Bzuk 5:31 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Avro Arrow

Hi Adam, Thanks for your help on the Fleet aircraft of which I didn't have a great deal of background. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Cessna 162 Skycatcher

Check out http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com and the associated PDF documentation (http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_s%26d_booklet.pdf) ... nowhere is Skycatcher formatted as "SkyCatcher". I'm going to go with their specification and description document rather than a press release. Cheers! ericg ✈ 18:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UnFREEz

A tag has been placed on UnFREEz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GDallimore (Talk) 23:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NTF: Justification written, tag removed by administrators 27 July 2007 Ahunt 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement to Cessna 177 article

You did an excellent job in "Wikifying" the Cessna Cardinal entry. Kudos. Raymondwinn 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (moved from user page 27 July 2007)[reply]

Poor Ad-aware reference

Hi, I am trying to keep the reference http://www.better-spyware-removal.com/spyware-test-summary.html in the Ad-aware article but am having trouble as the reference lacks dates, and the Ad-aware version. The information that I found was "back in 2004" in the summary of the test, which makes me think it was done in 2005-2007. In my view it is a poor article to be used as a reference, though I may be missing something on the article.--The Negotiator 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression someone has been editing the article to make the software look poor, and they've done a bad a job of it.--The Negotiator 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only content I removed was the stuff citing user reviews as a reference, which is against all referencing rules. I kept 80% and turned a list into a sentence or two.--The Negotiator 04:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can you get the icon for Ad-Aware, I lack any good software to do it.--The Negotiator 04:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean icon, see Norton Anti-virus for an example I just removed it now without putting an edit summary.--The Negotiator 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the userboxen

Where/how do you practice with the Society? I was a beginning instructor for a while. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing

I was just curious but do you submit articles to to Transport Canada's Aviation Safety Letter? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it last night when I was reading the last one we got. Youv'e done a lot of work on them too adding all the COPA links. Too bad the pages wern't set up using the 4-letter codes so a template could have been used. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 214ST

Thanks for finding that public domain 214ST pic. I seached a long time to find a PD photo, and couldn't find one easily available. I helped put to gether the 214 and 214ST pages, and though we don't "own" Wikipedia articles, they are still close to my heart! Thanks again, and if you find anymore, they would be welcome! - BillCJ 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-50

What do you find 'uncomprensible' in that article to revert all the stuff? Do you are aware that to avoid some modiphications and some other improving, you are 1-deleted a work that needed several hours (made by myself) and 2-worsened the amount of info that such article had? Is it the 'famous' collaboration needed for wikipedia? I think not.--Stefanomencarelli 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van's

Hello, thanks for you input on the article about Richard VanGrunsven. Yes, I was planning on starting an article on him and did so last night. However, it has been deleted before I could finish what I started. So I am removing the redlinks like you said. Sorry for the confusion. BTW, your help and links were very useful. Thanks --Nippaero 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CH-124 Sea King

Ahunt, I noticed you just added a pic of the CH-135, and remembered that you said you had a collection of pics. I split the CH-124 Sea King page off of the SH-3 Sea King article a few months ago, and it has really grown since then as other users have added more info. One of the things I enjoy doing is splitting off articles, and it's great when other users show an interest in improving those pages. The Sea King is somewhat of an icon in every country in which it has served, and seems no less so in Canada, esp given the controversy surrounding its replacement. It was this controversy tht prompted me to split off the CH-124, as it was a sizeable portion of the SH-3 page. But I am really pleased to see the way the new page has grown since the split. And I'm not even Canadian - I just love aircraft, no matter where they are from or serve.

Unfortunately, we only have one pic in the article right now, and it's not the best pic possible (too dark, narrow angle). Would you happen to have any useable pics of the CH-124? THey would be a great addition to the page. - BillCJ 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice S-61L pic! The Sikorsky S-61 page is another split off of the SH-3 article, and I could only find S-61N pics at that time. - BillCJ 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 205 pic

Nice pic that you added to the 205 page! Do you happen to have any photos of Canadian (or other) fixed-wing airtankers? AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helitack

I've started the helitack article, and there's a ton more stuff to add, and references to explore. If you feel so inclined, feel free to join me...if nothing else, it could stand a good copyedit. I've written it using mainly U.S. resources, it could use some input from Cannuckland. BTW...your pics look real good there! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schweizer 330/333

WOuld you happen to have any pics of the Schweizer 330, 330SP, or 333 family? I've been trying to find some for awhile, and thought I'd ask. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 20 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article helitack, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

(Thought this should be shared with you!) AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SeawindLogo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:SeawindLogo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed...you'd forgotten to list the source website. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair use rationale must list the name of the article that the rationale is supposed to apply to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UH-1 Article

Hey, I sandboxed a possible change in direction for the UH-1 article and incorporation of the UH-1 variants article. I'm curious to know whether you think its a functional compromise. I know no concensus has even been discussed but I'm "being bold" hehe, but I've also sandboxed it to respect that no decision has been made. You can view my proposed changes here: User:Thatguy96/UH-1 -- Thatguy96 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MFOlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MFOlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NTF: Fixed - Ahunt 12:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nom

...that a Pterodactyl Ascender was used in the first coast to coast crossing of America using an ultralight aircraft? by User:Ahunt

OK? Victuallers 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G:91

No, sorry, you with your modifics have cutted out several datas and some stuff nor unuseful nor unworkable. This must be integrated, and i did it. Your work is apreciable, but arbitrary cuttings are not. ou even failed to explain 'why' the nuclear threat affected airforces, this is not so trivial to explain, nor expecially was in '50s. Bignamini deserves too to be mentioned. Finally, if you would seriously work in the G.91R you could do it in the draft page present in the talk.--Stefanomencarelli 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, what you are experiencing here is nothing new. You might want to review this page for further insight into the promblems. I apologize for posting this here, as your email is disabled (as is mine). The response will most likely be very long, rambling, and partially unintelligable, and will clutter up your page needlessly. However, you need to be aware of what you're up against here. Sorry. - BillCJ 17:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To chime in here...Adam, don't let Stefano discourage you or slow you down. We all appreciate what you did in cleaning up Stefano's mess...he staunchly doesn't want to follow WP's guidelines and policies, and will whine when he isn't allowed to post whatever unsourced material he wants. The ArbCom case is getting close to being completed, which will help. If you have any specific problems with Stefano as far as incivility or edit warring, let me know, as he's been warned multiple times, including a final warning. ~~He now faces blockage.~~ AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After his last blast at you, he's now blocked for a week. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the comments. I have been following the ARBCOM since the start, but I thought that if Stefano wasn't going to wait for the ARBCOM to come up with a solution to the situation and he was going to proceed with posting again, then I should at least get on with editing the article to make it readable in the meantime. Perhaps the only solution, since he took it to ARBCOM, is for him to stop editing and wait until they come up with a ruling and a plan. I guess we will see in a week! - Ahunt 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 11 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pterodactyl Ascender, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwings

Congrats on your much deserved wikiwings; well done! --Red Sunset 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for your support, I enjoyed the barnstar very much! Congratulations for your brand new wikiwings !!! --EH101 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the Barnstar which is very much appreciated. It was a pleasure to work with such a fine team of editors. --Red Sunset 17:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar appreciated, hope we can work together again. MilborneOne 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna Skymaster

Adam (or any interested editor), would you mind checking out the Cessna Skymaster page? I've reverted a number of unsourced changes and additions, and would like a second editor's help/opinion in explaining the requirements to the editor who addd the material. Please see his post on my talk page. As someone who has been the "victim" of my edit style in the past, you may be of better help than I. YOu can also tell if my objections to some of the content are unwarranted. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in BillCJ's page. Ernie Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emartin1 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, if you could look at Ernie's latest comments on my Talk page as well. I'd appreciate it. --Born2flie (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TTCSlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:TTCSlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. PS I wish that this bot would insert the page name instead of threatening to delete the logo for not specifying the page name. It would be much more helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the same bot that Bzuk was lamenting about? You know what they say, GIGO! --Born2flie (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-4 Skyhawk: photos

Dear Ahunt. I am sorry for removing the TA-4J photo, but be assured that I did not remove it "arbitrarily". I just thought the other one on the Lexington would be a better photo (which is also not mine but from the US DVIC) of the TA-4J, considering its appearance and use. Maybe it would be better to put one of the photos to the list of the Skyhawk´s versions and leave one up there. If you take the TA-4F photo: it illustrates the TA-4F-version in my opinion, and its use by a combat squadron - which was not very often; but the picture in itself is not so brilliant, but I found no other one. --cobatfor 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NorcoLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:NorcoLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NTF - Yup the article was deleted, so it can go! - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helitack Userboxes

Thanks for your comments on the Talk:Helitack page. I take userbox requests! What would you like - one for Fire Fighting A&Ps (US) or AMEs (Canada), other trades? Let me know and I will make them up. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! Actually I do have to admit I am not certified as an A&P, I manufacture components for some models of helitack birds. So technically I work in the realm of 14 CFR Part 21 (manufacturing) as opposed to Part 43 (maintenance). --Trashbag (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, The boxes look great! --Trashbag (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car-free movement clash

We have clashed on big edits on the car-free movement page. I took a copy 24 hours ago and have been working on it since then. We seem to agree on a lot of aspects of the changes and have both removed similar content and sectionalised in similar ways. I have read your version and integrated ideas from yours into my version and I am being bold (as we are encouraged to be!) and will upload my version as the current version and will now concentrate on adding references for the remaining claims. I hope you are not still working on the article in parallel, which seems to be an annoying possibility in wikipedia, I wish you coudl get an alert if someone else uploaded something on an article one was working on and could see if someone else was in the middle of something before one started.PeterIto (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that and it is good to have the tags off it. I think it really needs a photo with no cars in the picture at all but it good for now and much better than nothing! Btw, could you take a look at Heathrow Airport(opposition section) and Flying Matters articles and see if you agree that the tagging can be removed from them. Personally I have never put tags on or taken them off and am not clear what the correct protocol is for doing so. Personally I think the Association of British Drivers needs a 'disputed' tag, it is pretty wild stuff and there is loads of churn - do you agree (I changed some false links which miss-linked 'Climate Change' and 'Car-free Development', check how is was before my changes). I suspect that any balance added would soon be removed, I might try to add some balance it at some time and see what happens but the tag wouldn't do any harm imhoPeterIto (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove my website (World airport Database)

Excuse me but why do you remove my website. I'm very proud of it and I think it can be very useful for people who like to search airport by his code. It's not spam. If you go at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_identifier ... Can you tell me why "Airnav" can be listed in External Link and why my website can't ? What's the difference ? I'm not here here to spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindbergh2002 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove my website (World airport Database) Part 2

Hello Ahunt, Thank you for your explanation and your time. I'm sorry, I didn't know about that and now I'm agree that I violate the Wikipedia External Link Policy. I understand now why you remove my link. My apologize. You know, I put several hours to create this web site concerning airport search and my goal was only to offer this services to the community. Because I'm proud of my website and I think that it will be very useful for people, I will follow your advice and I will ask to all editors of the page if they think it can be appropriate to include my website on the External Link. Thank you again Lindbergh2002 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Cessna 172

Hi, I'm Francesco from Italy, I wanted to use the images:

from the Cessna_172 and Cessna 310 pages into the italian wikipedia, but I can't do it since it is not on commons, but only on the english wikipedia image repository. Since you are the author of the Image, I would like to ask you if you can upload it in the common site (To share that nice image among all the other wikipedia). Thank in advance. --Francescobrisa (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos (again)

Good edit on the Adam Aircraft Industries M-309. Thanks for your sharp eye. Raymondwinn (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colours userbox

Bah! I didn't see that. :( I also noted this one here as well after I posted it. Should I just request for it to be deleted? --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Participants

Nice to see you on the list for the aircraft project! It certainly has been busy on Silver State Helicopters, at least until the blocks took effect! - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the irony is that I've been a participant in Aviation/Rotor/Airports but for some reason completely forgot to sign in under aircraft (go figure). Thanks for the help on keeping an eye on Silver State Helicopters. Whether people like them or not the article definitly needs to be protected. --Trashbag (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yup, I always wonder how long it takes for them to catch up on that (getting a user name). This is going to be an interesting article to cover. A lot of people got burned and are really emotionally charged. --Trashbag (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why r u not allowing my website....

You could at least explain why a helitack website can't be linked here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydukeii (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helitack websites

OK, Thanks for replying. I guess I'll go with the 'COI' though I'm not sure how in the world it is a conflict of interest and there is nothing 'commercial' about the site. But I would like an explanation then as to why Boise, Gallatin, Price Valley, Central Oregon, and the other helitack sites are allowed when they also, some even on the first page, have recruitment info. Nor do they even come close to talking about helitack operations as thoroughly as our site does. Also, how do those sites contribute to the article and the Musselshell helitack site does not?

My intent is not to recruit but to share the world of helitack from our point of view. I can remove the hiring content that is on the first page if it will let us put a link on your page. It covers things like general info, wildfire use, prescribed fire operations, aerial mulching, aerial fish stocking, sling operations, and many other things that helitack crews do which is not even covered in the helitack page. If you're going to talk about helitack, wouldn't you want to be as thorough as possible. It also has good footage and pics of all these activities; the others do not. I don't see how the other pages contribute to the helitack page at all.

Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.

hayduke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydukeii (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs Cessna et al

Doesnt do any harm to remind people - particularly me - to add the refs. I sometimes forget and then if you dont remember to go back a reminder is useful. Keep up the good work. MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Capital Freenet

I thought you should know that I've nominated it to be a good article. You've done terrific work on it. GreenJoe 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada UH-1

My apologies Adam, no pun intended just wanted to avoid the lists from getting to long. I figured since we know that Canada doesn’t use the UH-1 any more why to mention, all the units. I think by mentioning the country it covers that. Further more they aren't to many ex-user countries that get that, exclusive treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANigg (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMD Articles

Thanks for your work with these articles. It's much appreciated! -Pilotguy contact tower 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Flying club

Hello...

We currently added a link to a free discussion forum regarding Diamond Aircraft and Airplanes. Can you please explain the reason for deletion of our link?

Thanks Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikeraz2000 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transponder

No - you were perfectly within policy. However Googling "parrot iff" would have shown you so many hits that it would have established that the story was at least widespread (and therefore probably contained at least a grain of truth) and a couple of minutes sifting those results would have shown you three sources reliable enough to use in the article (two of which I've added). I know, I know, the onus is on the person adding the information to add the source as well; but often a Google won't take that much longer than slapping on a tag, and will yield a better result for the encyclopedia. FWIW, our anonymous friend is also right about "parrot sweet" and "parrot sour", but I can't find a citation for this. There's a book in our State Library that I think probably would have this info - I'll be there this weekend, so I'll try to find a ref, and I've asked the anon to do the same. This has only been tagged for about 4 weeks, so I've restored it (and the tag) for now. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I agree it was over the top and have advised the other party accordingly. Please let me know if there are further problems from this direction. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex generator

Hi Ahunt. Thank you for your message on my User talk page about the edits you made to Vortex generator and your views on citations. I have also read the nominated article about the Turkish historian Taner Akcam. It is clear that Akcam's experience would have had a profound effect on him, and it has obviously influenced you strongly to the point that you are on something of a personal crusade to get Wikipedia properly referenced. The work you did on Vortex generator was to insert a "Citation needed" flag at the end of every paragraph except the first. I have read and edited many, many articles in Wikipedia but this is the first time I have seen "Citation needed" flags at the end of every paragraph. I suspect your edits to Vortex generator are more the result of your personal crusade than any policy of Wikipedia or widespread practice among Wiki editors. Can you link me to something official from Wikipedia that might convince me that a "Citation needed" flag at the end of every paragraph (except the first) is consistent with Wiki-wide practice rather than just your commendable but very personal crusade? Secondly, can you give me a brief explanation as to why you found the first paragraph in Vortex generator to be adequate in its present unreferenced state? Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ahunt. Thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response posted on my User talk page. I have perused the WP policy pages you quoted and I fully agree with everything I see there. You did not answer my first question which referred to:
“something official from Wikipedia that might convince me that a "Citation needed" flag at the end of every paragraph (except the first) is consistent with Wiki-wide practice”.
Feel free to re-visit my question, but in the interim I will assume that posting a “Citation needed” flag at the end of every paragraph is not consistent with WP policy or customary practice.

I have posted many “Citation needed” flags in various WP articles. I have contemplated each one very carefully, and located each flag very thoughtfully. I hope that wayward editors have felt that my every one of my flags represents an intellectual challenge. It is my view that such a flag at the end of every paragraph does not reflect care or thoughtfulness. Such flags certainly don't challenge me intellectually - a Bot could place such flags automatically. If an article is generally lacking in-text citations I believe the template “This article lacks in-text citations” conveys the message appropriately and is consistent with WP policy (otherwise WP would withdraw this template). In the next few days I will re-visit Vortex generator and I will probably apply this template.

I heartily endorse the strictness and rigour that have been prescribed by WP for biographical articles about living persons, particularly where a comment is potentially negative, derogatory or insensitive. I see nothing to suggest that this strictness and rigour is also applied by WP to technical articles about inanimate objects. The article in question, Vortex generator is not about a person, living or dead. It is an inoffensive article about an inanimate object. Nothing in the article is potentially negative, derogatory or insensitive. The WP policy on verifiability does not specify that every paragraph or every statement about inanimate objects must be supported by a citation. It says that a citation must be provided if the statement is challenged, or is likely to be challenged. There is a difference.

I don’t object to your zeal to apply WP’s policy on the strictness and rigour that is required for articles about living persons. However, my request is that you do not use this WP policy in an attempt to justify applying the same zeal to articles that are not biographical. There are many biographical articles in WP and your energy and commitment would be well applied to them.

I am fully in favour of providing citations. If you visit Bernoulli's principle you will see about 16 in-text citations and general references. Every one of them was supplied by me in recent months. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahunt. Thank you for quickly adding many citations to Vortex generator. I have added a couple that are on my desk at the moment. I am aware of the Mike Busch article but I would have been reluctant to use it because it is only accessible to people who have registered and logged in. Nevertheless, I'm glad you used it. It shows I don't need to be hesitant about using such sites in the future. (I have access to an abundance of proprietary information on this subject but there is much less in the public domain because they are mostly the subject of FAA STC.) I will teach myself to make multiple uses of the one reference, as you have done, and then add some more references. Thanks for the lesson. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Monitoring

I am afraid that I cannot see how adding the four main competitors in this field as links can be remotely construed as "SPAM". Please remember that just because it is your personal opinion that links to aircraft noise monitors are not relevant does not make it fact. The reality is that these companies have huge amounts of data on aircraft noise and measuring standards on their sites and provide a starting point for airports wishing to monitor noise. However, my aim was solely to remove the single commercial link and add all the majors.

I agree that a section on Noise Monitoring is a good idea however and will give thought to writing something.

24malbec09 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind explanation and I see that if you have to have a very narrow view of 'information' - as is reasonable in a reference work - almost any commercial site has to be barred. The problem in aircraft noise measurement is that almost nobody understands how it is done and explaining this is a critical part of the story. The main problem is that many airports - even some of the majors -do not seem to understand the difference between measuring noise for certification purposes as opposed to monitoring noise round a commercial airport for environmental purposes - the two things have almost nothing in common. These four commercial sites between them have more data on Environmental monitoring than will be found anywhere INCLUDING all but the very best Universities and so their sites provide a unique resource and are a totally integral part of "non-certification" noise monitoring. Noise Certification is well covered by academic and official sites. Today, about half the worlds installed systems do not meet the ISO standard; they either measure the wrong parameter or they do it in a non-standard manner. Almost all of these are "home built" by the airport, a few of them trying to do things that are scientifically impossible. At the last count there were over 30 different metrics used by airports - logically all but one of them being either obsolete, scientific nonsense or simply irrelevant. This leads to the situation where an aircraft can take-off at one airport and be inside the noise limit and land at a second and exceed the limit. Having approved commercial monitors that all meet the IEC standard and make the correct measurement goes some way to avoiding this.

It follows that any words about the subject needs to somehow link to commercial sites.

Regards

24malbec09 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bad idea to replace portal links

Can you take a look at my comment on Template_talk:FLOSS. --Gronky (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLOSS template placements

I think we should stick to one rule - place the template on pages only that the template lists. I think this should actually apply for all templates ever.--Kozuch (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert your last edit. Please do not feel offended, I agree I might have first discussed my changes, but I sometimes fail to do so. The list link is now in "General", which I find better than havind a lone section of "Applications" with one link only. I your last edit one line dissapeared too.--Kozuch (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AVIAT HUSKY

Hey - you just cleaned up the "Husky" entry. Great work; thanks! Raymondwinn (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC) ===HI AGAIN=== Thanks for the note re the Aviat Husky article. That is looking better and better; you are doing a great job. Raymondwinn (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux template redesign

		The Template Barnstar
		For the Linux template re-design and FOSS template creation! Kozuch (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your work on the templates!--Kozuch (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft structures

Good work on cleaning the article up, but IMHO it's a bit like "putting lipstick on the pig!" At least what little that does remain is more comprehensible and encyclopedic even if, as you say, it is a bit pointless as it stands. I agree with your comments, and those of Nimbus on the project talk page that more in-depth analyses of the various points as well as the inclusion of related issues could actually turn it into an important and useful article, but if there is no expansion on some/most/each of the classification possibilities (some of which are a bit debatable/dubious in any case) then what possible use does the article serve, with AfD being the merciful option.

However, Nimbus' idea to start a fresh article which concentrates on the structures of conventional aircraft (as opposed to arrows, boomerangs, exercise machines and the like) might be the best option since Joefaust and other editors that have been active on the current article seem to want to keep it more general in nature. As Nimbus is probably the most suitable person that we know to tackle the topic, I think it would be a good idea to ask him if he would be prepared to give either of the two options a shot: expansion or new article. I'll drop him a note.--Red Sunset 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7 Edit

Yes, um....hi! That edit I made to Windows 7 was not vandalism. It was the real truth. The source of the screenie of Windows 7 had a YouTube account, and hence, he made a video about it. Windows 7 is just too new, and still in development. Since you deleted my edit, I don't have the site to show you but type in Windows 7 on Youtube and look for www.thinknext.com in the description and you will SEE how fake it is. It may look like a reliable source, but I assure you; it is not.

~~JaredJenkins2

Notepad++

It is probably better to have the link to Donho's user page done as an external link as it is not an encyclopaedia article on him rather a user page. I put it as an external link after it was removed completely by user:OsamaK with the edit summary "User page shouldn't be linked with an article, I'm not sure if he has a website or anything else?" --Adam1213 Talk 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit talk pages properly

The problem with GNU/Linux naming controversy is that it frequently screws up the differences between distribution, default installed packages, required packages and kernel and doesn't account for non-GNU/Linux software included by default - and/or required - X and Apache being big ones. 62.106.48.52 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anon on GNU/Linux naming controversy

Hi, the (rather uncivil, unfortunately) anon editor you warned be about is back on this page; please take a look when you have time. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm?

You recently tagged Mid-Canada Line for cites. The article clearly has two cites, which contain considerable detail. What's up? Maury (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound like an ass, but with 20,000 edits over 6+ years, numerous DYK and a handful of FAs, let me assure you I fully understand how to reference articles!

I think what you are trying to say is that you want inlines; that's fine, but it's generally not considered a taggable issue, and even when it is, the "no references" tag is the wrong one to use. If you have specific concerns about specific claims in the article, by all means, tag them in place, but an inaccurate "drive-by tagging" doesn't help anyone. Maury (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for the usefull info.Have a nice day!--Iordanis777^listening 08:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]