User talk:Ahunt/Archive11

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hey, thanks for the links. I plan to get my references in good order today. Much appreciated. Lvdflorence (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Multi-columning

Hi Alan. Thanks for taking an interest in my article 1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash. (On 11 November you added 30em to the Reflist template - your diff.) I have made the same adjustment to the Reflist of a new article I am working up in my sandbox.

I have done some searching to find the function of 30em but without much success. Can you explain its purpose? Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad you found that useful. Adding 30em to the reflist template allows columns to be created based on the reader's browser width, with columns set at 30 em points. That means, since I am using a 1440px wide browser I see three columns, but someone using a more common 1024px wide would see two. It makes the number of ref columns customized to the browser width and thus uses screen space most judiciously. It only works on Gecko and Webkit-based browsers, so not Internet Explorer, of course. IE users should just see one column, but I use Linux so can't test that. It is all explained at Template:Reflist#Columns. Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. I use Internet Explorer so that explains why I see no change. I will return to some of my other creations and make the same adjustment. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Super, glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as aside, on my 1440x900 screen, three columns often results in a reference being "split" between columns - and thus being ghastly in appearance - whereas two doesn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I get that too on Chrome, but it doesn't bug me! - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

British Commonwealth Air Training Plan

Hi. Although you say the names of the various units are not proper nouns, they are in fact names. It's like Ministry of Defence is capitalised. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ministry of Defence" is a proper noun and is capitalized, but part of the title, like "defence" is not a proper noun and is not. Similarly "No. 2 Service Flying Training School" is a proper noun and is capitalized, but "service flying training school" is not as it is not the name of a specific unit. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

IO-320?

Evening Ahunt: You may well be right: I don't know these engines well but I was surprised when it redlinked. It is, though, what Janes's says. I've had a quick look for web sites that give the engine type and have only found this one, which also says IO-320. Mind, they might have got it from JAWA. Might be hard to tie it down. I guess WP policy would say follow the source, even if you are sure it's wrong! I'll poke around a bit more.TSRL (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

These sorts of things do crop up now and then, sometimes Janes has mistakes in it. Continental never built an IO-320, although Lycoming did. Because you indicated that it was a six-cylinder 210 hp engine it has to be a typo of IO-360 as the specs fit. Pretty unlikely to get 210 hp out of a 320 even if the ever did build one! - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with these points and content with you edit. I guess if we made a note in the article about Jane's error someone would cry OR, so sleeping dogs and all that ...TSRL (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my thought! We have to use some discretion about even reliable sources, which is why write the encyclopedia by hand instead of via automation! - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Q

Morning Ahunt. Do you know if images on Flikr Commons like this one] are OK for uploading to to WP? Looks so at first sight, but I wondered if there had been a discusion somewhere that I'd missed. I was really looking for Crown Copyright stuff but have not found those yet.TSRL (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the San Diego A&S museum collection's licensing on Flikr have been questioned before - see this discussion on commons. I think caution may be needed here.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning.TSRL (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess that answers that (thanks Nigel)! It looks like they have played "fast and loose" with some copyrights at the museum. I think I uploaded one of their images, have to check its status. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that they are probably OK for US images as I suspect that is what they are checking against - but non-US photos should be taken with a greater degree of caution.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes me nervous though that they get some of them very wrong. It doesn't inspire confidence about the rest of the images! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. images should be just fine - most of them are U.S. government pix. In all cases, though, here and otherwise, the thing to do is to "trust, but verify" - if it doesn't pass the smell test, don't move blithely on because "they said so"! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

More generally, have I got it right that a pre-1957 Crown Copyright photo is OK for direct copying, but the same image in a book is only OK if the book was published >50 years ago?TSRL (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Flash memory emulator

May I ask, why so much hatred towards a notable embedded development tool (Flash memory emulator) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anceurs (talk • contribs)

Your characterization of my proposing this article for deletion as "hatred" runs afoul of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I have no opinion one way or the other on the subject of this article, but as per Wikipedia policy if an article has no references and none can be found it is therefore a non-notable subject and should not have an article about it. Please see also WP:GNG and WP:N. The PROD takes a week to run its course prior to deletion. If you add reliable independent third party refs that show that this subject is notable then the tag can be removed and the article retained. If no such refs exist then the article will be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Epiphany GA Review

Hello! I would appreciate Your input in Talk:Epiphany (web browser)/GA1. I'm working on it, but help is needed. The biggest problem for me is MOS:ENGVAR compliance, so Your help here is mission-critical. — —

I can run though the article and fix the ENGVAR problems right away. I stay away from GA reviews, though, as they usually make articles worse, not better. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For now the damage was inflicted: new section "System requirements" is created. Don't think it'll survive though. Anyway, I would appreciate any input, specifically MOS:ENGVAR fix. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done! - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Cloth-wing ultralight aircraft

Hi Ahunt, I noticed you deleted "Cloth-wing ultralight aircraft" and indeed I figured that there would be some objection to this category, however I still believe the categorisation (although not recognized by any authority) is still sound and hence I was wondering whether you could place the deleted article on my userspace (/KVDP) so that I can post the article somewhere else (ie Appropedia), and if it becomes good enough (referenced, ...) I can then perhaps repost it. KVDP (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who deleted it as I am not an admin, I just nominated it. Not being an admin I also can't restore it to user space. Check Cloth-wing ultralight aircraft for the name of the admin to contact. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rotax applications

We have had our differences in the past, and who knows what tomorrow will bring... But on the subject of requiring references for the numerous applications of the Rotax 912, I am all with you - you will remember I am not convinced of the relevance of mentioning these applications at all, far worse would be having to reference them! Kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jan, Nice to hear from you! It is great when we agree on something! This has been discussed before on WikiProject Aircraft and the decision was not add all the footnotes as long as the linked article has them. I did let the challenging editor know that, as per WP:V, if he insists that I'll have to put them in. Sort of an early Christmas present, as I know what I will be doing over the holidays. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note ...

for you at User talk:TSRLTSRL (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Flight Simulation

I noticed your many contributions to Flight simulator and thought you might be interested, Oddbodz (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, I will have a look! - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A new barnstar for You!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Without Your priceless contribution the Epiphany article would never make it to WP:GA. Thank You! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but you did most of the work on this article recently! - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Australia fleet

Hello Ahunt, I'd like you to leave a comment at [1]. We have two separate articles for V Australia (now Virgin Australia International) and Virgin Australia. Their website states that the V Australia 777-300ER is now operating for Virgin Australia. Would you help shed some light on this? Thanks, →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 11:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I don't think I have worked on any of the articles in question as this really isn't my area of expertise. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you. →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all! - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

MacFam Cavalier

Great pictures! I know I had some old ones I had to scan in, but these are much better. I wasn't sure if I should have merged all the SA series, considering the wide range of configurations, but the aircraft seems to have a common core. This aircraft deserves much more content, as do a lot of the early homebuilt's. I'll add more as I find material that can be cited. Thanks for all the cleanup on my stub articles, It's good to have a second set of eyes check the new stuff. FlugKerl (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. Glad that you think my inputs are useful. I have been taking photographs of Cavaliers for a long time as they turn up at fly-ins here in Canada now and then. I just needed someone to start the article to allow me to make use of the photos. I have lots more, but just of those three aircraft, so one of each seemed enough for now, given the short article. The aircraft in the info box was actually built by some friends of mine and is based in Goderich, Ontario. Let me see if I have any refs I can contribute to that article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for saying hello, it makes me feel more welcome. SeeTheInvisible (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of aircraft engines, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages AFR and Aiello (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you Bill, hope you have a great holiday season! - Ahunt (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you Dave, hope your holidays are wonderful. - Ahunt (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

revertion

you know that edit of mine that you reverted on the cessna 182 article, no sweat, i totally get why you did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace10000 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:V on this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Partenair Mystere

Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hovey Whing Ding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urethane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cosmos ULM

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cosmos ULM, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://cosmos.fr/.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Investigated - not even close to valid, tag removed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Rafale... promotion ??? or UK promotion ???

Hi Ahunt ! see the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multirole_combat_aircraft#Promotion_of_Rafale.2C_you_say_.3F
I really don't understand, I can't see NPOV in the page, please answer on the Multirole talk page.AirCraft (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cosmos Samba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Soaring

Mountaineer Trikes Mite-Lite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Soaring

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

NTF: Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChiXlogo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

NTF: It has been replaced and therefore can be safely deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Parabola GNU/Linux references

I had tried to create the Parabola GNU/Linux reference back in October, but didn't find any reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. But if it helps, here are some of the most useful sources I was able to find through Google and Gbooks. I personally don't believe there's much there to establish the notability, but if there's something there that you're able to find, or a link within of those sites, maybe it might help. I use Arch Linux, and thing a free (as in FSF's definition) version is awesome, I just personally don't think the distro (from what I was able to find, and what is current in the article) meets Wikipedia's requirements, but if you're able to find something, that'd be great. - SudoGhost 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Personally I am a Debian user, so I have no vested interest in whether this is retained or deleted, but I do want to give the article a fair shake. Let me poke around and see what I can find. Perhaps someone has written a recent review of it? - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I can find something a little more recent. - SudoGhost 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it kind of funny that DistroWatch themselves say "Further good news is that once your distro is listed on DistroWatch, it will apparently be also accepted for listing on Wikipedia". I guess they think they are a reliable source, but that sort of smugness is not usually convincing! - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I noticed that they were careful not to actually say that a DistroWatch listing shows notability, only that it "apparently" does. - SudoGhost 18:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit presumptuous! It looks like they are leveraging their own ad sales on the basis of a Wikipedia article! - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

Hi Ahunt....thanks for that distinction on the Commons vs Wikipedia. What I'm still not clear on is this business of an original work (i.e. my original photo) of copyrighted material. As far as the Commons goes, how far does a copyright extend? For example, what about a photo of an artwork, say, something hanging in a museum by a living artist? Barte (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bart, thanks for the comment. I am no copyright lawyer but my understanding is that a photo of a copyrighted work, such as a photo of a still-copyrighted painting is copyright the original painter, not the photographer. If you take a photo of a street scene and the painting is visible just coincidentally in the picture, but is not the subject of the photo then the photographer owns the copyright. A good example would be a close up photo of a company logo vs the logo on a distant store front in a street scene. I hope I got that right. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting--and I bet you're on the right track. Thanks! Barte (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Piaggio P.180 Avanti

Hi Ahunt,

My comment was: (This comment is not encyclopedic)

Nigel's answer does not address the comment. (Undid revision 471362470 by Stodieck (talk) - no it isn't - describes the nature of the noise of the aircraft)

Sorry but there is no COI, I actually think your editing is biased. I do not fly and I have no connect to Piaggio or any related entity. Stodieck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stodieck (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't answer for other editor's edit summaries, you will have to ask them and see if they will reply.

As far as COI goes your editing record speaks for itself. Your record shows currently that almost all your edits have been related to the P.180 and many of those have been to remove cited criticisms and introduce POV and promotional marketing language. If you are not connected to the company then you are certainly doing their marketing for them. You have attempted to remove cited text that is critical of the aircraft's noise signature several times now and have been consistently reverted. There is a clear consensus to include this cited text, so any further attempts to remove it will be considered vandalism and you risk being blocked from editing. I would suggest that if you don't want people to think you are a COI editor then you go and work on some other subjects for a while instead of continually adding promotional material to the P.180 article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Promotional sounding language creeps in on occasion, and you are welcome to edit that out. The P180 happens to be my interest at the moment. Editing the Wiki is not. If you are editing more than say, 100 pages, I suspect that it is you who are, in effect, vandalizing those pages. Your actual knowledge in depth of that many subjects is not likely and you are actually just dumbing these pages down to your level. A person who is actually focused on a particular subject, is the person who is more likely to be an actual expert on that subject. Your editing is aggressive enough that you are altering the content, not just maintaining the form of the entries. If you are editing 1000 Wiki pages, you are an expert on Wiki from not on a subjects of content. If the Wiki does not have a limit on the number of pages a person can edit, it should establish one. --Stodieck (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that is just your opinion, one not shared by anyone else I have encountered on Wikipedia. You don't know anything about my expertise. If you are accusing me of vandalizing Wikipedia then I suggest you provide some evidence to back that accusation up or else apologize. Also I think you need to read WP:CIVIL before you go making wild accusations like that. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The "odd edit" was an attempt to fix a broken link to a Flying article. Instead of deleting it, I suggest you fix it. --Stodieck (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• @Stodieck: You have been warned for the last time on your talk page and yet you're still doing the same thing here on another editor's page. My question for you now is: "Do you really want to be BLOCKED?" Think carefully your reply here because the next thing that's going to happen to your account will be what you are asking for exactly. Take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Linux Kernel

The reference you removed from the page for the Linux Kernel on December 2nd was an easily verifiable log of calculations based on a previous reference's numbers adjusted for the present date at that time. It is my opinion that those numbers should not even need another citation beyond the original calculations from 2008 listed and a citation of the new LOC numbers for that point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.6.129 (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a self-published blog and fails to meet Wikipedia's policies as a reliable reference. That aside, it contains a large number of unverified assumptions that make it even more unreliable. If this information is notable then it will have been quoted or used in a reliable reference, such as a tech media article and can be included in the form of that reference. If it hasn't then that is pretty much proof that the numbers are not regarded as accurate by any reliable sources. In adding information to Wikipedia we have to comply with the verifiability policies because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Browser Selection

Thanks for the advice on browser selection. I agree that all browsers should have spelling correction, (with aviation terms!). It should also be a feature put into the wikipedia editing tools. Due to Configuration management, software licensing, and security choices, not all editors have access to these features at all terminals they edit from. In my case, when spell check is available, I go back through articles I have created en masse for fixes, if bot's have not already completed the task. I recognize poor spelling, and bad copyedit lessen the credibility of an article, but the articles are also living documents that will be peer reviewed and improved up to FA class. A con of Crowdsourcing content is that people with a expertise or interest in a subject willing to contribute, may not be the best at writing encylopedic style content as well. I appreciate the ability to add shared content, and the editor's who give quality to the content. FlugKerl (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. - Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Linux or GNU/Linux

Hey, I made this edit to GNU General Public License, and it got me wondering where I got it in my head that Linux being the WP:COMMONNAME is a consensus, or if that was just something I incorrectly inferred from certain talk page discussions. Is this use of Linux as opposed to GNU/Linux a Wikipedia consensus that can be found somewhere, or am I just making an incorrect assumption? - SudoGhost 00:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A good question. It is all contained in Talk:Linux and its reams of archive pages and also in Talk:Linux/Name. I hope that helps. It is a lot of reading! In reviewing your edit cited above it looks correct as per consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't you think that referring to someone as "GNU spammer" just because of two very minor good-faith edits is not right? Thanks. --Lonwolve (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Greyhound

Thanks for adding the translation; with my few words of German I'd guessed it meant "wind play" or something similar and not bothered to look in the dictionary. A little knowledge ... !

BTW, an editor has repeated one of the refs in that article as an external source. Didn't feel quite right to me - what do you think?TSRL (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, glad that was helpful! I used Google translate! Normally refs are not repeated as external links unless there is a reason for it, like using the manufacturer as a ref and as the "official website" as well. Let me have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks.TSRL (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hu-Go Craft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dihedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My 1961 Land Rover Series IIA

Hello again!

Below is a section that I have copied from my user page. I have "cheated" a little, in that I have taken the photograph from the Wikipedia Land Rover Series article, but, apart from the fact that mine has the old-style (grey metal symbols on black metal) numberplates, and does not have those rather modern-looking overtaking mirrors on the doors, one would swear that it is an image of mine.

After making the two MGB userboxes for me earlier this month, you very kindly offered to help me again. I would be thrilled if you were to make one indicating that same message as shown on the MGB GT.

Obviously, I imagine you may wish to use a different image, should you know of a more suitable one.

Image:1963.landrover.s2a.arp.jpg

• 
  My 1961 Land Rover Series IIA
  2.25 litre 4 cylinders
  OHV petrol engine
  Short wheel-base (88")
  Purchased in 1990.
  Shown here with its pickup type removable cab.
  Also own the original removable "full tilt" top with sliding side-windows, in the original colour, antelope.
  

I look forward to hearing from you. With kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How is this?

Code	Result
{{User:Ahunt/LandRover}}	This user is a Land Rover owner.	Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you very much. I had not thought that you would have done it today, and, what's more, three hours ago. I am very pleased. With best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like that! They are quick to do! - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

About the motor-glider page...

I've attempted to clean up the "electric" section, but the rest of this page has a lot of errors. Some of it is a bit comical (ie "drive-belts must not be twisted", adjacent to a picture of the Schleicher drive-train that twists the belt) ! Some it it is a bit crazy, for example the bit I corrected about "electric drive for environmental reasons".

Anyway, last time I tried to clean up a page I ended up having edits removed by those with more conviction than knowledge. How do I avoid that ? I'd like to improve the material but I don't want to just waste my time...

Thanks in advance, Best Regards, Dave

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the Motor glider page and your recent edits there. Fixing spelling, grammar and bad wording is easy, just go ahead and do it. Getting rid of original research and just plain wrong stuff (usually the same thing) is also easy, just remove and indicate as clearly as you can in the edit summary why. You have added a bunch of uncited new material with the edit summary "I have not provided extensive citations though these points will be agreed completely by anyone knowledgable in the field". Actually you didn't provide any refs for this. Anyone can remove that at anytime as it must be referenced as per WP:V. I would suggest that if everyone knows that it is right then it should be written down somewhere in an article published somewhere which can be used as a ref. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have given multiple presentations on this topic (Soaring Society of America conventions, EAA conventions, etc) as I am a recognized expert in this field. Should I put the slide decks from some of these presentations on my web site and cite that ? Unfortunately the slides don't include all the detail material. Also, you've added "citation needed" for information already available in existing citations (ie Lange web site) - should I just post a duplicate citation in these cases ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Nadler (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You really cant' publish your own stuff and then quote it, even if you are an expert in the field. There are some allowances for this as per WP:SPS if you have been widely published elsewhere, but even then it should be added by someone else really or else it may just get removed as WP:COI or WP:SPAM. It would be best to find an independent third part source for this, which should be easy if this information is so widely known. Also yes, refs should be repeated so that each paragraph is cited to something at least, otherwise it isn't clear where the information came from. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, should I get one or more of SSA, ASA, or other organizations to publish the material (thus its nominally reviewed and endorsed as expert) ? Though in reality if anyone wanted to publish materials on this topic they would likely ask me to review it... For example the lecture I'm giving Thursday (Electric Gliders at SSA convention) will likely be published on SSA and/or SoaringCafe web sites ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Nadler (talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The key thing is that it has to be published in reliable third party references so that it is verifiable. In the early days of Wikipedia we had a lot of "experts" just writing text with edit summaries like "I am an expert, I know this stuff" and then other people removing it with edit summaries like "I taught him everything he knows and he has this all wrong". All of that is why it has to be verifiable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

UN

Hey this is Uhlan, you might know me as OKelly but I have since changed my username. I'm not really a barnstar-giving-user but I would like to say thanks for your help with the UN related userboxes. So thanks! Uhlan (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Private Jets

Hi - thanks for the friendly e-mail, it is not my intention to spam, but can see why it looks like it - will reference without the linking. Out of interest can I recommend additions to the specifications for the jets? Leybourneboy (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Even with different references cited numbers on what jets rent for is only applicable at one point in time and at one location. It isn't the sort of information we include in aircraft type articles as it just is too time and location dependent to be of value. As far as spamming goes I went over your edit history and every entry was to insert links to commercial websites. That is what spamming is, intentional or not. The current template for aircraft specs was decided by consensus at WikiProject Aircraft. It is fairly flexible, but excludes those sorts of specs published in specialized publications, as Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. That is why you will find "wingspan" but not "seat elbow room" or other similar parameters. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For launching an astonishing 56 articles in January, almost half of the record 120 in the month. Tremendous! And for somehow finding time amongst all that to edit many of the other new article, continuously tidying and improving.TSRL (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It helps that we have had terrible skiing weather here in Canada this past month! - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Flexible winged aircraft

Hello, youmight be interested in a discussion I have started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Flexible winged aircraftPetebutt (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ahunt. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 02:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thielert

Thanks. I was looking for something else in the article and skipped right over that :-) --Lyncs (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No sweat - collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Flugschule Wings Alfa

Not sure how it fits into the big scheme of things but 2004/5 Leisure Aviation says the Flugschule Wings Alfa is actually made by Europe Sails and appears to be related to the Europe Sails Alfa as they were both designed by Norbert Brodnig of Flugschule Wings! MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is curious! The 2003/04 guide has listings for both companies and doesn't indicate any relationship there. Perhaps the school turned production over to Europe Sails, or perhaps it was a contracted design in the first place? - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hegy Propellers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Corvair and Continental Motors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

NTF - fixed - Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating the new article Airborne Climax. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you found that article is worthwhile. WikiProject Aircraft is just getting around to creating articles on hang glider aircraft types now and because I have some refs available I have started in on this neglected area. After a recent break to address propeller manufacturers I will be back starting more hang glider articles in the near future. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bell 230 replaced the 214ST?

Adam, I was just popping in to have a look at the new Bell 525 article, and I noticed that it is in the same size/weight range as the old Bell 214ST (which had only about 500 lb less MTOW), with the same basic engine type no less! Anyway, while glancing through the 214 article, I noticed this line: "The 214ST was replaced in production by the Bell 230." You added that back in 2009 per this diff, so I just wanted to check with you about it insted of deleting it outright. It seems a bit off given that the 214ST is more than double the MTOW of the 230. Any thoughts? Was this perhaps referring to their place in the production/assembly line itself, rather than the product line-up as the text implies? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bill, nice to hear from you. I dug up the ref cited, Green 1991, and in total about the 214ST that year it says:

Notes: Developed originally for Iran and flown as a prototype for the first time in February 1977, the Model 214ST is a significantly improved derivative of the Model 214B BigLifter, customer deliveries having commenced early in 1982. The current production version has dual controls and standard seating for pilot, co-pilot and up to 18 passengers in three rows across the cabin plus a two-place bench seat on each side of the rotor mast. A non-retractable tubular skid-type or tricycle wheel-type undercarriage may be fitted, and a variety of special mission equipment has been developed and certified to suit the SuperTransport for service with the offshore oil industry. Military transport models have been delivered to Brunei (one), Iraq (45), Peru (11), Thailand (nine) and Venezuela (four). The Model 214ST is being replaced by the Model 230 (see page 230).

Interestingly enough the entry for that year on the Bell 230, on page 230, doesn't mention the 214ST, but the 1992/93 edition entry on the Bell 230 does say:

Notes: The Model 230 is a derivative of the Model 222 which it is intended to replace, production of the latter having ended with 184 built. Two of these were transferred to Bell's Canadian company in 1990 for conversion to prototypes of the Bell Model 230 and the first of these flew at Mirabel, Quebec, on 12 August 1991.

I agree with you that it doesn't make complete sense for the 20 seat 214ST to be replaced by the six-ten seat Bell 230 operationally and the text on the 230 seems to support that, so I can only conclude that it replaced it on the Mirabel production line. I'll adjust the wording in the article to make a that a bit clearer. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad that result is satisfactory! - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks from me as well. I had wondered about this a little... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad that clarification was helpful! We strive for accuracy, but sometimes even good sources can be a bit vague! - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your collaboration

Thank you for helping on my edits on Antivirus software. I added the info just because I accidentally arrived at this page. I don't know how soon will I go back there. If you review that page systematically, you might also want to move my edits tagged as needing reference to the talk page, if no further clarification is made after a decent amount of time. I consider the information I provided to be correct, but my way of explaining it may be biased or fallacious. Also, I'm not a native English speaker. I hope that the "citation needed" tag will attract people to work on it and improve it. 79.119.11.171 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The tags should prompt someone who knows the subject better than I do to find the refs! - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, I will work on improving the explanations. You're welcome to review the edits. I visited the Computer virus and Antivirus software articles while looking for the article about Cohen's result. It's said that such a result was not included. But never is too late. About the "statistical algorithm" edit, I doubt anyone will be able to find a reliable source. It might be a trade secret which produces high ranks on the Virus Bulletin, thus making good publicity. The other edits are based more on common sense and are subject to consensus. You might want to review them and participate in the establishment of consensus. 79.119.11.171 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and correcting my spelling errors. It's nice to collaborate with you. By the way, it might be a good idea to include info about how systems like Virus Bulletin affect marketing strategies and have an impact on algorithm design. I don't know how familiar are you with the subject, but AV companies make efforts to score high in such tests without necessarily correlating with everyday needs. I don't have any reliable source, so I will not make any edit about such a claim. 79.119.11.171 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but yes we need refs to add claims like that! - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a former programmer employee of a reputable AV company. I'm subject to a non-disclosure agreement. I'm not sure how much of the information I have, is trade secret. I can only provide some tiny, abstract notes. From my experience, the really hardcore programing is done in the AV companies. There are lots of very smart guys there. I hope some of them will join to provide the info they are legally able. I quit my job to switch to research in automated theorem proving. That's why I needed Cohen's result. All I can say, you might not imagine how useful are Wikipedia's articles about Maths and theoretical Computer Science for a researcher. Paradoxically, in the academic field, Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. I told you this just to understand from what perspective I made my edits. However, I don't intend to exercise proof by authority. That's why I welcome your reviews and I hope more smart people will join and review my edits. 79.113.46.76 (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restarted my router. My IP has changed. Former 79.119.11.171 79.113.46.76 (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The good thing about Wikipedia is that it all relies on references. To add any substantive content you need to add reliable refs, so non-disclosure agreements, security concerns and similar aren’t an issue - the information has to be publicly available to be cited! I would suggest that you open an account - it sounds like you have lots of value to contribute and then your contributions will all be in pone place. I started with some spelling fixes in 2005 and now seven years later I am still here contributing! - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is my account. However I log in very, very rarely. Anyway.

I do not know if anyone noticed but there might be a bug on Wikipedia. For example Antivirus does not display my edits as Antivirus Software. All I can say, history is disabled for my browser. I didn't look further if it happens just to my system. But if there is a difference on your system too, it might be a Wikipedia bug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv Cristi (talk • contribs) 12:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive, so it is at Antivirus software. Antivirus redirects to Antivirus software. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your official "Welcome" message. About the bug: clear all your history and than visit www.wikipedia.org. Type in "antivirus". Do this again but type in "antivirus software". Something similar happens when I visit the page "The Maid Freed From The Gallows" through the link Gallows Pole Mv Cristi (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be an updating issue of page redirects. Or it may be some bug on my system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv Cristi (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave that a try and it just redirects to Antivirus software, so I guess I can't duplicate it on Iceweasel 10.0.1. What you are seeing could be just Wikipedia server lag, that happens often. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be right. I'll leave now. Wish you all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv Cristi (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit I made about the "statistical heuristic" really needs a citation or, at least, some mathematical description. I'm not an experienced editor, but I think that it might have gained enough attention and is still not referenced. I doubt any one will find a reference, so it should be moved to the talk page. I can work on it on the talk page too and other people might not be afraid to tell their subjective opinions. The other unreferenced edits might be subject to consensus, so they may be moved to the talk page or may stay with the tag. What do you think? Mv Cristi (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for referencing my small addition to the Cessna 310 article. I've always had a small difficulty with that function (referencing). Could probably contribute more if I mastered it myself. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Impuls 17

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Impuls 17, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Impuls 14. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes the bot is confused and making unnecessary work for editors. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Lacey M-10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox at General aviation

I see you've reverted my change that removed the infobox. Wikipedia:AIRMOS#Infobox says "the infobox is purely optional". In this case the infobox serves no purpose and does not match similar articles e.g. Civil aviation. Is there any reason why this article should have a 1-picture infobox ? DexDor (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going by Template:Infobox aviation "This infobox is used for the Lead image of aviation-related articles, and to provide a place for a title heading. It is designed to provide some visual compatibility with the {{Infobox Aircraft}}, WPAIR's primary infobox." It is used in hundreds of article like this one, for instance: Airline, Airliner, Aviation, etc. Why should the formatting for General aviation be different than all other similar articles? - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at Template talk:Infobox aviation#Lead image box. DexDor (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Moyes Litespeed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moyes Litespeed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyes Litespeed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Glasflügel 604

Hi, Ahunt. I dispute your recent edit to this article. Both the template you quote and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) state that the manufacturer name should be included in an infobox if the title otherwise contains only a model number or is ambiguous.PeterWD (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense to me in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Google Chrome

I have to say it is always a pleasure to see the quality edits you make. You were right about removing <free software>. I added some licencing categories and to Chromium. Chrome is still inconsistent as it has the <Free and open source software> template. As always, depends on how strict the "Free Software" applies (cf Firefox branding). I added some thoughts Talk:Google Chrome. Widefox (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I'll have a look over on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited Turner T-40, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page X-2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Airplane flight controls

Hi Ahunt, I posted some questions at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Airplane_flight_controls If you could give some additional advice on this it would be appreciated. Thanks, KVDP (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.171.25 (talk)

I think you will find that Aircraft flight control system gives a fairly detailed explanation of how these work. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=481239971

Hmmm, I wanted to purvey the information for specific protest locations, at least for the next 24 hours. I thought adding all that info in text to the article or adding text stating "info can be found in this ref" was ungainly. How it is now there is no sign that the details for each protest are located in the ref. I can think of no better way than the way I had it. As wikipedia's foremost purpose is to disseminate information, and EL is getting in the way, could we not ignore WP:EL for the moment? Please revert if you agree, or change to something else if you have a better solution. Thanks, Canadian Spring (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a site to advertise protests or gain support for causes, no matter how important or altruistic they are or anything else, which is one reason that external links are not allowed in article text. Another reason is that it would violate WP:NPOV as it is unbalanced. You are really better off using Facebook, Diaspora or Twitter for that sort of information. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Ubuntu (operating system). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? This is now classed as a PA? We have templates that say pretty much the same thing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:CambridgeBayWeather that when someone spams terms across Wikipedia articles that have been decided by very long standing community consensus to be POV spam that reverting them as spam is hardly a personal attack. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling a contribution spam, and calling a contributor a spammer, are two different things. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen {{Uw-spam4}}? It actually calls the person a spammer. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. It uses the word spammer and spammers multiple times and the talk page has it as well. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fisher R-80 Tiger Moth

Thanks for your message. I have only now discovered the Category:Aviation articles needing images. I noticed quite a few entries where images have already been added to the articles, a few by me, but some by members of aircraft project. The category is too large for me to individually check and apply corrections. Perhaps templates should be re-checked via the same processes as originally. Heads-up - No reply expected.PeterWD (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here! The more aircraft pictures the better! - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Epiphany's talk

Why did you recreate talk:Epiphany (web browser)? To my knowledge we don't normally redirect talk pages of redirects. AFAIK, this practice is only followed in case of overly disputed names (after move wars, POV fork recreation, etc.). Instead we use them to discuss the merits of redirects or even for explaining the rationale behind the redirect's name and existence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I just thought it was odd that it was deleted instead of redirected when there are 12 pages pointing to it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted on my request: I thought the lack of talk page would be more informative then the empty one... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it is just a redirect to the current talk page, but if it is a problem then have it deleted again. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was just curious. BTW, when I nominated talk:Epiphany (web browser) per WP:CSD#G6, the admin deleted the Epiphany (web browser) per G6, talk:Epiphany (web browser) per G8 and Epiphany (browser)+talk:Epiphany (browser) per G8. I spent a couple of hours repairing broken links (restoring Epiphany (browser) seemed impractical). Don't think I'll bother with maintenance deletions in near future... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I did see that! The admin in question seemed to be very zealous in his clean-up, but it looked like more work than it was worth. I tend to think that redirects help readers find articles, so, in general I think they are better to have than not have, but then I'm not an admin. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Epiphany (browser) I'm not against its recreation (it's plausible, and it was one of previous locations of the article, if I'm not mistaken). Still this name follows the now deprecated convention and should be avoided as such IMO; thus I went through the "What links here" to fix every main namespace use so that it would point either to Epiphany (web browser) or Web (web browser) depending on the referred version and context. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For this and this edits! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I am glad that you thought those edits improved the article! - Ahunt (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

PROD failure of "Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force"

• Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force
• Hello Ahunt, as you may have noticed, I haven't got the time push it through due to family and work commitments and the result is obviously clear. IYO, do you think that his article warrants a place on WP? And if not, what are the options you think are available? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well since it already went though AFD and the result was "keep" there really isn't much that can be done to delete it at this point other than wait a year or so and then re-nominate it, if it is justified at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've seen that but owing to me being on a 1-week vacation for the last 7 days, I really haven't been able to edit on WP so the result is somewhat unexpected. Okay, we'll let it go for a year and renominate it when that time comes, shall we? Cheers and best~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is probably all one can do! - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, can I invite you to weigh in on User talk:Kyteto#The Swiss Hunter page? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Galeon

Hello! You tagged the last paragraph of lead with {{citation needed}}. I failed to identify the claims that are exclusive to lead and not supported in the rest of article, so I removed the tag. Could you please help me identify the problematic claim? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It is really the dates in that para that needs refs, otherwise it won't get though GA! - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Now when dates are explicitly stated and linked in the article's body and Infobox, I think it's OK per WP:LEADCITE. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Diemech TP 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Specific fuel consumption (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

- Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)